Capitalism Doesn’t Add Up Or The Left Hand Doesn’t Know Or When you are Similieing

 

You should familiarise yourself with the law of conservation of matter and the law of conservation of energy.

 

Both of these scientific ‘laws’ express the same basic idea:

 

That the amount of inputs in any given reaction and the amount of outputs from that given reaction, must balance. In other words, every element of a given reaction or process must  be accounted for.

 

Although these ‘laws’ are often characterised as being ‘scientific’ in nature, in fact they come from a much older intellectual tradition; that of Christianity.

 

The entire concept of Christianity is based on two central core principles.

 

The first principle is that any particular incident can only ever occur once and is therefore unique.

 

The second principle is that every incident, process and event that has ever occurred is recorded down to the most infinitesimal detail and that the totality of calculation involving all this detail will be taken to be the final meaning/accounting of everything. Everything can and will be accounted for.

 

These are two foundational concepts that science directly stole from Christianity. (Although scientists would have you believe they ‘created’ them!). Together they make up the philosophy of rational accounting. This philosophy of rational accounting presents a  fundamental problem for the creators and propagandists of the Germanic cult of capitalism.

 

It means that matter or ‘wealth’ cannot be created or destroyed in the sense of being brought into, or taken out of, any given process or reaction. Everything on the left hand of the equation must be accounted for on the right hand of the equation. If it is missing it is because you failed to account for it.

 

This means that ‘wealth creation’ in the sense of creating something cannot rationally exist. If wealth is present on the right hand of an equation it must have been present on the left hand of the equation.  If wealth creation cannot exist, then ‘wealth creators’ cannot exist. So there cannot be any such thing as capitalism or any justification for capitalism.

 

By way of a simple example:

 

An iron smelting plant is in operation and claims to transform iron ore into usable steel and therefore ‘create wealth’. If we take into account the pollution and destruction of environment involved in the smelting process and we adequately account for this and other left hand costs, we find that in fact this melting plant has not created any wealth or any matter of any kind, but in fact simply transformed parts of the existing environment into something else. No wealth has been created.

 

The trick behind this, is to undervalue the preliminary imports – the land, the environment, the labour et cetera and to correspondingly overvalue the output: the ‘wealth’ that has been created. Turning healthy useful corn into ‘Cheetos’ counts as wealth production!!

 

The Whole World Similies With You

Let us look more closely at the value of inputs, for instance the value of iron ore. The value of any particular portion of iron ore can only be rationally valued in comparison with the total amount of all iron ore.

 

If you were to say that 1 pound of iron ore is as valuable as six eggs you are making a poetic comparison, expressing a SIMILIE not an accurate fact. There is no rational relationship between a lump of iron and an egg and there never can be any rational relationship between a lump of iron and an egg because there is no rational point of comparison.

 

(This is an indicator of the value problem which comprises the third part of my general theory of money. I will return  to this later).

 

There is no rational relationship between a lump of iron and an egg but there is a rational relationship between a lump of iron and the totality of all iron available. We can say that any one piece of iron represents a proportion of all total  iron.

 

If there were 100 tons of iron available on earth, then one ton of iron would represent 1% of all the available iron and this would be its true demonstrable, rational, proportionate value.

 

But this presents an immediate and obvious problem: we have no idea of how much iron is actually available and can only provide a an estimate. It follows that we can only present an estimate of the value of any given piece of iron. Since it is only an estimate, is open to a bit of ‘creative accounting’…

 

But although creative accounting can paper over some of the more obvious gaps in the capitalist fraud, the more intelligent Germans realised that this could not form the basis for a long term strategy.

 

They realised that they were playing a game of cat and mouse they were bound to lose in the end. The longer the game went on,  and the more information that became available, the more clearly people would begin to see that the estimates of value that were given to steel and wheat and air were clearly fraudulent.

 

The more clearly people began to get an idea of the TOTAL amount of any given thing, the more clearly they would realise that the present valuation of it was undervalued and just as importantly  the previous estimates were even more fraudulent!

 

This is the true meaning behind the battle between environmentalism and its opponents…

 

And then Germanic capitalists had a stroke of ‘genius’. Which actually means they simply reverted to their fundamental nature. They decided to turn everything back to front, inside out and upside down.

 

Why wait for the inevitable exposure and condemnation when the accounts became due? Why not instead START with the accounts and work backwards??!! And this is exactly and precisely how capitalism and capitalist democracy was brought into being.

 

A capitalist corporation first produces a final profit and then promises to work towards it. Of course, it usually fails and resolving the consequences  of this failure is called capitalist economics.

 

A capitalist political party first produces a set of intended results and then promises to work towards it. Of course it usually fails and resolving the consequences of this failure is called capitalist politics.

 

But the key advantage of this process, insane as it seems, is that there is no point where the capitalist corporation or the capitalist economic party is actually HELD TO ACCOUNT in the literal sense of the word.

 

Because they persuaded the investors and the voters to endorse the accounts they were given before the process even began. They made you just as culpable as they are.

 

‘I Come Not To Praise’ Or The Entertainer Or 293 Or 293 Or 293

 

 

Now we have reached the stage where the only people still talking seriously about the ‘working class’ are a conglomerate of fleabitten left-wing radicals and some of the more sentimental elements of the libertarian right.

 

Increasingly the phrase: ‘The Working Class’ is beginning to sound like a rhetorical relic of a bygone age. Meanwhile modern ‘liberals’ are reduced to supporting the machinations of CIA/deep state proto fascists against elected President Donald Trump. Formal democratic values are following the ‘Working Class’ off stage left….

 

Left and right wing perspectives have collapsed completely into a state of complete all encompassing confusion. The historical narratives of Capitalism and Socialism that have dominated the past century and a half are now effectively dead as methods of mobilising large sections of society.

 

Ask yourself this simple question: In the world in which we live now could any government anywhere get significant numbers of people to fight and die under the banner of ‘Socialism’ or even that of ‘Capitalism’ ?

 

While this process of collapse and decomposition has been taking place I have argued that both socialism and capitalism are at root expressions of Germanic political culture. This is a materialist analysis. It is founded in concrete history. capitalism and socialism are complimentary to each other and each is a necessary corollary of the other.

 

If this is correct the collapse of capitalism must necessarily entail the collapse of socialism. And likewise, the collapse of socialism must necessarily entail the collapse of capitalism.  Just as Capitalism and Socialism were once both mutually supportive, in their death throes they are mutually destructive, dragging each other into the abyss.

 

I have argued that the political narrative of capitalism finally collapsed in the credit crunch. Massive open ended state intervention necessary to preserve even the hollow edifice of capitalism showed that there can be no longer be any chance of a meaningful free market anywhere in the world.

 

Like the ‘working class’,  even the phrase ‘free market’ sounds somehow fringe and unconvincing. And on the other hand political and economic developments since 1945, in particular since 1970, have shown that socialism is not now, and can never be a viable conception for the organisation of European society.

 

In light of what I argue above this implies that the final failure of capitalism in the result of the failure of socialism and this is so. In the final analysis socialism failed to save capitalism from itself…

 

The main consequence of these developments is that because both Germanic grand conceptions of history has failed, neither has an interest in any grand narrative of history. Both Socialists and Capitalists, ‘left’ and ‘right’, are now only interested in spreading short-term confusion hence the descent into increasingly petty and meaningless attacks on each other.

 

Neither side of Germanic society has a convincing story to tell, but you can be sure that they are damned if they will allow anyone else to speak into the silence. Because that is definitely not in the interest of Germans as a whole. And if you don’t understand that Germanic peoples recognise and try to act in their own best interests as a group you are a fool.

 

Still, as The Entertainer Archie Rice says : ‘I have a go, don’t I?’

 

So Here I Go.

 

Here are the barest bones of a history of the rise and fall of the Germanic Empire with reference in particular to the role and significance of the cult of socialism .

 

We can take the mid-16th century as the foundation date of the Germanic Empire. The material basis for this empire was the emerging practice of applied science combined and contrasted with colonial expansion which I will characterise here as Evangelism.

