Rowan Williams pours scorn on David Cameron’s ‘big society’ | UK news | The Observer

Rowan Williams pours scorn on David Cameron’s ‘big society’ | UK news | The Observer.

What is the real purpose behind the Tory attacks on welfare and the poor? The answer was clear two years ago. This is what I wrote:


Ruthless People

 October  2010

Cameron Applies The Thumbscrews While Milliband Sticks His Fingers In His Ears.


You might remember the 1980’s film ‘Ruthless People’.


A housewife is kidnapped to extract a ransom from her husband. Only the husband won’t pay, no matter what the kidnappers threaten to do to his wife. This comedy is a grimly appropriate metaphor for the past five months of British politics.


Recent cuts in student grants, unemployment provision and housing benefit are part of massive reductions in entitlements for the majority of users of the welfare state.

Students have responded with a bit of a shindig at Tory campaign headquarters in London. Reaction in the rest of the country is muted so far, the unemployed and welfare recipients are less likely to make much of a fuss than students. Yet there is always the possibility of trouble breaking out if things get bad enough.


So you have to ask yourself, why the ConDem coalition, trying to claim the centre ground in politics, would risk the fall out from this right wing posturing?  The answer is that the coalition is trying to force Labour off the political centre ground and is prepared to risk much to do it.


The Coalition is desperate to establish credibility, by which I mean economic credibility. They are desperate to get the economy on some kind of acceptable growth track. If ConDem can do this then the entire Labour ‘alternative’ approach to dealing with the crisis is dead in the water and ConDem is established as the ongoing German style CDU for England.(see previous ‘Left Overs’)


However, if growth were to falter, the coalition will inevitably be characterised in the media and elsewhere, as a failed political and economic experiment. Labour can simply wait five years to be returned as the sensible mainstream centre of British politics.  Recognising this, the objective of ConDem is to make Labour pay as hefty a ransom as possible for standing on the sidelines, and that  is where the students and welfare recipients mentioned at the top of this piece come in. They are the hostages who will be used to extract the ransom from Labour.


The political calculation goes like this: Launch a hard line right wing attack on the payments and services essential to the Labour core vote. If the LP fails to speak out against spending cuts, it is weakened among its core activists, especially in the North, Wales and Scotland. If it does defend the ‘feckless poor’ from the left, it cuts itself off from Blair Tories it lost so resoundingly in the Southern constituencies, which leaves the way clear for a continued ConDem clean up of those votes.


In all classic kidnap thrillers, sooner or later the victim receives a telephone call demanding money for the return of a loved one. In the event that the victim of this extortion will not co-operate, the kidnapper usually applies some form of pain to the victim, whose screams, relayed down the telephone, produce the desired effect.


ConDem is applying painful pressure to the soft tissues of Labours constituency in the expectation that howls of agony brought on by the cuts will force Labour to speak out in defence of its ‘loved ones’ moving to the left and leaving the centre ground clear for the coalition to colonise.


Only so far, not a peep from Ed Milliband.


The first three or four months unfolding of the coalitions’ evil plan were taken up with Labours leadership challenge; a convenient excuse for hiding from the press. Since then we have seen backbench backbiting over the disgraced Phil Woolas, and Ed Milliband taking two weeks off to be with his new baby. What we do not see is any real attempt to speak out against the cuts.  


Labour, at this stage in the game is determined to hang on to the ‘centre ground’ and the possibility of re-emerging again as the CDU of British politics, despite the astounding incompetence of Gordon Brown in throwing away all the things that Bush’s Bitch achieved in this respect. The Labour Party leadership see their core constituency as nothing more than a stage army led into the line of fire in order for the leadership to achieve its goals.


The truth is that like the Danny DeVito husband character in the film, Milliband and Co. would not be overly upset if the entire remnants of the organised working class in Britain were done in by the coalition ans the bodies dumped in a river somewhere. He has made it crystal clear to the press, the country and Labour Party stooges everywhere, he has his own baby to look after. This is where his priorities lie.


In a new low in cynical manipulation, both ‘sides’ of mainstream politics see the poor as a powerless tide of human flotsam they can use for their own ends, in any way they see fit. Despite the possibility of some small-scale inconsequential disorder, no one sees the danger of any real fight back from the poor. After all, they way they see it, the politicians are the main characters; the Saxon Poor are only bit players in this film.


In ‘Ruthless People’, the betrayed housewife Bette Midler decides to wreak a terrible revenge on the treacherous husband who knew she was suffering but chose to do nothing about it. It is a shame that Bette Midler in the film has a lot more fight, zest and vitality than the Saxon poor in real life.



