The Opposition vs. the oppositions

Imagine a constitutional democracy with two political parties and a permanent electoral majority in favour of one of those two parties. Since only one of the parties could ever be elected to power can this country can still claim to be a democracy?

 

In this hypothetical situation the permanent opposition still has a role to play in questioning and challenging the assumptions, ideas and policies of the majority party. If they do this in a coherent way that represents the interests and opinions of the minority, systematic opposition can force the majority party to make ‘better’ decisions and the majority in society to be aware of the ideas and opinions of the minority.

 

By means of constant and aggressive opposition the majority can be exposed when it has failed in the conception and execution of policy. The population at large can be made to realise when the majority party is incompetent and/or corrupt and encouraged to respond accordingly.

 

Under this ‘adversarial’ model the claim can be made that democracy is possible even if electoral maths do not support a regular change of government. But this system only works to the extent that the opposition is capable of, and committed to, systematic opposition to the majority. In other words it is only possible if the opposition is sufficiently organisationally and even ideologically, separate and opposed to the majority*.

 

But that is clearly not what we have got now in developed capitalist societies. What we do have is often understood as a Controlled Opposition model -a term usually associated with Conspiracy Theory. Head down this road and before long you are in the company of the Illuminati and Worldwide Zionism etc.

 

But conjectures as to the causes of failure of opposition such as these are really simply the expression of not knowing what has changed and how it has changed over the past four decades.

 

A serious discussion of the possibility of controlled opposition leads to two closely related questions:

To what extent is opposition ‘controlled’? and

How is opposition ‘controlled’?

 

The key to answering these two questions lies in understanding the dovetailing of the subjective experience of opposition and the objective needs of the system.

 

The objective needs of the system and the subjective experience of opposition have clearly changed. The way that political parties relate to the public and the way this relationship services the overall polity are clearly not the same as they were in the last century. So the central questions are refined to: What is the nature of the difference between now and then and: What drives it?

 

The Objective Needs Of The System.

 

The 1970’s crisis led to the merging of state and capital in the form of Monetarism and the beginnings of Financialisation. The victory of Monetarist/Marxist theory made permanent political control of the economy through control of the money supply the central plank of economics. The Anglo-Saxon world put all its eggs in the state managed capitalism basket.

 

This approach had an obvious problem though. Since total power over the economy was now vested in the state, if a genuine democratic opposition*(see above) did manage to get control of government it would potentially control everything. It could do incalculable damage to the interests of the elite.

 

This point is well Illustrated by the saga of Quantitive Easing and the ‘printing of money’ to support post 2008 collapsing financial system. Once the politically motivated mass production of money (as advocated by Monetarism), is accepted as a valid economic strategy it is only a matter of time before some bright spark advocates a ‘Peoples QE’ to benefit ordinary people instead of the banks.

 

A people’s QE of course, would mean the effective end of the system… it follows that such a movement can never be allowed to come to power. So in as far as a highly centralised system such as state managed capitalism is vulnerable to democratic political takeover a solution has to be found.

 

The solution to this centralisation problem was the Democratisation of Money and the creation of the Permanent Credit Economy. The Democratisation of Money would take care of the international element of the new system and the Permanent Credit Economy would take care of the national element.

 

The Democratisation of Money is the creation of an international economic alternative monetary system to the nation state system. It is stateless money. No matter what happens to any, or indeed every, state issued currency, the use of Democratised Money in the form of derivatives and other financial instruments means there is a safe haven for international finance.

 

At the same time The Permanent Credit economy creates a decentralised planning system; this is planning through bank credits to control national economies. (This model of decentralised planning through banks is subscribed to by economist Michael Hudson)

 

Now a new decentralised system is nearly in place and successfully stabilised, which means all the eggs are no longer in just one basket. Now there is some room for flexibility. This means that objectively for the first time in four decades some form of opposition is possible.

 

This describes the objective reality of opposition: The amount of opposition in any society at any given time is the amount of opposition that can be afforded by that society. The presence of internal opposition is an expression of power and stability. When a society is fundamentally threatened, as at time of war, it will allow no internal opposition.

 

But the restructured system we have now necessarily means that the nature of re-emerging opposition is fundamentally changed. How is opposition changed?

 

In the transition period after traditional opposition was discarded in the 1970’s and before Democratised Money and the Permanent Credit Economy were bedded down, it was not objectively possible to have any kind of opposition. It was just too dangerous. The economy and society were effectively on a war footing.

 

Beginning with Reagan and Thatcher, through Clinton and Blair and so on, traditional adversarial opposition has been effectively ended. But it is vitally important that you understand that not just ‘left wing’ opposition was done away with –  ALL opposition was done away with.

 

Under Blair and Clinton, ‘right wing’ opposition was decimated and traumatised just as violently as the ‘left wing’ had been under Thatcher and Reagan. Look back to the rise of Newt Gingrich and the emergence of the Tea Party in the USA, look back to the Conservatives in Britain under Hague and Howard, and you will realise that ‘right wing’ parties on both sides of the Atlantic basically had an extended nervous breakdown.

 

Traditional adversarial opposition of the kind I describe at the beginning of this piece requires a legal framework, an open media and society. But after the 1970’s the media became overtly partisan and concepts of legality were revised (e.g. Glass-Steagall repeal and liberal military intervention) so as to be unrecognisable. This affected ‘left’ and ‘right’ in opposition equally.

 

The Subjective Experience Of Opposition

 

Which brings us to the Subjective Experience Of Opposition and the rise of cultural constituencies. There is no societal support mechanism for one unified, critical opposition of the kind I described   any more. This means that existence as adversarial opposition is no longer a viable strategy for mainstream political parties in the Anglo-Saxon world. It means that a party has to get elected at any cost.

 

With media and broader society no longer willing to support traditional opposition the cost of failure is too high. From this perspective you can understand the subjective experience and motivation of Clinton and Blair…The great move towards the ‘centre ground’ started when politicians like Clinton and Blair became conscious of the new reality; institutionalised adversarial opposition was over. You could no longer justify your party’s continuing existence on that basis. Opposition was now to be redefined as meaning solely understudy to government; to be a government in waiting.

 

So how does Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders and Alexis Tsipiras and of course Donald Trump, fit into this description of the world ?

 

First of all they all clearly operate in stark contrast to the ‘understudy to government’ team. Compare Corbyn to his rivals in the Labour Party leadership race; compare Bernie Sanders to Hilary Clinton or   Trump to his republican rivals.

