Five Questions And Five Answers.

donkip

Question 1: What Just Happened?

 

Cultural constituencies exploded onto the political scene is what just happened.

 

I have described cultural constituencies as sub national cultural/moral formations produced by the end of the market economy. I foresaw that as the planned Free Marxet economy became ever more dominant, cultural constituencies would in turn dominate the political sphere-a process that is most advanced in the Saxon Axis. This has proved to be the case in both the Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump as President of the USA.

 

Now the argument has increasingly become about how these two events are linked. And if they are in turn somehow also linked to other anti-Globalisation/pro-nationalist movements in France and Italy etc. The outcome of this debate will determine how politics is conducted and understood for years to come.

 

As a matter of note I foresaw the appearance and rise of transnational cultural parties such as the Sax Pistols/Saxon Nationalists in a post that appeared in ‘Crackernomics’ four years ago. I even managed to predict when these organisations would appear on the political stage with an accuracy of about six months!

 

Now we hear that Donald Trump openly ‘suggested’ to the British government that Nigel Farrage should be appointed as British ambassador to the USA.  An amazingly blatant example of Saxon nationalists on both sides of the Atlantic openly building diplomatic relations between two parts of the Sax Pistols international party within the Saxon Axis!

 

While I have been busy describing cultural constituencies, parts of the so-called liberal left are desperately trying to reconstruct the argument that the emergence of what they refer to as ‘white nationalism’ is the product of the economically ‘left behind’. This is not too hard to understand as a response by the besieged ‘left’. Without the economic argument you can’t have classes and without classes you can’t have the left. So this is a ‘do or die’ ideological battle.

 

At the same time the liberal right are going all out to cast their approach as economic nationalism -as opposed to the ‘white’ kind of course. They understand that they have a tiger by the tail in the form of the ‘alt right’ and other disaffected elements. If they were to allow a race narrative to become established on either or both sides, it would dog the entire Trump presidency. It has become ever more clear that Trump only intends to use the Sax Pistols as a stage army if he can and now the Republican establishment wants to do the same.

 

But both Saxon progressives and neo cons reserve their special venom for any arguments that challenge their narrative on the root cause of what has happened. They refer to this alternative understanding disparagingly as ‘identity politics’ or ‘cultural Marxism’. Why is it so important to attack identity politics on both sides of the Saxon left and right?

 

Because if a punter within the Saxon Axis can decide about his or her own identity he or she might decide wrong. Might decide that he or she is not a ‘worker’ or a ‘capitalist’ or a ‘loyal American’. And we can’t have that, can we? And if you start thinking about your own identity you also might start thinking about German identities and we DEFINITELY can’t have that.

 

Is That Even A Thing?

 
So it seems that we have lots of different kinds of nationalism floating about. We have Anglo Saxon nationalism and we have white nationalism and we have economic nationalism.

 

Can there be such a thing as ‘white nationalism’?

 

No, because the Germanic nation state subsumes concepts such as ‘whiteness’ and  ‘blackness’. That is the whole point of the Germanic nation state- to subsume ethnic cultural identity underneath an economic identity.

 

But the concept of White Nationalism points towards a fundamental dynamic within Whiteism. The instability arises from whether ‘Whiteness’ is part of ‘Germanness’ or ‘Germanness’ is part of ‘Whiteness’. The desire to impose Germanic whiteness on all whites is fundamental to understanding the Germanic cult of Capitalism and the Germanic cult of Socialism.

 

So can there be such a as economic nationalism? Well yes, but only if you can figure out which is most beneficial: Nation subordinated to economy or economy subordinated to nation. No-one has managed to produce a consistent and stable relationship between the two for over two hundred years.

 

So can there be such a thing as Anglo Saxon nationalism? – after all Anglo Saxon is a sub national grouping as well isn’t it? I’ll get on to this in a moment.

 

 

Question 2: What Is Going To Happen Next?

 

After the election the Democrats/Strangeloves have lost access to all the main bases of political power in the American system. They have lost the Senate, they have lost the House and they have obviously lost the Presidency. And this is not the full extent of the rout.

 

Forthcoming appointments to the Supreme Court and an ongoing round of elections over the next couple of years will most likely the result in the further decimation of a divided and confused Democratic party. So what will the Democrats do in these difficult circumstances?

 

The main priority will be to attempt to exacerbate differences within the mainstream Republican/Saxon Nationalist alliance that has formed. And there are clear differences between the priorities of the corporate Republican establishment and Saxon nationalist cultural constituencies.(see above).

 

Chumponomics

 

Already Trump rhetoric on New deal government spending, immigration controls etc are coming under a certain amount of pressure. This can only intensify over the coming months. The Democrats hope is that this will result in a wave of disillusion that will isolate Trump and make his political agenda ever more difficult to enact. So you can guarantee that the liberal media will play up these divisions every chance it gets. In particular it will focus on Trump the person because Trump does not represent an ideology, he is like all politicians now, Culturally Specific.

 

Now We Can Clearly See That Culture Wars Are Media Wars

 

The only power base that the Strangeloves have left intact is in the mainstream media. So this is where they will base their attack from. At the same time Trump has his base in the alt media. So it is already pretty clear that this will be a battle of media forms.

 

In July of 2015 I predicted this outcome exactly and explained how control of the media was fundamental to the new political system based on cultural constituencies (‘Money Where Mouth Is’). In passing, note that Virgin mogul Dickie Branson has said he will bankroll a second Brexit referendum to overturn the result. Cue calls for a boycott of all Virgin product by Brexiteers. This is the face of politics in the future.

 

As it becomes evidently more difficult to undertake the kind of economic reform that Trump has promised, he will be forced to try to find ways to rally the troops. In order to do this he will be looking for a major cultural constituency issue that can coral his own constituency and clearly mark out the opposition. And this is where the significance of the designation ‘Strangelove’ as a cultural constituency is brought into the most intensely sharp focus. Because The Strangeloves are identified as a cultural constituency most significantly by their medicalisation of sexuality. This is a key concept in the coming years..

 

Since the end of the Second Germanic War, the Strangeloves have propagated the concept of social and sexual ‘freedom’ through the application of scientific management techniques. In particular this has included the popularization of abortion and mass contraception. There have been further developments in this field including state sponsored sexual organ mutilation designated as ‘ gender reassignment’.

 

Already we have seen that Trump says he intends to attack Roe v Wade -the defining legal case that established the limits of abortion access in America. But the same time Trump has made it clear that he does not intend to overturn same sex marriage. How can this apparent contradiction be explained?

 

Because abortion is characteristic of the medicalisation of sexuality but same-sex marriage is not. Abortion is indicative of the Strangelove medicalisation of sexuality in a way that same sex ‘marriage’ is not’. If Trump supporters start to get restive expect an attack on ‘gender reassignment’ as well as the already signaled attacks on abortion and contraception. These will be high profile media attacks.

 

Question 3:What Will The World Do?

 

It is clear that of all the global settlement in the aftermath of the second Germanic war it is Europe that will be most challenged by events that we have seen on folding over the past months.

 

Across the nations of Europe there is a question of whether nationalist parties will be able to take advantage of a seeming upturn in nationalist sentiment. Obama visited Angela Merkel to pass on the torch of multi culti democracy as one of the last acts of his presidency. Angela Merkel has confirmed that she will run for the Chancellor ship of Germany for a fourth time.

 

This will equal the longest run in government in modern history of Germany.  But it seems that Merkels reluctance to leave go of the reins of power is not motivated by any genuine desire to implement a programme but rather by a fear of what will come after if she doesn’t.

 

On the other hand for the moment at least, the world seems to be reacting to the election of Trump and Brext with a kind of guarded optimism. This might seem counter intuitive on the face of it, but it is entirely logical given the historical precedent.

 

Essentially, the understanding is that if the European Germans and the Saxon Germans are fighting each other, they are likely in the near future to leave everyone else in peace. In the long run however, they are likely to try to drag everyone else into it. The most aware of world leaders are aware of this fact and planning accordingly.

 

Question 4 : So What Does It All Mean Andy?

 

The key to understanding this phase of politics is the meaning of Nationalism and nationalist sentiment in the context of cultural constituencies. Most importantly of all, Cultural constituencies are sub national political formations, which means they cannot be characterised as nationalist in any meaningful way.

 

For example, the French nationalism of Marine Le Pen is actually a French cultural constituency. It is a sub national cultural grouping that seeks to promote a conception of a particular ethnic cultural group. It cannot assume the mantle of a French nation. Because the French nation is by definition made up of more than one ethnic group. That is what a nation is. that is what defines it in difference to an ethnic group.

 

We can now return to the question of Anglo Saxon nationalism. If the French ‘nationalism’ of the Front Nationale cannot exist, can the Saxon Nationalism of UKIP take power?. The answer is no. UKIP by definition cannot run Britain. The rise of the SNP is straightforward testament to this fact. As UKIP rises, other cultural constituencies will appear to confront it within any given designated geographical area.

 

So can the Saxon Nationalism behind Trumpism take power in the USA?

 

And the answer this time is YES.Because the USA- from Constitution to Bill Of Rights is an Anglo Saxon cultural construction. And Anglo Saxon nationalism can exist because the Anglo-Saxon national state does already exist. It is called America. Now the question is’ Will a non Germanic cultural constituency arise in America to challenge the Saxon nationalists. The answer must be yes. And it will provoke a venomous hatred from both Saxon left and right that you have not seen before.

 

It is possible to envisage a Periodic table of nationalism and culture. Where any given nation lies on the table in relation to the Germanic nation state will predict its degree of reactivity and instability in relation to cultural constituencies and the nation state.

 

I have described cultural constituencies as sub national cultural/moral formations produced by the end of the market economy. I foresaw that as the planned Free Marxet economy became ever more dominant, cultural constituencies would in turn dominate the political sphere

 

Right back at the beginning of the United States of Everywhere, over half a decade ago, I specifically said that the nature of the financial crisis and its resolution would depend upon one thing more than any other:

 

How much of the old world where the monetarists prepared to allow to return. That statement can be seen to be ever more true today than it was when it was written.

 

But the implications of what I had written then were not clear to me. I implied that in theory it would be possible to return to the pre-Monetarist state of affairs if everything were put back in place. But this is not the case. I have had to learn again the simple lesson that History is a one way street.

 

Cultural constituencies are created by the collapse of the market system. But as they come to exercise increasing influence over politics and economics they preclude the possibility of returning to that market system.

 

The ongoing mainstream economic debate is concerned with the effect of globalisation on those who are left behind – specifically the so-called ‘white working class’ in developed economies. It is widely argued on both left and right that this section of society has suffered more than any other the effects of globalisation, the credit crunch, and resulting austerity.

 

From this starting point the debate moves on to what concessions can be made to the white working class. How much of the pre-Monetarist world, the postwar settlement, can and should be allowed to return to developed economies.

 

On both the Trumpist style right and the Sanders style liberal left, there is a desire to see the world return to the 1950s with benevolent state intervention in the markets, a strong and comprehensive welfare state, the end of multiculturalism. But the question is: is this desirable and can it be achieved?

 

We return again to the central problem. The postwar settlement was founded on two primary considerations: One was concessions to the working class. The second was the rehabilitation of Germanic culture internationally through internationalism and multiculturalism. It had initially seemed that internationalism and multiculturalism had won the day. But that was before the ‘white working class backlash’.

 

Question 5: What Should I Do?

 

International media parties.

 

The political landscape will increasingly be dominated by international media parties. As the political party is to the economic constituency so the international media parties will be to the cultural constituency. Culture Wars Are Media Wars

 

Comments are closed

 

Because the international media parties is the battleground it follows that the comments section is the trenches. This is where territory is won and lost.

You will have noticed how the comments sections in more publications are being controlled or shut down altogether. There is no percentage in comments for the big mainstream media organisations. They want quality of readers who will spend money over quantity of readers who don’t. (see Money Where Mouth Is)

 

Invest Becomes Subscribe

 

Investment is a rational (or otherwise) decision to assign resources to one of a range of options. The investor is in the dominant position. Subscription as the name implies is placing oneself under the imprimatur of another. Placing oneself rather than any particular money or thing under another authority,

 

The bail in is a classic example of this. The bank is free to change the nature of the depositors relationship with the bank. A deposit is turned into a share if it suits the bank to do so and there is nothing the depositor can do about it.

 

The age of the investor is over.

The age of the subscriber is here.

The age of the browser is over.

The age of the speculator is over.

The age of the spectator is over.

The age of the public square is over.

The age of the chit chat is over.

The age of the money back guarantee is over.

 

If you have somewhere to be, you should think about being there as soon as possible.

 

And follow the United States of Everywhere. If you are one step behind me, you are two steps ahead of everybody else.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blink Nov 17 2016

200

Meet the new feudalism same as the old feudalism…

Just like after the Protestant reformation the German peasants get to stand back and watch the German Princes going for it…

Billionaire Green Activist Steyer Vows To Battle Trump, Says Money Not An Issue
Tom Steyer is putting together a strategy that will “engage voters and citizens to fight back.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steyer-vows-to-battle-trump_us_582c8307e4b099512f80135e

Ref: Cultural Constituencies, Money Where Mouth Is

There was a time I remember when every time I talked about Whiteism, Cultural Constituencies etc, I was howled down with cries of Culturist Marxism or MArxist Culturalism or whatever. How times change!

usearrow

Don’t be divided by Trump and Brexit: minorities are part of the working class

Identity politics have always been part of the struggle. Those who claim there’s a backlash only seek to drive us apart

 

Now that economic rationale has gone over the side, it seems that liberals are desperately seeking another kind….

 

Why did women vote for Trump? Because misogyny is not a male-only attribute

Women were not the only ones to vote against their own self-interest in the US elections, but our complicity is is at least explainable

Elsewhere, BBuisness as usual (Wonder if that’s really where Orwell got ‘BB’ Big Brother from? )

BBC World Service to broadcast news programmes in North Korea

Proposal is part of broadcaster’s plan to bring its services to 500 million people by its centenary in 2022

Borstal Breakout
Joe Jones
ytyt

 

The Trump and Clinton election has put into focus more than ever, the rift in the Anglo-Saxon Empire. Just like a football team needs a system and management to keep different characters from destroying the team, the Saxon empire has needed a system to keep apposing Saxons from infights and to ultimately preserve their role in the world. The system they have used is an economic one; the class system. Communities, politics, families were apparently orgainised in terms of money and class, not culture.

This system was not only organising the Saxon world, but was attempting to control the whole world under its pretence of universality. ‘Economic rationale’ claims not to care what race you are, what beliefs you hold, ‘This is for everyone’, it says. In fact it is best to not even mention race and culture in this system.

This is fine and has worked for a while, but the economic diologue which was organising the two sides and propping up a   framework has now disintergrated. After 2008 capitalism was fully discredited in the eyes of the elite and abandoned in . This is why Donald Trump is President. There was no longer ‘economic rationale’ to control the argument. The argument has gone where it was always going to end up, in the cultural sphere.

Donald and hilary are leaders of cultural constituencies. Both are Anglo saxon but they have different ideas of how to preserve their culture.

The key to this lies in the post second world war (or second Geramanic war) period. Before events like auschwitz, Germanic culture was pitched to the world as progress, but  concentration camps could not be pitched as progressive. Germanic culture had to be rehabillitated. Yjis is the story of the post war developed world.

Donald believes that the social political and PERSONAL culture he represents has served its post war sentence and should now walk out of history’s prison, ready to start a new life, no longer hiding. Hilary  sees herself as the prison warden whose job it is to keep the  inmates in the penetentiary for the good of the world. But she is not a warden, she is merely a ‘trusty’ -same uniform but with a little armband

 

BLINK

200

 

As predicted in Crackernomics three years ago, self diagnosis is arriving…

Sore throats to be tested by pharmacists instead of GPs under NHS move

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/12/sore-throat-test-pharmacists-instead-of-gps-under-nhs-move

As predicted in Crackernomics three years ago, non educational schooling is here..

