Never Mind The Ballots….



Everybody more or less knows that the old left/right paradigm is gone now, never to return. But there is no mainstream consensus as to what has replaced it.

To address this issue I have been describing the emergence of Cultural Constituencies; societal blocs that are consequential to the breakdown of  ideology that underpins the Germanic Cult of Capitalism.


Within Saxon populations (the ‘Five Eyes’) I have now identified and named  two main Cultural Constituencies that form opposing poles in the New Duopoly. They are the ‘Sax Pistols’ and the ‘Strangeloves’.


I will write more about both of these groupings and their motivations in detail at a later date, but for now I will compare some of the differences I have observed in the context of the American Presidential elections and the Brexit debate:



The Sax Pistols The Strangeloves
Came out of the 1976 crisis of Capitalism Came out of the 1945 crisis of capitalism
Economics: Friedman/ Volker Economics: Keynes
Love pistols and other weapons (‘Sekint Amindmint’) Hate pistols and guns but like bombing foreigners who disagree with gay rights etc
Protestant cult Protestant cult
Catholic hatred because Pope is a One World Government lizard Archon etc Catholic hatred because of no gay marriage between priests etc
Isolationist ‘Gimperialist’ (see gay rights above)
Pro Putin becase he is white and they don’t really understand Orthodoxy Virulent hatred of Putin (see above)
Anti immigration Pro immigration
No such thing as racism although ‘everybody is racist’ when it comes to talking about blacks so as not to concede a point…. Everybody is racist whether they know it or not
Welfare is for whites (Nixon/ Reagan etc) Welfare is for hard working immigrants and not white trash who spend it on cigarettes and Oxycontin etc
We won the war single handedly I would just like to take this opportunity to apologise once again,,, etc
Constitution European Court of Human Rights/UN etc Anyway the constitution was written by white racists
America  Europe
Free markets when it suits us Treaties
Forward to the past Back to the future
Johnson is the wannabee Farrage is the reality Blair
Trump Clinton


Cultural Revolution 2: The Unacceptable Faces Of Capitalism Or Give Me The Boy Or 9 ’till 5 Or Is Your Hair Like Mine?




‘Money corrupts everything, and it is capitalism that turns everything into a commodity that is bought and sold. In capitalist regimes everything is for sale: honor, integrity, justice, truth. Everything is reduced to the filthy lucre.’


Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.



‘She spoke of the young black boy who looked up at the president and asked: “Is my hair like yours?” She said: “And make no mistake about it, this November when we go to the polls, that is what we’re deciding’.


Alex wrote the following in response to ‘Cultural Revolution Part 1’:


Jul 3, 2016

I feel this questioning of democracy may be accelerated by first past the post, given that it allows the largest constituency absolute power in a way that isn’t the case for the continental European countries. In terms of the overall registered vote, the Tories only got just under a quarter of the share, once abstention is taken into account.
Do you really think it’s impossible to return to some kind of economic rationale? To be sure, compromise with the ‘1%’ is no longer on the table, but that doesn’t mean that a more radical solution couldn’t gain ground. One involving their destruction as a class.


Thank you Alex. The following is written partly as a result of your comments.


Cultural Constituency is an idea whose time has very definitely come within the Saxon Axis. This simultaneous implosion of every major political party in both Britain and America is unprecedented in centuries of Anglo Saxon politics.


In England a shock victory for Brexit should have put a cabal of Saxon Nationalist Brexiteers in the driving seat. Ex London mayor Boris Johnson looked like a shoo-in for the leadership of the Conservative Party as a consequence of his role in the Brexit campaign. But that didn’t happen. Conservative movers and shakers said: ‘Anyone but Boris!’


Not that the internal strife in Conservative ranks was of any benefit to the English Labour Party. Around the same time that Conservatives held a surprise forced leadership contest, the vast majority of the parliamentary Labour Party came out in open opposition to their nominal leader. And the cry of the opposition to the opposition was: ‘Anyone but Jeremy Corbyn!’


Over in America the Republican establishment unenthusiastically endorsed Trump amidst the roar of his supporters on the RNC convention floor and Hilary has managed to just about steal the Democrat nomination from the vast constituency of ‘Feel The Bern’ers.


What all these shenanigans have in common is that significant sections of the people who matter in each of the mainstream Saxon duopoly parties, (i.e. big money donors and party activists), absolutely hate the candidate that they have ended up with. In fact a lot of them hate their candidate more than they hate the other guy’s candidate..and this is happening in all the main parties at the same time!


So what is going on? Well in order to provide an answer to this question we will have to take a different approach to 99.9% of what has been written on the subject so far. That means relying not on pop psychology but logic and not on description but on analysis.




In part, the secret to this spiralling chaos lies in the Michelle Obama quote (unbelievable as it may seem), at the top of this article.


In order to operate in the way intended capitalist democracy requires that we reduce candidates to abstractions. In this capitalism is no different from many other forms of political/cultural organisation. But unlike other political ideology, modern capitalist democracy claims that this reduction can and should be done through the application of ‘reason’.