 

Trump, Sanders and Corbyn all represent Cultural Constituencies as opposed to mainstream understudy politicians. Mainstream politicians are seen as shifting, empty and vacuous, in thrall to corporations, whereas cultural constituency representatives are seen as the opposite of this; vital and authentic. This is because Cultural constituency representatives espouse real, absolute moral positions as opposed to the governmental compromises of understudy politicians.

 

This works because it is not as if the compromises required for national government are even seen as being that practical by the mass of people anymore. Most people understand that international finance and trade have comprehensively restricted the ability of national politician to act freely in pursuit of their goals, whatever the nature of those goals might be.

 

From this point of view, the approach of Jeremy Corbyn is not only morally superior, but has at least as good a chance of actually achieving something as the compromises of a Tony Blair.

 

There is much more to say about all this but for now the main message to take away is that since the elite have successfully created a decentralised financial/political system we will have many decentralised oppositions.

 

And the nature of these oppositions is that they will subjectively be cultural constituencies.

 

Because that is what the new world order can objectively support.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GOODBYE, GOOD LUCK Or The Wrong Trousers Or Naming Subversion

‘The tartan truis or trousers date back to 1538 as a medieval style of woven tartan cloth trousers[1] as a garment preferably used during the Highland winter where the kilt would be impractical in such cold weather.[2] The word is triubhas in Scottish Gaelic. Truis or trews are anglicised spellings meaning trousers

 Tartan trews shared the fate of other items of Highland dress, including proscription under the Dress Act of 1746 that banned men and boys from wearing the truis (“Trowse”) outside of military service. The Dress Act lasted until 1782 when it was repealed under the reign of King George III.’

Wiki

It seems that Russell Brand is hanging up his multimedia ‘Trews’- at least for the foreseeable future. Russell informed followers that the time has come to devote himself to sequestered learning in order to deepen his understanding of the profound changes that are taking place in the world.

 

In other words, Russell has realised that it might be helpful to actually study in depth what he has been talking about for the past couple of years.

 

Russell ended the last episode of ‘The Trews’ by assuring the world that he will be back at some point in time to continue the battle, but to tell the truth, his assurances seem a little forlorn.

 

I suspect that recently Russell has come to at least partially, recognise the true significance of the media onslaught that he has faced over a couple of years of battling the neo liberal corporate press. Primarily that he is one voice against many and that the enemy will come at him again and again, not as ‘single spies but in battalions’. So long as things go on this way he can’t win.

 

And surely this is part of a much bigger picture. We have seen endless round after round of systematic corporate media attacks on Tsipiras in Greece, Jeremy Corbyn in England and even Donald Trump in the race for the Presidential nomination in USA.

 

It doesn’t matter if you agree with what Brand, Tsipiras, Corbyn or Trump says, you understand that the corporate media is making concerted efforts to control the narrative and political outcome of each of these political conflicts.

 

The fundamental characteristic of this system is that these battles are permanent and unwinnable. No-one will ever be allowed to make a point against the order advocated by corporate media and then move on. The corporations simply wait out any insurgent offensive and then return to the attack. It is a matter of principle to make sure that opponents will not be seen to win even a minor point.

 

If you ever do manage to take a point against the elite you better be prepared to defend it from now until the end of time.

 

This is not about dialogue and it is not about give and take. And never will be. Because at a fundamental level the battle is not about what you think or even what you do- it is about who you are and who they are.

 

Now that we know a little more about why the elite does what it does we can have a look at how exactly it does what it does.

 

Name and Shame

 

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”


R. Buckminster Fuller

 

The power to name is the power to determine the terms of reference, and the terms of reference, more than any other factor, determines the outcome of the debate.

 

‘Financial instruments’,‘ quantitive easing’ and ‘austerity’ are not just random words picked out of the ether. They are specifically designed tools created to control the way that debate is structured.

 

If you accept these tools you have accepted fundamental building blocks of the discussion that are neither impartial or offer insight, but that serve the interests of one particular side of the argument.

 

With this in mind we can see that such familiar terms as:

 

‘The west’

‘the left’ and

‘the right’ and

‘the free market’

 

are not neutral technical ways of describing the world, they are constructed embedded mechanisms to control the way that politics and economics is discussed. ‘Austerity’, ‘derivatives’ ‘financial instruments’ have worked very well in ensuring that the way that the credit crunch is discussed conforms to the purposes of the elite.

 

As well as a monopoly on violence and a monopoly on creating money, the establishment elite has tried to establish and defend a monopoly on creating new word concepts. They don’t take well to anyone challenging that monopoly.

 

Once you understand this it gets really interesting.

 

Because a couple of decades ago group of people emerged in the ‘west’ who really began to understand the importance of naming. These disparate groups began to challenge the elite monopoly on naming. And their challenge to the naming monopoly, since it was introduced into a monopoly, almost immediately had a significant effect.

 

The naming elite initially had no effective response to this emergent challenge and in fact after two or three decades still have not managed to conclusively deal with it!

 

This Naming Subversion has mounted the single most effective challenge to elite methodology in nearly a century.

 

Wow!

 

So are they and their achievements celebrated and emulated by all those who wish to challenge the elite power structure?

 

Of course not, they are vilified and hated. Probably, even by you.

 

Say what?

 

Who are these people then?

 

You know them as the ‘Political Correct’; you know them as ‘Cultural Marxists’.

 

‘Racism’ ‘sexism’ and ‘LBGT’ etc. are all relatively recent creations in the social discourse. And they have entered completely into the mainstream. They are components of a conceptual framework that has been completely absorbed by the Germanic world.

 

As a consequence of this absorption, the mainstream is continually forced to try to incorporate these terms and the conceptual framework they represent, into its rhetoric. And this process of forced response has changed the elite from what it was to what it is now. This is the technical reason that the post war Protestant consensus collapsed.

 

All of this achieved simply by employing the power of naming.

 

Of course there is a terrible ongoing danger for the elite here, since they can only adapt so far. As time goes on the cumulative effects of adapting to naming subversion are that the elite loses the prerogative of ruling. In other words if you stop acting like the elite, you stop being the elite. And you stop acting like the elite when you stop exercising your monopoly on naming.

 

An elite response to subversive naming had to be found. And the response was inevitably an attempt to control the debate by- elite naming. The elite response was to call Subversive Naming ‘Political Correctness’ and to call Subversive Namers ‘Cultural Marxists’ and to call all this type of politics ‘Identity Politics’!

 

And of course we all know how terrible these things are. And we all know how we instinctively recoil when we hear these terms. So now the elite have programmed an almost endless army of wind up toy soldiers to attack not only ‘PC’ but more importantly the principle behind PC.

 

Just like they produce an endless army of soldiers to attack Brand, Corbyn, Trump etc.

 

So it worked didn’t it?

 

(if you doubt the power that the elite naming monopoly has, try coming up with an original new name for a political phenomenon yourself)

 

Next time: Marketplace of Ideas

‘Saxism’ or If It Bleeds It Leads or Beyond The Pale or The Sorcerers Apprentice or ‘Duck, Donald!’ or Or Crazy Like A Fox

The consensus in the press was that remarks made by Donald Trump in the Presidential debate would more or less be the end as far as his political ambitions went. The basic MSM line was that ‘blood out of her eyes and wherever‘ comments wildly overstepped the mark in civilised discourse.

Journalist Megyn Kellys challenge was clearly designed to put Trump on the wrong side of women voters in the Presidential debate and mark him as Beyond the Pale in civilised society. However, instead of offering some kind of lame mea culpa for past transgressions, Donald chose to adopt a combatitive tone himself, forcefully attacking Political Correctness and by extension Megyn Kelly for adopting it..

 

And so far, the popular backlash against Trumps ‘caveman’ attitude hasn’t happened. Instead Trump seems to be holding his own in the court of public opinion. If anything the tide has turned somewhat and the question become: ‘Was Megyn Kelly put up by Fox news to take Trump down?’

 

Corporate conspiracy theory probably has some substance to it but the whole story is somewhat more subtle and interesting than mere corporate infighting.

 

The first thing to understand is the Trump shtick. The innovation lies not really what Trump is seeking to do but his method in going about it. Trump offers a variation on the well worn and well known:

 

‘I buy direct, in volume, and pass the savings on to YOU, the customer!’

 

spiel familiar from a thousand adverts and infomercials.

 

It is standard knowledge that Oligarchs buy politicians through donations and influence public opinion directly through investments in the media.

 

General wisdom is that Oligarchs use this method because they are essentially unattractive to the public. Rubbing the public nose in the methods of the Oligarch system won’t go down well in the long run so national politicians and national media operate respectively the HR and PR departments of American Oligarchy Inc.

 

Donald Trump represents a challenge to this way of thinking essentially saying:

 

I can do media as well as anyone; I have my own reality show- ‘The Apprentice’. I am at least as an attractive a public proposition as Jeb Bush et al. And I have got the money so I don’t need to beg anyone for funding. Lets do Direct Oligarch rule and cut out the middleman passing on the savings onto YOU, the customer!’.

 

It is not surprising that this approach resonates with a lot of people In the home of the Infomercial. But you don’t have to think very hard to see it is pretty deadly for media and politicians in general if this kind of thing were to catch on. This is the main motivation for the establishment to go after him. On an instinctive level it’s all about protecting livelihoods.

 

But what is really interesting is how designated driver Megan Kelly decided to go for Trump. The key to Trump is that he says he is the ‘whole package’, but Megyn is here to tell him he isn’t. Because he isn’t a woman. He doesn’t get women. He doesn’t get the post-post war settlement. He doesn’t get Whiteism. Of course it could have been a black or Hispanic journalist telling Trump this stuff on prime time TV, but that might have been just a little too much….

 

In other words, the whole ideological structure- expressing post war Germanic ideas of sexual and racial identity, family life, personal relations and morality that exists alongside basic capitalist economics has to be taken account of. And the priesthood (not in the exclusively male sense of course..) of this religion has to be taken account of and Donald has to bow down.

And this is where we come to the comedy and the tragedy of the matter:

 

Even if Trump wins he loses. Even if he isn’t cowed by Megyn Kelly or any one of ten thousand media/politician types that stand between him and his goal;

 

EVEN IF HE WINS THE PRESIDENCY he STILL loses.

 

Because actual plain vanilla capitalism, based on Economic Rationale, just won’t cut it anymore. Because capitalism is over. That is what Donald Trump and his campaign means.

 

The essence of the Trump campaign is the final triumph of cultural constituencies. Because under Trump capitalism itself is now just another cultural constituency in the United States of Everywhere.

 

Trump can no more apply for the real job of CEO of Americorp Inc than he can run a real recruitment process on his ‘Apprentice’ TV show. It’s not real if Trump is in it. Trump wouldn’t be interested if it was real.

 

Like Mickey Mouse in the Sorcerers Apprentice, Donald Trump is seeking to usurp the magic of the Germanic Cult of Capitalism.

 

He seeks the keys to the Magic Kingdom so that he can bring the savings direct to YOU, the consumer. But just like Mickey he is more likely to bring the whole thing crashing down around your collective heads.

 

Currency Wars or
Bet Your Bottom Dollar

 

For the third day the Peoples Bank Of China is lowering the exchange rate for the Yuan/Renminbi and nobody is sure what exactly it means.

 

It could be that currency wars involving competitive devaluation of national currencies to gain a trading advantage are finally here. After all they have been predicted for long enough. This is the negative interpretation.

 

Or it could be that China is trying to integrate itself into the global system by doing whatever it takes to make the Yuan a free floating potential SDR reserve currency. This is the positive interpretation.

 

But most people seem to agree that nobody knows what the Chinese are up to exactly.

 

Which is frankly, a load of bollocks.

 

The idea that the PBOC is screwing around with the exchange rate without talking to the Fed is ridiculous. And if the exchange rate alteration is such a big shock why no big brouhaha from America over the move?

 

So what is the deal?

 

Well first of all you can bet your bottom dollar that the PBOC has already let the Fed know that it will be devaluing the Yuan on international markets. And in plenty of good time. You can also bet that the PBOC has let the Fed know what the new target value is and what the time frame for achieving this target exchange rate is.

 

It would be hard to explain why China was doing this if its purpose is to gain an advantage in supposed currency wars.

 

So why is China doing this?

 

Well it could be that China is seeking to fully integrate the Yuan into the global system in the near future.

 

But I suspect the fundamental reason for this movement is because China no longer wants to use up large amounts of dollar and dollar denominated reserves in preserving the exchange Yuan/Dollar rate at the previous exchange rate.

 

Especially as it knows that preserving this exchange rate will become increasingly difficult.

 

Why would this be?

Because the Yuan is going come under increasing exchange rate pressure vis-a-vis the Dollar.

 

And why would this be?

 

Because the dollar exchange rate is going up .

 

And why would this be?

 

Because American interest rates are going to rise sometime soon.

 

 

 

In Reply to RossC or The Iago Strategem.

220px-Edwin_Booth_as_Iago

I received the following from RossC :

 

‘Hello I have followed your blog and read most of your Book/PDF not to the end yet so it may be in there but how do we take down the monetarists? how do we shift the battle field so much that it is possible to defeat them?

 

There is I assume no going back to socialism as few would want to so how do you jump past what is and what would you present to the people to make them want to follow.

 

I am a New Zealander and we have had 30 years of monetarist policies with constant privatization, destruction of the left and the other same old things house boom, wage stagnation and attacks on welfare yet still we vote national (tories to you) and even with a labour government we get only small changes.

 

We do have an MMP electoral system with 70% voting this leaves 30% outside the system a large portion young or poor non-voters.

 

What shape should any future look like to oppose the monetarist system?

 

Cheers’

 

RossC, Thank you for your comments:

 

‘how do we take down the monetarists? how do we shift the battle field so much that it is possible to defeat them?’

 

There are two aspects to your question.

 

  1. The short term need to stop this specific phase of the Monetarist program and
  2. To address the underlying causes that brought Monetarism about.

 

Monetarism and the Democratisation of Money is the project to privatise the issuance of money, that is to privately control what money is issued, what kind of money it is, and when it is issued.

 

Why is this a problem?

 

Because this project seeks to destroy the Social Aspect Of Money– the fact that money ‘in common’ is in itself is a social good.

 

If your neighbour has a nice garden and a clean tidy house it benefits you and it benefits everyone in the neighbourhood, even though individual people in the neighbourhood don’t actually own any of the house. You benefit from the social aspects of the house. It is part of THE COMMONS. Of course if the house is scruffy and run down then you and everybody else suffers correspondingly.

 

Though people find it hard to understand, money basically has the same social aspect. The kind of money in circulation, where and when it is put into circulation affects the well being of everybody. The social benefits of money as a common good benefit everyone, even people who don’t actually own any money!

 

This is the antidote to Monetarism.

 

Just as Monetarists believe that there is no such thing as society in general terms they also believe that there is no such thing as society in monetary terms.

 

From what I have said that we can understand the Monetarist project as the destruction of the social benefits of money. Our response should be to restore and expand the social benefits of money. That means we have to understand and explain the social benefits of Government Issued Money in common.

 

Here are some of the social benefits of Government Issued Money that Monetarists are destroying and the way that they can be restored:

 

 

Social Benefits of Government Issued

Money In Common

Why Is This A Benefit? How Monetarism (Democratised Money) Is Removing This Benefit How Can We Restore This Benefit?
The right to privacy Government issued Paper money can be exchanged and stored in private. You can conduct your financial affairs in line with your own best interests by means of free association giving you comparative rights with those wealthy enough to buy privacy. The Shadow Economy is privacy for bankers FROM public scrutiny.   Transferring more and more economic activity to digital banking and the Permanent Credit Economy means all public activity can be tracked and permission given or withheld by a digital economy elite. (Ditto Bitcoin). Remove all legal limits on amount and purpose of cash transactions. Strictly control information that can be gathered and passed on bank activity. Advise people to hold as much cash as possible. Rebuild the cash economy. Make the Shadow Economy (Democratised Money) illegal.
The right to enter in and out of the economy at will. By having access to money notes that can be entirely held outside the economy, each individual can maximise personal financial benefit by choosing where and when to interact with the wider economy. By destroying bank interest and forcing growing dependence on the Permanent Credit Economy this is the Participation Economy. By allowing banks to operate with below minimum reserves. By maximising the amount of money held by individuals in cash. By forcing all parts of the economy to accept cash as payment and payments to be made in cash if required. By restoring interest rates to long term averages. By making derivatives (D Money) illegal.
The right to collective negotiation with the state on taxes and benefits. Collective groups will have more leverage than individuals when dealing with the state. By preventing any democratic political access to the control of the issuance of money Make monetary policy the subject of democratic process. Make illegal any money issuance outside of political process.
The right to collective negotiation with private entities Collective groups will have more leverage than individuals when dealing with private entities. By destroying the cash wage economy, the traditional employment model and trades unions. Restore the cash wage economy the traditional employment model and trades unions.
The right to commonly decide interest rates Interest rates can be used to promote the kind of economy and job availability that maximises benefit for the most people. By preventing any democratic political access to the control of the printing of money Make monetary policy the subject of democratic process. Make illegal any money issuance outside of political process.

 

 

Money in common is a social good. Money that is privatised, Democratised Money, is a destructive force. Its purpose is to destroy the post war settlement that benefited the ordinary people of the developed world to such a great extent.

 

The points in the above table outline a short to medium term strategy for dealing with Monetarism. What about a longer terms strategy, dealing with why Monetarism has come about?

 

A couple of the points RossC makes illustrate this very clearly.

 

‘There is I assume no going back to socialism as few would want to so’

 

This is a strange thing to say. Socialism has never been more popular among the rich and bankers. The entire financial system is run as an international socialist syndicate. It is widely accepted in right wing as well as left wing circles that what we have now is ‘Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for the poor’. How can we explain this bizarre set of circumstances? We have to turn to the study of WHITEISM.

 

 

‘ how do you jump past what is and what would you present to the people to make them want to follow’.

 

We must explain the Social Aspect of Money, this is the missing part of the opposition response to Monetarism and Austerity. Monetarists have succeeded in promoting the idea that it is in the best interests for a small elite to control the money supply. This is the essence of their attack and this is the place we must meet them head on.

‘ yet still we vote national (tories to you) and even with a labour government we get only small changes.’

 

There is a direct relationship between the Democratisation of Money and Whiteism. There is no long term answer without understanding and addressing Whiteism.

 

The key to take away from all this is that:

 

There are social goods that we all hold in common. Monetarism seeks to take advantage of the fact that most people do not understand the importance and the benefits of these social goods. They hope that this ignorance will allow Monetarists to hijack these social goods permanently and to use the massive power this gives them to institute a new permanent global power system.

 

We have not lost control of these social goods yet, although the entire purpose of Monetarist propaganda is to try to convince us we have. Call this the IAGO STRATEGEM.

 

Our battle is to inform people of the existence and benefit of these social goods in particular COMMONLY HELD MONEY and to convince them to fight to defend them.

 

This is the battleground where the fate of Monetarism will be decided…..

 

Write again soon….

 

@P

 

 

 

 

A SHAME Or Why Crackernomics Matters

crying-sad-clown-23899989

It has been 7 years since what has come to be generally called ‘The Credit Crunch’ exploded in the world economy. And now after those 7 years Monetarists are ready to declare complete and unconditional victory in their battle to fundamentally and irrevocably alter the global economic and political landscape.

 

‘Alternative’ voices on the ‘left’ and the progressive ‘libertarian’ movement have totally failed to mount any sustained attack on the physical and intellectual structures that Monetarists have put in place. They have conceded every substantial point in economics and politics in the post Credit Crunch world. As a consequence there is nothing to stop the Monetarists concluding their takeover of existing systems and creating new global structures to further their plans.

 

Monetarist global restructuring is a massive and risk laden enterprise. But at every step of the way; at every major juncture when there was a danger of the Monetarist plan coming unstuck, the one thing that Monetarists have been able to count on is the unfailing inability of their opposition to understand the significance of the situation and take appropriate action.

 

As a consequence of these repeated failures what began as a hard beating has turned into a humiliating rout. Were this the extent of our woes it would be bad enough. But intellectual and moral collapse means that the very ideas that could underpin any chance of an alternative being created in the future are being corroded to the point where they will be soon be unsalvageable.

 

Those who claim that alternative economic and organisational forms will somehow spontaneously spring up as a response to the Monetarist onslaught are worse than naive. They are perhaps the most destructive force we face. Not only do they not challenge the new world order, but their ideas and prescriptions are built upon the very forms that give rise to it. They reinforce it. They guarantee its total victory.

 

You may disagree with this prognosis.You may think it overly gloomy. Or you may accept some of it but take comfort in the fact that ‘life’, your life and the lives of those you care about will go on, maybe not as well as before, but go on nevertheless. And in some sense you are right. It might be possible to put your head down, shut your mouth and try to get on with things the best you can within the situation you find yourself.

 

But that is simply to rationalise and accept loss. To turn your face away from the horror of your situation. Because once lost, freedoms are not retrieved, no matter what you might say to console yourself. Within half a generation people will not even remember what those freedoms were. They will become incomprehensible marks and signs in a book that mean nothing. Your children will be taught to despise them just as you have been taught to despise the freedoms and the dignities that existed before Capitalism. Or even the freedoms and the dignities that existed before WWII…

 

…Just like Winston Smith scribbling in his notebook. The real tragedy behind 1984 is not that it is so bad, it is that it is not so bad. People adapt. After a while the amputee can’t even remember what it was like to have two legs. That is not rhetoric, it is reality. And those who are most adaptable, best at forgetting, rise to the top just like Darwin says they must. We are programmed to forget.

 

Make no mistake, this is fundamentally about freedom. If you imagine yourself as an individualist and a libertarian who is happy to see the welfare state being dismantled and the post war liberal corporatist settlement being torn up, don’t kid yourself that the state is actually going to shrink as a consequence of all this. Not for one second.

Because if there is no butter on offer there will surely have to be plenty of guns. Now you are going to find out what a big state is really all about…

 

When I began writing the ‘United States of Everywhere’ I did so out of a sense of increasing incredulity at what I was seeing unfold. I saw the Credit Crunch and Q.E. as clearly the product of Monetarism, after all Q.E. was simply Monetarist ideology taken to its logical conclusion.. Was this analysis overly simplistic? Bernanke and Greenspan, all admitted Monetarists were advocating unprecedented printing of money while dismantling the post WWII welfare state. What else could this be but hard core Monetarism? I thought that many others would see this as clearly as I did and argue from this context. But they did not.

 

I tried to understand what could be stopping the majority of people from drawing what I thought were fairly obvious and uncontroversial conclusions. I began to wonder if there was something more deep seated within ‘western’ society that could account for this. I began to question the fundamental idea of progressive politics and of the left. Not whether they were ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ but whether they had ever really existed in any meaningful sense. And I began to research more closely what had actually happened in the Credit Crunch instead of relying on anybody elses (including the self-proclaimed opposition) analysis. And this was when I really became uneasy.

 

When I looked at actual information, I quickly became aware that what was being reported as the course of the Credit Crunch and Q.E. was not what was actually happening. And if this failure to report was true of the ‘establishment’ it was doubly true of the ‘opposition’. I could rationalise to myself that I understood why the ‘establishment’ would seek to put a certain spin on what was happening but I could not understand why the ‘oppostion’ would as well. It was clear to me that the problem was not just what was coming out of the opposition but what was going in. The input was just as distorted as the output. Why was this?

 

As I deconstructed what I read I realised that the securitisation of mortgages (bundling and re-selling), was a self sustaining system and that mortgages were being created to ‘feed’ the mortgage securities system and not the other way round! This was a self sustaining, potentially unlimited system and it was actually a license to ‘print’ money! In fact Securitised Mortgage Bundles (financial instruments) were money. What else can they be? What else can the term ‘financial instrument’ actually mean but money?

 

Financial:

pertaining or relating to money matters; pecuniary:

 

Instrument:

a tool or device used for a particular purpose; especially : a tool or device designed to do careful and exact work

 

I initially called this process the ‘Privatisation of Money’ but I realised that this terminology would be confusing because people understood money as private anyway. They were unaware of the social aspect of money. I realised that this process was actually better characterised as the Democratisation of Money.

 

Only later did I appreciate the significance of this.

 

The nearest analogy I can think of is that of a scientist drawing conclusions from a set of data. If the scientist draws an incorrect inference from data even if he does this knowingly, he is still operating within the terms of science, although bad science.

 

But when a scientist makes up data to conform to a pre arranged conclusion that is ‘Democratisation’. And if those conclusions are used to make a drug which kills lots of people that is the Credit Crunch. And if the scientist and the drug company he works for is let off by the Courts with paying a fine for all the damage they have caused, that is the United States of Everywhere.

 

After this I drew a link between Monetarist policy and privatisation. It went like this:

 

Monetarists seek to manage the economy through control of the money supply.

They seek to maximise privatisation.

They will seek to merge privatisation and Monetarism.

They will seek to privately control the money supply.

 

Is this analysis so incredible?

Is it so unbelievable?

I can’t understand why it is not generally accepted.

 

Well, that’s a shame of course but none of the above explains why Crackernomics matters to you, now.

 

Because all around us, if you look you will see that the opposition is starting to adapt to the new reality.

All the right wingers who were screaming about hyper-inflation and the Austrians who said there never could be a rise in interest rates and the radical leftists who put their faith in SYRIZA and all the countless others, the Gold Bugs and the Bitcoiners and all the rest are all starting, bit by bit, to make their accommodation with the way things are going to be.

 

Of course there will be back biting and recriminations and score settling and grumbling and selling out and all that stuff but when the smoke is settled the Monetarists will have got everything they wanted.

 

And the reason for that is the opposition have never really understood why they are fighting.

 

They have never really understood what they are fighting for.

 

And that is a shame.

 

The only way anyone can really appreciate what is actually at stake is through understanding Crackernomics and the Democratisation of Money.

 

For this reason I have no hesitation is recommending that you spend a little of your time reading ‘Crackernomics’ (it is free to download).

 

And I have no hesitation is suggesting you recommend it to anyone you think might be interested.

http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/312882

There’s No Business Or Year Of Culture and Month of Oxymorons Or Let the Dead Or The Great Divergence Or The Killers Or The White Kochasians Or YOU’RE FRIED!!

On impulse one evening I decided to visit the circus. The show was over and as the audience was leaving, I remained in my seat so as to avoid the crowds bunching at the exit. As I sat and looked around, I noticed a small man near the rear of the tent with a shovel and a large battered bucket. I could see that he was busy removing a steaming mound of elephant dung. After observing for a while, I became curious and made my way over to speak to him.

 ‘That looks like hard work’ I said

 He nodded but said nothing

 I persisted:

 ‘How long have you been at this old timer?’

 He paused from his work:

 ‘Must be nearly thirty years now’

 ‘So you must like it?’ I asked

 He turned and looked at me

 ‘Its absolutely awful’ he said.

 ‘I have to work seven days a week and not a holiday since I can last remember. The pay is lousy and there are no medical benefits’

‘What about the living conditions?,’ I asked

 ‘They are disgusting; I sleep in a small bunk behind the elephant stalls. The smell of elephant farts is overwhelming’

 ‘At least you have the camaraderie of the circus family’ I offered

 ‘Not at all’ he said, ‘I am despised and treated despicably. I have been here thirty years and not three people know me by name’

 ‘Wow that sounds really bad’ I said, -‘Why don’t you give it up and try to find something else?’

 ‘What?’

 He turned to face me;

 ‘And leave show business?’

 

We can only stand and stare in bewildered horror at developing conditions in Greece. In the face of ongoing and intensifying abuse, with no prospect of relief in the foreseeable future, why do Greeks seem determined carry on down this path? Why don’t Greeks seem to be able to see their own best interests?

 

Except of course this is all wrong, because there aren’t any Greeks. Because the majority of people living in the Greek territory have repeatedly voted to be part of Europe- which means they have voted not to be Greek- by definition.

 

To become a modem Germanic nation state (as Greece would need to be), means to be able to create and control your own finance, to make the laws and regulations that decide the way your society is run. Greeks have made it clear they do not want that. They do not want to be organised along Germanic lines- they want to be organised by Germans. I trust you can see the difference.

 

That a group should abandon the concept of modern Germanic independent nationhood is beyond comprehension to many people, especially of the left. Because this nationhood is central to the concept of economic rationale and the ‘left’. Without modern Germanic nationhood there can be no economic rationale and no ‘left’.

 

This stunned refusal to admit that a people can reject MG nationhood has given birth to the Oxymorons; a Greek chorus, that chants over and over: ‘SYRIZA has betrayed the Greek people!’

But you can’t betray the Greek people because there is no longer a Greek people to betray.

 

So why do the people living on the Greek territory want so badly to be European?

Because they distrust each other more than they distrust virtually anyone else. That is what a society made up of cultural constituencies is.

 

It is a failed state.

 

Both sides of the referendum debate; ‘in’ or ‘out’, offered extreme financial deprivation as a consequence of voting for them. Staying in the EU or leaving the EU inevitably involves long term suffering.

 

Both sides in the debate are cultural constituencies and cultural constituencies are not primarily interested in economic matters. And there is a reason for this: Cultural constituencies don’t care about economic matters because there is nothing that can be done about them. The choice is no longer a significant factor.

 

This point is of fundamental importance:

 

There is increasingly less and less an element of choice in the political and economic decisions that are being made in developed economies.

 

Margaret Thatcher famously said: ‘There Is No Alternative’ and after nearly fifty years of Monetarism her prognosis/proclamation is in the process of becoming indisputably true.

 

And since there is no longer any economic room for choice, the political basis for ‘left’ and ‘right’ is gone. What do they have to argue about? When people realise that there is no longer a significant economic choice they stop giving allegiance to traditional economic parties and instead give allegiance to cultural constituencies. This is what has happened in Greece.

But there is another, potentially frightening aspect of this to consider. Economic rationale has two component parts (that can be considered to be benefits), Economy is one and Rationalism is the other. When economic rationale goes, rationality goes with it. What happens when rationality is gone? Emotion takes over. There is clearly a psychological component to what we see unfolding in Greece and elsewhere.

Which brings us to Perry’s Cats.

 

Put in a bag and thrown in the river, the cats inside the bag try to kill each other in their last moments- what else can they do? For Schrödinger’s cat there was at least the possibility of survival. That’s not on offer – not this time around, if the river doesn’t kill you the other cats will.

 

This is the emotional content of cultural constituencies. Every cat in the Greek bag knows what is going to happen. There is no longer even an element of chance. So they fight each other. The blame each other. Which takes us to the United States of Everywhere.

 

The Business of America …Annie get your gun

 

The writing of F Scott Fitzgerald offers profound insights into American society, not the least of which is that the ‘Business Of America’ is and always has been… show business. Fitzgerald shows us that Americans conduct individual lives as though they are competing shows on Broadway. Everybody stands outside each respective theatre barking for custom and selling tickets. But the shows they want you to see are all the same.

 

Fitzgerald also understood that America is not interested in shaping the future, that has always been at best a secondary consideration; America is interested in shaping the past. Americans constantly want to impose order on what happened, when it happened, to whom it happened and why it happened.

The battle for American democracy and free speech is the freedom to tell individual and collective lies about the past. Contrary to what most people in the world believe, the American Dream is a dream about what did happen not what will happen.

 

In America there was never going to be any choice about the future because in America there was never any choice but capitalism. Even when there isn’t any capitalism anymore the choice is still only capitalism. Because in America culture and capitalism are one.

 

Nowhere better illustrated than in this startling cultural artefact:

 

The eponymous Annie, an archetypal German mädchen,

is dressed in faux Native American hides (I think they call this ‘cultural appropriation’ nowadays). She is surrounded by three men who are pretending to be American archetypes, except everyone knows there weren’t ever any Americans like this. They are all singing a song telling the girl that an inauthentic life of show business is the most authentic life anyone can have…

 

And everyone knows that the American rodeo circus was based on a myth but that doesn’t matter because anyway its a film of a stage musical of circus that never really was..

 

We know its all fake. They know we know. That is part of the ‘charm’ and since it is supposed to be ‘charming’ Americans expect the world to cheerfully take part.

