Earthquakes and wars flatten streets, factories, homes and buildings. But disaster gives an observer the chance to see the layout of a city revealed in a way that otherwise would be impossible. Now the collapse of the traditional liberal ‘left’ allows us to see right across a Germanic political city unimpeded by many of the structures that have obscured the view for the past century.
As we survey the newly revealed topography we can begin to understand what has collapsed and how . We can see that every major event in Germanic politics and culture over the past four decades is the result of the collapse of the Germanic left and the dissolution of the political structures it created.
The Germanic left existed as a globally significant social force for 100 years from the late 1870s until the 1970’s and its final utter collapse. In that century, socialism transformed the way that Germanic societies operated both internally and in the rest of the world.
Socialism acted historically as a means of extending and consolidating Germanic economic and political power in the same way that the missionary movement extended and consolidated the power of colonising nations in the two centuries before the rise of the modern Germanic empire.
Socialism justified ever expanding Germanic control of the world’s resources under the rubric of ‘progress’. The pains and tribulations inflicted by Germanic capitalistic control were justified on the basis that subject peoples were receiving the gift of progress and development tomorrow as compensation in trade for pain and suffering today. Just as the inhabitants of Manhattan exchanged their island in return for a box of worthless trinkets, so generations of world people have had their real future stolen and exchanged for Germanic ‘progress’.
Let us be absolutely clear; at base the ‘left’ and ‘socialism’ are apologists for and enablers of Germanic control and nothing more. Socialists plead to the masters on behalf of oppressed peoples and make a show of seeking some mitigation of their suffering. In turn they seek to instruct these lesser peoples in the ways they could avoid unnecessary suffering and even further their interests under the Germanic system. It’s all about how to get along and not cause too much trouble. We might be even able to squeeze you out a little ‘welfare’ payment if you are good.
The Germanic left acted as self appointed mediators between the powerful and the powerless, oppressor and oppressed; between the Germanic nations and the rest of the world. It is not really any wonder that Lenin and the Bolsheviks attitude towards the Germanic ‘left’ soured from friendly contempt to cold hatred over the period of the Russian Revolution.
Lenin came to understand that the Germanic ‘left’ was German first and socialist second. Which really means capitalist first and socialist second. When the mask of fake socialist internationalism was stripped away from the Germans the stage was set for a war of genocide against the Slav people. When there was no more advantage in hiding, the German werewolf came out from behind the trees….
After the Holocaust and the attempted Slav genocide it had become apparent to the worlds population that Germanic nations armed with modern technology were if anything, more savage and more barbaric than any of the ‘backward’ nations they had claimed to be developing. The myth of progress through capitalism and Germanic culture had been IRREVERSIBLY damaged. If the Germans couldn’t civilise themselves through technology and progress, how were they supposed to civilise the rest of the world?
This internal and external collapse of the ideological structure of capitalistic Protestantism lead directly to the protracted sickness and death of its deformed twin sister, socialism. It was not the Germanic ‘right’ that was discredited to death in the concentration camps of the second Germanic War, it was the ‘left’. This is Tragedy in the classic sense of the word.
‘Socialism’ did not fall with the collapse of the Soviet union in 1991, it fell with the first images of Auschwitz that reached the world 45 years earlier.
The ‘Reformation’ and dissolution of the monasteries and the Church began with the murder of Catholic monks. The fall of socialism began with the murder of German socialist aesthetes in the concentration camps. This is not co-incidence. One is a replay of the other. If you doubt it, look for the roots of Nazi anti Semitism in Martin Luther’s ravings.
Dissolution is an historical form of Kristallnacht carried out against Catholics that transformed the social, political, economic and moral landscape of North West Europe. The Protestant Kristallnacht has been absorbed into the historical fabric of Europe, but it is still possible to discern the shape of corpses buried beneath the ground.
The monastic movement was characterised by the ownership and administration of land in common under the authority of the Catholic church and the regulation of local societies under the administrative hierarchy of the clergy. This formed the basis for what is known as the ‘feudal’ economy.
After the initial shock of the attack on the monasteries, the total stripping away of their accumulated wealth took a considerable amount of time. And it was this process of stripping away that gave the new Germanic states and their societies their specific nature.
Firstly, the land that had been supposedly promised to the peasants of Germanic Europe was rapidly allocated to the German princes behind the Reformation. It was this accumulation of land wealth into private hands from its previous common ownership, that formed the basis for Germanic Land democracy.
Once the concept of common ownership of land was effectively abolished, a whole section of society was forced out of the agrarian economy and into the cities. This of course, was the basis for urbanisation the creation of the ‘working class’ and the Germanic cult of capitalism.
As well as the land there was other wealth within the monasteries. These included artworks, relics and artefacts, and just as importantly, wealth in the form of knowledge which when scavenged, would form the basis for the cult of science.
Once the princes had had their pick of the wealth from the Church, what remained was left to the ordinary people. They came to scavenge in order of local social power and status and stripped away what they could – carvings, tapestries etc until even the carved woodwork and the masonry work was carted away by peasants and used to build the walls of pigsties and cattle sheds etc.
Something very like this has happened and is happening in the dissolution of socialism. What we can actually see right now in front of our very eyes, is various groups within Germanic society breaking up and carting away the remaining wealth of socialism.
The national public health service. The public education system. The public housing system. The public transport system. Even the army. These are all examples of the hard wealth of socialism that are being looted and dismembered.
But just as the knowledge base of the monasteries was taken away so the social intellectual content of socialism is being shared out among the scavengers
The organic food movement
Even Survivalism !
are all aspects of SOCIALIST social wealth that has been carried away by the modern German peasantry. And this leads to what is most startling about all this: Where the looted goods of Socialism have been turning up.