In ‘feudal’ political systems the individual is subsumed to the office he holds by integrated meaning. In other words the King as an individual is slotted into the position of King as structural element of society.


Whether the King is a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ person,(and by implication a good or bad king), is secondary to the justification of position of King- first and foremost we need a King, so that is that.


Give Me The Boy


As an illustration you can think of pouring liquid jelly into a metal mould. The jelly sets within the mould and takes on its shape. Remove the set jelly from the mould and it still holds that shape. So it is with the person of the King. He is made by his experience in office. He eventually becomes the office he holds.  Just as ‘king’ is intrinsic to society so this individual is intrinsic to ‘king’ and ‘king’ is intrinsic to this individual.


The same is true of a carpenter, or a farmer or anyone who holds a position within a ‘feudal’ (an integrated), society. You are what you do. Hence the famous Jesuit dictum: ‘Give me the boy and I will give you the man’.  People can be shaped.


Actually Not Anybody Can Be President..


‘Feudal’ societies take whoever is available by birth and make them into the leader. In this sense it is entirely irrelevant how a candidate came to be there, it matters what they are going to be made into.


But how could this understanding of humans as primarily liquid and malleable fit in with the modern Germanic conception of individuality the idea that we are all inherently and intrinsically different?


For devotees of the Germanic Cult of Capitalism this conflict in understanding necessarily creates a problem. Like any other society Germanic capitalism need to select somebody to run the show -a leader- but on what basis can we select that person?


The ideological solution was an ever changing line of temporary rulers REPRESENTING a constant never changing ideal- that of democracy, ‘free markets’ etc. So the office holder and candidate can be reconciled as an individual while still expressing an abstraction.


This solves half of the individualism problem, but there still remains: Which parts of any given politician are the ‘individual’ and unrepresentative bits and which parts are the rational ‘representative’ bits?


That answer would be provided in part by Sigmund Frauds’ idea of an ‘unconscious’ : The ‘subconscious’ bits were the individual unrepresentative bits and the reasoning, conscious bits were the representative bits. So when you clock into work in the morning you are the reasoning, rational POTUS and when you clock off at night you are the unreasoning, subconscious, individual.


And from this perspective we have a direct and illuminating  insight into the two centuries long Germanic media cult of Politicians And Their Private Lives. Also ‘unconscious’ racism etc. all runs on this basis.


All Germanic political narrative, from pseudo ‘intellectual’ historical investigation to tabloid reporting, is created around this paradigm; the ‘secret sex life of a Kennedy’ or ‘what a Roosevelt ate for dinner’ etc and how this affected the major decisions he made while in office. Think about it; Isn’t this how all historical and contemporary figures are defined and explained in Germanic capitalism?


But for this version of a political reality show to work in the here and now, both capitalist media and intelligentsia have to be able to demonstrate that any given politician –if he or she is to be regarded as acceptable– is reasoning and conscious while he is working in the office 9-5. And this is achieved in capitalism by demonstrating said politicians adherence to a rationale, specifically Economic Rationale.


It is important to note that Economic Rationale is not actually rational- nor does it need to be! What it is there to do is provide a rhetorical framework, a kabuki show that can convince the population that any given politician is acting in a conscious, rational way while at work. It is a means of demonstrating that a politicians’ actions are based on reason.


Economic rationale is founded on the ideological  assertion that society is organised around the economic interests of groups of people generally referred to as ‘classes’. These ‘classes’ use politics as a forum to compete for power which allows access to resources.


The Germanic proponents of economic rationale claim that this is the best way to organise society because it allows for the possibility of compromise. Differing groups within a society can compromise on how much tax an individual will pay, how much welfare he will get and so on…


With any other form of social division compromise becomes much more difficult to achieve. For instance, division on a colonial, racial basis, (such as the apartheid system) found compromise impossible resulting in its destruction.


This gives you the beginnings of an insight into the mainstream attacks on Donald Trump and why proponents of economic rationale want desperately to control the nature of the debate…Not just because they hate Trump but because they genuinely fear the consequences of stepping outside economic rationale.


Obviously classes are fundamental to this narrative. But in order for classes to be credible they have to have social power which means demonstrating that they affect the way things are done.


Unfortunately that can’t happen in a planned society, (and after QE you had better believe we now live in a planned society…)


No doubt you are entirely aware of the effective demise of organised labour and of trades unions in most of the developed world. You may or may not also be aware that the destruction of  ‘bosses’  took place at the same time. This is a fundamental part of the Crackernomics argument that I have written about on a number of occasions..


We now live in a society that uses the rhetoric of markets while effectively accepting the logic of Marx’s argument that the state must in the end control all economic activity. Welcome to the Free Marxet.


Since we live in a planned economy there is no way for a potential leader to demonstrate his or her commitment to economic rationale and its attendant compromise between classes anymore. There is no economic free market arena where both sides can ‘fight it out’ so there is no need for someone who can compromise. There is only The Plan.


And you can’t compromise with a plan. You either follow it or you don’t. If you don’t follow The Plan you can’t expect it to work… so you are facing a ‘take it or leave it’ situation; This is the actual meaning of  the famous Monetarist mantra of TINA- There Is No Alternative.


TINA is not an expression of irrational spite or a dictatorial impulse on the part of Monetarists, no matter what the battered remnants of the liberal left would have you believe. It is simply a sober assessment of the facts as seen from a Monetarist perspective. Monetarists say: ‘All we have is this plan for the Free Marxet. You either follow it and give the remains of capitalism some chance at a future or you do not.’


There are no classes anymore..and there is no way for any candidate to present to public media and intelligentsia as one of a number of credible representatives compromising between competing classes.


Since there is no way to demonstrate that the candidate is employing  economic rationale to achieve compromise, there is no way to divide a potential leader up between ‘9-5 rational’ and ‘at home irrational’.


Which brings us to the problem I described at the beginning.


Trump cannot divide himself up between rational and irrational in this situation. Taken as a whole Trump is seen as irrational and unfit by those who are against him.


Boris Johnson cannot divide himself up between rational and irrational in this situation. Taken as a whole Boris Johnson is seen as motivated by an ambitious private vendetta by those who are against him.


Jeremy Corbyn cannot divide himself up between rational and irrational in this situation.Taken as a whole Corbyn is seen as an undercover communist by those who are against him.


Hilary Clinton cannot divide herself up between rational and irrational in this situation.Taken as a whole Hillary is seen as paid for by Wall Street by those who are against her


None of this is the fault of these individuals. Neither is it the fault of those who hate them. It is the collapse of the market system and the political parties it gives rise to that has brought this about ..


No matter which individual politician follows on from what we have now, the essential problem will remain the same. Germanic ideology cannot find a way of understanding and presenting the relationship between political individuals and political offices in this post capitalist situation.


The system now has to find a way to understand any potential leader as a whole. Or at least divided up along non traditional lines. Which brings us to the way that politics is now.


How do we relate to and select individual politicians for positions of power? We cannot go back to saying he or she is moulded into the position as ‘feudal’ societies do, that would be ‘primitive’. It would also mean that we accept that a fundamental precept of capitalism; the concept of Protestant individuality, was void.


The temporary fix is the rise of the Culturally Specific politician as opposed to the Political Representative.


As I said at the beginning Capitalism, like other societies needs to reduce its leaders to a form of abstract. But unlike other societies, capitalism is additionally hamstrung by its need to hang onto the historical cultural creation of the individual.


The hybrid this produces is a new kind of  individual politician who is moulded by the ‘Cultural College’ he or she originates from.


Now the politician is an individual in as far as that individuality is the expression of the cultural identity group that formed said individuality. In other words it is an attempt to graft on part of the ‘feudal’ moulding process without admitting as much!


If you accept Barrack Obama as a president, you accept the ‘African American’ middle class liberal intellectual cultural college as a valid origin point for a politician to implement The Plan.


If you accept Hilary Clinton you accept the southern lawyer cultural college as a valid origin point for a politician to implement The Plan.

(This is what the ‘glass ceiling’ spiel is really all about..).


And if you don’t accept Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump it is because you don’t trust the cultural college they come from and represent.


Back to Michelle and POTUS hair. What she is actually saying is that Obama style blacks are in now; That they are trusted to implement the Plan. Now it is time to move onto Democrat women etc..





























Cultural Revolution Part 1 Or It’s Not EU It’s US

The description of Cultural Constituencies that I began to develop a couple of years ago was a natural progression from an analysis of the political and economic changes that had occured in the global economy as a consequence of the credit crunch. Economics as we had known it had ceased to exist and been replaced with a hybrid semi- Marxist control and command economy..the Free Marxet.

Marx was absolutely right when he deduced that the political structure within developed societies is a direct consequence of the economic structure of these societies. In order to support our previous form of political democracy it was necessary to have an economic arena wherein two opposing sides could work out a compromise of economic interests. This was a form of market in labour, wherein under controlled circumstances, ‘workers’ and ‘bosses’ could compete to secure relative econmic advantage.

In our present command economy such an arrangement is clearly insupportable. A command economy cannot allow independent institutions such as genuine trades unions that would forcibly prosecute the interests of members to the detriment of the overall planned economy.  It follows that the economic and political dichotomy required for traditional political democracy is not viable.

In this altered environment Cultural Constituencies emerge as the only possible vehicle through which differing social groups can identify and pursue their interests. The Brexit vote is the latest and most spectacular evidence of the emergence of Cultural Constituencies as the prime political force at work in the developed economies today.

The Brexit referendum was won by a little over 30% percent of the total population of Britain – a sizeable minority but not by any means a majority of the population. Despite this observation it cannot be argued that Brexit victory is somehow illegitimate. There is no minority within Britain that is greater in size than the Brexit gang so by the terms of formal democracy the vote stands.

Despite this unavoidable truth it is absolutely clear that Remain does not intend to accept the political reality of the Brexit vote or its legitimacy. This clearly brings the entire democratic framework within which the referendum was carried out into question.

Fundamental questioning of the existing democratic system is an inevitable consequence of the emergence of Cultural Constituencies. The reason for this is not complicated. The political system as we know it is designed to service economic constituencies groups who identify themselves and their interests in primarily economic terms.

If economic constituencies are no longer to be the prime building block of the system how can that system remain unaltered?

Imagine a large university building in the process of being constructed over two or three generations. Half way through, the builders find out that the red brick they have been using will no longer be available. The alternative building material they are being offered has a different tensile strength, water absorbance characteristic etc. which means that the structure that had originally been envisioned cannot be supported by this type of brick.

The part of the building that is not already built using the old brick will have to be extensively redesigned if it is to be built using the new brick. This is the political process we are watching being worked out now in Europe and around the globe.

This tension between the old plan and the new is now beginning to make itself felt through the altering structure of political parties.  Political parties as we know them represent a hybrid solution to the problem of ‘modernising’ Germanic land democracy.

Germanic Land democracy is based upon the free ownership and transfer of land. In all the Germanic democracies, land ownership was originally the prime requirement for the right to vote- to participate in the democracy. No land, no vote.

However, with the development of the cult of Capitalism and large numbers of landless ‘workers’, who were by definition disenfranchised, it was necessary to develop a hybrid solution. Cities rapidly became large centres of landless people which gave birth to an alternative ideology to Germanic Land Democracy- later identified as Communism.

This Communism would inevitably challenge the existing order and given the superiority of urban areas in numbers and productive capacity would win.  The solution was the creation of geographically constructed constituencies that expressed an economic justification for their existence through the party system.

The voting system would formally be based on geographical location, but the motivating political dynamic for taking part in that system, the parties, would be economic in character. This is the basis for so-called modern‘universal sufferage’-the right of everybody to vote.

From the point of view of stabilising Germanic societies this served the dual purpose of avoiding a direct challenge to Germanic land democracy by those who had no land, while at the same time avoiding the obvious conclusion that the political system should be formally organised upon economic or class lines.

Geographic boundaries as the basis for politics and democracy were preserved. And this is fundamental to the continued existence of Germanic Land Demorcacy.

Despite the rhetoric to the contrary, this form of compromise has proved to be inherently UNSTABLE and prone to periodic seismic crisis. Universal suffrage only became widespread in Europe around the turn of the last century and immediately produced a series of political and economic shocks that have increased in severity to the present day.

As a consequence of these shocks, the ideology of welfarism was developed to mitigate the obvious disparities of political and economic power. Welfare is the bounty paid to the landless to prevent their overthrow of land based Germanic Land Democracy.

However, these internal developments in the Germanic economies did not occur in a vacuum. Across the world changes in the balance of power meant that developed nations were having to modernise Germanic Land Democracy against a backdrop of relatively diminishing international power.

In the late 1960’s this reached a point of absolute crisis and the formal intellectual abandonment of the free market economic model in America. The Free Market was replaced by monetarism –  continual state control of the economy through the amount of money allowed into the economy by ‘independent’ central banks.

As the effects of Monetarism became apparent, we could see the end of the distribution of wealth and resources through the work and production model and its replacement with the distribution of wealth and resources through a property or asset ownership model.

This intermediate property or asset ownership model reached its own breaking point with the snapping of the link between taxation and asset and property ownership – what has come to be known as Neo Liberalism, and just as significantly, Globalism.

In essence globalism is not the movement of capital around the globe, that has been a greater or lesser feature of economy for thousands of years. It is most significantly the break between wealth generation through asset ownership and taxation by national governments.

This gives rise to the present crisis which is expressing itself at the weakest point of the chain- the joint between economic political parties and geographic political system. In Britian today the political system is physically imploding in front of our very eyes.

The two major parties have no effective leadership and furthermore, they have no prospect of establishing effective leadership in the short to mid term foreseeable future. By this I specifically mean that they have no plan to deal with the consequences of Brexit that will not necessarily entail their own eventual political destruction!

The two opposing sides in the Brexit conflict represent not economic differences, but cultural identity differences. This has become all but impossible to hide.

The Brexit side is perfectly willing to accept any short to mid term financial problems including uncertainty and some degree of isolation so long as it achieves their long term goal of disentangling English politics from Europe.  Likewise, the Remain side is entirely comfortable with ongoing hardship,especially for young people, in the form of mass immigration and competition for resources so long as they can stay within the European ideological mindset.

These are political AND personal decisions made by the individuals who have voted for each side. In this new political environment, the existing political parties simply have no way to lead ‘Leave’ and ‘Remain’ to some form of traditional compromise. There are no economic incentives they can offer to achieve compromise.

BLINK Special: What Just Happened? Or Making a Killing Or Germanic Flipside Or Turbulent Priestess Or Comrade Ogilvy



As you probably know, English Labour MP Jo Cox was killed outside her constituency surgery by a man identified as Thomas Mair reported by witnesses as having used a home-made gun…


Although generally understated, the death of Ms Cox has occasioned a variety of sentiment.


Money markets seemed to have taken an upbeat view of the death with both the Pound and the S&P putting on gains in the aftermath of reports that the MP had expired:


And the previously moribund FTSE rebounded sharply on suspension of the referendum:


On the other hand ex British National Party leader Nick Griffin, expressed the belief that Remain will seek to make more political capital out of the MP’s death, sentiments that many on the Leave side are more reticent about openly framing but agree with.


At the time of the killing, Leave had a 6 point opinion poll lead over Remain and momentum to increase that advantage. Increasingly, word from the Remain camp was that the leadership was worried about the direction the campaign was taking.


The central problem is that Remain has increasingly suffered from its commitment to mercantile nationalism – the ideological claim that a central economic justification and rationale for immigration trumps all other considerations.


The idea behind mercantile nationalism is that citizenship of a country has no real meaning outside of what are essentially economic considerations: what contribution you make to the economy, what social provision you require etc. It does not have any means of encompassing the idea of exclusive culture and belonging; ideas it regards as fundamentally illegitimate.


Because of this, Remain has increasingly shown itself to be unable to even communicate its central idea to the largest Cultural Constituencies that make up the Leave camp in Britain in particular Saxon Nationalism


After the Second Germanic War, the Anglo Saxon ‘liberal’ elite dedicated itself to rehabilitating Germanic culture in the eyes of the world. A fundamental part of this was to downplay the antagonism between continental Germany and the Anglo Saxon world. To achieve this, England would agree to be subsumed under a European identity just as the Germans had.


Key elements of this common European identity were welfarism and multiculturalism, both ideas which have been shown to be unacceptable to the contemporary Saxon Nationalist constituency. But more importantly was the idea of freedom of movement and mass immigration based on the logic of a globalised international economy- mercantile nationalism.


This vision of a more ‘civillised’ Europe based on the logic of mass immigration and integration has proved to be motivating to the liberal German elites in Europe and Britain but not the mass of Germanic people. This has expressed itself as an increasing intellectual and emotional gulf between the mass of the population and liberal elites.


Liberals have become more and more concerned that they were failing ‘connect’ with the man in the street but that could all change now, or so they hope. Now Remain have got the basis for their own cultural constituency- their own emotional identity connection point to shape their campaign around. And this of course, is in the form of Jo Cox.


Already the liberal media is working to endow Ms Cox with personal qualities of a saint (not a Christian one of course, but a secular one) and her various progressive foibles with the legitimacy of a canon of belief. This includes patronage through organised charity and foreign aid and a commitment to refugeeism. They have even managed to work in a favourable mention of the so called ‘White Helmets’, a Saxon Axis sponsored media front organisation for Sunni death squads in Syria.


The emphasis of the Remain campaign will now focus on recalibrating the emotional charge in the remaining days of the referendum. To move away from the Saxon emotional staples of anger and cold blooded calculation of personal interests and to centre instead on the Germanic flipside of maudlin sentimentality, a sense of victimhood intertwined with the ever present claim of moral superiority.


The Remain Cultural constituency will be based on ‘people like us’ who support ‘charity’ as a generality and the Germanic moral stewardship of the world through a network of international organisations, of which the EU is a prime example. And Jo Cox is to be the contemporary Saxon, female, Thomas Becket cut down on the altar of European integration.


This is specifically tailored to appeal to the lower social strata of Saxon women who Remain believe are undecided and potentially can be swayed to Remain. The fact that they have been handed the exact media avatar they needed to implement this plan in the closing days of the campaign is a startling co-incidence.


Let us see if the Saxons will buy it.



This article by Jo Cox’s widow appeared in todays Guardian:

Remarkably close to what I have written, if from a different perspective…..


The Frailed State Or When Is A Duopoly Not A Duopoly? Or Guess Who Is Coming To Dinar..



It has recently been reported in the news that both sides in the ongoing Libyan civil war have begun to issue their own respective currencies. It would seem that two conflicting sides both enforcing their own form of government and issuing their own respective forms of money is Duopoly writ large.


In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The emergence of two separate entities is the end of duopoly.


There is a lot of confusion about the nature of duopoly. I notice that although it is a phrase that is used a lot more since I first began referring to it five years ago, most people still do not understand the idea underpinning duopoly.


The often used bog standard definition of duopoly characterises it essentially as a two party political system. A classic example of this is America which has only ever had two parties with a realistic chance of forming an administration or electing a president. These are the Republicans and the Democrats.


But recent events in America have thrown this conception of the two party duopoly in America into doubt. On the Republican side Donald Trump, together with his new model army of disenfranchised American Dreamers, has undertaken what has been referred to as a ‘hostile takeover’ of the Republican party. On the other side Bernie Sanders is continuing to make the nomination of Hillary Clinton as the official opposition candidate difficult.


Commentators describe the situation as the breakdown of the old-fashioned American duopoly. They have suggested that the Republican Party will inevitably split as a consequence of the nomination of Trump.


Some have also suggested that supporters of Bernie Sanders will not be satisfied with a Hillary Clinton nomination. There is increasing pressure on Bernie Sanders to run as a third party independent candidate in the event that he does not receive the nomination.


Can we infer from all this that the traditional system is breaking down under the pressures of globalisation etc. ? Despite all the hopeful insurgent punditry the fact is that this does not represent any significant change to the duopoly.


The significance of duopoly does not rest on the fact that there are only two alternative parties on offer. In many nations states in Europe there are a plethora of political parties competing for office. Traditionally in these countries government administrations are made up of an amalgam of many of these different parties. Yet these multi party systems are still essentially duopoly on the Anglo Saxon model. And they should be, many of them were expressly created by America in the aftermath of   WW II.


Duopoly in post war Europe is crystallised in the proportional representation system which was expressly designed to prevent the dominance of any single political party and in particular, to prevent the possibility that at a communist party might rise to political prominence through the electoral process.


After the Second Germanic War most mainstream European political structures were discredited by the failure to fight Nazism or even active collaboration. This contrasted starkly with the success of the Soviet Union and the terrible price paid for victory but which enhanced the reputation of the Soviets across the globe.


This, together with the fact that the Anglo Saxon nations were struggling to rehabilitate these same European nations in the aftermath of defeat, meant that nothing was off the table in what became in effect a battle against the idea of victory against fascism. This included subversion and terrorism- famously in the affair of the P2 Masonic lodge and Operation Gladio.


At home in the Anglo Saxon victor nations, there was no necessity to create a system to prevent communists or even socialists from coming to pre-eminence since they were firmly excluded from the political process. And hadn’t the Anglo Saxons fought against Nazism (sort of?). There was no need to create a multi party proportional system.


Interestingly, that has changed now. A proportional electoral college was created by the AS Labour Party with the openly stated objective of preventing the Scottish Nationalist Party gaining an absolute electoral majority in Scotland. Of course, as we know it did not work. But it points us to the key duopoly dynamic here. That the multi party system is a means of preventing an outcome you don’t want by controlling what is on offer.


In post war Europe what was not wanted was communism, and the controlled offer was duopoly. Just the same, in Scotland what was not wanted was independence and the controlled offer was again, duopoly.


The recent Presidential elections in Austria are a further excellent illustration of the point.. Austria, like most other European countries has a proportional system that traditionally encourages many political parties. Within this framework, the Social Democrats have been traditionally dominant, forming part of the majority of administrations since WW II.


But in this election, both traditional parties of the ‘right’ and ‘left’, the People’s party and the Social Democrats failed to gain enough support to make it through into the second round of voting.


The reason for this was the rise of the so-called ‘hard right’ Austrian Freedom party whose anti immigration, anti-Muslim stance is often described in mainstream media as a polarising force in Austrian politics.


The left opposition to the Freedom Party coalesced around a Green ‘independent’ politician. As the final tally was revealed Austrian politics was split more or less neatly down the middle with the left gaining a majority of only 31,000 votes.


Given the potential significance of the election of a ‘hard right’ politician in Austria for the first time since the end of the Second World War, it seems a little odd that there has been so little further discussion of the election after the narrowest of victories for the left.


The general consensus in the liberal press seems to have been that they have managed to dodge a bullet and as a consequence nothing more needs to be said. I suspect that underpinning this reticence is also a desire to let sleeping dogs lie; liberals hope that the Freedom party will give up and go away.


But just because the hard right did not win this specific election does not mean that they are likely to go away any time soon. And this presents a very difficult problem for their opposition.


What has happened in Austria is that politics has cohered around a new fulcrum point. Whereas before, broadly speaking economic issues were the defining factor in politics, now immigration has become the pivot point of contention and definition.


The right wing have formed a coalition to achieve a very specific objective, which is to end the present immigration policy and prevent father inroads into Austrian society Muslims.. And the left-wing opposition has also formed a coalition to achieve a specific object which is to prevent the right wing from achieving their objectives!


But that leaves the left caught in a difficult trap of their own making. They have accepted that immigration is the central fulcrum of Austrian politics and this new right wing is not likely to change its opinion or its objectives is it? Unless something can be done to disassemble this new right wing coalition, Austrian politics will be fighting this immigration battle for the foreseeable future.


What can be done to disassemble the right wing coalition? The only possible answer for the left is to end the immigration that has caused all that fuss in the first place and that is hardly likely.


So Austrian politics is becoming locked into a zombie state that is a political corollary to the economic zombie condition that many developed nations also find themselves in. This is not coincidence, This new situation is a composite of the politics of cultural constituencies and the politics of duopoly. We can call this a Frailed State.


A Frailed State is one where economics is no longer the central pivot around which politics is constructed. Instead increasingly immigration and the rights and obligations of minorities is the fulcrum around which politics is organised. The Frailed state is a stopping point on the trajectory leading toward the Failed State.


Across the newly Frailed States, economic political parties and ‘classes’ are increasingly being replaced with cultural constituencies. The number and nature of these cultural constituencies differs from place to place and is necessarily determined by the region and geographic area they occur in.


But just as old style economic constituencies were variations on the theme of who gets what money and where, so new style cultural constituencies are variations on the theme of: Where do you come from and what do you expect as a consequence?


The important point to understand is that it did not matter how many individual economic constituencies there were in old style politics, so long as they all fit somewhere on the economic spectrum. So long as there was a left and right pole in economics, it was a duopoly.


The same applies to cultural constituencies. It does not matter how many individual cultural constituencies there are, so long as they all fit somewhere on the immigration spectrum. So long as there are left and right poles in immigration it is a duopoly.


So now we begin to understand the real significance and power of duopoly. Duopoly is not a two party system, it is an offered spectrum of choice and opinion based around two options which we cannot ignore – Duopoly is when we have to take a position somewhere along the line of a given spectrum.


Only a short time ago it was a spectrum of distribution at one end and private economic power at the other. The conflict that gave rise to the economic spectrum has been resolved now in favour of the Free Marxet- the synthesis of economic ‘left’ and ‘right’ !


Even only a couple of decades ago, it was still the standard belief and rhetoric on the left that economic disparity leads to revolution; that if the economic spectrum between left and right extremes became sufficiently stretched it would snap. This led to the Keynesian reform economics that has shaped the past six decades or so.


But Globalisation and the Free Marxet has led to the end of economics as the pivot and the emergence of culture and identity as the swing point of a new spectrum. I have discussed this before in writing on cultural constituencies.


In the old, class based system it was argued that people were different from each other because they were fighting for resources.

In the new system people are fighting for resources because they argue they are different from each other.


And the consequence of this is that it is possible to have an economic revolution and still have a country at the end of it. But if people increasingly see themselves as different from each other, the fight starts over resources, but it can only end with the nation breaking apart.


Frailed States lead in the end to Failed States.

Face Value or Down The Rabbit hole or Minority Report or Yes We Khan!



A couple of weeks ago the Fed announced that Harriet Tubman, a slaved African ‘black’ woman would replace President Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill.


The arguments for and against this volte face are running more or less as you would expect.


The pro-Tubman side claim that introducing Tubman is more than just substituting one historical personality for another. It represents the inclusion of a whole kind of person that has been omitted from mainstream establishment American history.


On the other hand the ‘anti’s are obviously wary of falling into the trap of outright opposition, so they suggest that slavery and its most significant protagonists should be celebrated and included in some other way. Keep the money for ‘dead presidents’ they conclude.


On the face of it, (pun intended), it seems peculiar that Germanic capitalism- a form of society that lays claim to the inheritance of the Enlightenment and Reason, should be putting anyone’s face on money. Surely this is uncomfortably close to the sort of feudalistic impulse that Capitalism claims to have superseded.


The truth is that the ‘primitive’ roots of having the face of king or emperor on a coin legitimises the modern money we have today just as it did in times past. It lays bare Capitalism’s dirty little secret- it is parasitical upon the social forms created by ‘feudalism’ and always has been.


Capitalism cannot generate the social traditions necessary to enlist the loyalty of the ordinary people it claims to represent! It needs ‘feudalism’ to do that. For instance, why do you think soldiers dress up in fancy uniforms?


Why don’t capitalist armies dress up for their parades in business suits?! Surely the suit and tie is the ‘folk costume’ of the capitalist nation and its armies!


But experience has shown that people won’t fight and die for Capitalism and capitalists know this better than anyone. Capitalism needs feudalism to survive.


The face on money controversy proves that the past is alive and well and not just in the matter of money.. Donald Trump has achieved the Republican nomination in all but name. There may be sour grapes and carping but for the moment his enemies in the Republican elite dare not attack him outright.


Trump is a prime example of feudal capitalist king and outstanding expression of the ever increasing importance of cultural constituency in the politics of the west. In Obama and now Trump we are witnessing the end of representative democracy and beginning of Constitutional Embodiment.


As I have explained in previous writing on cultural constituencies, politicians like Trump are Cultural Specifics as opposed to ideological representatives. They are not there to represent an idea held in common. These politicians are not old style REPRESENTATIVES of a political ideology, they are the new style EMBODIMENT of a CULTURAL IDENTITY.


A Cultural Specific does not reflect and represent an idea that his constituency wishes to endorse. A cultural specific reflects the way that the members of his constituency wishes to be seen by the world. A representative represents an idea. An embodiment represents you (or not!)


They have no meaningful political perspective based on economics- that is not what they are there to do. They are there to VALIDATE the identity of their CONSTITUENCY. No-one understands this better than Trump himself.


Showing one of the startling flashes of prescience that have made him so successful despite his limitations, Trump has decided to go after Elizabeth Warren -supposed ‘left wing’ scourge of Wall Street and self described native American who,Trump says, is ‘as native American as I am’. Which means of course, not at all.


It is fundamental to classic Germanic Land Democracy, that national and cultural identities are social commodities, available to anyone born in a particular time and place.


Rachel Dalziel may have taken it to an extreme, but she was only doing what ‘Americans’ feel is their right and due. To dip into ‘black’ ( or other) culture for a ready to wear drip dry identity.