 

Annie Is Divergent

 

When the USA elected Ronnie Regan to the Presidency it marked an irrevocable split with the rest of the globe. I don’t think any living American really understands the extent and the depth of this split and the way its effects persist to this day.

 

Intelligent Americans understand ‘Ronnie’ in the same way that they understand ‘Annie’, and they are surprised and somewhat resentful that everyone in the world couldn’t just go along. But they figure that with a little more musical jollying and a little more charm everyone can be persuaded. To see history ‘our’ way.

 

Unfortunately like Shirley Temple or JonBenét Ramsey, for the most part, the rest of the world is not buying. It’s a cultural thing. Think of Paul Craig Roberts defending Reaganomics and condemning Neo Liberalism without realising they are essentially the same thing.

This Charming Man

ron

 

The truth of the Ronnie Regan persona in as far as it can be found, is in his portrayal of Jack Browning:

‘a gangster, posing as a legitimate businessman’ (Wiki)

 

in the 1964 film ‘The Killers’ with Lee Marvin, John Cassavetes and Angie Dickinson- excellent actors all.

 

This was apparently the only time Reagan played a villain and I think he is eminently suited to portraying a crude and devious business man who is quickly seen to be a lot less than he appears at first sight. The story goes that Ronnie regretted playing a villain in his last role. Perhaps he didn’t like giving the gag away before the final act.

 

The premise of the film is that ‘The Killers’ don’t have to try too hard to kill the John Cassavetes character in the first reel, because he wants to die. He knows what the future is. Which reminds us of Greece and Perry’s Cats..

 

The Kochasians

 

 

trumpAnd Ronnie Reagan brings us to Donald Trump; a famous American self made man (except of course he isn’t). Trump is perhaps most well known as the central protagonist in ‘The Apprentice’ a programme that portrays Capitalism as soap opera. (The English version shows Capitalism as farce. If you have any doubt in your mind how low faith in Capitalism has fallen in England, you should watch a little of this programme).

 

The narrative behind the Apprentice is that of a prolonged Job interview that is punctuated by people being fired. This is especially odd as the candidates don’t actually have a job to be fired from yet.

Another example of fabricating history, which by the way, is the only thing any of these people would be capable of actually fabricating.

 

In the course of his Presidential campaign Trump recently ran into a little difficulty when he trespassed onto Republican Senator John McCains personal history myth. There was outrage in the media that Trump should impugn another Americans God Given Right to make stuff up about himself so as to make himself appear favourably in the public eye. As of writing this Trump has agreed to tone it down, after all, it’s the American Way.

 

Trump represents the WhiteKochasian cultural constituency. And he tells them stories about what happened. The more elaborate and fanciful these historical constructions are, the more his constituency likes it. Which is obviously going to be the case if you think about it.

 

And in case anyone is of the opinion that this is all happening in a ‘far away country about which we know little’ I would remind you that we are all living in the United States of Everywhere.

 

Now let’s go on with the show….

 

 

 

Shell Game Or The Real Deal

 

There are traditionally three shells in a shell game. Under one of the shells a pea is hidden. The shells are rapidly moved around and back and forth in an effort to confuse. A player is then required to determine which shell is hiding the pea at any given time. A small wager is usually made to make the game more interesting…

 

Watch the shell game being played for a while and you might start to notice some things that were not obvious at the beginning. Things are not as they initially seem.

Three shells found on the periphery of Europe are Britain, Ukraine and Greece. These are nations that have produced significant cultural constituencies in the past couple of years:

 

  • Britain has produced Saxon Maidan, SNP and a ProtestantRedoubt       franchise
  • Ukraine has produced EuroMaidan and NovoRossiya and
  • Greece has produced SYRIZA.

 

Cultural constituencies are sub national groups brought into existence by the new economic order. Just as geographic constituencies are the building block of Germanic Land Democracy and the nation state so non geographic cultural constituencies are the building blocks of the Permanently Failing Nation State.

 

By what means are nation states failing?

By means of proliferating international treaties that strangle them.

Cultural constituencies are populist movements that emerge within national territories in response to transnational agreements and treaties. They either seek to defend specific interests against these agreements or seek to use the agreements to forward specific interests.

 

  • SaxonMaidan challenges Germanic domination
  • SYRIZA challenges Germanic domination
  • Euromaidan challenges Russia,(with the backing of Germanic Europe)

 

What makes the above three examples significant is that cultural constituencies have to a greater or lesser extent achieved political power. We can learn something from watching how they have functioned so far. I chose the British shell to look under…

 

Saxon Maidan in Britain

 

The newly elected Conservative government in Britain has just issued an ‘emergency’ Budget. The reason it’s an emergency budget is that Conservatives never actually thought they would get into power.

 

Mainstream Conservatives exceeded electoral expectations by co-opting the emergent SaxonMaidan cultural constituency. This resulted in a wholly unexpected outright majority. Confusion ensued since Conservatives made promises on the margins of the SaxonMaidan they never thought they would have to keep.

 

Welfare Bait and Switch

 

For instance, cutting the welfare budget by £12 billion. SaxonMaidan likes the idea of permanently shrinking the welfare state and sticking it to all the ‘shirkers’, but in economic terms it is pretty stupid; it will inevitably adversely effect growth.

 

But here the hand is quicker than the eye. Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer (widely tipped to be next Prime Minister), George Osborne announced what appeared on the face of it to be a substantial increase in the minimum wage- much to the ‘astonishment’ of assorted media types since Conservatives and particularly Saxon conservatives are historically vehemently against this sort of thing.

 

In reality this is a bit of nifty handwork by Osborne and his advisors. The raised minimum wage kills two (or three), birds with one stone (or pea).

First, it overcomes the demand shrinkage that is a consequence of welfare cuts. As I said above, taking £12 billion spending power out of the economy is not a good idea, especially as it will precisely affect mostly the low end jobs and wages that require a minimum wage.

 

Second, it sets the ground for the forthcoming referendum on continued EU membership that was a key concession to obtain SaxonMaidan votes. This is a particularly slick move:

 

Prime Minister David Cameron promised to negotiate tougher terms as a continued basis for Britain staying in Europe. One of these terms is cutting in work welfare entitlements for European immigrants.

 

Up until now there has been strong resistance to this, especially from poorer EU member countries that provide the immigrants benefiting most from welfare. But now the EU will concede welfare cuts because instead of direct welfare benefits, the British government will guarantee immigrant income indirectly through the new minimum wage.

 

Cameron will claim victory on cutting immigrant welfare and campaign for staying within the EU. Everybody happy. Well, everybody on the inside anyway.

 

Permanent Credit Economy

 

Third, the minimum wage raise helps usher in the Permanent Credit Economy. The P.C.E. is a planned economy– it has long been accepted by western elites that there is no other way to manage society. In fact the P.C.E. defines the failed capitalist state!

There is no free market in labour. There is no free negotiation in labour and SaxonMaidan and the Conservatives want even the symbolic remnants of collective labour bargaining effectively outlawed. In its place will be government mandated income levels.

 

In tandem with the minimum wage, bank credit is central to this.

 

The P.C.E. takes all the social provisions supplied by the welfare state and makes them the subject of bank provided private credit, including but not limited to: Housing, Education and Health.

 

The last dregs of social housing in Britain are being privatised in the budget and the very few remaining government grants which enable the poorest young people to take part in further education are being withdrawn. They will be replaced with’ education mortgages’.

 

The end purpose of the Permanent credit economy is to permanently integrate the banks into the state as a decentralised planning system. Enforced credit and no free bargaining means there will be no disposable income as we have understood the term.

 

Economist Michael Hudson has reached exactly the same conclusion:

‘It is much harder to write down debts owed to or guaranteed by governments. U.S. student loan debt cannot be written off, but remains to prevent graduates from earning enough take-home pay (after debt service and FICA Social Security tax withholding is taken out of their paychecks) to get married, start families and buy homes of their own. Only the banks get bailed out, now that they have become in effect the economy’s central planners.’1

SaxonMaidan Doesn’t Like the BBC

 

The specific purpose of the BBC is to cohere British society around the values of ‘One Nation’ Protestantism (what has become ProtestantRedoubt cultural constituency). Because of this SaxonMaidan hates the BBC with a passion. Rupert Murdoch and the Sky network is the perfect expression of this SaxonMaidan hatred. The SaxonMaidan is constantly looking for ways to damage the BBC and now with its new-found electoral power it has come up with three ways:

 

  • Forcing the BBC to pay the price of free TV licences for old age pensioners (which the BBC estimates will cost it £650 million from its budget).
  • Making the non payment of the license fee no longer a criminal offence but a civil one. (The BBC estimates this will cost around £250 million) and
  • Forcing the BBC to privatise online services making them a subscription service.

 

But wait here comes the fight back from ProtestantRedoubt: Say hello to voluntary taxes!:

‘The BBC will ask people aged over 75 to voluntarily pay the licence fee to help tackle a 10% real-terms cut in its budget as a result of this week’s controversial shotgun deal with the government. A senior BBC executive said it would ask elderly viewers and listeners to consider paying the annual charge even though they have not had to pay it since 2001.2

 

I refer to this cultural practice specifically in a previous piece:

 

‘What differentiates cultural constituencies from political constituencies?

Simply put, political constituencies vote with ballots to control money and cultural constituencies vote with money to control politics.’3

 

Battles on the Border

 

At the same time that SaxonMaidan came into existence the SNP cohered north of the border. This is hardly surprising; the exact forces that gave rise to SaxonMaidan created the SNP; just like a photographic negative forms a print. Of course they hate and are baffled by each other.

 

This has resulted in a SaxonMaidan campaign for English votes on English laws. In other words Scottish SNP members of parliament will not be allowed to vote on certain aspects of British law. Needless to say this has not gone down well North of the Border.

 

There will also be a comprehensive redrawing of the geographic electoral boundaries substantially and permanently advantaging the Conservative party.

From our peek under the British shell we can draw some general conclusions about the game is run:

Generalities

Agitating for Permanent boundary revisions are a feature of cultural constituencies. In the case of the Ukrainian Euromaidan and NovoRossiya this hardly needs further elaboration. In the case of SaxonMaidan and SNP the boundary questions are fairly clear also. If we look to PODEMOS in Spain and the Catalonian independence movement we can see how boundaries will be of importance here also.

 

Here is a prediction:

Assuming SYRIZA is not deposed in the near future, don’t be surprised if a boundary dispute breaks out on or near the Greek territory….

 

Control of media is becoming ever more clearly a key objective for cultural constituencies. I pointed out how this is coming to the fore in SaxonMaidan and it’s battle with the BBC. Now Labour Party leadership candidate Andy Burnham has stated that he will not give an interview to the Sun (a Murdoch tabloid), because of its reporting of the Hillsborough Football disaster4 This is a clear attempt to begin constructing Labours very own cultural constituency if you aren’t part of one, try to start your own!

 

Here is a prediction:

SNP will be involved in a serious BBC related dispute in the near future.

 

The role of the Greek oligarch media in the recent referendum has been clear and unambiguous. SYRIZA has made it clear that if they can get the chance it will be open season on their oligarchy enemies in the media.

 

And of course Ukraine Euromaidan has opted for open and direct censorship.

 

Here is a prediction:

Now look for a media battle featuring PODEMOS.

 

What every cultural constituency I have described has startlingly shown is an Unexpected relationship between geographic constituency and cultural constituency

 

In Britain SNP won by a landslide; the extent of the win was a surprise. Conservatives gained a surprise majority in England with the aid of SaxonMaidan.

In Greece SYRIZA first surprised by being the largest party and then again by so convincingly winning the referendum

Even in Ukraine the total collapse of the Yanukovych administration was largely unexpected. It was this shock as much as anything that led to NovoRossiya gaining such momentum and splitting the territory.

 Why does this succession of surprise victories happen?

 Because existing national structures find it very difficult to deal with the emergence of cultural constituencies. In the ideology of the nation state, cultural ethnic and regional differences have all been effectively neutralised by geographic democratic politics, as I explain above.

To see these pre-national differences re-appear is a profound shock to the elites of nation states. Especially since the only plausible explanation for their re-appearance is the failing of nation states. In order to be able to a develop a realistic response to emerging cultural constituencies, national elites are going to have to openly admit that to some extent their nations are failing!

And if you doubt this is the case, just look at the difficulties that the British government is having even talking about Western Takfiris……..

 

1 The Financial Attack on Greece: Where To From Here? By Michael Hudson July 08, 2015

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42330.htm

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/10/bbc-over-75s-to-licence-fee-voluntarily-budget-cut

3 ‘American Sniper Or ‘Don’t Shoot!’ Or ‘Cultural Constituencies’ Or Money Where Mouth Is’

https://unitedstatesofeverywhere.wordpress.com/2015/01/27/american-sniper-or-dont-shoot-or-cultural-constituencies-or-money-where-mouth-is/

4 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33496931