I explained that the looting of the Church was carried out according to social status. The German Princes got the land and the most valuable items. This obviously corresponds to the new German princes who have reaped the rewards of privatisation and financialisation.
But look where all the other stuff has gone…
To name but a few things:
The spirit of self education and enquiry turns up as deformed conspiracy theory in the hand of David Icke etc and other ‘researchers’ in the alternative media
Anti corporatism ends up as Trumpa-lumpa cartoon protectionist tub thumping a la Alex Jones
Organic food taken over by corporate wannabees
The desire to be free on common land ends up as some poor sap running round in a camouflage jacket in the name of survivalism
I said there was a close relationship between the Dissolution and Kristallnacht. Think of the way that the wealth of Communists, Jewish businesses etc all ended up in German hands. The houses, works of art, furniture etc. all appropriated and their owners liquidated. You could be talking to a hausfrau in the street in Dusseldorf and realise that her earrings are made of the gold fillings from somebody’s teeth.
And when the holy places have been stripped bare. And everyone in German society, even down to the lowest has had a chance to pick over the rags and the rubble. And the rag bag gang have taken everything there is to take. And the even the doors have been stolen so the wind blows through and the roof of the building is caved in . What will be left for the likes of you and me?
I just posted that bove and then I saw this!!!
We cannot celebrate revolutionary Russian art – it is brutal propaganda
The Royal Academy is showcasing Russian art from the age of Lenin – but we must not overlook that his regime’s totalitarian violence rivalled nazism
It might be useful to consider further the relationship between the production of paper news and the production of paper money.
I observed that both paper money and paper news are forms of informational transaction. This might be more accurately described as the transfer of meaning. In this sense ‘meaning’ is the value measurement of information; Meaning is the unit of value of information because meaning transforms data into information and makes it valuable. The construction of meaning is exactly the assigning of value to data.
Consider hyper inflation in the money supply . In the traditional monetarist model (the one that has more or less taken over all mainstream economics), this is caused by an oversupply of money into the market. In other words Monetarists argue that the problem of hyper inflation and inflation generally is one of quantity. Actually the problem is one of quality. We can show this with the following:
There is a direct relationship between publishing an edition of a newspaper and publishing an edition of money, which is effectively what is done each quarter when the interest rate is set. The interest rate is news about how things are going to be according to a central bank and money notes carry this news.
Money published at 0.5% base rate is a different edition of money from that published at 1% base rate. Same ‘newspaper’, same publisher, but different news, different information, different headline.
Just as each particular edition of a newspaper contains information specific to a particular time and place (as I mentioned last time), the paper money note also contains information. I will describe the nature of this information below but for now lets stick with newspapers.
In the example of a newspaper, let us say that the edition of January 6 has the headline: ‘War Is Declared!’. And the edition of January 7 has the headline that ‘Peace Is Declared!’. Taken in sequence the meaning of these events is clear.
First there is a state of war, then there is a state of peace and the present condition of affairs is that of peace.
Now imagine that the newspapers in question were not dated January 6 and January 7 so that there was no way of telling which was the first headline and which was the second. It could be the case that war is declared and then peace declared or it could be the case that peace is declared and then war is declared. So in the first instance we are now in a state of peace and in the second instance we are now in a state of war.
Now let us say that an unscrupulous news agent receives both editions of the undated newspaper from the publisher in correct order but chooses to release them to the local population in either one or the other order for his own personal advantage. If the local newsagent wants to promote the idea that we are at a state of war he will release the newspaper with a war headline second and if he wants to promote the idea that we are at peace he will release that newspaper second.
Just such an instance as this is described when banker Nathan Rothschild famously withheld news of the British victory at Waterloo in order to take advantage of market uncertainty as to the outcome of the battle. By the time the markets received the news that Wellington had won, Rothschild had bought equities at knock down prices and made a killing on the rising market.
If the local population becomes aware of the possibility that news may be manipulated by a local newsagent for the purpose of controlling perceptions, they might hold on to one or more editions of a newspaper in order to compare headlines and get some idea of what the actual facts of the matter are in sequence.
Logically, in such a case the local population will have to conclude that NO particular edition of a newspaper is to be objectively trusted and that all editions are either wrong or lying. In other words the paper in its entirety is worthless rather than just this or that edition. This is the qualitive nature of the problem.
After all, how can two editions of the same newspaper with the same editor and the same journalists and with no differential date information be judged between? How can you know which is the truth NOW and which is not? This is in effect what happens in the case of hyper inflation.
Think of a paper money note as a generalised abstracted unit of information. On a more sophisticated level we can think of a money note as a unit of evidence. We can say that one or more units of evidence goes up to make an argument and that therefore the more units of evidence you can muster in support of any particular argument the more likely you are to win that particular argument.
In a standard economic transaction the argument in question is that you should sell a car,(or any other commodity), to me for this number of paper notes. Or to put it another way, you should swap your car for this number of paper notes.
The more units of evidence that you can muster in support of this argument, i.e. the more paper notes that you offer in return for the car, the more likely you are to win that argument.
But there is an unfortunate corollary to this. If you win the ‘argument’; by offering more pieces of paper money evidence than the other guy, you also implicitly argue that each individual piece of paper money evidence is worth relatively less.
We can return to the practical consequences of this shortly but first, as I argued last time paper bank notes or units of evidence are introduced into the market at a particular time and particular place and at a particular price. So in this sense, they are first and foremost evidence in an argument on behalf of central government made to the general population.
