A SHAME Or Why Crackernomics Matters

crying-sad-clown-23899989

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Financial:

pertaining or relating to money matters; pecuniary:

 

Instrument:

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

 

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

 

Only later did I appreciate the significance of this.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

They seek to maximise privatisation.

They will seek to merge privatisation and Monetarism.

They will seek to privately control the money supply.

 

Is this analysis so incredible?

Is it so unbelievable?

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

They have never really understood what they are fighting for.

 

And that is a shame.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 ‘That looks like hard work’ I said

 He nodded but said nothing

 I persisted:

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

 He paused from his work:

 ‘Must be nearly thirty years now’

 ‘So you must like it?’ I asked

 He turned and looked at me

 ‘Its absolutely awful’ he said.

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

‘What about the living conditions?,’ I asked

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

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

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

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

 ‘What?’

 He turned to face me;

 ‘And leave show business?’

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

It is a failed state.

 

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

 

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

 

This point is of fundamental importance:

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

Which brings us to Perry’s Cats.

 

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

 

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

 

The Business of America …Annie get your gun

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Nowhere better illustrated than in this startling cultural artefact:

 

The eponymous Annie, an archetypal German mädchen,

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

 

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

 

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

 

Annie Is Divergent

 

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

 

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

 

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

This Charming Man

ron

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The Kochasians

 

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Now let’s go on with the show….

 

 

 

Shell Game Or The Real Deal

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

By what means are nation states failing?

By means of proliferating international treaties that strangle them.

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

 

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

 

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

 

Saxon Maidan in Britain

 

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

 

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

 

Welfare Bait and Switch

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Permanent Credit Economy

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Economist Michael Hudson has reached exactly the same conclusion:

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

SaxonMaidan Doesn’t Like the BBC

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

‘What differentiates cultural constituencies from political constituencies?

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

 

Battles on the Border

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

Generalities

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

 

Here is a prediction:

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

 

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

 

Here is a prediction:

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

 

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

 

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

 

Here is a prediction:

Now look for a media battle featuring PODEMOS.

 

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

 

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

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

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

 Why does this succession of surprise victories happen?

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

whitegay

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

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/07/02/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

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/11716428/Vegan-Italian-parents-investigated-for-neglect-after-baby-son-found-severely-malnourished.html

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…