Finland Will Become the First Country in the World to Get Rid of All School Subjects

Finland Will Become the First Country in the World to Get Rid of All School Subjects

usearrow

More Anglo Saxon nonsense:

Trade is the lifeblood of humanity. Closed doors lead to closed minds

tps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/13/america-trade-deals-donald-trump-nafta-isolationism

What are sanctions all about then?

Dreams Of My Founding Fathers?….

Joe Jones

 

America is the land of chancers.

Donald trump has just cemented a 4-year TV deal. But this time it is in the Whitehouse. He will approach this new venture just like he approaches the Apprentice, show biz. Here he is, ready to entertain.

 

He is not a politician; he is not even a capitalist, he is a cultural symbol.  It’s as simple as that. The Anglo-Saxons that voted for him didn’t truly believe he was going to deliver them from the mess America is in, they voted for him because he represents their culture, who they are.

 

Why do the Clinton side of the Anglo-Saxon establishment hate this so much?

 

Donald, by his very nature, and the nature of his support, is forcing the terms of the political argument to be spoken of in cultural terms.  This goes against a system that has been trying to dominate world thought for the past 300 years. German constructs like ‘Capitalism’ and the ‘Enlightenment’ have been used to spread German culture under a guise of universality. They are not universal, they don’t even really exist, they are just German dreams.

 

Profile: The Strangeloves Or Down And Out In London And Paris

5345475

 

I have been writing about the Sax Pistols and the Strangeloves; the two main competing Cultural Constituencies that dominate politics in the Saxon Axis. Last time I explained how the Sax Pistols were born out of the crisis of the 70’s and developed the radical outsider capitalist ideology that leads directly to Trumpism.

 

It seems that events have overtaken analysis. In the aftermath of the American Presidential election the Sax Pistols have seized the palace and the Strangeloves have fled to the alleys and the backstreets.

 

This profile has turned into something of an obituary even while being written. But it might not be wise to kiss off the Stangeloves just yet. Despite many crises in the years since the end of the Second World War they have proven to be both resilient and resourceful and it is doubtful that they are going to let 70 years of effort and planning go without a fight.

 

The Strangeloves came into existence as a social force on the NW Eurasian continent around 1946, virtually 30 years exactly before the Sax Pistols appeared in the Anglo Saxon world.

 

To be clear, the Strangeloves could not be regarded as a cultural constituency then, because the shreds of capitalist economics still hung on- albeit in a distorted form. The Strangeloves were the product of military and political dislocation just as the Sax Pistols were the product of economic dislocation three decades later. So both these groupings represent the mutation and change of capitalism -a  process of transformation from a nominally political and economic system into an expressly cultural one.

 

The role of the state in organising and controlling the markets exploded in the years after the Second Germanic War. This is hardly surprising since the state effectively usurped the market and created a full command economy during the conflict. The Strangeloves emerged during this process both as beneficiaries of the state run system and as an elite who saw its purpose to expand the system both to guarantee the survival of Germanic societies and for the benefit of the world in general.

 

This international element is essential to understanding the central role that immigration plays in Strangelove ideology. It is the repudiation of a German identity that identified both sides in the two Germanic Wars of the C20th. And in contrast, it is the repudiation of Strangelove internationalism, globalism and multi-culturalism that defines the Sax Pistols.

 

The Strangeloves get their peculiar historical cultural character as Germanic survivors of the C20th wars. Just like the Peter Sellars character they are of dubious morality and character but necessary to the system because of their ‘scientific’ knowledge and planning ability. Their defects can be overlooked in the cause of rebuilding Germanic society.

 

Both the Strangeloves and the remnants of the ancien regime displaced by war did not foresee was the extent of the success of the planned economy. In the two decades after the Second World War there was a massive redistribution of wealth throughout North Western Eurasia that led to not only to the rebuilding of post war national (sort of), economies but their development and expansion at a level unguessed at.

 

For example, the efficiencies generated by nationally insured collective health meant that there was a surplus of personal wealth to be spent by ordinary people on discretionary products. This process in health and other fields was the beginning of the so-called consumer society.

 

Ironically, though often regarded as the golden age of the ‘American dream’, American 50’s consumerism is based not on the free market but on it’s denouement- state control of markets. Just as in NW Eurasia, the North Americans succumbed to a state maintained semi cultural model.

 

The welfare state was a concession to indigenous Germanic populations and just as importantly, to the international community. This was  driven as much by a political cultural imperative as by an economic one. The reason for this is not hard to understand.

 

The elite of the western world had been discredited by their conduct in the first and second Germanic Wars, both through their incompetence and collaboration with fascistic regimes. So creating an effigy of the market system was always going to be primarily a cultural and political project. It follows that the Strangeloves who administered this system would have to be at least partially, a cultural grouping. Without this insight you cannot understand Keynesianism.

 

Keynesianism is culture and politics dressed up as economics.

 

The ubiquity and hegemony of welfare planning went unchallenged until the ‘crisis’ of the 1970s that gave rise to the Sax Pistols. But it is of the utmost importance to emphasise that this was NOT a general crisis but a crisis of the lower middle class and not primarily an economic crisis but in essence a political one.

 

The precise nature of the crisis was that lower middle class Anglo Saxons were losing their relatively privileged place in society compared to the classes below them. (see previous post on Sax Pistols.).

 

When the Sax Pistols had split from the consensus, the way was open for an alliance between the liberal elite of society, the very lowest levels of that self same society (including migrants refugees etc) and the Strangeloves. In other words we effectively had the new Saxon middle against both the top and the bottom or the centre against the edges.

 

And it was at this moment that the Strangeloves mutated fully from a economic cultural entity into a fully  cultural one- a Cultural Constituency

 

You can think of the Sax Pistols as a congealed lump of resentment like a bowling ball falling through the middle of society and the Strangeloves as being like a thousand layers of wet tissue paper surrounding it. The tissue paper can slow the bowling ball down, but can’t stop it. In the end it is going to break free.

 

Of course this image of the bowling ball and the toilet paper explains the reality of Brexit- England physically leaving the EU.

 

So what now of the Strangeloves?

 

I can’t help feeling they are a little like the Romans who were left behind when the Roman Empire fell- sort of here but not here as it were.

 

The EU is already thinking of offering them a kind of associate membership…..

Profile: The Sax Pistols

 

trump

 

The forthcoming American Presidential election and Brexit are both evidence of profound changes in the politics of the western world. The precise nature of these changes is increasingly the subject of commentary in the press and media.

The Huffington Post has suggested that Donald Trump supporters are best described as ‘white nationalists’. Others on the left have suggested that they are more accurately described as the economic victims of globalisation; the ‘left behind’.

On the other hand the social political grouping that has coalesced around the candidacy of Hillary Clinton and the Remain camp have been described as a liberal dictatorship and ‘Globalists’ by their opponents

It is obvious that highly partisan name calling offers no possibility of any real insight. It is necessary to describe the development of these rival blocs within the context of the past decades and the forces that have shaped them.

Note here that Michael Moore has exhibited a rare insight in expressly linking the white Anglo-Saxon residents of ‘fly over’ middle America with the Brexiteers of Middle England. Unfortunately, virtually no one else has had the breath of vision to try to understand the link between these two social phenomena.

I developed the idea of cultural constituencies as the product of the economic and social processes that have shaped developed economies since the 1970s. Cultural constituencies differ from, and are the successor to, the economic constituencies that are the basic building blocks of capitalist society for over one and a half centuries.

There are no longer any real ‘classes’ in the Anglo Saxon world. Instead I argue that there are now two dominant cultural constituencies which I call:

The Sax Pistols and

The Strangeloves

I will begin with an in-depth profile of The Sax Pistols

The Sax Pistols began to coalesce as a cultural constituency in the mid to late 1970s as a consequence of profound economic political and social shock that ran through the developed economies and especially the Anglo Saxon world from around 1968 onwards.

The Sax Pistols gained traction in a section of the discontented lower middle class who saw the establishment as having betrayed their interests in the ongoing economic crisis. This betrayal delegitimised the establishment in the eyes of The Sax Pistols.

The Sax Pistols saw themselves as being under attack not just from the corporate elites above but also from the poor beneath who were receiving social benefits in the post war settlement that The Sax Pistols were not entitled to but were forced to pay for through taxation.

What is truly significant here is that The Sax Pistols chose to blame the section of the middle class that was immediately above them for this state of affairs. The importance of this is that politics was transformed as a conflict between economic classes into a political and cultural conflict within what had previously been the middle class. 150 years of traditional classic class based economic conflict was over, to be replaced by interclass cultural conflict. It had to be a cultural struggle because there was no definable economic reason for an economic one since it was between members of what was nominally the same class.

The Anglo-Saxon middle class split into two opposing factions. The first was a state oriented welfare bureaucracy that existed to distribute welfare under the terms of the postwar settlement. This was the upper section of the middle class that enjoyed the support of the liberal establishment and a relatively secure existence as part of the state machine. The Strangeloves.

The second was the disenfranchised lower middle class that had no access to the welfare as producers and administrators and which as a consequence was forced to develop a radical reliance on the free market to sustain itself. These were the Sax Pistols.

I will deal with the state bureaucracy grouping (The Strangeloves), next time but for now I will focus on the radical capitalist section which forms the nucleus of The Sax Pistols cultural constituencies.

In intellectual terms that economic recession in the 70s gave birth to Monetarism and reconstructed radical cultural capitalism. These are broadly the component parts of Neo Conservatism and Neo Liberalism.

The fundamental political purpose of Monetarism centres on the destruction of the state as the controlling influence on the economy. Radical cultural capitalism centres on small scale capitalist production as a cultural enterprise as opposed to an economic one.

The majority of the small businesses that were created in the aftermath of the 1970s economic collapse and up to the present day have no economic rationale. They are not large enough or efficient enough to produce a surplus of wealth on a level that is commensurate with the amount of time and effort that goes into creating them.

The only reason they exist is as a cultural totem of capitalist production. They are primarily there to give an identity and a sense of purpose to the people who operate them.

This gives rise to the conception of the radical small-scale capitalist as an icon. Two classic examples of this form are Malcolm McLaren and Vivian Westwood’s ‘Sex’ shop that gave rise to the Sex Pistols and Richard Branson’s ‘Virgin’ corporate empire.

Notes the references to sex and sexuality in both Branson’s ‘Virgin’ corporation and McLaren’s ‘Sex’ shop. This is not a concept of sex that is in any way healthy or wholesome. The imagery is of a form of violent, perverted sex better understood as capitalist screwing. This is not co-incidental. As the Sax Pistols turned on the Establishment they also turned on whatever remaining vestiges of traditional Anglican morality they had and embraced full on Puritan anti human Germanic Protestantism.

Both ‘Sex’ and ‘Virgin’ began as small-scale radical insurgent hip capitalist enterprises. Of course since the 1970s they have been assimilated into the mainstream of capitalist culture economy to the extent that they are now corporate entities every bit as much as Tesco or McDonalds. The difference is they still retain some vestige of radical chic.(Hard to believe now, but in the aftermath of the Berlin Wall McDonalds had some of that radical capitalist vibe!).

Once Saxon society created the idea of the radical outsider cultural capitalist it is not hard to see how this lead directly to Donald Trump and the present presidential election.

The final significant twist in the development of the Sax Pistols came when it’s cultural ideology was adopted by a significant section of what had previously been known as the Anglo Saxon working class. This really was the final nail in the coffin of class politics as we had known it.

The section of the middle class that had been forced downwards by 1970’s recession found themselves in a position to make common cause with a section of the working class who found themselves in a parallel position for some of the same reasons.

‘Workers’ who had been made redundant from secure manufacturing and corporate jobs were also forced to adopt to a more freewheeling ‘wild west’ form of capitalism. The radical privatisation programs brought about through Monetarism offered this section of the ‘working class’ the chance to benefit it ways not previously open to them, so in some ways they experienced upheaval as a positive thing.

A section of the disenfranchised middle class together with a cohort of the working class form the backbone of the Sax Pistols cultural constituency in the Anglo Saxon world. It is these people who will be at the forefront of voting for Trump on Tuesday.

Never Mind The Ballots….

 strange 

 john

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?

 

729943

 

‘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’.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/26/michelle-obama-convention-speech-female-president

 

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.

 

POTUS Hair

 

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..