The individual argument that paper money notes are evidence for is: ‘These pieces of paper are valuable to this or that extent not only in comparison with objects such as commodities, but those pieces of money paper that have gone before and those pieces of money paper that will come after’.
This is of crucial importance.
From this perspective the crisis point of hyper inflation occurs when too much information is presented at any one time which results in not a quantitive problem but a qualitive one.
Let us say that two purchasers are competing to buy a particular car. They both make the argument that you should swap the car for this number of pieces of paper money. The number of pieces of paper money is the totality of evidence that this or that exchange argument is true and valid.
Obviously they cannot offer the same number of pieces of paper as evidence/arguments or the seller will have no way of differentiating between the two. So let us say that Buyer A offers 100 money units and buyer B offers 110 money units. Buyer B wins the argument because he has offered more ‘evidence’ in support of his argument. So far so good.
But what if Buyer A offers 100 units as before but Buyer B offers 5000 units? What is the seller to make of that? These two arguments are wildly different, they containing wildly differing amounts of evidence in the form of money notes. (bear ‘fake news’ in mind at this point)
Well surely the answer is simple, the seller takes Buyer B’s offer.
Not so fast. Most sellers would want to know a little more about it before making a decision in these circumstances. The problem is the totality of evidence.
Instead of 210 units in total chasing the car,(both bids), which might be seen as reasonable there are 5100 units chasing the car which is not seen as reasonable given what the seller knows or thinks he knows. Something else is going on…
What if a third buyer comes along ten minutes later and offers 10,000 units for the same car? Now the seller will be pretty sure something is seriously going wrong. And the inevitable effect is that he will be forced to distrust all money notes in whatever amount because they are all the same.
If ten information money notes are worthless then 10,00 money notes are equally worthless, this is both the strength and weakness of the informational money system. The implication is that the seller will be forced to distrust the overall message he is getting from the government. But it is a qualitive and not quantitive problem because it does not rely on amounts.
So what was that central bank/government message I referred to above? It is that ‘We are in charge and everything is all right’. That is the basic unit of money news implicit in every money note.
The second piece of money news is the interest rate, which is the price at which private banks buy money from the central bank. This can be understood as that particular headline for the quarter. But this piece of money news is intimately tied up with the distribution mechanism of the paper notes themselves.
A newspaper printing and distribution operation will have a central printing press, regional distribution warehouses and sub warehouses which distribute to newsagents and even paper sellers on the street.
Each element of the distribution chain decides how many papers to take and to move on down the chain of distribution according to how profitable they predict this process will be. This depends to a large extent on the nature of the headline. ‘Queen Dies!’ or ‘War Is Declared!’ will tend to sell more copies than ‘Water Supply Goes Off In Addis Ababa’ or whatever. (perhaps not in Ethiopia though..) So the headline affects and ultimately controls the distribution process.
The same is true with interest rates. Depending on what the Central Bank decides the interest rate will be, each element of the distribution chain, from the large commercial banks downwards decides how much of this edition of money they will take and distribute according to how profitable they calculate it to be.
But what is of the utmost importance to understand is that in the case of money news everyone in the chain acts like the unscrupulous news agent I described above. Everybody is encouraged to withhold editions of the news and to release them onto the market only when it is in their individual best interests!
When you receive any particular edition of money, you either release it into the public by means of spending it or you withhold it by means of saving it. You manipulate the information contained in the note for your own best interests. That is what you are supposed to do- to lie, to spread disinformation.
Of course everybody is therefore equally dishonest and so no-one can point the finger at anyone else. The system is based upon everybody spreading corruption and lies. Wouldn’t such a system be inherently unstable and prone to periodic collapse?
Wouldn’t someone try to contain this corruption and tendency to collapse? Wouldn’t they try to devise a system to mitigate the problem?
Yes they would. They would take the logical step of trying to date and order the headlines on each edition so they could be read and understood in sequence. How would they do that?
By means of a code that can be read and understood by themselves but importantly, not by you. If you doubt this, take out a currency note and find the identifying code printed on it, usually referred to as the serial number. Do you know what this code means? If you do not, why don’t you? After all it is supposed to be money issued by a democratically elected government in your name and for your benefit!
The purpose of this code is for the people who issued the notes to understand each ‘headline’ and the order it was issued in, but not for you, or anyone like you, to be able to.
The system is built on a small minority being able to fully understand the meaning of the money news and the vast majority below them taking part in a game of charades where they lie to each other and manipulate the news supply to each other for the purpose of individual advantage.
As a simple illustration of this suppose you had 500 units of currency and you found out that this denomination of money would be abolished or worthless the next day. What would you do? You would try to go out and buy something with it wouldn’t you? You would try to use the information advantage that you had to pass the problem onto someone else. This is the key to inflation and hyperinflation.
We are building up a picture of a central money news/information agency that is issuing news on a regular basis. That news/information is then taken up by the various parts of a supply chain and manipulated and distorted in order to obtain the best possible individual outcome but with inevitable damage to the system as a whole. Assuming that he purpose of the system is to transmit information that is.
With this news information model in mind we can now go back to look at hyper inflation. The trouble with hyper inflation is that the seller has no way of knowing which is the most valued up to date piece of information on which to base his decision.
This problem presents itself as there being too many pieces of money information in circulation. Discrepancies between the amounts of money evidence offered in any particular argument (trade), force the seller to increasingly regard all pieces of paper money as being equally invalid- hence the hyper inflation.
But the root of the problem here is not validity of any particular trade argument and the money evidence presented in support of it but the equality between each and all pieces of evidence. Because of this money is actually only credible and valid within a relatively narrow and stable bank of circulation. The sameness of each piece of money information requires sameness of prediction and sameness of outcome to work.
No matter how many paper notes are issued in any financial period they are all of equal validity to paper notes issued in another given quarter. In other words any episode of inflationary money printing activity is absorbed into the whole of the financial system and is only ameliorated by later activity.
Just as any incorrect news report is absorbed into news production and distribution system as a whole. The system relies on its credibility to absorb the effects of any mistakes and keep people believing in the system even as they curse and dispute virtually all of the specific outcomes the system produces!
Since individual savers and consumers effectively act as newsagents, storing the information and only releasing it when it suits the particular interest of the moment, it is inevitable that conflicts of meaning and value will happen.
Hyper inflation is an insane babble of arguments that taken collectively can only mean that each individual argument is more or less worthless since in the last analysis it is all the same argument, that we are in control and everything is alright.
Periodically the logic of worthlessness produced by exchanging paper money arguments is expressed by and through a significant number of news agents going from one door to another desperately seeking a way out as they sense the impending doom.
As the doors are increasingly closed to news hawkers selling bogus information brands the volume of money seeking any way out increases exponentially until an overwhelming tsunami of money at any and every exit guarantees it cannot escape. Think of it as a house besieged by fifty street newspaper sellers shouting:
‘Extra! Extra! Your House Is Burning Down!’
while the house owner cowers within.
In conclusion I will ask: Is there anything we could do to rectify this state of affairs?
And surprisingly perhaps, there is a very simple and very straightforward solution. To date and value stamp money. So that instead of being interchangeable all money is clearly given a value – a ‘sell by date’ at which time it becomes valueless.
The closer this expiry date comes, the less the exchange value of the money note. This would solve all the problems now associated with inflation hyper inflation and Monetarism then we could…
Oh wait a minute.
This form of money already exists. It is called a bond. It is what the banks themselves use when they are dealing with central banks.
If there is only one thing you take away from all this it should be:
THERE IS MORE THAN ONE FORM OF MONEY, THERE ALWAYS HAS BEEN. EACH MONEY FORM SERVES THE NEEDS OF ITS CREATORS. ANYONE CAN CREATE MONEY BECAUSE MONEY IS A COMMONS. MONEY IS A COMMONS BECAUSE IT IS NOT ANY PARTICULAR THING IT IS A FUNCTION- SOMETHING THAT AN OBJECT CAN BE MADE TO DO.
GOVERNMENTS MAKE MONEY FORMS TO CONTROL THEIR POPULATION. BANKS AND CORPORATIONS MAKE MONEY FORMS TO CONTROL THE PUBLIC. BITCOIN IS A METHOD OF CONTROLLING ANY SUCKER WHO BUYS INTO IT.
PRIVATELY ISSUED DEMOCRATISED MONEY IN THE FORM OF DERIVATIVES IS THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE ATTEMPT EVER DEVISED IN HISTORY TO CONTROL THE WORLD POPULATION DIRECTLY THROUGH THE PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF A NEW MONEY FORM.
Question 1: What Just Happened?
Cultural constituencies exploded onto the political scene is what just happened.
I have described cultural constituencies as sub national cultural/moral formations produced by the end of the market economy. I foresaw that as the planned Free Marxet economy became ever more dominant, cultural constituencies would in turn dominate the political sphere-a process that is most advanced in the Saxon Axis. This has proved to be the case in both the Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump as President of the USA.
Now the argument has increasingly become about how these two events are linked. And if they are in turn somehow also linked to other anti-Globalisation/pro-nationalist movements in France and Italy etc. The outcome of this debate will determine how politics is conducted and understood for years to come.
As a matter of note I foresaw the appearance and rise of transnational cultural parties such as the Sax Pistols/Saxon Nationalists in a post that appeared in ‘Crackernomics’ four years ago. I even managed to predict when these organisations would appear on the political stage with an accuracy of about six months!
Now we hear that Donald Trump openly ‘suggested’ to the British government that Nigel Farrage should be appointed as British ambassador to the USA. An amazingly blatant example of Saxon nationalists on both sides of the Atlantic openly building diplomatic relations between two parts of the Sax Pistols international party within the Saxon Axis!
While I have been busy describing cultural constituencies, parts of the so-called liberal left are desperately trying to reconstruct the argument that the emergence of what they refer to as ‘white nationalism’ is the product of the economically ‘left behind’. This is not too hard to understand as a response by the besieged ‘left’. Without the economic argument you can’t have classes and without classes you can’t have the left. So this is a ‘do or die’ ideological battle.
At the same time the liberal right are going all out to cast their approach as economic nationalism -as opposed to the ‘white’ kind of course. They understand that they have a tiger by the tail in the form of the ‘alt right’ and other disaffected elements. If they were to allow a race narrative to become established on either or both sides, it would dog the entire Trump presidency. It has become ever more clear that Trump only intends to use the Sax Pistols as a stage army if he can and now the Republican establishment wants to do the same.
But both Saxon progressives and neo cons reserve their special venom for any arguments that challenge their narrative on the root cause of what has happened. They refer to this alternative understanding disparagingly as ‘identity politics’ or ‘cultural Marxism’. Why is it so important to attack identity politics on both sides of the Saxon left and right?
Because if a punter within the Saxon Axis can decide about his or her own identity he or she might decide wrong. Might decide that he or she is not a ‘worker’ or a ‘capitalist’ or a ‘loyal American’. And we can’t have that, can we? And if you start thinking about your own identity you also might start thinking about German identities and we DEFINITELY can’t have that.
Is That Even A Thing?
So it seems that we have lots of different kinds of nationalism floating about. We have Anglo Saxon nationalism and we have white nationalism and we have economic nationalism.
Can there be such a thing as ‘white nationalism’?
No, because the Germanic nation state subsumes concepts such as ‘whiteness’ and ‘blackness’. That is the whole point of the Germanic nation state- to subsume ethnic cultural identity underneath an economic identity.
But the concept of White Nationalism points towards a fundamental dynamic within Whiteism. The instability arises from whether ‘Whiteness’ is part of ‘Germanness’ or ‘Germanness’ is part of ‘Whiteness’. The desire to impose Germanic whiteness on all whites is fundamental to understanding the Germanic cult of Capitalism and the Germanic cult of Socialism.
So can there be such a as economic nationalism? Well yes, but only if you can figure out which is most beneficial: Nation subordinated to economy or economy subordinated to nation. No-one has managed to produce a consistent and stable relationship between the two for over two hundred years.
So can there be such a thing as Anglo Saxon nationalism? – after all Anglo Saxon is a sub national grouping as well isn’t it? I’ll get on to this in a moment.
Question 2: What Is Going To Happen Next?
After the election the Democrats/Strangeloves have lost access to all the main bases of political power in the American system. They have lost the Senate, they have lost the House and they have obviously lost the Presidency. And this is not the full extent of the rout.
Forthcoming appointments to the Supreme Court and an ongoing round of elections over the next couple of years will most likely the result in the further decimation of a divided and confused Democratic party. So what will the Democrats do in these difficult circumstances?
The main priority will be to attempt to exacerbate differences within the mainstream Republican/Saxon Nationalist alliance that has formed. And there are clear differences between the priorities of the corporate Republican establishment and Saxon nationalist cultural constituencies.(see above).
Already Trump rhetoric on New deal government spending, immigration controls etc are coming under a certain amount of pressure. This can only intensify over the coming months. The Democrats hope is that this will result in a wave of disillusion that will isolate Trump and make his political agenda ever more difficult to enact. So you can guarantee that the liberal media will play up these divisions every chance it gets. In particular it will focus on Trump the person because Trump does not represent an ideology, he is like all politicians now, Culturally Specific.
Now We Can Clearly See That Culture Wars Are Media Wars
The only power base that the Strangeloves have left intact is in the mainstream media. So this is where they will base their attack from. At the same time Trump has his base in the alt media. So it is already pretty clear that this will be a battle of media forms.
In July of 2015 I predicted this outcome exactly and explained how control of the media was fundamental to the new political system based on cultural constituencies (‘Money Where Mouth Is’). In passing, note that Virgin mogul Dickie Branson has said he will bankroll a second Brexit referendum to overturn the result. Cue calls for a boycott of all Virgin product by Brexiteers. This is the face of politics in the future.
As it becomes evidently more difficult to undertake the kind of economic reform that Trump has promised, he will be forced to try to find ways to rally the troops. In order to do this he will be looking for a major cultural constituency issue that can coral his own constituency and clearly mark out the opposition. And this is where the significance of the designation ‘Strangelove’ as a cultural constituency is brought into the most intensely sharp focus. Because The Strangeloves are identified as a cultural constituency most significantly by their medicalisation of sexuality. This is a key concept in the coming years..
Since the end of the Second Germanic War, the Strangeloves have propagated the concept of social and sexual ‘freedom’ through the application of scientific management techniques. In particular this has included the popularization of abortion and mass contraception. There have been further developments in this field including state sponsored sexual organ mutilation designated as ‘ gender reassignment’.
Already we have seen that Trump says he intends to attack Roe v Wade -the defining legal case that established the limits of abortion access in America. But the same time Trump has made it clear that he does not intend to overturn same sex marriage. How can this apparent contradiction be explained?
Because abortion is characteristic of the medicalisation of sexuality but same-sex marriage is not. Abortion is indicative of the Strangelove medicalisation of sexuality in a way that same sex ‘marriage’ is not’. If Trump supporters start to get restive expect an attack on ‘gender reassignment’ as well as the already signaled attacks on abortion and contraception. These will be high profile media attacks.
Question 3:What Will The World Do?
It is clear that of all the global settlement in the aftermath of the second Germanic war it is Europe that will be most challenged by events that we have seen on folding over the past months.
Across the nations of Europe there is a question of whether nationalist parties will be able to take advantage of a seeming upturn in nationalist sentiment. Obama visited Angela Merkel to pass on the torch of multi culti democracy as one of the last acts of his presidency. Angela Merkel has confirmed that she will run for the Chancellor ship of Germany for a fourth time.
This will equal the longest run in government in modern history of Germany. But it seems that Merkels reluctance to leave go of the reins of power is not motivated by any genuine desire to implement a programme but rather by a fear of what will come after if she doesn’t.
On the other hand for the moment at least, the world seems to be reacting to the election of Trump and Brext with a kind of guarded optimism. This might seem counter intuitive on the face of it, but it is entirely logical given the historical precedent.
Essentially, the understanding is that if the European Germans and the Saxon Germans are fighting each other, they are likely in the near future to leave everyone else in peace. In the long run however, they are likely to try to drag everyone else into it. The most aware of world leaders are aware of this fact and planning accordingly.
Question 4 : So What Does It All Mean Andy?
The key to understanding this phase of politics is the meaning of Nationalism and nationalist sentiment in the context of cultural constituencies. Most importantly of all, Cultural constituencies are sub national political formations, which means they cannot be characterised as nationalist in any meaningful way.
For example, the French nationalism of Marine Le Pen is actually a French cultural constituency. It is a sub national cultural grouping that seeks to promote a conception of a particular ethnic cultural group. It cannot assume the mantle of a French nation. Because the French nation is by definition made up of more than one ethnic group. That is what a nation is. that is what defines it in difference to an ethnic group.
We can now return to the question of Anglo Saxon nationalism. If the French ‘nationalism’ of the Front Nationale cannot exist, can the Saxon Nationalism of UKIP take power?. The answer is no. UKIP by definition cannot run Britain. The rise of the SNP is straightforward testament to this fact. As UKIP rises, other cultural constituencies will appear to confront it within any given designated geographical area.
So can the Saxon Nationalism behind Trumpism take power in the USA?
And the answer this time is YES.Because the USA- from Constitution to Bill Of Rights is an Anglo Saxon cultural construction. And Anglo Saxon nationalism can exist because the Anglo-Saxon national state does already exist. It is called America. Now the question is’ Will a non Germanic cultural constituency arise in America to challenge the Saxon nationalists. The answer must be yes. And it will provoke a venomous hatred from both Saxon left and right that you have not seen before.
It is possible to envisage a Periodic table of nationalism and culture. Where any given nation lies on the table in relation to the Germanic nation state will predict its degree of reactivity and instability in relation to cultural constituencies and the nation state.
I have described cultural constituencies as sub national cultural/moral formations produced by the end of the market economy. I foresaw that as the planned Free Marxet economy became ever more dominant, cultural constituencies would in turn dominate the political sphere
Right back at the beginning of the United States of Everywhere, over half a decade ago, I specifically said that the nature of the financial crisis and its resolution would depend upon one thing more than any other:
How much of the old world where the monetarists prepared to allow to return. That statement can be seen to be ever more true today than it was when it was written.
But the implications of what I had written then were not clear to me. I implied that in theory it would be possible to return to the pre-Monetarist state of affairs if everything were put back in place. But this is not the case. I have had to learn again the simple lesson that History is a one way street.
Cultural constituencies are created by the collapse of the market system. But as they come to exercise increasing influence over politics and economics they preclude the possibility of returning to that market system.
The ongoing mainstream economic debate is concerned with the effect of globalisation on those who are left behind – specifically the so-called ‘white working class’ in developed economies. It is widely argued on both left and right that this section of society has suffered more than any other the effects of globalisation, the credit crunch, and resulting austerity.
From this starting point the debate moves on to what concessions can be made to the white working class. How much of the pre-Monetarist world, the postwar settlement, can and should be allowed to return to developed economies.
On both the Trumpist style right and the Sanders style liberal left, there is a desire to see the world return to the 1950s with benevolent state intervention in the markets, a strong and comprehensive welfare state, the end of multiculturalism. But the question is: is this desirable and can it be achieved?
We return again to the central problem. The postwar settlement was founded on two primary considerations: One was concessions to the working class. The second was the rehabilitation of Germanic culture internationally through internationalism and multiculturalism. It had initially seemed that internationalism and multiculturalism had won the day. But that was before the ‘white working class backlash’.
Question 5: What Should I Do?
International media parties.
The political landscape will increasingly be dominated by international media parties. As the political party is to the economic constituency so the international media parties will be to the cultural constituency. Culture Wars Are Media Wars
Comments are closed
Because the international media parties is the battleground it follows that the comments section is the trenches. This is where territory is won and lost.
You will have noticed how the comments sections in more publications are being controlled or shut down altogether. There is no percentage in comments for the big mainstream media organisations. They want quality of readers who will spend money over quantity of readers who don’t. (see Money Where Mouth Is)
Invest Becomes Subscribe
Investment is a rational (or otherwise) decision to assign resources to one of a range of options. The investor is in the dominant position. Subscription as the name implies is placing oneself under the imprimatur of another. Placing oneself rather than any particular money or thing under another authority,
The bail in is a classic example of this. The bank is free to change the nature of the depositors relationship with the bank. A deposit is turned into a share if it suits the bank to do so and there is nothing the depositor can do about it.
The age of the investor is over.
The age of the subscriber is here.
The age of the browser is over.
The age of the speculator is over.
The age of the spectator is over.
The age of the public square is over.
The age of the chit chat is over.
The age of the money back guarantee is over.
If you have somewhere to be, you should think about being there as soon as possible.
And follow the United States of Everywhere. If you are one step behind me, you are two steps ahead of everybody else.
‘Money corrupts everything, and it is capitalism that turns everything into a commodity that is bought and sold. In capitalist regimes everything is for sale: honor, integrity, justice, truth. Everything is reduced to the filthy lucre.’
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.
‘She spoke of the young black boy who looked up at the president and asked: “Is my hair like yours?” She said: “And make no mistake about it, this November when we go to the polls, that is what we’re deciding’.
Alex wrote the following in response to ‘Cultural Revolution Part 1’:
I feel this questioning of democracy may be accelerated by first past the post, given that it allows the largest constituency absolute power in a way that isn’t the case for the continental European countries. In terms of the overall registered vote, the Tories only got just under a quarter of the share, once abstention is taken into account.
Do you really think it’s impossible to return to some kind of economic rationale? To be sure, compromise with the ‘1%’ is no longer on the table, but that doesn’t mean that a more radical solution couldn’t gain ground. One involving their destruction as a class.
Thank you Alex. The following is written partly as a result of your comments.
Cultural Constituency is an idea whose time has very definitely come within the Saxon Axis. This simultaneous implosion of every major political party in both Britain and America is unprecedented in centuries of Anglo Saxon politics.
In England a shock victory for Brexit should have put a cabal of Saxon Nationalist Brexiteers in the driving seat. Ex London mayor Boris Johnson looked like a shoo-in for the leadership of the Conservative Party as a consequence of his role in the Brexit campaign. But that didn’t happen. Conservative movers and shakers said: ‘Anyone but Boris!’
Not that the internal strife in Conservative ranks was of any benefit to the English Labour Party. Around the same time that Conservatives held a surprise forced leadership contest, the vast majority of the parliamentary Labour Party came out in open opposition to their nominal leader. And the cry of the opposition to the opposition was: ‘Anyone but Jeremy Corbyn!’
Over in America the Republican establishment unenthusiastically endorsed Trump amidst the roar of his supporters on the RNC convention floor and Hilary has managed to just about steal the Democrat nomination from the vast constituency of ‘Feel The Bern’ers.
What all these shenanigans have in common is that significant sections of the people who matter in each of the mainstream Saxon duopoly parties, (i.e. big money donors and party activists), absolutely hate the candidate that they have ended up with. In fact a lot of them hate their candidate more than they hate the other guy’s candidate..and this is happening in all the main parties at the same time!
So what is going on? Well in order to provide an answer to this question we will have to take a different approach to 99.9% of what has been written on the subject so far. That means relying not on pop psychology but logic and not on description but on analysis.
In part, the secret to this spiralling chaos lies in the Michelle Obama quote (unbelievable as it may seem), at the top of this article.
In order to operate in the way intended capitalist democracy requires that we reduce candidates to abstractions. In this capitalism is no different from many other forms of political/cultural organisation. But unlike other political ideology, modern capitalist democracy claims that this reduction can and should be done through the application of ‘reason’.
In ‘feudal’ political systems the individual is subsumed to the office he holds by integrated meaning. In other words the King as an individual is slotted into the position of King as structural element of society.
Whether the King is a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ person,(and by implication a good or bad king), is secondary to the justification of position of King- first and foremost we need a King, so that is that.
Give Me The Boy
As an illustration you can think of pouring liquid jelly into a metal mould. The jelly sets within the mould and takes on its shape. Remove the set jelly from the mould and it still holds that shape. So it is with the person of the King. He is made by his experience in office. He eventually becomes the office he holds. Just as ‘king’ is intrinsic to society so this individual is intrinsic to ‘king’ and ‘king’ is intrinsic to this individual.
The same is true of a carpenter, or a farmer or anyone who holds a position within a ‘feudal’ (an integrated), society. You are what you do. Hence the famous Jesuit dictum: ‘Give me the boy and I will give you the man’. People can be shaped.
Actually Not Anybody Can Be President..
‘Feudal’ societies take whoever is available by birth and make them into the leader. In this sense it is entirely irrelevant how a candidate came to be there, it matters what they are going to be made into.
But how could this understanding of humans as primarily liquid and malleable fit in with the modern Germanic conception of individuality the idea that we are all inherently and intrinsically different?
For devotees of the Germanic Cult of Capitalism this conflict in understanding necessarily creates a problem. Like any other society Germanic capitalism need to select somebody to run the show -a leader- but on what basis can we select that person?
The ideological solution was an ever changing line of temporary rulers REPRESENTING a constant never changing ideal- that of democracy, ‘free markets’ etc. So the office holder and candidate can be reconciled as an individual while still expressing an abstraction.
This solves half of the individualism problem, but there still remains: Which parts of any given politician are the ‘individual’ and unrepresentative bits and which parts are the rational ‘representative’ bits?
That answer would be provided in part by Sigmund Frauds’ idea of an ‘unconscious’ : The ‘subconscious’ bits were the individual unrepresentative bits and the reasoning, conscious bits were the representative bits. So when you clock into work in the morning you are the reasoning, rational POTUS and when you clock off at night you are the unreasoning, subconscious, individual.
And from this perspective we have a direct and illuminating insight into the two centuries long Germanic media cult of Politicians And Their Private Lives. Also ‘unconscious’ racism etc. all runs on this basis.
All Germanic political narrative, from pseudo ‘intellectual’ historical investigation to tabloid reporting, is created around this paradigm; the ‘secret sex life of a Kennedy’ or ‘what a Roosevelt ate for dinner’ etc and how this affected the major decisions he made while in office. Think about it; Isn’t this how all historical and contemporary figures are defined and explained in Germanic capitalism?
But for this version of a political reality show to work in the here and now, both capitalist media and intelligentsia have to be able to demonstrate that any given politician –if he or she is to be regarded as acceptable– is reasoning and conscious while he is working in the office 9-5. And this is achieved in capitalism by demonstrating said politicians adherence to a rationale, specifically Economic Rationale.
It is important to note that Economic Rationale is not actually rational- nor does it need to be! What it is there to do is provide a rhetorical framework, a kabuki show that can convince the population that any given politician is acting in a conscious, rational way while at work. It is a means of demonstrating that a politicians’ actions are based on reason.
Economic rationale is founded on the ideological assertion that society is organised around the economic interests of groups of people generally referred to as ‘classes’. These ‘classes’ use politics as a forum to compete for power which allows access to resources.
The Germanic proponents of economic rationale claim that this is the best way to organise society because it allows for the possibility of compromise. Differing groups within a society can compromise on how much tax an individual will pay, how much welfare he will get and so on…
With any other form of social division compromise becomes much more difficult to achieve. For instance, division on a colonial, racial basis, (such as the apartheid system) found compromise impossible resulting in its destruction.
This gives you the beginnings of an insight into the mainstream attacks on Donald Trump and why proponents of economic rationale want desperately to control the nature of the debate…Not just because they hate Trump but because they genuinely fear the consequences of stepping outside economic rationale.
Obviously classes are fundamental to this narrative. But in order for classes to be credible they have to have social power which means demonstrating that they affect the way things are done.
Unfortunately that can’t happen in a planned society, (and after QE you had better believe we now live in a planned society…)
No doubt you are entirely aware of the effective demise of organised labour and of trades unions in most of the developed world. You may or may not also be aware that the destruction of ‘bosses’ took place at the same time. This is a fundamental part of the Crackernomics argument that I have written about on a number of occasions..
We now live in a society that uses the rhetoric of markets while effectively accepting the logic of Marx’s argument that the state must in the end control all economic activity. Welcome to the Free Marxet.
Since we live in a planned economy there is no way for a potential leader to demonstrate his or her commitment to economic rationale and its attendant compromise between classes anymore. There is no economic free market arena where both sides can ‘fight it out’ so there is no need for someone who can compromise. There is only The Plan.
And you can’t compromise with a plan. You either follow it or you don’t. If you don’t follow The Plan you can’t expect it to work… so you are facing a ‘take it or leave it’ situation; This is the actual meaning of the famous Monetarist mantra of TINA- There Is No Alternative.
TINA is not an expression of irrational spite or a dictatorial impulse on the part of Monetarists, no matter what the battered remnants of the liberal left would have you believe. It is simply a sober assessment of the facts as seen from a Monetarist perspective. Monetarists say: ‘All we have is this plan for the Free Marxet. You either follow it and give the remains of capitalism some chance at a future or you do not.’
There are no classes anymore..and there is no way for any candidate to present to public media and intelligentsia as one of a number of credible representatives compromising between competing classes.
Since there is no way to demonstrate that the candidate is employing economic rationale to achieve compromise, there is no way to divide a potential leader up between ‘9-5 rational’ and ‘at home irrational’.
Which brings us to the problem I described at the beginning.
Trump cannot divide himself up between rational and irrational in this situation. Taken as a whole Trump is seen as irrational and unfit by those who are against him.
Boris Johnson cannot divide himself up between rational and irrational in this situation. Taken as a whole Boris Johnson is seen as motivated by an ambitious private vendetta by those who are against him.
Jeremy Corbyn cannot divide himself up between rational and irrational in this situation.Taken as a whole Corbyn is seen as an undercover communist by those who are against him.
Hilary Clinton cannot divide herself up between rational and irrational in this situation.Taken as a whole Hillary is seen as paid for by Wall Street by those who are against her
None of this is the fault of these individuals. Neither is it the fault of those who hate them. It is the collapse of the market system and the political parties it gives rise to that has brought this about ..
No matter which individual politician follows on from what we have now, the essential problem will remain the same. Germanic ideology cannot find a way of understanding and presenting the relationship between political individuals and political offices in this post capitalist situation.
The system now has to find a way to understand any potential leader as a whole. Or at least divided up along non traditional lines. Which brings us to the way that politics is now.
How do we relate to and select individual politicians for positions of power? We cannot go back to saying he or she is moulded into the position as ‘feudal’ societies do, that would be ‘primitive’. It would also mean that we accept that a fundamental precept of capitalism; the concept of Protestant individuality, was void.
The temporary fix is the rise of the Culturally Specific politician as opposed to the Political Representative.
As I said at the beginning Capitalism, like other societies needs to reduce its leaders to a form of abstract. But unlike other societies, capitalism is additionally hamstrung by its need to hang onto the historical cultural creation of the individual.
The hybrid this produces is a new kind of individual politician who is moulded by the ‘Cultural College’ he or she originates from.
Now the politician is an individual in as far as that individuality is the expression of the cultural identity group that formed said individuality. In other words it is an attempt to graft on part of the ‘feudal’ moulding process without admitting as much!
If you accept Barrack Obama as a president, you accept the ‘African American’ middle class liberal intellectual cultural college as a valid origin point for a politician to implement The Plan.
If you accept Hilary Clinton you accept the southern lawyer cultural college as a valid origin point for a politician to implement The Plan.
(This is what the ‘glass ceiling’ spiel is really all about..).
And if you don’t accept Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump it is because you don’t trust the cultural college they come from and represent.
Back to Michelle and POTUS hair. What she is actually saying is that Obama style blacks are in now; That they are trusted to implement the Plan. Now it is time to move onto Democrat women etc..
So much stuff in the news and it goes by so quickly. Blink and you will miss it. Here is some stuff you should see..
New Welfare State
We know the British Welfare State is being re-engineered to meet the need of the coming century. Here is a further illustration of what that restructuring will look like.
Top UK earners to receive as much in handouts as poorest by 2020
New research by the Fabian Society shows generous tax breaks have created a ‘shadow welfare’ for UK’s wealthiest 20%
Money is a social commons, ubiquitous and free. MONEY IS NOT ANY PARTICULAR THING- IT IS A THING WE DO. It can be created by communities to serve the interests of those communities or it can be created by speculators and financiers (derivatives) or wannabee speculators (Bitcoin) to serve their own narrow interests. Here is an example of GOOD MONEY
How to Make Farmers Markets Accessible to the Poor
The German author of this piece openly admits that the ‘Wilkommenkultur’ open door refugee policy was a gambit to establish Germany’s MORAL LEADERSHIP of Europe. Presumably on the basis that any kind of leadership is better than none….
Germany’s refugee crisis has left it as bitterly divided as Donald Trump’s America
We thought we could handle the migrant numbers – I invited them into my home. Whatever happened to our welcoming spirit?
PERMANENT CREDIT ECONOMY
Transitioning from a consumer economy underpinned by the efficiency savings that a welfare state produces, to one where the necessities of life are obtained on credit..
Britons raid savings to fund spending as economists warn recovery ‘built on sand’
Science (Knowledge Democracy), has not had a lot of luck pushing seven year olds around. So it reached the conclusion that it is easier to bully three year olds. