A couple of weeks ago the Fed announced that Harriet Tubman, a slaved African ‘black’ woman would replace President Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill.
The arguments for and against this volte face are running more or less as you would expect.
The pro-Tubman side claim that introducing Tubman is more than just substituting one historical personality for another. It represents the inclusion of a whole kind of person that has been omitted from mainstream establishment American history.
On the other hand the ‘anti’s are obviously wary of falling into the trap of outright opposition, so they suggest that slavery and its most significant protagonists should be celebrated and included in some other way. Keep the money for ‘dead presidents’ they conclude.
On the face of it, (pun intended), it seems peculiar that Germanic capitalism- a form of society that lays claim to the inheritance of the Enlightenment and Reason, should be putting anyone’s face on money. Surely this is uncomfortably close to the sort of feudalistic impulse that Capitalism claims to have superseded.
The truth is that the ‘primitive’ roots of having the face of king or emperor on a coin legitimises the modern money we have today just as it did in times past. It lays bare Capitalism’s dirty little secret- it is parasitical upon the social forms created by ‘feudalism’ and always has been.
Capitalism cannot generate the social traditions necessary to enlist the loyalty of the ordinary people it claims to represent! It needs ‘feudalism’ to do that. For instance, why do you think soldiers dress up in fancy uniforms?
Why don’t capitalist armies dress up for their parades in business suits?! Surely the suit and tie is the ‘folk costume’ of the capitalist nation and its armies!
But experience has shown that people won’t fight and die for Capitalism and capitalists know this better than anyone. Capitalism needs feudalism to survive.
The face on money controversy proves that the past is alive and well and not just in the matter of money.. Donald Trump has achieved the Republican nomination in all but name. There may be sour grapes and carping but for the moment his enemies in the Republican elite dare not attack him outright.
Trump is a prime example of feudal capitalist king and outstanding expression of the ever increasing importance of cultural constituency in the politics of the west. In Obama and now Trump we are witnessing the end of representative democracy and beginning of Constitutional Embodiment.
As I have explained in previous writing on cultural constituencies, politicians like Trump are Cultural Specifics as opposed to ideological representatives. They are not there to represent an idea held in common. These politicians are not old style REPRESENTATIVES of a political ideology, they are the new style EMBODIMENT of a CULTURAL IDENTITY.
A Cultural Specific does not reflect and represent an idea that his constituency wishes to endorse. A cultural specific reflects the way that the members of his constituency wishes to be seen by the world. A representative represents an idea. An embodiment represents you (or not!)
They have no meaningful political perspective based on economics- that is not what they are there to do. They are there to VALIDATE the identity of their CONSTITUENCY. No-one understands this better than Trump himself.
Showing one of the startling flashes of prescience that have made him so successful despite his limitations, Trump has decided to go after Elizabeth Warren -supposed ‘left wing’ scourge of Wall Street and self described native American who,Trump says, is ‘as native American as I am’. Which means of course, not at all.
It is fundamental to classic Germanic Land Democracy, that national and cultural identities are social commodities, available to anyone born in a particular time and place.
Rachel Dalziel may have taken it to an extreme, but she was only doing what ‘Americans’ feel is their right and due. To dip into ‘black’ ( or other) culture for a ready to wear drip dry identity.
Ms Warren feels able to take her own personal journey down the rabbit hole with her proclamation of Nativeness (is that a word?). Surely a look in the mirror would help her to understand the truth of the matter.
Here Trump shows a clear instinctive understanding of Whiteism. Since it is about identity, unlike economic rationale no compromise is possible. You can’t split the difference- you either are a Native American or you aren’t.
Elizabeth Warrens firestorm Twitter response to Trumps IDAttack tells the whole story. She is clearly fighting for her political life. If Trump wins, politicians like Warren and the people she represents will be in imminent danger of becoming politically extinct.
The key to understanding Trump and his supporters is to realise that they now identify and act as a minority; the VolkAmerika cultural constituency, and are no longer interested in being the majority with no benefits and loads of associated social political and economic costs.
Trump doesn’t see himself as being part of the majority tasked with keeping the edifice standing against the minorities. He no longer sees why his supporters should be willing to make sacrifices to keep the system going. He is as ready to kick at the foundations of modern America as any other minority…
Closer to home the election of Sadiq Khan in London as the first Muslim mayor of a major European city extends the advance of cultural constituencies
Khan ran as ‘the son of a Pakistani bus driver’ against the offspring of a Jewish billionaire Zac Goldsmith and accordingly the papers in this part of the Saxon Axis resound to claims of ‘Anti Semitism!’ and corresponding counter charges of ‘Islamophobia!’
But the game is more nuanced that that. Khan was the Muslim who goes on day trips to his local Synagogue (EuroSlam) and Goldsmith a multi-millionaire who cares ‘passionately’. about the environment. (‘Green’back capitalist a la Richard Branson)
So which would you rather be personally identified with:
‘EuroSlam’ Pakistani or ‘GreenBack’ Jew?
Welcome to the post economic rationale world…
And North of the English border comes the starling news that the Tories who have been rank outsiders for decades have returned to centre stage.
For around half a century the Conservatives, traditionally seen in Scotland as quintessentially English, have been a fringe party in Scottish politics.
They were tarnished with Thatcherism which promoted a form of politics centered on the Saxon heartlands of ‘Middle England’. Most famously Thatcherism is associated with the poll tax whose purpose was to make local taxation entirely regressive and removed from ability to pay.
So how did they come back? Or more importantly, where did they come back?
The answer to this is; all along the East coast, the area of Scotland whose population is by majority Lowland Saxon Germans.
The Scottish Nationalist Party maintained its share of vote among the West Coast population. The sea change is that the Saxon East coast population has abandoned Labour, an English ‘left wing’ party no longer seen as providing adequate cover for their interests. Now they openly vote for Tories as an East coast Saxon opposition to West coast Gaelic SNP!!
I have long argued that ‘left wing’ and ‘right wing’ are redundant in the modern world,(if they ever really meant anything) and especially in the case of the Saxon Axis. There has never been a significant ‘Socialist’ party in any part of the Saxon world and there never will be. This is not an historical co-incidence.
The left/right divide was always only a political tool for the promotion of Germanic political culture, Germanic Land Democracy and the Germanic Cult of capitalism.
Now that it no longers serves any practical purpose for the Germanic population of Scotland, they are abandoning it.
And this is happening all around the world- The Great Unravelling