25 July 2010
White Flag: The Duopoly

USA/China détente played a pivotal role in ending the Cold War and baring the increasing tensions and contradictions in Whiteism. In effectively laying the ground for the integration of China into the Capitalist world trade system, USA set the stage for the collapse of the Soviet Union. Within a couple of decades USA and its allies would be celebrating their ‘victory’ in the Cold War.

However, this victory was won at the cost of the White Duopoly; the latest and last manifestation of Germanic cultural and political domination. Globalisation represents a defeat for the Duopoly and is the arena wherein the white elite develops a response to the consequences of this change.
The White Duopoly (a.k.a. ‘The Cold War’), offered the world a choice:
Support White Capitalism or Support White Communism
in other words pick a flavour of the WHITE CIVILISATION that all whites are supposed to have in common, (see Forget Racism…’).

There is not and can never be, none white capitalism or non-white communism; they cannot be separated from Whiteism; they are simply extensions of Whiteism. This is not to say that non-white countries cannot adopt one of these ideologies to a greater or lesser extent. It means that in adopting one or the other of these ‘flavours’ of Whiteism such countries are brought under the jurisdiction of Whiteism as a whole. This applies equally to non-Germanic whites as well as the Slave Nations.

So long as there was a White Duopoly on ‘civilisation’, all whites were winners, since there was no opening for a non-white system of thought to challenge the white civilisation framework. The Cold War was managed in practical terms for just this purpose and historical evidence clearly supports this. The 1950,s and 60’s which were the apotheosis of The Duopoly and Whiteism were clearly the best time for ‘middle class/white Americans’, domestic living standards have declined precipitously in tandem with America’s international standing ever since the fall of White Duopoly.

It is this framework of White Duopoly that has so consistently defeated the Stupid Left. Liberal writers have been bewildered by the fact that USA has appeared at times to almost wilfully push Third World nations out of its own orbit and into that of the Soviet Union almost as if it did not want to win the Cold War! USA was happy to split the world in this way in preference to Slave Nations forming an independent thought process or even worse, forming with others a non white alliance. Further, the Stupid Left has internalised this argument and restricted any discussion of domestic politics to terms of White Civilisation with the result that Saxon Left politics became completely hollowed out and subservient to Whiteism. The demise of Cold War Whiteism was mirrored by the demise of the Saxon Left.

As a strategy White Duopoly was astoundingly successful. In the period of forty years after the end of WWII, every significant struggle both within the White Empires and within the Slave Nations was suborned to the Cold War.

How did the Duopoly Come into existence?

By the end of the WWII two things were manifestly clear to the entire globe.
Firstly, whites had proved themselves capable of obscene barbarism on a previously inconceivable scale. This was not just the First German Nation with their death camps and so on, non-whites were equally appalled by the savagery displayed at Hiroshima, a place my own father visited shortly after the nuclear attack.

Secondly, no one section of Germanic whites was capable of consistently and completely dominating other Germanic whites. In the future they would have to find a framework for working together to dominate the world.
In the midst of this, the struggle to maintain colonial domination of the Slave world was in full swing. The whole edifice of colonial domination was called into terminal question. It was no longer possible for whites to offer a ‘take it or leave it’, single ideology to the world. The tweedledum-tweedledee conflict that was the cold war allowed dangerous ant-white and anti-German sentiment to be channelled into a containable vehicle. It was the perfect expression of Whiteism.

Why did the Duopoly Fall?
Brought up in the Cold War era, Reagan generation politicians had cut their political teeth on the rhetoric and the world view that underpinned the Cold War. They were all au fait to a greater or lesser extent with the reality of realpolitik and the domestic rhetoric that complemented it. However, economic realities presented the de facto leadership of white civilisation with what was tantamount to an existential crisis. As discussed elsewhere, Monetarists and others were forced to confront the exponential growth of the state in the period after 1970. This produced the Monetarist response and a rhetorical political attack on state socialism as typified by the Soviet Union.

As might be expected, once the Soviet Union was destroyed, the sole remaining superpower almost immediately found itself in putative conflict with non-white states and civilisations. Who now had an arena within which to challenge white civilisation.

This is the true significance of the end of the cold war and the events that followed it. Do not look for significance in the particulars of Islamicism, but the fact that the defeat of Russia laid the basis for a Non-White challenge to the West.
With this insight we can see that the relative might of Islam, be it military, cultural or political is irrelevant. Political Islamism, or something like it, must inevitably be called into existence by circumstances such as these.

From this perspective skirmishes over Iraq and then Afghanistan and Iran serve merely as appetisers to what is to come; grand scale conflict with China.


In really serious cases of burn, trauma or disease, patients are put in a medical coma in the hope this will allow healing to take place while unconscious. At the very least the patient will not have to be awake and suffering. Given the risks, this treatment is only undertaken in the direst of circumstances.

The Cold War was a global induced coma to preserve the Germanic Cult of Capitalism after the Holocaust. Soviet Communism was a hallucination that the patient experienced under treatment.

In the 1980,s it was no longer clear that the effects of the treatment were more or less damaging than the original disease. Chief Surgeon Ronnie Regan, assisted by head nurse Thatcher ordered that the patient be woken up and put on a strict diet of Chinese food. Wakey, wakey: IT’S MORNING IN AMERICA!

Needless to say that the patient failed to thrive as old diseases manifested again; this time compounded by the new radical Chinese diet. After twenty five years of Monetarism a catastrophic heart attack prompted the desperate decision to put Capitalism under again. Only this time the old drugs and methods would no longer be sufficient. This time the treatment involved stopping all heart and brain activity in the hope that they could be restarted at a later date!

The first capitalist Coma; the so called ‘Cold War’ involved a system of halucinogenics and tourniquets blocking off the majority of the worlds population from capitalism. This incredible situation lasted for thirty years from the end of WWII until the mid 1970’s.

The second freeze instigated after the Credit Crunch, has had to be much more intrusive and extensive. The fundamental laws of capitalism; its very heartbeat and its brainwaves have been stopped. Capitalism is now a vegetable hovering in the grey twighlight between life and death.

All over the globe billions worth of property, loans, derivatives and other ‘financial instruments’ are held in limbo. If brought to market; sold off or defaulted, the entire system would immediately collapse. You and your family would literally be starving in three months. I am not exaggerating. So these gangrenous deals are left. Governments refuse to allow the people who made these deals from being made to account. AND THEY WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO; NO MATTER WHAT.

At this most delicate of times it is unfortunate but inevitable that the subject of harvesting any remaining viable organs will arise. Of course at the beginning the very idea is abhorent but little by little the death watch entourage start to consider the previously unthinkable.

And this is where we are right now.

Here is the Saxon family gathered around the emaciated frame of capitalism atop the hospital bed.

The Saxon Libertarian right, little blue eyes puffy with tears are  singing God Bless America! and remembering better days.

The Saxon left are studying the frame of their patriarch trying to imagine an Eco Frankenstein they could make out of the salvageable organs.

The Saxon middle, shell shocked with fingers crossed, saying: ” lets keep the patient deep under and hope something turns up”.

Doctors and technicians stand in the background muttering something about  needing  a decision right now”.

And everybody knows they are running out of time.



I have always been mystified by conjuring and those people who are entertained by it. Not in the sense that I wonder how ‘illusions’ are accomplished, I just can’t understand how anyone could be entertained by such a banal pastime.

The ‘art’ of conjuring is derived from a few embarrassingly simple tricks based on observed crowd psychology. But these tricks are not enough on their own to create successful illusions. The audience has to suspend logical thought and to be complicit with the creation of ‘magic’. The real mystery in conjuring is: Why does the audience comply?

Which brings us to ‘Sawing the Lady in Half’ and Democratised Money.

‘Sawing the Lady in Half’ is an illusion I am sure you are familiar with. An assistant, usually female, is placed in a box which is then divided up one or more times with a sword or saw. The assistant wiggles fingers and toes which protrude from strategically placed holes in the box and then re-emerges, reintegrated and unscathed at the end of the trick.

Of course the assistant was not really cut into pieces and brought back together.   It is obvious. Only a credulous fool could profess not to understand the trick.

Yet when it comes to the world of finance and fiscal policy it appears the world is full of credulous fools.

Across the financial spectrum from Keynesian left to libertarian right a debate is raging, as to whether the global financial system is experiencing inflation or deflation. Some see indicators for inflation. Some see indicators for deflation. But it can’t be both can it? Nobody seems to know. Just like the Sawn Lady Trick the fools in the audience look at the wiggling fingers of inflation and the wiggling toes of deflation and gasp in confusion and wonder at this disintegrated/integrated system.

But if the money system is not a whole then what is it?

In response to the 2008 financial crisis, governments around the world implemented extraordinary fiscal measures, ostensibly for the purpose of stabilising the world financial system. Primary among these measures was a massive increase in the supply of money across the globe and the synchronised lowering of interest rates, effectively to zero.

I explained elsewhere the effect of these measures was not to privilege one national currency against another, but rather to diminish all state issued currency. If the role and power of all state issued currency is being diminished, what will take up the slack in the system?

Since the first bout of serious financial deregulation in the Nineties the scene has been set for the introduction of ‘Democratised’ Money, which is in matter of fact a plethora of privately issued currencies. This is the privatisation, not of money, (money is private anyway!) but of the MONEY FUNCTION,


The MONEY FUNCTION comprises the services money provides equally to all members of society, irrespective of how much money you have or indeed whether you have any money at all. The MONEY FUNCTION is part of the SOCIAL COMMONS.

I know these ideas are quite hard to get your head around from the outset, so let me offer a simple illustration which will help you to understand.

In the ‘old days’ (pre Credit Crunch), anyone could deposit money in a bank and the bank would pay interest. When you deposited money in your bank or building society you were equal to a big company or hedge fund. Everyone who put money into a bank was entitled to interest.

The rules and processes that governed the way that money was issued and utilised in capitalism meant that earning interest was a universal social benefit; a SOCIAL COMMONS.

These rules and conventions have now been changed. Post 2008 no ordinary depositor can get interest on savings. Effectively this part of the MONEY FUNCTION which was a SOCIAL COMMONS has been taken away from millions, even billions of ordinary people world-wide.

The right to earn interest on money is no longer a universal MONEY FUNCTION; it has been ‘Democratised’. Contrary to what you think the word ‘democracy’ means, ending universal access to common MONEY FUNCTIONS is what the Democratisation of Money all about.

But not to worry!

Since the universal SOCIAL COMMONS of earning interest on state issued money has gone, the small scale saver is ‘free’ to find a private provider who will offer a return on deposits, (of course, there may be a few ‘strings’ attached). And of course the ‘free market’ will have provided these new ‘charged for’ Democratised MONEY FUNCTIONS in response to the clamour from the ‘man in the street’ for a place to put his pennies proving once again that capitalism serves the interests of the people!

So how does this tie in to the inflation and deflation debate?

Inflation and deflation are part signalled and part controlled by interest rates. Since the interest earning function is no longer universal, the full feedback loop provided by interest rates within the system is no longer available. The system has been hobbled. It is  like cutting three fingers off a blind man and then being surprised when you find he can no longer read Braille as well as he could!

But this is only the smallest part of the absurdity.

Interest earning is not the only MONEY FUNCTION that is being stripped away from state issued currency. This is not the place to list all such MONEY FUNCTIONS. Suffice it to say that when this programme of amputation is finished the only MONEY FUNCTION left will be that of exchange.


Because that is the only function that is not potentially profitable. That one will be left to the state.

As each MONEY FUNCTION and its corresponding feedback loop is progressively stripped away and ‘Democratised’ , the system as a whole will become progressively ‘blind’ until there will be no way for you, me or anyone else to calculate a generalised rate of inflation, or deflation for that matter. The Monetarists will have in some twisted sense succeeded in their plan to destroy inflation!

State issued currencies are displaying seperate and distinct rates of inflation compard to nascent ‘private’ currencies such as derivatives and other ‘financial instruments’. This multi currency world is becoming increasingly unstable; just look at the seemingly inexplicable fluctuations in value of Gold, Oil and other commodities and the derivatives and swaps that  are traded on the back of them. Determining a general rate of inflation/deflation and producing policy will become as impossible as navigating by compass in a world with three or four North Poles.

What economists of the ‘left’ and ‘right’ have failed to understand is that the seemingly endless debate over inflation and deflation only makes any sense at all in the context of a cohesive money system. The dissolution of a  state guarenteed money Social Commons  is the true story of the Credit Crunch and its aftermath. It is the creation and implementation of the Democratised Money system that will determine what happens nationally and internationally over the next decade.

When people begin to see the effects of privately issued currencies in their private lives and on the global stage there will be a profound political and economic realignment across the world.

To return to the Sawn Lady: So long as there are only two sets of fingers and two sets of toes wiggling it is possible to maintain the illusion that there is one body in the box. But if there are four sets of fingers and seven sets of toes wiggling even the most stupid audience member will start to realise that something is not quite right.

Then the trick will be over. Then what?

I am more troubled than ever by the question that I asked at the beginning: Why does the audience comply?

Why does the audience agree to divert itself with something that is obviously by any logical measure impossible?

I can think of no possible answer that is not more than a little frightening.