 

Follow The Money- Follow The Wealth

 

Both the knowledge base that was to be cannibalised into science and the organisational and political missionary structures that would give rise to Evangelism were scavenged from the newly destroyed monastic Christian system.

 

The Germanic empire was to be not only a physical empire but more importantly an Empire Of The Mind. It would be brought into existence by a War On The Mind- this War On The Mind took the form of a war on Christianity. Capitalism ravages the minds it makes war on and in just as trench warfare ravaged the landscape of the Somme..

 

Physical wealth was only a small part of what was actually owned and controlled by the Catholic Church. By far the greatest part of it’s wealth was intellectual, cultural and spiritual. It was clear that the ignorant and boorish among the German Princes and their underlings coveted the material wealth of the Church. But the more sophisticated coveted the intangible wealth of the Church.

 

The effects of Christianity had transformed the peoples of Northern Eurasia; Gallic, Slavic and Germanic alike , but it did not transform them in the same way. In North West Eurasia it unified some of them under the Catholic church for a while, but it could not wipe out the fundamental differences between the tribes. So let us be absolutely clear: Christianity NEVER successfully converted all of North Western Eurasia. Large parts of Germanic society never actually became Christian in any meaningful sense of the word. This understanding is fundamental to my analysis.

 

Germanic tribesmen were proselytised and educated by Christian missionaries transforming their social potential. But Christianity did not ‘take’ in Germanic parts of NW Eurasia. The form of Christianity triumphed but the content did not.  So powerful was Christianity that even the distorted shadow of its form alone could create the basis for a world dominating empire.

 

Finally, persistently inadequate doses of Christianity produced a form of  resistant intellectual bacteria. Germanic societies produced a bastardised mirror image of the Christian civilising process which reinstated their own pagan culture as the dominant form of society. The name given to this anti-Christianity is Protestantism.

 

Protestantism is by definition National Christianity.

National Christianity is to Christianity as National Socialism is to Socialism.

 

The structure of both Continental German and Anglo Saxon societies were determined by what they chose to take and what they chose to leave behind from the Christian monastic system they overthrew. Geographic location led Anglo Saxons to choose Evangelism and forsake Science. Landlocked Germans forsook Evangelism and chose Science.

 

This brings us to the birth of ‘Socialism’.

 

Socialism in its fundamentals stems from an attempt to reconcile the Evangelism of the Anglo-Saxon western Germanic empire and the Applied Science of the Continental eastern Germanic empire. Socialism sought to neutralise Science by means of welfarism and  to neutralise Evangelism by means of internationalism (multiculturalism). From this it would create a centre ground where the peoples of the Germanic empire, the ‘working classes’ could unite.

 

The Odd Couple

 

From this perspective we can begin to clearly see through the murk of historical propaganda back to Karl Marx in London- Marx the professional intellectual and son of a Protestant convert; a Continental German in one of the epicentres of Saxon culture. Karl Marx together with Friedrich Engels-a wealthy German mill owner fascinated by science and history and Gallic immigrant women.

 

Who better, who more likely than these two: Marx the Michelangelo and Engels his Pope Julius, the ambitious Protestant intellectual and the materially wealthy capitalist ,in this particular time and place, working together to unify Con-German Applied Science and Saxon colonial Evangelism? Seen from this perspective their joint authorship of the formal tenets of Socialism and Communism seems almost inevitable doesn’t it?

 

Ironically enough, Socialism has always managed  to avoid being subject to a rigorous Marxist analysis of its origins, content and purpose. It has managed to combine aspects of social philosophy, religion, economics and even fringe lifestyles in an undifferentiated blob intentionally constructed in such a way as to avoid rational analysis.

 

It is this irrationality as much as anything that has been the cause of the conflict that has dogged the Socialist movement since it’s inception. Socialism was intended as an antidote to emergent Protestant applied science. It could not kill the emerging Germanic social sciences but it did horrifically maim them so badly that they in turn could never deal a death blow to Marxism!

 

From Socialism to Communism

 

Marxism predicts an inevitable fundamental catastrophic collapse of capitalism as a result of its internal contradictions. It follows that capitalism can be preserved for an extended period if it is partially reformed and ameliorated by socialism. When Capitalism goes wrong socialism is used as a corrective. Socialism then reverts to capitalism until the next crisis.

 

But of course if capitalism is no longer capitalist socialism cannot correct it. In other words socialism can heal capitalism but it cannot bring capitalism back from the dead. Once capitalism dies socialism cannot resurrect it. This is the logic behind communism and its relationship to capitalism.

 

We know without a doubt that Socialism failed to save capitalism from disaster  hence the First ‘World’ War. Specifically, socialism failed to save capitalism because it failed to unify the two halves of the Germanic empire and the two halves of Germanic thought; Anglo Evangelism in the west and German applied science in the east. We know this because the two halves of the Germanic empire started killing each other directly using the new science of war and a new form of colonialism.

 

And we know in the moment of socialism failing to save capitalism that communism was vividly realised in the form of the birth of the Soviet Union.

 

Of course this was by no means the end of the story. Where Socialism failed to unify the two halves of the Germanic empire by argument, National Socialism emerged two decades later to unify Germanic society by force.

 

It failed. But it did finally physically liquidate socialism forever. The possibility of Socialism ever triumphing died in the death camps.

 

The important points to take away here are:

 

Contemporary left and right politics are meaningless -they are an intentional distraction from the fact that both narratives have been shown to have comprehensively failed. Do not get involved on either side of this increasingly irrational petty squabble.. Focus on the main narrative.

 

Socialism and capitalism are both Germanic cults whose ultimate purpose was to preserve and extend the Germanic empire. Their death means that the death and dissolution of the Germanic empire will now accelerate and intensify.

 

It is possible to have a grand narrative.

 

But do try to understand that even the very idea of  grand narrative sets you against both Germanic left and right.

 

It makes you a revolutionary.

 

Not Fake news but Flake News or RIP Tony the Tiger: You Were Grrrreat! | TMZ

 

The recent spat between alt right news outlet Breitbart and capitalist breakfast combine Kellogg is indicative of a new cultural media reality in the Saxon axis. (What a sentence!)

 

After Kellogg decided to pull its advertising spend from Breitbart citing ideological differences, Breitbart responded by ordering a boycott of Kellogg’s breakfast mush by its loyal followers..

 

In the first instance, it is clear that Kellogg’s decision to put ‘money where mouth ‘ is a straightforward illustration of one of the central principles of cultural constituencies;  that in the post free market world commerce follows culture and not the other way round (as free marketers and globalises tried to get you to you believe).

 

What is also interesting was the response of alt-right media organisation Breitbart  by trying to damage Kellogg’s commercial interests. This is an insight into an emergent secondary aspect of post capitalist economy; the subscription model I wrote about last time.

 

I noted that Saxon nationalist organisations in the media and elsewhere will increasingly demand that their subscribers, (as opposed to consumers or investors), actively avoid supporting organisations that do not adhere to their culture. In other words, if you are not with us then you are actively ‘agin’ us and therefore we are actively ‘agin’ you.

 

You can bet that this will spread to other cultural constituencies.

 

The relationship between sponsorship, power, influence and editorial control in capitalist media has long been the source of debate.

 

In developed capitalist societies it is generally accepted that in media there is a tension between the commercial imperatives of advertising and editorial control. It is accepted that advertisers are allowed to control or influence aspects of what is printed in a newspaper, transmitted on TV or radio  in order to maximise the revenue they can receive from advertising in that media. These are accepted parameters of capitalist control over media.

 

Offset against this is a supposed  ‘ethical’ professional code of journalists and editors which means that they are able to some extent to circumvent the commercial pressure to comply with corporate interest.

 

Increasingly this journalistic ethics code has come under pressure, not least from the  explosion of Internet-based alternative media outlets which means that there are now tens if not hundreds of thousands of ‘citizen journalists’ whose relationship to a supposed code of journalistic ethics is undefined.

