A SHAME Or Why Crackernomics Matters


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?



pertaining or relating to money matters; pecuniary:



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.


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?’


 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



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:


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



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


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

Over The Rainbow Or Not in Kansas Anymore Or Moral Minority Report Or My Cupp Runneth Over Or What exactly happened back there?


220px-Heimdall_an_der_HimmelsbrückeRainbow bridge to Asgard


A quantum mechanical system or particle that is bound—that is, confined spatially—can only take on certain discrete values of energy’


For the past three or four months race and racism has been the central focus of intercultural discourse in America. A spate of police shootings and demonstrations was followed by the Rachel Dolezal interval, things quickly got serious again with the Charleston killings.


And then everything changed.


Chess strategy was no longer the focus of the game, (see last time). The players put the chess men away and took out an entirely different set of pieces.


Post Charleston shootings, the ‘left’ went after the Confederate battle flag as a substitute for gun control; the next phase of the game seemed more or less set. Then from left field came a Supreme Court decision on same sex marriage and the entire topography of the culture war was changed in a day.


Just as a quantum particle jumps from one energy level to another with no interim stage and no warning that it will do so, the American polity moved into an entirely new configuration. The pro-gay marriage movement celebrated, but it was clear that even they were taken back by the sudden completeness of their victory.


Even more startling was the response of Anglo Saxon Protestants. Like a cage fighter who walked onto a roundhouse kick to the head, the legs buckled. Slo-mo close up showed they were out before they even hit the canvas. Trad WASP’s are slumped in the red corner. They know that they took a heavy beating – they are not looking forward to a second round.


The Moral Majority (remember them?) are now the Moral Minority and suddenly look at risk of becoming politically irrelevant almost overnight. Let’s be absolutely clear; its not going to be enough to grudgingly acquiesce to this dispensation. The Moral Minority will have to willingly accept the new state of affairs and tell everyone: mmmmm! just how much they like it if they want to stay in the political cage fight.


Or, in the words of teary Conservative pundit S.E. Cupp, they risk becoming relics.

Conservative Pundit Starts Crying At Gay Marriage Footage: ‘They’re Patriots’ (VIDEO)

or this:

‘How many fingers am I holding up son?’

‘Er, Tuesday..’

‘That’s fine son, lets get you back to the dressing room..’


So what exactly has happened, and what exactly does it all mean?


From one perspective the Supreme Court decision could be seen as something and nothing; merely the formal recognition of an existing state of affairs. Does the decision simply acknowledge that American attitudes towards sexual practice have changed? It is substantially more than that.


Consider that the Supreme Court decision Roe v Wade is still being venomously contested across America, decades after the actual ruling was handed down. In fact, abortion provision across the USA is decreasing and under constant attack. (Although you can bet there is now going to be some serious push back here as well). How does the retreat in post war women’s rights tie up with the ongoing success of the gay marriage rights campaign?


Obviously rights for sexual minorities (actually I think women are the majority), in America per se is not the driving force in shaping what has happened. In fact, you can’t understand the progress of gay marriage in America unless you understand Whiteism and its relationship to sexual morality.


Whiteism is the ideological belief that white people have something in common. The underlying purpose of Whiteism ideology is to legitimise Germanic ideological control over all white people. In particular, the Germanic Cult Of Capitalism based on Germanic Land Democracy.


The purpose of Whiteism is to assert the supremacy of Germanic culture, first in the context of white people and then in the context of the entire globe. In other words, Whiteism asserts that all white people should have Germanic culture in common whether they themselves are Germanic or not. Put another way, all white people should perceive and communicate through the medium of Germanic culture and morality as a stepping stone to all people everywhere communicating through the medium of Germanic culture.

Post war Germanic culture required white people to subscribe to the ideology of sexual freedom. Let’s get it clear what this sexual freedom means: Not stoning, imprisoning, or punishing in any way anyone who violates the moral or contractual rules of marriage or the associated sexual code. It means that a violated or dissolved marriage must be settled entirely as though it were simply a joint financial contract.


The participants in a marriage have no moral obligation to each other, or to society as a whole (and of course definitely not to God!). You mind find it amusing and instructive to consider that most subscribers to the Germanic morality code consider it more important that members of society fulfil their obligations to a mortgage contract rather than to a marriage contract!


All Germanic people subscribe to this belief system and most demand that it should be propagated world wide, many advocating using force to achieve this if necessary.


Modern sexual freedom as we understand it was pioneered in NW Europe in the aftermath of the Second Germanic War. Scandinavia and Holland became synonymous with black and white porno films, magazines featuring free love in the sauna etc. Anybody who has travelled the territory of the Hanseatic League knows that visiting the fleshpots of German cities now has the character of a cultural historical tour. Like Japanese tourists wandering round the Houses of Parliament (which of course is a different kind of whore..)


(On the subject of the Hanseatic League I recommend Jonathan Meades’ excellent documentary ‘Magnetic North’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw6J9bYQ4XY)


The relationship between modern sexuality and traditional morality was very carefully calibrated in post war North Western Europe. Prostitution and associated practices were legally ‘domesticated’; controlled and effectively promoted -as soft drug use in coffee shops and gay activity was. These liberalisations were intended to be understood as totemic representations of cultural freedom, in particular in opposition to Slavic and to a lesser extent Catholic, culture. This is pure Whiteism.


The ‘traditional’ family was domesticated in a slightly different way; through sponsorship and welfarism. Germanic political elites promoted a specific vision of family life through financial and legal incentives and punishments.


‘Modern’ laws on marriage and divorce, the provision of chemical contraception, (think of the Matrix: ‘you can take the red pill or the blue pill’), and the increasing possibility then necessity, of women’s employment, together with state provision of education, medical and other services, dismantled the traditional family and forced it into a supplicatory relationship with the Germanic state.


All of this is open to a variety of interpretations as to its meaning and significance, and as you know, often is. But it cannot be brought into sharp focus until you understand it as the promotion of Germanic pagan thought.


The moral collapse of Protestantism was both cause and consequence of two Germanic Wars in the last century. By the late fifties there was a clear need to restructure the moral landscape in North Western Europe. And if you doubt that such a project would or could be consciously undertaken, what else was the introduction of Protestantism centuries before but this very same thing?


So the post war modern Germanic state supported the traditional family the way that Lenin supported the provisional pre- revolutionary Russian government: as a rope supports a hanging man. And this has gone on for fifty years or so, bringing us to today. Or about ten days ago.


Look at the Supreme Court, and the power structure they represent. Consider the general nature of their recent pronouncements. Are we really supposed to believe that they have transformed miraculously overnight into the voice of ‘liberal’, ‘enlightened’, ‘progressive’ thought?


What nonsense!


Here is the root cause of the confusion on both ‘left’ and ‘right’.


In fact, they are the black robed designated executioners of the Protestant Welfare Family. In 2015, the corpse hanging for four decades still twitches on the rope. The time has come to end it. This last edict is the equivalent of jerking on the subjects legs to finally break his neck.


The Welfare Family was given a very specific structure. Its stated purpose was the raising of children, the provision of medical care and arrangements for old age. A specific substitution arrangement for each of the three main periods of family life.


This new definition breaks that link. The Supreme Court decision effectively means that any two men can get married for tax reasons and of course any two women can also. This means that marriage is now entirely a legal financial arrangement. It is a legal intellectual break from the historical family.


The order of an individuals life will no longer be defined in relation to the order of family life.


There will be a number of consequences that will follow from this:


Non married people and those who choose not to get married are going to ask on what basis ‘marriage’ should have any benefits or privileges. Moral? Intellectual? Political? Try making up some justifications for yourself and see how far you get with it…


It follows that the State will rapidly come to openly regard all family members as discrete individuals. It follows from this that the state will take direct responsibility for the welfare of these individuals, not mediated through the structure of the Protestant Welfare Family. For instance mandated nutrition requirements for children.


Since I have argued on more than one occasion that predictive ability is the validation of analysis, let me end with this:


In short order, (at most a couple of years), a modern western welfare state system will implode completely like a power station relay that cannot cope with altered voltage. It will come as a complete shock (pun intended) to the generality of the developed world. But not to me. And not to you too, now that you understand something of what really lies behind it….


updateJuly 4 2015

Two stories featured in Drudge Report illustrate the decline of the Protestant Welfare Family…

Schools Implant IUDs in Girls as Young as 6th Grade Without Their Parents Knowing


Vegan Italian parents investigated for neglect after baby son found severely malnourished


The reason I mention the Drudge connection is because these stories are obviously chosen to play to the outraged Protestant Welfare Family contituency… The state directly replacing the family etc…

White Takes Black or Skin In The Game

quote-i-look-to-a-day-when-people-will-not-be-judged-by-the-color-of-their-skin-but-by-the-content-of-martin-luther-king-jr-102475 1984-movie-confess_a

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

‘The first-move advantage in chess is the inherent advantage of the player (White) who makes the first move in chess. Chess players and theorists generally agree that White begins the game with some advantage. Since 1851, compiled statistics support this view; White consistently wins slightly more often than Black, usually scoring between 52 and 56 percent. White’s winning percentage[1] is about the same for tournament games between humans and games between computers. However, White’s advantage is less significant in blitz games and games between novices.’


If you play chess, (even infrequently and badly), you come to recognise that certain sequences of moves appear again and again. Together these repeated sequences form a lexicon of chess strategy.


Among inexperienced players the outcome of a game is often decided by a disconcertingly small number of opening moves. Developing players learn that a central objective in opening is to prevent the game being over before it has even really begun.


To achieve the space and time to develop position, a player can use the tactic of offering an exchange which can alter the focus and tempo of a game. It is not unusual to see an early sequence where players effectively swap out a number of pieces.


The advantage of exchanging is that it clarifies where players stand. But often the price you pay for simplification and consolidation is to sacrifice the chance for a quick win.


There is such an exchange of pieces taking place now in the American game. Over the past week or so we have seen the Rachel Dolezal incident playing out, quickly followed by the Charleston church massacre.


Some might claim there is no comparison; might even be offended by any attempt to make one. They might claim that the Dolezal case is relatively trivial and the Charleston massacre deadly serious. But the real importance of each event cannot be understood in isolation. Both are part of a bigger, more complex contest. Understanding the nature of that contest and giving it a name is what Whiteism is about.


Rachel Dolezal represents a white pawn that advanced largely unnoticed on the left flank, right up into Black lines. It is fairly obvious even to a novice that this solitary piece is now isolated with little or no support or protection.


Since retreat is impossible, the Dolezal pawn is stymied and waiting to be taken at the convenience of Black..so why has she not been taken already? Because she represents both opportunity and threat for Black.


Whiteism is the ideological belief that:


  1. White people have something in common (This is nothing to do with white supremacy)
  2. White people are necessarily different from non-Whites (Blacks)


For Whiteists, (whether White or Black!), it cannot be that Rachel Dolezal is justified in self identifying as black for the above reasons. But modern day America is divided between Whiteism and Post Whiteism.


Whiteism was the framework within which it was argued that post WWII the belief in White intellectual supremacy should be transformed into belief in White moral supremacy.


Germanic culture was totally discredited by the Second Germanic War. To be rehabilitated, it had to be placed on probation; nurtured, controlled and chaperoned by global white culture, in exactly the same way that the German nation was placed on probation and chaperoned by Saxons in the West and the Soviets in the East. Whites as a whole, would act as guard and guarantor of Germans within the world community.


This meant that in the post war period Anglo Saxons would seek to promote the idea that all whites, including Slavs should be seen as being committed to becoming more ‘civilised’ than any other group of people.


The movement for Black ‘equality’ in the USA comes out of this. Black equality is in essence a claim for white moral superiority. The moral justification for Welfarism is the corollary and counterpoint to Black equality.


If Blacks were to obtain political and economic equality, (or even superiority), through force that would negate white moral superiority. The successful expression of White moral superiority requires that Blacks don’t ever get anywhere entirely on their own merit.


The election of Barack Obama as President of America is cited as proof that America is now a ‘post racial’ nation – an achievement of white America. But can Obama really be legitimate as a Black president if not on his own merits? And if he could become President entirely on his own merits, does that mean that Whites were effectively defeated by a superior force?


It is clear something has to give: Black ability or White morality.


If we are to accept the Martin Luther King dictum that people should be judged on character (whatever that is supposed to be), and not skin colour then the persona adopted by Rachel Dolezal is entirely valid and so are her actions.


But then the entire structure of racism, of black disadvantage and white reparation is blown away.


On the other hand, if Rachel Dolezal’s racial persona is illegitimate then Martin Luther Kings dictum is obviously wrong- we must judge personal actions, at least in part, on the colour of skin. In other words Rachel Dolezal personifies Martin Luther Kings dictum reductio ad absurdum.


It’s little wonder Black is not sure whether to take the Rachel Dolezal pawn…


While Black dallied over Rachel Dolezal, it was swiftly superseded by events on the right flank where Black suffered unexpected loss. This has given rise to a resurgence of an old spat about the rules of the game, specifically what specific pieces are allowed to do, (otherwise known as the Second amendment right to bear arms).


Again, this represents both opportunity and threat for Black.


To characterise Dylann Roof as terrorist and not lunatic, that is to say that his was a political act and not a random, meaningless one, has on the surface obvious advantages for Black. It is much easier to deny arms to ‘enemy combatants’ than American citizens. And if White supremacist violence can be used to bell the right libertarian cat, that would be a substantial strategic advance for Black.


But this means characterising Roof’s actions as both a coherent and meaningful  political act. And this is a high risk thing to do.


At the time that Anders Brevik attacked a group of Norwegian elite kids I argued that this was a significant political event rather than random meaningless act as many tried to portray it.


The standard ‘progressive’ interpretation of the shooting was that Breviks act would show the meaningless madness behind all race hate words and actions and cause repulsion among mainstream society.


Is that what has happened in Scandinavian politics? Hardly. Since the shooting there have been systematic and substantial moves to the right, rolling back the social democratic ‘anti racist’ alliance that has ruled across Scandinavia since the end of WWII. If left leaning Scandinavians hoped that the Anders Brevik incident would corral the populace back into the pro-immigration fold, they have been sadly disappointed.


The same is true in America. If Black chooses to make Dylann Roof an example of a serious anti Black movement, the danger is he might turn out to be one.


So, can this two part exchange sequence tell us anything about the way this particular match in the American game is going?


I think so.


White has made a rushed, undisciplined opening. There is clearly a lack of coherence in the way that White pieces are occupying the board. It seems that in this particular game White is eager to engage with Black but lacks a clear strategy for doing so. I think this betrays a lack of confidence and a confusion about what Black strategy and tactics are going to be.


The Black response so far indicates that it lacks confidence too, it is clearly more hesitant to act than White. It seems that Black is having difficulty calculating the possible consequences of its actions.


Both Dolazel and Roof are left hanging by Black who seems more intent on haggling about the rules than making a forceful response. This shows that Black does not want to make a move until it can negotiate some change in the rules…


You might think it hard hearted, even cynical, to depict events such as these in terms of a game, but my purpose is to point to an important truth. Of course the game of chess is a metaphor. This is not to say it has no meaning. The game is fascinating because it represents a real clash of forces. There is a real prize for the victor and a real price to be paid for losing.


So what is the important truth I want to tell?


That in racial terms Black and White are metaphors.


So what actually is ‘White’? What does ‘White’ actually represent?


White represents first move advantage. White is the side that moved first.White came before black. White was defined before Black was defined. Making this definition IS the White identity. Making this definition was the first move in the game.


The first move in the game was taken before the game even began. That is how the player who took White has won up until now.


So who is the real player moving the White pieces?

And who is the real player moving the Black pieces?


Understand this and you understand Whiteism.


Last point: Not only is White the one who traditionally starts the game, White traditionally has the privilege of ending it. White gets the last move. If I was playing with the Black pieces I would want to think about that very carefully before I decided to argue for minor rule changes. I might want to think carefully about whether I want to go on with the game……


“He examined the chess problem and set out the pieces. It was a tricky ending, involving a couple of knights.
‘White to play and mate in two moves.’
Winston looked up at the portrait of Big Brother. White always mates, he thought with a sort of cloudy mysticism. Always, without exception, it is so arranged. In no chess problem since the beginning of the world has black ever won. Did it not symbolize the eternal, unvarying triumph of Good over Evil? The huge face gazed back at him, full of calm power. White always mates.”


George Orwell ‘1984’


update23 June 2015


Moral Hazzard Or National Lampoons Animal House or Chicago Rules (not) Or This is a Live Fire Exercise

“Theme From The Dukes Of Hazzard (Good Ol’ Boys)”

Just’a good ol’ boys
Never meanin’ no harm.
Beats all you never saw
Been in trouble with the law
Since the day they was born

Staightnin’ the curves
Flatnin the hills
Someday the mountain might get ’em
But the law never will

Makin’ their way
The only way they know how
That’s just a little bit more
Than the law will allow.

Makin’ their way
The only way they know how
That’s just a little bit more
Than the law will allow.

I’m a good ol’ boy
You know my momma loves me
But she don’t understand
They keep a showin my hands and not my face on TV


I wrote that Black doesn’t want to make a move until it can get a little clarification on the rules of the game. Well, it seems like the clarification has come through.

The kids at Yankee Frat House have decided to launch a daring raid on the flag that flies on top of  Charleston House.  They say: ‘We can be in and out before they even know what has happened! What a gas! That’ll teach ’em to mess with Yankee Fraternity..

‘Sort of like one of those army training exercises  where you win by seizing the enemy’s flag. You know, like a war, but not really.’

Might be as well to go careful with this cultural prank though, since we haven’t actually managed to get all the guns away from those rednecks yet…..

The Democratic Lower Bound


The famous sentiment that ‘Anyone Can Be President of America! ‘ is often cited both as justification and positive evidence of the superiority of ‘The American Way’. It stands as a pillar supporting the arch that proclaims the openness of American society.


Of course, the assertion that anyone can be President is not universally accepted. Oppositional voices contend that anyone can’t be president-quite the reverse. To get anywhere in the world of American politics you need the right connections, political and financial. These voices argue that there is an establishment in America and the Bush and Clinton dynasties illustrate this point.


But although they dispute the actuality, most of the naysayers generally endorse the underlying principle; that it is a good thing that anyone can be President. Perhaps we should think about this a little more closely. If anyone potentially can be President of America, does it follow that anything potentially can be law in America?


You can immediately see that this is not quite so attractive a proposition. Complete freedom to make law as one sees fit is dangerous; not a power that you want to give away to any individual no matter who it is (or isn’t). And you don’t actually know what a President is going to do with power until they actually start doing it. And by then its too late to do anything about it….


Commitment to a moral or even practical set of principles is not required to become President. It is entirely possible that the man you elect might sell the farm out from under you and there is not a lot you can do about it once you have cast your ballot. In light of this it might start to seem that the claim that anyone can be president is more sinister threat than positive affirmation.


‘But’, I hear you say, ‘isn’t that where ‘democratic checks and balances’ come in?’ Except that they don’t really seem to, do they? Certainly not lately. Certainly not in respect of the Credit Crunch and its aftermath. The evidence suggests that   ‘checks and balances’ such as they are can be got around if you know the system well enough.


Most of the financial regulations enacted in the aftermath of the Credit Crunch have been stalled or effectively abandoned. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that for the ‘financial community’ it is more or less business as usual. There is a parallel with the Iraq war and the resulting ongoing devastation and collapse. Nobody has been brought to book for an invasion presaged on weapons of mass destruction that were never there.


Because ultimately ‘checks and balances’ depend upon the people doing the checking and balancing. Which in America would be the two houses of the legislature. But if anyone can be President then anyone can be a Senator. A horrible structural weakness within the system is laid bare. You only need to find a couple of hundred arseholes in a population of over three hundred million and you have a problem….you actually only have to find a majority of a couple of hundred arseholes; after all it’s a democracy.


‘But bad legislation can be overturned’, you will counter. The people will elect an oppositional counter force and bring the system back to centre.


So how much of the bad stuff in the past three or four decades has actually been overturned? Glass Steagal financial regulation was repealed in favour of the rich and powerful but I’m not sure there has been a lot of movement the other way. How much anti trades union legislation has been overturned in Britain or America or anywhere in the Saxon Axis? To what extent have the basic rights of ordinary people been restored or improved over the past decades?


The legislated landscape is massively changed from only a couple of decades ago. If the system were really self correcting towards the centre, shouldn’t it tend to remain broadly the same over time?


OK you say, I concede these broad points but the final safeguard in America is The Constitution and the Bill Of Rights. Here at least we are on solid ground. These are fixed principle driven rules beyond which no elected official can go.


But any fixed set of rules will inevitably be challenged by circumstance. In the centuries since the Constitution was created the identities and values of the men who wrote it have become increasingly marginalised. This change is expressed positively in the many amendments to the constitution and negatively in the effective abandonment of the basic principles that guided the constitution. Contemporary America is not the country the Constitution was written for.


Truth to tell, all of the above is something of a misdirection a la ‘The Usual Suspects’. The details of any western system are irrelevant. The real point is: When it comes down to it, in a modern democracy there is no penalty for governing badly, and there cannot be, or else it is no longer democracy as we have understood the term.


We can call this the Democratic Lower Bound. It operates like the interest rate lower bound. It is the structural limit beyond which the system as it is presently constituted cannot go.


Individual politicians may be liable for ‘criminal’ activity but not for incompetent or even malevolent actions carried out in the process of governing. The penalty for incompetence malevolence is that you are voted out next time around, (maybe), with a nice pension of course. But you and the organisation you represent are free to carry on doing what you did. ‘Elector Beware’ is the principle behind modern market democracy as ‘Buyer Beware’ is the principle behind the marketplace.


From Vietnam through financialisation and on into Iraq, no elected official has ever got into any serious trouble no matter how terrible the crimes they committed at home or abroad. Nor will they ever. Nor can they be allowed to. Democracy offers the same protection to its politicians that the marketplace affords to investors in corporations – limited liability


Nevertheless even this unfortunate state of affairs is not necessarily fatal to the reasonable functioning of the system- if the political class exercises a certain amount of self control. If an elite has a sense of national self preservation the modern democratic system can still work reasonably well.


But in the light of international treaties such as TTP and the European trade agreement we can say that adding Globalisation to the democratic lower bound brings what is the fatal weakness in the system to the fore.


Legislatures across the developed world are entering into permanent agreements that are deliberately engineered to be beyond the scope of national parliaments. The effect is of smuggling the economic and political wealth of the nation state out one piece at a time. Transnational elites are clandestinely stripping the nation state bare. And there is no effective legal response built into the system for this. Once sovereign treaties are signed there is no legal way to unilaterally repudiate them. The Greek people are finding this out to their cost.


I have argued in previous pieces that Monetarism is the end of economics and the consequent emergence of cultural constituencies. This means one culturally self defined group ruling over another, or number of others.


It is becoming increasingly apparent that political elites across the developed world are themselves constituted as a separate cultural constituency. And since it is the entire political class we are talking about, you can’t ever hope to vote yourself out of this dead end, even without the system limitations I outline above. Whoever you vote for, Globalists get in.


Given the democracy limitations that I outlined above those who lose out on the new electoral deals can have no effective recourse other than separation, which is coming to mean the carve-up of national territories between the people and the politicians.


So the rise of Monetarism and cultural constituencies necessarily means every nation state will in the end become a failed state.


A capital city ruled by a Globalist cultural constituency surrounded by a hinterland one or more cultural constituencies of outsiders.


This is what PODEMOS in Spain and SYRIZA in Greece and even the SNP in Britain really mean. That the national states they are nominally part of are becoming failed states. And this eventuality has been foreseen and prepared for.


Aha! Now I can hear you say: ‘This last statement is surely over the top – You had me going for a minute there, but this is bordering on conspiracy theory; world government and so on ‘


But doesn’t this accurately describe what we can see happening and without relying on a worldwide conspiracy theory?


My argument is that when nation states become constrained by a critical number of international treaties, modern national democracy simply cannot be sustained. By their sheer number and scope these international agreements undermine the function of nation states and their national elites. The international ‘free market’ no longer has the room to operate once a critical number of international treaties have been entered into. Capitalist competition has no room to exist. What then, will take its place?


If there is no regulated economic competition between nation states, there will follow unregulated cultural competition within states. Greece is a perfect example of this.


Greece no longer has the means for regulated economic competition with other nation states. It no longer has its own sovereign economy; for example, it cannot devalue which is a ‘traditional’ means of regulating its own international trade competitiveness. As a consequence, Greece is now divided between Globalists and the cultural constituency of SYRIZA.


In Greece there will have to be another election in short order. And the EU political elite will actively try to influence the outcome of this election as a political player.


Ukraine is another more extreme case in point. It is precisely because Ukraine as a nation was so constrained by the competing demands of the European and Russian blocs, that it was unable to operate as a separate economic entity. It is not a co-incidence that the conflict in Ukraine was sparked by disagreement over which of two international treaties Ukraine should sign.




The Austerity Delusion Paul Krugman Guardian April 29 2016


‘It is rare, in the history of economic thought, for debates to get resolved this decisively. The austerian ideology that dominated elite discourse five years ago has collapsed, to the point where hardly anyone still believes it. Hardly anyone, that is, except the coalition that still rules Britain – and most of the British media’.


In the aftermath of a shock Conservative general election victory there is inevitable fall out across the mainstream left and nowhere more so than in the Labour Party camp.


I argue that ‘classical’ economics has become increasingly irrelevant in the new world. Comprehensive state control of the economy means that there is no economics now; only politics –and that is one party politics.


Since there is no way to manifest and resolve differences through economics, culture is re-emerging as the defining pivot around which social conflict is based. With this in mind I argued that the Conservative victory was essentially the result of playing to a cultural constituency and not any economic rationale.


Nevertheless, despite the widespread admission among the left that culture is raising what they regard as its ugly head, many on the ‘left’ are not willing to kiss goodbye to old fashioned economics just yet.


Two camps are emerging to contest leadership of the English opposition in the aftermath of the elections. In the blue corner we have ‘Blairism’ and in the red corner ‘Keynesianism’ is being dusted off for a re-run against austerity.


The nominal question being asked is: Which of these two economics can best offer an alternative to the program of the Conservatives over the next five years?


Blairism was concocted as a replacement for the Keynesianism that had become   discredited as a result of 1970’s industrial production collapse. Tony Blair famously signalled the end of independent political or economic perspective when he abandoned the Labour Party commitment to Clause 4 and wealth redistribution. Whatever opposition in Britain would be from now on, it would not be based on alternative political economy.


Fast forward twenty years and post Credit Crunch, Blairism itself was utterly discredited. The gap between rhetoric and reality encapsulated in an infamous speech to the City of London in which Chancellor Gordon Brown opined that the world was witnessing the emergence of a ‘Golden Age of Banking’. Then came, well you know.


Following a leadership election Ed Milliband appeared waving the banner of ‘Not Blairism’. That’s not rhetoric on my part – ‘Not Blairism’ is literally what Miliband said he was campaigning under! And now that ‘Not Blairism’ has been roundly defeated there seems to be nowhere left for the ‘left’ to go.


Except perhaps back to Keynesianism, or Neo Keynesianism anyway.


Which brings us to Paul Krugman and his lengthy Guardian piece: ‘The Austerity Delusion’


Written shortly before the British election, it captures the essence of the Neo Keynesian argument; there was no need for Austerity and no economic justification for it. More surprisingly, Krugman then argues that it is only in Britain that a residual attachment to austerity remains,


‘I don’t know how many Britons realise the extent to which their economic debate has diverged from the rest of the western world – the extent to which the UK seems stuck on obsessions that have been mainly laughed out of the discourse elsewhere’.


Even a superficial survey of developed economies would quickly show that this is wishful thinking. All across the globe there is a sustained attack on levels of government spending on social programs. This is Austerity by any definition. The difference between those countries that have severe Austerity and those that don’t is the willingness on the part of the broad population to oppose such attacks and its ability to do so. Austerity is not the consequence of any intellectual difference on the part of politicians and economists.


Krugman argues that the drive for Austerity is motivated by business and media interests that are ideologically committed to ending the welfare state and which used the Credit Crunch as a pretext for doing so. This is essentially a variation on the ‘Shock Doctrine’ analysis popularised by Naomi Klein and this observation is surely basically right.


From this position Krugman continues that Austerity is essentially an optional choice   and that politicians could go another way should they decide to. The Keynesian alternative of deficit borrowing and spending can be used to refloat the economy or at least offset the effects of cyclic crisis. He argues this has happened to some extent elsewhere. He is at a loss to explain why it hasn’t happened in Britain.


‘Is there some good reason why deficit obsession should still rule in Britain, even as it fades away everywhere else? No. This country is not different.’


And since Krugman cannot think of a good reason why there should be Austerity, he is persuaded to think that maybe there is no Austerity, at least not any more:


‘The key point to understand about fiscal policy under Cameron and Osborne is that British austerity, while very real and quite severe, was mostly imposed during the coalition’s first two years in power’


‘Given the fact that the coalition essentially stopped imposing new austerity measures after its first two years, there’s nothing at all surprising about seeing a revival of economic growth in 2013’.


So British polity is labouring under the grip of an ideology – except that it isn’t !?!


Krugman readily understands that his analysis will require some clarification:


‘By this point, some readers will nonetheless be shaking their heads and declaring, “But the economy is booming, and you said that couldn’t happen under austerity.” But Keynesian logic says that a one-time tightening of fiscal policy will produce a one-time hit to the economy, not a permanent reduction in the growth rate. A return to growth after austerity has been put on hold is not at all surprising’.


‘Keynesian logic’ says that permanently lowering wages and benefits for the working population will not permanently lower their purchasing power and affect demand in the broader economy?


How does that work then?


No answer I am afraid, because Paul Krugman has moved onto more important matters. Not only is there not really any Austerity but it turns out that the media that Krugman said helped introduce Austerity never really supported it anyway:


‘…what’s with sophisticated media outlets such as the FT seeming to endorse this crude fallacy? Well, if you actually read that 2013 leader and many similar pieces, you discover that they are very carefully worded. The FT never said outright that the economic case for austerity had been vindicated. It only declared that Osborne had won the political battle, because the general public doesn’t understand all this business about front-loaded policies, or for that matter the difference between levels and growth rates. One might have expected the press to seek to remedy such confusions, rather than amplify them. But apparently not.’


And if you find Krugmans account of the activities of ‘sophisticated’ media outlets such as the FT confusing, wait until he turns to the‘left’:


It has been astonishing, from a US perspective, to witness the limpness of Labour’s response to the austerity push. Britain’s opposition has been amazingly willing to accept claims that budget deficits are the biggest economic issue facing the nation, and has made hardly any effort to challenge the extremely dubious proposition that fiscal policy under Blair and Brown was deeply irresponsible – or even the nonsensical proposition that this supposed fiscal irresponsibility caused the crisis of 2008-2009.


And not only the British labour party but just about everybody else East of New York:

‘… the whole European centre-left seems stuck in a kind of reflexive cringe, unable to stand up for its own ideas. In this respect Britain seems much closer to Europe than it is to America.’


It almost beggars belief that Krugman is seriously trying to imply that Democrats under Obama have offered ANY serious alternative to Austerity and that this response can be compared favourably with anywhere else in the world. And yet here we are.


How can Krugman have drifted so far from reality? The answer lies in his ‘Neo’ Keynesianism.


How does Neo Keynesianism differ from classic Keynesianism? Let’s look at Krugmans characterisation of his opponents as ‘Austerians’; obviously a play on Austrians


‘People holding these beliefs came to be widely known in economic circles as “austerians” – a term coined by the economist Rob Parenteau’


Which is something of a revelation, at least to me. I certainly had never heard of ‘Austerians’ before I read this article; but then again, I don’t move in ‘economic circles’.


Krugman is obviously reluctant to name his opponents as Monetarists, which is what they are. What could be the reason for his coyness?


Democrats in the USA and the Labour Party in Britain both accepted the basic principles of Monetarism over twenty years ago- ‘Blairism’ in Britain and ‘Clintonism’ in the USA. Krugman has no interest in discussing this history because if did, he would have to criticise the so called ‘left’ as much as the so-called ‘right’- if he was really a Keynesian, that is. And whatever else he is, Krugman is essentially a party man.


Outside of ‘economic circles’ the whole world knows that Labour is up to its neck in the Monetarist project even if Krugman is reluctant to come right out and admit it. Instead the truth is obliquely referred to by Krugman when he observes that :


‘ the crisis occurred on Labour’s watch; American liberals should count themselves fortunate that Lehman Brothers didn’t fall a year later, with Democrats holding the White House’


This is breathtaking, absolutely astounding, cynicism. Krugman is hanging the pretence that Democrats can lay claim to anti Monetarist Keynesianism on the fact that they weren’t actually caught with their paws in the Monetarist cookie jar in 2008!

Let’s recap;


  1. The economy is now controlled by the state. This is Monetarism.
  2. There is no possibility of economic conflict as we have previously understood it. Now conflict is cultural.
  3. Blairism expressed this truth (see my last post)
  4. But Blairism was discredited by the Credit Crunch
  5. Now Labour needs an alternative to Blairism. The remains of the ‘left’ hope it can be built on Keynesianism.
  6. But this can’t happen because no genuine Keynesian could support a Monetarist Labour/Democrat party. So now we have got Neo Keynesians, which are Keynesians that accept Monetarism.
  7. Neo Keynesians argue that so long as we don’t actually get caught directly implementing Monetarist policies, we can perhaps convince people that we are Keynesians (sort of).
  8. If we do this we can pretend that there is some kind of economic alternative.
  9. Which implies that some kind of economic debate is possible.
  10. Which means that the debate does not necessarily have to come down to culture.
  11. Because if it does, we are well and truly f*cked.



That more or less covers everything. Oh, except for:


Putting all the cynical narrow political interests of ‘economists’ like Krugman aside, would it be possible to actually implement some kind of Keynesian alternative to Monetarism?


Regretfully, the answer is no.


As it develops Capitalism increasingly makes stuff that is increasingly useless by processes that are increasingly inefficient and chaotic.


But not to worry, Capitalism has an app for that.

It is called economic collapse brand name ‘Creative Destruction’.


All the bad stuff is wiped away and we can all start again. Which is fair enough. Except that when ‘Creative Destruction’ was first cited as a good idea, there were a lot less people who lived in a much more resilient and sustainable way.


In USA for example, the European population lived in relatively dispersed settlements with reasonable access to necessities such as food and water. When there was the inevitable economic crisis and clear out in the late C19th, it could be weathered by the population without much government interference.


But by the early C20th, urbanisation and the concentration of populations meant that it was not possible to have a Capitalist clear out without catastrophic social consequences and unrest. So the state had to get involved.


Enter Keynesianism.


The basic idea of Keynesianism was to use government spending to buy up all the useless inefficiently made stuff that capitalism has produced and so avoid the catastrophic social consequences and unrest that would come from the inevitable clear out we would otherwise have to go through.


And this worked pretty well for a bit until we were just about surrounded by all the useless crap that had been made and we were running out of money to pay for more…


Enter Monetarism.


The basic idea is that the state cannot afford to pay to buy all the useless stuff that is being produced, since in theory the amount of useless stuff is limitless.


So the state is going to have to control what is being produced. But the state will try to keep this control to a minimum.


And this worked reasonably well until the turn of the century when the state found itself having to interfere more and more to try to control what was produced and what was done with the stuff once it had been produced.


And this took us finally to the Credit Crunch in 2008. And with Q.E. now the state is all in.


So contrary to what the Neo Con/Neo Liberal whatever say about the Neo Keynesian whatever, a return to Keynesianism would actually represent a step backward from the existing level of state interference in the economy!


Its Monetarism and Cultural Constituencies from here on.