Ms Warren feels able to take her own personal journey down the rabbit hole with her proclamation of Nativeness (is that a word?). Surely a look in the mirror would help her to understand the truth of the matter.


Here Trump shows a clear instinctive understanding of Whiteism. Since it is about identity, unlike economic rationale no compromise is possible. You can’t split the difference- you either are a Native American or you aren’t.


Elizabeth Warrens firestorm Twitter response to Trumps IDAttack tells the whole story. She is clearly fighting for her political life. If Trump wins, politicians like Warren and the people she represents will be in imminent danger of becoming politically extinct.


The key to understanding Trump and his supporters is to realise that they now identify and act as a minority; the VolkAmerika cultural constituency, and are no longer interested in being the majority with no benefits and loads of associated social political and economic costs.


Trump doesn’t see himself as being part of the majority tasked with keeping the edifice standing against the minorities. He no longer sees why his supporters should be willing to make sacrifices to keep the system going. He is as ready to kick at the foundations of modern America as any other minority…


Closer to home the election of Sadiq Khan in London as the first Muslim mayor of a major European city extends the advance of cultural constituencies


Khan ran as ‘the son of a Pakistani bus driver’ against the offspring of a Jewish billionaire Zac Goldsmith and accordingly the papers in this part of the Saxon Axis resound to claims of ‘Anti Semitism!’ and corresponding counter charges of ‘Islamophobia!’


But the game is more nuanced that that. Khan was the Muslim who goes on day trips to his local Synagogue (EuroSlam) and Goldsmith a multi-millionaire who cares ‘passionately’. about the environment. (‘Green’back capitalist a la Richard Branson)


So which would you rather be personally identified with:


‘EuroSlam’ Pakistani or ‘GreenBack’ Jew?


Welcome to the post economic rationale world…


And North of the English border comes the starling news that the Tories who have been rank outsiders for decades have returned to centre stage.

For around half a century the Conservatives, traditionally seen in Scotland as quintessentially English, have been a fringe party in Scottish politics.


They were tarnished with Thatcherism which promoted a form of politics centered on the Saxon heartlands of ‘Middle England’. Most famously Thatcherism is associated with the poll tax whose purpose was to make local taxation entirely regressive and removed from ability to pay.


So how did they come back? Or more importantly, where did they come back?


The answer to this is; all along the East coast, the area of Scotland whose population is by majority Lowland Saxon Germans.


The Scottish Nationalist Party maintained its share of vote among the West Coast population. The sea change is that the Saxon East coast population has abandoned Labour, an English ‘left wing’ party no longer seen as providing adequate cover for their interests. Now they openly vote for Tories as an East coast Saxon opposition to West coast Gaelic SNP!!


I have long argued that ‘left wing’ and ‘right wing’ are redundant in the modern world,(if they ever really meant anything) and especially in the case of the Saxon Axis. There has never been a significant ‘Socialist’ party in any part of the Saxon world and there never will be. This is not an historical co-incidence.


The left/right divide was always only a political tool for the promotion of Germanic political culture, Germanic Land Democracy and the Germanic Cult of capitalism.


Now that it no longers serves any practical purpose for the Germanic population of Scotland, they are abandoning it.


And this is happening all around the world- The Great Unravelling

Blink- News From Around The Five Eyes


200Blink -May 5 2016-   by Joe Jones
Fury Boxed In

I have been recently trying to get in touch with Tyson Fury to arrange an interview before the Anglo-Saxon press really try and tear him apart. In this press conference he declares how he does not care about boxing and how he is fighting just to put food on the table.

Good on him, he has a pregnant wife at home and family is his main concern.

Fury, who is the undisputed heavyweight champion, has got nowhere near the credit any other British World champion has had. This is because he does not enter into the Anglo-Saxon model. He is an Irish traveller with a Christian belief system, and what’s more, he is outspoken.

The press will be eyeing up their next move.

Death To America!
Debt To America!

White Working Class Mortality Rates Are Increasing
Other studies indicate rising death rates for a white working class that is in a slow-motion economic and social meltdown. Self-destructive behaviors are outpacing …
The Anglo Saxon Empire is spiralling into chaos and the Anglo Saxon poor have been abandoned.


In 2013 USE predicted that a white population in the developed world would be made into refugees as the consequence of natural or man-made disaster. A little bit later than predicted but this could be it…

Fort Mc Murray Evacuated

Then Water..

Obama Leading from the front drinks some Flint water (filtered of course) Yum!


Prices for Rice can be expected to rise sharply in the coming year. Apparently it’s the fault of the weather- chaos caused by commodity speculation will have got nothing to do with it…

TRiUMPh of the Will

Trotskyist World Socialist Website can’t decide if the Don is an insider pretending to be an outsider or an outsider pretending to be an insider..

And AS liberals can’t decide if they even want democracy anymore..

This Is Not America

This article is titled ‘How is Donald Trump affecting American culture’. Donald Trump IS American culture..As many of the entries indicate.