 

And this changing relationship illuminates an analogy between  the production of news and the  production of money. Money production and distribution can be understood as a form of information dissemination just as news media is.

 

Traditionally newspapers are printed on paper and distributed in the same way that paper Government Issued Money is. The process is that a variety of information brands are delivered to the market to be taken up by different sections of the population at different times in different locations and at different prices.

 

So a certain section of society would buy broadsheets at a certain price and another section of society would by a tabloid title at another price and so on.  Each section of society is not just buying a different news FORMAT but a different news CONTENT. Yet despite this segmentation, the totality of what they are buying is defined as ‘The  News’. This implies that there is such a thing as ‘The News’ and various papers  print various bits of it.

 

The same can be said of traditional government issued money, (including GOVERNMENT SPONSORED MONEY such as bank credits). Currency notes, letters of bank credit etc are provided into the market as concrete paper documents which are then taken up by consumers according to price and availability.

 

Together the totality of different newspapers made up the press and together the totality of different forms of money made up the currency. The NEWS is the TOTALITY of the output of the PRESS. The ECONOMY is the totality of the OUTPUT of MONEY PRODUCERS.

 

Note that the totality of everything that happens on Earth is not the News. In fact the majority of stuff that happens on the Earth everyday is categorised as NOT newsworthy and not reported on. Likewise the totality of everything that happens on the earth is not the Economy. In fact the majority of human activity is NOT regarded as the economy and not counted as such.

 

Given the significance of the ‘News’ for controlling any given society it is inevitable that the state will become involved in its production and regulation.  In many cases, governments become directly involved in the production of news. State sponsored and controlled media organisations like the BBC are an example of this.

 

And it follows that given the significance of the economy in controlling any given society, government will be directly involved in the regulation and ultimately the production of money. In developed capitalist societies this is done by government sponsored private organisations like the Federal Reserve or the Bank of England which operate more or less on a BBC model of governmental control.

 

But if you are supposed to live in a free and open democracy you can hardly have the government clearly controlling what news you have access to . And if you live in a free market economy you can hardly have the government clearly controlling what money or economy you have access to.

 

It is this tension between the necessity of government control and the ideology of open and free that has shaped the relationship between the various elements in both media and economy in the capitalist world.

 

Now increasingly, news (as opposed to newspapers), is disseminated by electronic means. Given Marshall McLuhan’s  famous dictum that the ‘medium is the message’   the increasing pre-eminence of electronic media is transforming the way that news is disseminated and consumed. This affects what news is, who gets it and where and when they get it. And come to think of it, what they do with the news when they get it.

 

Digital news production means it is easier for ‘insurgent’ news outlets to appear because costs of production are rapidly falling. But distribution costs are NOT falling. This is extremely important and I will return to it later..

 

These developments in media  have  led to the emergence of powerful new media blocks that use the ideological rhetoric of the small producer but are in fact simply competitors to mainstream media. ‘Breitbart’ and ‘Infowars’ are two Saxon Nationalist examples of this.

 

This process parallels the rhetoric of Protestantism where a plethora of religious ‘start ups’ -the ‘SMRs’ , (Small to Medium Sized Religions), in the Reformation period was rapidly superseded by a relatively restricted number of larger competitors to the Catholic Church, which claimed they were from the ‘volk’ and of the ‘volk’.

 

Together with the effective collapse of the free market, electronic media has provided the medium for the emergence of cultural constituencies in the field of news .This gives rise to nascent culture, media and subscription wars.

 

It is not possible for these entirely private media conglomerates to provide news in the ‘public interest’. There can never actually be a free press, (in the real capitalist sense that it does not cost anything), under capitalism.  They have to find a way to monetise news production.

 

In this context the digital distribution service becomes increasingly more significant as an additional cost or barrier to access. (See above) Facebook and Twitter  are privately owned news distribution nodes and yet they are expected to act as a public interest conduit for privatised news production sources.

 

As such they are increasingly becoming the subject of territorial dispute. Are they entirely private? Do they have some kind of public interest mandate? Should they be state controlled in part or wholly?

 

This is the dynamic underpinning the debate about ‘fake news’. The ‘left’ wants some kind of government control on nodes like Facebook and Twitter in the  distribution network, the ‘right’ wants to use commercial pressure (boycotts etc), to control them.

 

This development process in the  media illuminates some of the outcomes that follow from the coming prevalence of electronic money (as opposed to the paper kind). Electronic money is of necessity privatised Democratised money in the same way that electronic news is of necessity privatised Democratised news.

 

I can confidently predict that just like the media the proliferation of small-scale digital money producers will  lead to the emergence of medium to large scale competitors to the mainstream money conglomerates. This has always been a fundamental part of the Crackernomics analysis.

 

As  electronic money is increasingly disseminated by electronic means it will affect what money is, who gets it and where and when they get it. And what they do with the money when they get it.

 

So lets draw some of the main strands of this argument together.

 

‘News’ is an abstract metaphysical concept derived from the concrete reality of news production. All the VALID news broadcasters and printers together in aggregate are said to produce the ‘News’.

 

But the concrete historical reality of news production is NEWSPAPERS which are then superseded by electronic media transmission (radio and television) which is in turn being replaced by electronic media.

 

Forget talking about ‘News’ as a metaphysical abstract. NEWSPAPERS were and are limited and defined by WHERE and HOW and WHEN they could be produced and distributed. (So are News transmissions and so are News (‘digitations’?)This specific combination of METHOD, TIME and PLACE defines what NEWSPAPERS were and are. NEWS is always a FUNCTION of METHOD, TIME and PLACE.

 

Here is a simple illustration. A bomb goes off in a city centre. The ‘news’ is that it is a terrorist attack. The news is gathered, processed, edited, printed and distributed in 12 hours. But by the time a customer buys the paper and receives the ‘news’, it turns out it wasn’t a terrorist attack, but a gas leak that caused the explosion.

 

So what is printed in the paper that the customer holds in his hand? Is it ‘News’ ? It can’t be News because it is not true! There is no metaphysical abstract news outside of the way it is produced and there never can be. Content is determined by form.

 

A concrete newspaper is concrete evidence of lying or making an error. (see 1984). News transmissions or digitations solve that problem. We have always been at war with Eastasia etc.

 

This is equally true for paper money. By the time that economic information is created, collected, processed by a central bank and turned into an interest rate that controls the production and distribution of Economy, the information in question may already be proved to be invalid! In fact it usually is….

 

So is the economy produced on the basis of that ‘counterfeit’ information money invalid?

 

The answer both in the case of News and Economy is that these are metaphysical abstracts that are accepted as both true and untrue at the same time. (Yet more Orwell)

 

The known facts and interpretation around any particular news event evolve over time. Interest rates and economic analysis evolve over time. Even though the MAJORITY of what is printed in the name of news and economy can be shown to have been wrong to a greater  or lesser extent, this does not diminish the overall faith in the concept of news and economy.

 

(Note: Paper money hyper inflation is when there are simply too many lies and bad guesses to hide. Note 2: Except in India where they have recently embarked on a wholesale destruction of the paper money evidence)

 

Or it didn’t till recently anyway.

 

But that was before the arrival of Fake News.

 

So what has changed then? What now makes some news providers ‘fake’ and some ‘genuine’? The question might more usefully framed as: What makes a particular news provider VALID OR INVALID?

 

And the answer might surprise you.

 

I have explained that NEWS does not exist in the ether as an abstract. It is the concrete result of the production of different news formats. The same way that NEWS does not exist outside of space it also does not exist outside of time.

 

‘News’ as we see it now is the result of a clear historical process. As I described above this process is intimately linked with the commercial interests of advertisers. And this in turn is intimately linked with the development of capitalism.

 

The ‘modern’ press did not begin in Africa or India or China. This is not a meaningless observation, it goes to the heart of what ‘Press’ and ‘News’ really is. We can see that  the ‘Press’ and ‘News’ is the product of German history and culture just as surely as Protestantism and Capitalism is.

 

Which brings us to the question of validity-not as some kind of abstract quality belonging to abstract ‘News’ argued about by differing interest groups, but as a concrete historical reality.

 

Papers that were published in the beginning of the News industry were the newspapers that received the investment necessary for obtaining news print, distribution and news gathering resources etc.

 

Investment was forthcoming on the basis that newspapers were a viable commercial venture. Newspapers were a viable commercial venture to the extent that they could obtain advertising revenue. They could abstain advertising revenue to the extent that they would comply with the needs and wishes of advertisers.

 

Simply put, traditional papers were valid to the extent they were given the blessing of commercial interests of advertisers.  And that is all. Everything else said about the historical press – all the rhetoric about freedom of speech etc- is just someone trying to blow smoke up your backside!

 

We can see the accuracy of this observation by considering attitudes to the non commercial press/media. Two good examples of this are RT, the Russian sponsored media outlet and the BBC.

 

Both RT and BBC are regarded with scepticism or outright mistrust by large sections of the public in developed economies. They are regarded as suspicious (as in fake news) because they are held to have an agenda which comes from their sponsors which are governments..

 

This agenda is held to be more overt and controlling and less trustworthy than the agenda imposed on commercial press/media outlets by their advertisers. But why should this be so?

 

Because as I said above there is an accepted degree of commercial control that is allowed from advertisers and offset against this is the supposed journalistic ethics that allow journalists to report despite commercial pressure. This capitalist Germanic concept is embedded in the history and the ideology of ‘News’.

 

Central to this cult ideology is the concept of plurality of advertisers which works like this: Advertisers sell products into society which has a variety of groupings and individuals that represent a spectrum of thought and opinion on various matters.

 

The more and varied the advertising corporations are, the more likely they are to represent a variety of opinion which is the supposed endpoint of democracy. The ideal advertising profile of a media organisation would be one that contains a wide variety of large mass producing corporations such as Kellogg.

 

These corporations then advertise in and validate any given media organisation. If the media organisation produces ‘News’ that is against the tastes of the wide and deep variety of consumers that the advertising corporations represent, the advertisers threaten to withdraw advertising unless editorial policy is altered. We have a self sustaining self regulating commercial capitalist media!

 

And this brings us to the central problem. In modern digital media production costs are heading towards zero. This means that the potential commercial pressure that advertisers can exert is also heading towards zero. And since advertisers commercial power is heading towards zero, their position as representatives of society through consumption is heading towards zero. Death of capitalism!!

 

From this perspective we can look again at the story that prompted this piece: The Breitbart/Kellog spat.

 

Breitbart started out as an insurgent small scale  Saxon Nationalist digital media operation with little or no effective media production costs. Under the terms of capitalist cult media it was invalid as it had no plurality of advertisers and therefore no commercial mediation of what it produced.

 

As it became bigger it attracted a plurality of larger scale advertisers up to the level of mush corporation Kellogg.

 

Kellogg received feedback that the content of Breitbart is offensive to some of the consumers it is supposed to represent.

 

Kellog expresses that offense with the threat and then the execution of removal of advertising revenue.

 

This is supposed to bring Breitbart back in line and serve as a warning to other digital media producers. But it hasn’t worked. Because fundamentally Breitbart’s production costs are close to zero.

 

So then pressure is applied to Facebook/Twitter etc, the distribution nodes that serve Breitbart because they CAN be controlled by large scale advertising revenue pressure. But even here, production costs are heading towards zero. This has limited effectiveness. So then the state is called in to regulate under the Fake News justification.

 

But there really is no such thing as FAKE NEWS only INVALID PRODUCTION which is production not regulated by large scale commercial advertising.

 

Its really all about FLAKE NEWS not FAKE NEWS.

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…..

PART 2 Back To The Future Or Actually The Future Is Exactly What It Used To Be Or Neo Feudalism Or Now Listen You Queer, Stop Calling Me A Crypto Nazi Or I’ll Sock You In The Goddamn Face!

 

The general political and economic history we are taught focuses on forms of society over the functions that form represents. It teaches economic and political structures are primary and the forces they actually represent are secondary at best.

 

This creates a history and a politics that are at best really only a series of snapshots strung together in the semblance of a storyboard, or at worse a single blurred image, the import of which we endlessly haggle over with no hope of ever coming to a clear resolution.

 

If we accept this fragmentation of history and politics the best insight we can hope for is the pyramidal model of society that the ‘left’ and ‘right’ use.

 

The understanding we have of history and politics is not the result of unknowable abstractions, it is the concrete result of the most powerful forces in the society we live in. A fragmented and disintegrated political/ economic system inevitably produces a fragmented and disintegrated understanding of history and politics.

 

The disintegration of capitalist society we experience can be sourced to an elite – traditionally seen as the ‘top of the pyramid’, effectively drawing off a vector of wealth and power from society but not redistributing any of that wealth and power back.

 

Capitalism did not always do this, nor is it necessarily forced to this, but it has the tendency to do this. The potential to systematically and permanently vector wealth away from society to a specific elite differentiates Capitalism from all the other forms of society, contemporary and historical. It is what makes capitalism special.

 

Capitalism is a form of society where economics really can be separate from politics -an observation the left vehemently denies and the right celebrates but refuses to acknowledge the consequences of. But why does the ‘left’ deny this simple observation? Understand this and you understand the relationship between War, Welfare and Whiteism.

 

In the Divergent Split Stream Model the capitalist elite draws off wealth and power through the capitalist vector . (shown here). This wealth and power becomes increasingly INVISIBLE and UNKNOWABLE to the remaindered feudal integrated vector. For mainstream economics and politics (which are the province of feudalism), more or less the whole purpose of existence has become to try to understand what your elite is doing at any given time and hopefully to influence it.

ssm

Understanding the process of disintegration can give us historical insights into the motivations of the elite and their consequences for society as a whole.

 

At a crucial stage in its development, a capitalist elite is no longer automatically obliged to organise or defend the society they benefit from, symbolised by the moving out of military uniform that all capitalist elites eagerly undertake when they are able. I pointed out that kings and barons rise and fall with the redistribution systems they service. This is as true for contemporary feudal/integrated societies as for those that existed 500 years ago.

 

Capitalists are consciously ‘Independent’ when they no longer go to war to defend the society that protects and benefits them. Think about George Washington and the American War of Independence in this context. Think also about Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.

 

At the time of George Washington, nascent Anglo Saxon capitalists in America were in the process of creating a new separate system of wealth accumulation and redistribution based on the wholesale theft of that continent.

 

If anything distinguished the emerging Saxon American system from its European counterparts it was the fact that it sought to be pure and whole. The Anglo Saxon American process was entirely one of transferring a territory and its wealth from one racial cultural group to another; there was literally nothing else happening in America at that time. Proto America understood itself to be entirely a redistribution system.

americanmodel

And everyone who benefitted agreed that the process had great potential. It became the American Anglo Saxon evangelical project to demonstrate to the world that such a thing as a society running with only a capitalist vector was actually possible!

 

Here is America’s specific claim to moral, political, and historical uniqueness in the world; Germanic Land Democracy that you can successfully run a society without a feudal/integrated vector. Damn the Pope! Damn the European hierarchy of Church, Nobility and Society! And Double Damn Noblesse Oblige!

 

Just as ‘The King’ is the personification of the feudal/integrated system so ‘The Individual’ is the personification of this Capitalist vector. Summed up in the truly bizarre Saxon cri de coueur : ‘The Englishman’s Home Is His Castle’. Feudalism and Capitalism fused together; Germanic land Democracy.

 

At the precise historical moment of Americas birth, two imperatives clashed in the person of George Washington. One moment he was required to act as feudal king fighting a war as guarantor and defender of a uniquely American redistribution system. The next moment he was President; a mere elected functionary.

 

Washington hovered between these two states of public (and internal!), being. As feudal king his purpose was to integrate American society, as President he was representing the interests of forces that were striving to create the first permanently disintegrated society.

 

If you doubt the feudal personification of Washington and the American elite, remember that they named America’s capital city after this single man. And they did it with straight faces and no hint of irony. Isn’t this the very essence of ‘primitive’ feudalism?

 

Now compare the American Continental War with the First World War which was the last time a significant section of European, (in particular continental German), capitalists were willing to actually fight and die for the society they were beneficiaries of. After the Somme there were to be no more trenches for the young men of these elites. It was this change in society more than any other that gave the Second World War its own character twenty years later.

 

In a bizarre mix of comedy and tragedy, German corporate bosses decided to hire a replacement mock-feudal military caste to stand in for them in the form of the Nazis, led by the corporal Hitler! Has there ever been such a catastrophic bungle by any social group in history?

 

The burgher market trader instincts of German capitalists gave birth to the most deadly set of consequences imaginable. Most horribly ironic of all, Germans clearly recognise their propensity for this kind of stupidity in the classic tale of the ‘Pied Piper of Hamlyn’. But they are doomed to go ahead and relive it anyway…over and over again.

 

So here are two Germanic elites and two very different stories. American Anglo Saxon and Continental German had to adapt to and adopt the necessities of feudal integration and both did so in very different ways. These were two nations at different times under existential threat from outside. The Anglo Saxon American revolutionaries took feudalism on wholesale, the Continental Germans tried to buy a ready made version of it off the shelf. The Anglo Saxons in America succeeded wildly and the Germans failed catastrophically. Neither outcome was happenstance.

 

The historical lesson here is that CAPITALISM ALWAYS NEEDS FEUDALISM to survive and develop. If Capitalism fails to harness the power of feudalism, it risks its own existence. You can‘t fake it as the German bourgeoisie found out to its cost…

 

Most exactly of all, Capitalism needs to construct a feudalist distribution sub system if the capitalist elite is to successfully disintegrate itself from society.

 

Who will administer society if the capitalist elite is off pursuing its own interests? On what basis, with what justification, will this administering body operate? Its only viable justification is the integration of society; the essence of feudalism

 

A bureaucracy must be formed representing a new relationship between oppressed and oppressor. Instead of paying money to the King who distributes it to his enforcers, you must pay the enforcers directly!

 

But this capitalist/feudal bureaucracy is different because of a third consequence of disintegration; the emergence of ‘social science’.

 

Social science is only possible and necessary when you want exact scientific knowledge of the ‘mass’ of people as a separate grouping. Enter the new capitalist disciplines of Sociology, Anthropology etc. In the universities and the colleges of the 18th and C19th the foundations of a new priesthood is being created.

 

By the time that the Split Stream Welfare Model is implemented the capitalist elite has effectively reproduced the pre-capitalist system but excluded the itself from it. In other words the elite has become truly ‘modern’ and ‘scientific’ by means of ensuring that the remainder of society is ‘primitive’. And every capitalist society since then is objectively judged to be successful to the extent that it manages to recreate a feudal system and visibly exclude itself from it.

sswm

Of course, we need a name for this new relationship between bureaucracy and society. We can hardly directly admit it is feudalism- that the brave new future we are building is fundamentally dependent on the past. So we give this state of affairs a new name to reflect its ‘social’ nature ; we will call it ‘Socialism’.

 

Now we can see where Germanic ‘class’ politics springs from- a concoction of feudalism, welfare and socialism (or War, Welfare and Whiteism if you prefer). This is the political structure that will support and illuminate the new redistribution system.

 

And so along with Washington and Hitler, vector history brings Karl Marx into focus.

 

Somewhat vain and self important but also brilliant, Marx was a rogue operator in the new emerging social sciences. Like an insufferably precocious pupil Marx constantly disrupts and irritates the lecturer with startling insights, speculations and guesses called out from the back of the class. Some of these catcalls were pinpoint accurate and some were horribly wrong.

 

But by effectively second guessing a whole raft of developments in the emergence of social science, rogue student Marx managed to disrupt the entire inaugural lecture. The carefully planned unveiling of ‘Social Science’ collapsed into chaos!

 

And it has never recovered..Is it any wonder the establishment regards him as they do?

 

It’s hard not to see young Marx as something of a Victor Frankenstein character (as in Prometheus), seeking forbidden knowledge, failing to heed the warnings of his teachers and ultimately heading for disaster.

 

And while we are about it; seeking to raise what was dead through the newly acquired power of science… Given what we know about young Mary Wollstonecraft and her antecedents, I think I can make an argument that the Frankenstein story itself is a metaphor precisely for the emergent scientific capitalist class bringing feudalism back from the dead.

 

This is Not America…

 

By the time America invaded Vietnam in the 1960’s none of its national elite or their children went to die in wars. And nobody seriously expected them to. This certainly gave the Vietnam war its very own peculiar nature. American society at large was well aware of the extent this change even if it did not understand the full significance of it. What this meant was that America and its elite, despite its peculiar development path was becoming more like the European states.

 

The documentary film ‘Best of Enemies’ records the televised debates in 1968 between liberal Gore Vidal and conservative William F. Buckley Jr. and it happens to capture perfectly this moment of America’s final transition from ‘capitalist+’ to ‘capitalist-‘ society. As the publicity blurb for the documentary has it:

 

‘ Intended as commentary on the issues of their day, these vitriolic and explosive encounters came to define the modern era of public discourse in the media, marking the big bang moment of our contemporary media landscape when spectacle trumped content and argument replaced substance’

 

To make it absolutely clear: The Nixonian/ Neo Con movement as espoused by William F Buckley jr that emerged in the late 1960’s is a welfare system just as its liberal counterpart espoused by Gore Vidal was. It’s specific argument is that welfare should be constructed in such a way as to benefit white Anglo Saxon society and particularly white working class Anglo Saxons at the expense of other sections of American society. In other words it seeks to exclude some sections of society to more clearly cohere the remainder around a specific identity.

 

It is no coincidence that Nixonian welfare centered on the Moral Majority emerges precisely when the elite begins to very consciously disengage (as in the Vietnam war) from American society. The project is to then put in place a comprehensive new welfare system that society will rely on to maintain cohesion. Buckley and Vidal are arguing over what the nature of the new sub system feudal welfare system, (LBJ’s The Great Society), will be.

 

It is every bit as consciously redistributive as so called liberal or socialist opponents. Its difference centres on who qualifies. And who qualifies will be decided by which version of the history of America becomes the dominant narrative.

 

From this perspective the animus between the two antagonists comes into clear focus. It is no accident that both are populist disseminators of American history. It is no accident that their central argument revolves around what the content and meaning of American history is.

 

If Thine Eye Offend Thee..

 

And now we can finally move towards a rational explanation for what seems totally irrational oxymoronic Neo Conservatism: It is America’s admission that it needs feudalism in some form if the elite is to successfully disengage. But in this admission America’s previous strength is revealed as a weakness because it has no feudal backstory to hang its welfare state on. It is going to have to invent one.

 

This is the opportunity for ‘right wing’ public intellectuals like Buckley and Irving Kristol to prove their worth. We can explain how Neo Conservatism can draw together an establishment WASP like Buckley and an ex ‘Trotskyist’ like Kristol within the context of American politics. On the surface their political trajectories would appear to be irreconcilable. But if we understand that their shared struggle is not to re-formulate the future but the past, many of the apparent contradictions evaporate.

 

Both Kristol and Buckley realised that in the creation of Neo Conservatism, their shared purpose was to try to find a way to create a vision of the past and to present it as the future; feudalism as welfare. The inspiration of Neo Conservatism is to accept the practical reality of the need for feudalism, while publically denying it with all your might. In a moment of clarity Kristol realised that feudalism/integration was essentially what his Trotskyist Socialism had been about all along.

 

From this perspective we can see that the Cold War arguments over whether communist Russia was more advanced than USA is really an internal argument about the future of America. America is projecting its hopes and anxieties onto Russia and later Japan and China. Because now the American elite continually gazes upon feudalism with fear and a kind of sick desire. They are painted into a corner. They are all turned around.

 

This has reached some kind of crisis point with Islamism. The modern Protestant welfare society finds itself powerless to launch an all out attack on feudalism. How can it? It will be cutting its own throat. No matter how much it is offended it cannot put its own eye out or cut off its own hand.

 

Disintegrated history and politics experiences its dislocation and confusion through the medium of past, present and future. Whenever the West tries to describe an alien society it does so in terms of primitive or advanced etc. The West is permanently confused as to whether China is modern or backwards. Or modern and backwards. Or whether it is going forwards or forwards and backwards at the same time.

 

The West looks for markers of ‘modernity’ like mobile phones or gay marriage. If you have a modern mobile phone network but not gay marriage is your society modern or backwards? Was Iran becoming more modern or less modern when it overthrew the Shah of Iran? Is the Arab Spring a leap forward or backward? Was Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood progressive or regressive? Confusion multiplies and reigns.

 

Something like this happened with astronomy. Retrograde motion is an observed phenomenon in astronomy in which planets appear to move ‘backward’ across the night sky. Of course, this is impossible, planets can no more move backward in space than societies can move backwards in time. Retrograde movement is the consequence of planets with relative trajectories seeming to accelerate at different speeds. They are all going forward in perfect order, it is just that from one point of view it can seem as though they are not.

 

When a model of the solar system was put forward that more accurately mirrored reality, all the confusion disappeared. Soon astronomers were able to predict the whereabouts of any given planet at any given time. It happened when they realised they could not calculate correctly with the earth as the centre of the system. The same thing must happen now with Anglo Saxon societies. The world does not revolve around them. History does not revolve around them.

 

Societies can appear to move backwards but of course they don’t really. They are all progressing forwards we just have to find a model to explain how. Vector history can do that. The key is to identify or restate a problem in a way no one has before and offer a solution. That is what I have done here.

 

 

 

Pyramid Schemes Or Vector History Or I’m Ready for My Close Up Or There is no such thing as a Disintegrated Society Or Is There?

The structure of pre-capitalist societies is often depicted as a Hierarchical pyramidal structure with the mass of people forming the widest part of the pyramid at the bottom and then progressively smaller echelons forming each tier as it moves towards the top. We can call this a Standard Hierarchy Model and make a simple diagram of it something like this:

shm

 

In this model wealth and power moves upwards from the bottom of the pyramid to the top and wealth and power in the form of patronage is redistributed down from the top to the bottom. In establishment rhetoric this is portrayed as the ‘classic’ ‘oppressive’ state structure.

 

Establishment history argues that this oppressive state structure belongs both to our pre-capitalist past and contemporary non capitalist societies such as North Korea, (which in Establishment ideology are essentially the same thing). But Establishment history argues that in contrast to all other types of societies, present and past, the pyramid structure is modified within capitalist societies.

 

The crudest Establishment description of hierarchy modification is in the Inverted Hierarchy Model. This model shows the mass of people benefiting from capitalism relatively and absolutely more than any other echelon in the pyramid. The argument is that the lower down you are in the oppressive pyramid model the more you benefit from the Inverted Hierarchy Model. We can show it like this:

ihm

In this model it is argued that power ‘democratically’ flows away from elites, up to the mass of people. Then patronage is redistributed down from the mass of people to the elite through the democratic process. As proof of this redistribute process the Inverted Hierarchy Model argues that the mass of people receive invisible, intangible social goods. These include the right to be an individual, the right to express opinions in free speech, sexual freedom etc, As an added bonus these riches get progressively larger and more encompassing with every passing year!

 

This Inverted Hierarchy Model is obviously overtly ideological and tends to be used mostly in Anglo Saxon societies and in particular the USA. But that doesn’t mean that is has no basis in history and culture. The objective is to try to understand what basis it actually has..

 

A more subtle Establishment argument is to agree that we live in a base heavy pyramidal structured society but to argue that who is at the top of the pyramid and who is at the bottom regularly changes over time. In other words the structure remains constant but the composition of the pyramid is open to change. This model accepts the implied need for the state to guarantee some kind of equality to mitigate the nature of the pyramid but characterises this as the need for equality of opportunity.

 

In contrast, anti Establishment arguments emphasise the fact that the structure of the pyramid remains constant irrespective of the composition of any particular echelon. Any movement of elements within the pyramid is limited and inconsequential. It follows that if the pyramid is incapable of internal change, change must come from outside.

So the basic mainstream Establishment position is:

The Capitalist form of society is a pyramid but it differs from previous social pyramids in that its composition changes and will continue to change over time.

The anti Establishment position is:

The pyramid is essentially the same as previous pyramids, has not changed and will not change until political force (usually from below), makes it change.

 

On these two essential positions the matter rests and has rested for some time. But it is possible to conceive of social structure in a different, dynamic way. This dynamic understanding can illuminate the observation people understand the pyramid structure not in abstract or random ways, but in ways that are exactly the inevitable outcome of the relationship between elite and the rest of society and the way this relationship has developed and been subjectively experienced.

 

Instead of the Establishment series of ongoing pyramid ‘snapshots’ or the opposition ‘oil painting’ of a single static pyramid, we can imagine the pyramid form instead as a dynamic vector on a graph representing a flow of wealth and power from the base of the hierarchy to the top and then back down again. This model integrates movement into the basic model itself. It is the difference between the dissection of a cadaver and studying the flow of blood through a living body.

 

Lets go back and look at the classic ‘oppressive’ pyramid structure from the perspective of this Hierarchical flow model. It looks like this:

hsm

Wealth and power moves upwards from the ‘peasants’ at the bottom to the ‘King’ at the top and is then redistributed by the King back down through the lords and barons and so on until a residue of wealth reaches the bottom again. In this model the elite is the mechanism of redistribution and the ‘King’ is the personification of the elite. We are taught that this is how medieval European society or contemporary non capitalist society such as North Korea is structured.

 

The fundamental Capitalist critique of an oppressive state structure like this is that the ‘King’ collects wealth and power from the people and then redistributes it to the power structure that protects him and the echelons below him from the people he collects wealth from in the first place. In other words the process of redistribution reinforces the redistributive structure in place and makes it impervious to change. This can be called a Force System.

 

The people pay to the King and the King pays the bodyguards and so on downwards thought society. Redistribution and force are intertwined. Wealth is redistributed throughout society through the Force System.

 

This process is characterised as a ‘crony system’ by Capitalists. It is also often misrepresented as a Forced System as opposed to a Force System. Capitalists argue that because redistribution is done through the force system it is ‘forced’ – it cannot be to any extent voluntary. They argue that this is morally unfair and/or economically and politically inefficient. They argue that it must inevitably collapse, and if it doesn’t decent people should work to bring about that collapse anyway and by any means necessary.

 

You should note that Germanic capitalist ideology viscerally detests Force System   because it does not reward the personal character traits that German culture and personality  admires and promotes.

 

The Fate of Kings

 

In a fully ‘feudal’ society everybody is effectively employed by government. Your economic boss is very often literally the general who leads you to war. And this political/economic model is reproduced right up to the very top. The commercial and the political is entirely integrated and entirely consistent , (which is to say that the logic of society is reproduced throughout society to the same extent). All of society is integrated and consistent.

 

The king is the guarantor of the system and the network. Consider the fate of Gaddafi in Libya and Ceausescu in Romania. Consider also what is in store for al Assad if his enemies get their way. This fate of kings is not random or happenstance. The fate of the King is absolutely entwined with the fate of the redistributive system.

 

Rather than a feudal society It would be more accurate to call this an integrated society because economics and politics are fused and every echelon is fused to the one above and below it by means of the redistributive system.

 

The popular capitalist ideological critique is that systems like this are static. Everybody is in a place within the system. Nobody can be outside the system and nobody can move within the system. Of course if they see any evidence to the contrary of their assertions they simply ignore it.

 

This criticism fits within the capitalist list of accusations which run from popular to true in descending order:
It is static

It rewards ‘bad character’

It is dangerous for ‘the people’ (which really means it is dangerous for people like us!)

 

If the capitalist system was the opposite of an integrated society it would be a disintegrated society wouldn’t it ? Could there be such a thing as a disintegrated society? A society like this would be a society that is defined by the belief that: ‘There is no such thing as society’. Could such a society exist? If so how could it exist?

 

With the advent of Capitalism instead of one income and dispersal system there are now two systems within society. Where there was only the integrated feudal political system there is now also a separate capitalist ‘economic’ system that mirrors the feudal political system. This can be called a Split Stream Model because there are two separate streams of income and redistribution. It can be shown like this.

ssm

Wealth and power rises and falls on a ‘commercial’ stream (blue) and a parallel political stream (red). Both streams are integrationist which is to say they concentrate wealth upwards towards the elite and then redistribute it.

 

Notice that this model does not differentiate between a ‘feudal’ and ‘capitalist’ elite. There is no need to try to manufacture a fundamental political or cultural conflict between the feudal and the capitalist elite in this model. They have separate income streams and dispersal networks but they are not fundamentally different.

 

This is in stark contrast to capitalist establishment history, (and Establishment anti-Capitalist theory!), for which it is very important to claim that capitalist elite are different from the feudal elite, because they have been transformed by an intangible, magical process called ‘Enlightenment’

 

I’m Ready For My Close Up

 

This Split Stream Model can be regarded as the basis for the idea of a ‘Golden Age of Capitalism’. In as far as Capitalism can be said to be progressive, the justification for it lies in this model.

 

The capitalist commercial blue vector shows Capitalism concentrating power upwards through the capitalist production process and then redistributing wealth and power back down through the very same capitalist production process. It should be very clear that unlike a feudal system wealth and power are NOT redistributed back to the people they had been extracted from. And wealth and power are NOT redistributed to everyone throughout society. But they are redistributed comprehensively nevertheless.

 

Imagine yourself standing on any point on the blue vector in other words, imagine yourself as part of the commercial vector. As part of the process, from your point of view Capitalism really does redistribute wealth and power; you can see it happening, it is happening to you. You are part of an alternative to the feudal redistribution system.

 

This is the form of society that traditional (sometimes ‘libertarian’ and even Neo Conservative) Anglo Saxon history focuses on. This is the basis and justification for Neo Conservative ‘trickle down’ rhetoric and at the same time the reason for its ‘Libertarian’ opposition returning again and again to the period of the American Constitution, and even sometimes the French Revolution.

 

We can look again at the Inverted Pyramid Model from this perspective. For someone at the apex of the blue vector the pyramid is indeed inverted.. power and wealth comes to you and you redistribute it. And that is why this model forms the basis for all pro-market, particularly Saxon rhetoric. Think of it as a snapshot of Germanic capitalism in early adulthood; fresh-faced and looking at her very best. It’s the same snapshot that Capitalism still uses on her Facebook page, although it’s a long time since she looked anything like that….

 

There are two systems co existing, but one of them has a clear future where the other does not. A new Divergent Split Stream Model begins to assert itself where economic wealth and power is no longer distributed back down through the lower echelons. The feudal vector system comprehensively redistributes wealth. The capitalist vector no longer does.

What this means is that in effect the capitalist vector is getting its government for free….It can abandon its obligations outside of the state. That model looks like this:

dssm

As a consequence of capitalists abandoning any social obligations they may have felt they had, the feudal system progressively impoverishes itself in comparison with the capitalists. This is effectively the moment of overt capitalist revolutions, the moment when ‘feudalists’ and ‘capitalists’ understand the true meaning of what is happening and what its inevitable consequences will be. Then comes a decisive political battle. Ironically it is when capitalism stops actually being progressive and revolutionary that an actual capitalist revolution becomes necessary!

 

And now things get really interesting.

The post revolutionary redistribution system bypasses the elite entirely. This is the Split Stream Welfare Model and it looks like this:

sswm

The top echelon elite have taken themselves out of the redistribution process altogether but they are still protected by it. The elite are effectively disintegrated from the system. The difference between an old fashioned ‘oppressive’ pyramid and a modern system is that the people used to pay wealth and power to the King to distribute to his bodyguards. Now they pay to the bodyguards directly. This is called democracy. The system is streamlined.

 

And if the red vector looks familiar from the models above. It should because it is the same one.

Now the Split Stream Welfare Model reproduces the feudal distribution system, but outside of the elite. That is what ‘welfare’ redistribution actually is; a reproduction of the classic feudal non capitalist redistribution system but at a lower level of society. If redistribution is really feudalism, is the left really ‘feudal’?

You betcha!

So what is a ‘progressive’ then?

‘Back To The Future’ Next time….

The Marketplace of Ideas Part 1

 

51KEJR0GVYLrussgeorge

In ‘GOODBYE, GOOD LUCK Or The Wrong Trousers Or Naming Subversion’ I discussed the Power of Naming and the way that it can be used to reconstruct opposition. This Power To Name was certainly instrumental in twisting round Russell Brand to the point that he has had to withdraw due to mental injury.

 

But there is a more complex and powerful factor in the battle to control the way we think; The Marketplace Of Ideas.

 

The Marketplace of Ideas is profound because it determines what is, and what is not possible to achieve through politics and discourse in the modern world.

 

The Marketplace of ideas does not just outline the rules of the game, it delineates the principles on which those rules are founded. The ‘Marketplace of Ideas’ is the root system of thought from which Germanic Capitalism grows; it is the network of tubers that anchors Germanic Capitalism and allows it to draw nutrients up from the ground. Cut this root and the tree will begin to die; just expose this root and the air and the light will begin to kill it.

 

Ideas as commodities

 

Modern/Germanic ideology characterises Ideas/Conceptions, (which I will refer to as Ideas), as commodities; a particular kind of social construction. To begin with, Ideas are artefacts, (man made objects), Germanic ideology does not accept Ideas as having existence outside of this Provenance.

 

Provenance

 

Capitalism is founded and relies upon, the belief that Ideas like everything else that exists, have attributable ownership. Where there is no attributable ownership, there can be no Germanic law, because under Germanic law all authority comes from ownership.

 

The concept of Provenance (provable chain of ownership), itself means that no Idea can come from outside this system of ownership. There can be no ‘Inspiration’ in the classic sense of the word, which is: ‘To breathe on or breathe life into; To affect, guide, or arouse by divine influence.’ In other words every idea starts with somebody and is therefore owned by somebody. Ideas cannot ever belong to everyone and no-one. Ideas can never be a commons.

 

As Ideas are understood as owned man made artefacts, it follows that they can be commodities, that is things that are valued according to how people see them to be. They cannot have a value outside of this. It follows from this that people can be divided into two groups; those who own ideas and those who don’t. In other words a market. Hence the Marketplace of Ideas.

 

Idea Commodities, Value and Time

 

In tandem with the Idea as a commodity with social value comes the Idea that only has value (value in trade or consumption), for a certain amount of time- a kind of ‘sell by’ date, leading to the Germanic ‘History’ brand.

 

Modern History and Ownership: Modernity and Tradition

 

History is intimately bound up with ownership, the two are mutually dependent.   History expresses the belief that there is no truth that lasts forever or that can exist outside the boundaries of a specific time. There can be no ideas that are valid forever. There can be no ideas that are universally true in all time and all space.

 

If it were possible that Ideas could be true for all time, there would be no way of differentiating between the past and present because no change in perspective would be possible. People in the ‘here and now’ would have no basis on which to understand people in the ‘there and then’ as different. There would be no history. But the in fact, belief in history is crystallised in the image of modernity and tradition.

 

The idea of a dichotomy between modernity and tradition is rooted in the way that the ‘Renaissance’ and the ‘Enlightenment’ are portrayed in German rhetoric. We are said to exist in the ‘Modern’ world because of the break with the past that Renaissance and Enlightenment represents and caused. As ‘modern’ people we are told that we think differently because of the Enlightenment, in fact we are told that we are fundamentally different people because of it.

 

The Progress Brand

 

The concept of ‘progress’ follows from this description of the Enlightenment. We are ‘modern’ in the sense that we are on this side of the historical fact of the Enlightenment and we have made ‘Progress’ in the sense that this is a good thing.

 

The ‘fact’ of the Enlightenment proves Progress is possible and once possible, Progress becomes inevitable. Because becoming aware of the possibility of Progress, is making Progress. You no longer see the world as stable and unchanging. Once you accept and believe in change, you are no longer ‘Primitive’.

 

Primitive people hold that what is true is always true and always will be true. And what is untrue is always untrue and always will be untrue. Truth and untruth are unchanging. So there can be no demarcation between modernity and the past. In contrast, ‘Modern’ people by definition can never accept that there is no difference between past, present and future. How can I be a ‘modern’ person if there is no difference between past and present?

 

So the ‘Progress’ brand naturally ‘evolves’ from the Enlightenment brand. It is a self proving, self referencing bubble. The fact that the Enlightenment happened is proof that thought can fundamentally change. The Enlightenment itself IS that fundamental change…

 

Does this mean that the arguments for Progress and Modernity are no more than a simple tautology? No. The key lies in the claim to universality for modern thought.

 

Why Modernity Is Forced To Make Itself Universal

 

Once ideas have a ‘sell by’ date, TIME becomes the central component of thought itself, allowing, and in the end forcing, Germanic thought to assume the mantle of MODERNITY and UNIVERSALITY. The categories of ‘truth’ and ‘untruth’, ‘validity’ and ‘invalidity’ become fused with and then subordinated to, Modernity and Tradition.

 

The ideology of Progress tells us that pre Enlightenment thought is fundamentally different from post Enlightenment thought. Pre Enlightenment thought is based on a belief in absolute truth expressed through concepts of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. If Truth and Untruth is the universal dichotomy then Tradition and Modernity as expressed the Enlightenment must be secondary to this reality.

 

If it is possible that there is universal timeless Truth, and by implication Untruth, then the Enlightenment could be characterised as Untruth and challenged. The only way to neutralise this fatal weakness in the Enlightenment brand is to make it supplant THE CONCEPT OF TRUTH ITSELF. MODERNITY AND TRADITION IS NOW HOW REALITY IS TO BE NAVIGATED – NOT TRUTH AND UNTRUTH. Not Right and Wrong anymore but Now and Then.

 

The historical fact of the Enlightenment encapsulates this. In fact, the Enlightenment is both the vehicle and the content of this. The Enlightenment description of a progression from traditional to modern thought implies a relationship between two modes of thought that are antagonistic. This becomes the universal dichotomy.

 

The Truth is the expression of reality. The Enlightenment claims not to be The Truth, (an expression of reality), but to BE REALITY ITSELF. It places itself above Truth.

 

Truth and Untruth have been subsumed and supplanted and we are trapped in the bubble of the present; estranged from tradition because we are Modern, remorselessly moving into the future, progressing whether we like it or not.

 

This image of our condition might strike a chord with you. It is the essence of ‘1984’. We are trapped inside a Big Brother House – trapped inside a Big Bang universe. If we ask what was there before (outside), the Big Bang?- we are told such a question is unscientific; a meaningless question OUTSIDE of reality. If we now ask: What stands outside Modernity/Tradition? we are told the same thing.

 

Now you know why Germanic politics is divided into ‘Conservatives’ and ‘Progressives’ as opposed to ‘Honest’ and ‘Liars’ or ‘Christians’ and ‘Satanists’ or ‘Greedy’ and ‘Selfless’ and so on…

 

After the introduction of Modernity the possibility of disputing the way things are is over. After all, how can you dispute reality? ‘True’ and ‘False’ have been made the servants of this reality. There is nowhere left that you can stand to get a point of leverage. This is where Orwell left Winston Smith; trapped at a table in the traitors cafe, playing out a pointless game and waiting for the bullet that will put him out of his misery.

 

But we don’t have to be trapped – there is a way out.

 

Orwell was trapped in the modern mind because he did not understand Germanic provenance or the ownership of ideas. Or more accurately, Orwell was not willing to countenance the ownership of ideas. Why? Because as Mark Twain puts it: ‘It is hard to get a man to understand something when his living depends on not understanding it’.

 

In this case you can think of the ownership of ideas as negative ideology, not ‘Thought crime’ but an idea you cannot afford to think. Orwell was a professional author; he made his living by ‘having’ ideas and selling them. ‘1984’ is proof of this. If there is no legitimate private ownership of ideas Orwell must be merely a rentier or toll keeper of common ideas. His ego and his income could not survive this realisation.

 

And neither could 1984 itself. This gives us an insight into the way that ‘1984’ is revered as a semi religious text in the Anglo Saxon world instead of just another commercial enterprise, which is all it actually is. If you start to think of ‘1984’ as just another novel like Jilly Coopers ‘Riders’ for example, the illusion starts to fall apart.

In ‘1984’ Orwell is trying to dissect modern authoritarianism while avoiding the exact root cause of authoritarianism. Is it any wonder then that what he ends up producing is an increasingly frenzied description of madness where the greatest danger to the heroes continued existence is his own mind?

 

The endless trying to justify and reconcile the dichotomy is revealed throughout the book:

 

The novel begins with Smith writing an illegal unauthorised diary, a symbol of his individualism, but one that Smith recognises from the beginning is ultimately meaningless. (in the end it turns out that all Smith’s thoughts were not even his own.. where did they come from?)

 

Smith has lunch with Syme who is compiling the Newspeak dictionary. They discuss the production of language. Syme is too intelligent, Smith realises he will end up dead. Syme is clearly a representation of a dangerous part of Orwells intellect as he recognises it.

 

Smith forms a relationship with Julia who is involved in the mass production of pornography written by machines. Ownership, originality etc.

 

Smith obtains ‘The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism’ by the character ‘Emmanuel Goldstein’, from O’ Brien (notice Orwell was not up to producing more than a couple of pages of this fictional book within a book- who would be!)

 

And finally Smith reading the Times that he had previously had a hand in falsifying and now believing it… Author reduced to mere Reader, Producer reduced to mere Consumer. Little wonder he wanted to die.

 

The entire root structure of 1984 is based on Ownership of ideas and provenance of ideas. Like a rat endlessly going round and round in a maze Orwell tries to find some way round the central problem of totalitarian thought, private thought and owned thought. What is the central problem of Modern Totalitarian thought for Orwell?

That his own belief structure in the ownership of Ideas is the cause of it.

In desperation Winston Smith pleads with O Brien (part of Orwell’s mind) for an answer:

Why are you doing this to me?

Because I can comes the reply.

 

And stepping out side the novel itself, Big Brother himself comes exactly and specifically from the ownership and selling of ideas :

 

‘In the essay section of his novel 1985, Anthony Burgess states that Orwell got the idea for Big Brother from advertising billboards for educational correspondence courses from a company called Bennett’s, current during World War II. The original posters showed J. M. Bennett himself: a kindly-looking old man offering guidance and support to would-be students with the phrase “Let me be your father” attached. According to Burgess, after Bennett’s death, his son took over the company, and the posters were replaced with pictures of the son (who looked imposing and stern in contrast to his father’s kindly demeanour) with the text “Let me be your big brother.”

 

(From Wiki)

 

Selling ideas through a mail correspondence course. The inspiration for an evil totalitarian genius turns out to be as prosaic as the diminutive Wizard of Oz. And the entire edifice of Oceania is simply a smokescreen for Orwell to try to reconcile what for him is irreconcilable;

The ownership of Ideas leads in the end to the death of original thought.

 

Once you accept that all ideas are man made and can only be man made, you open the way to the ownership of ideas. Once you accept the ownership of ideas you open the way to the dictatorship of owned ideas. Once you accept the dictatorship of owned Ideas you are transformed into a modern German person. Once you are a modern Germanic person, Germanic society owns you body, mind and soul.

 

How can you fight back from there?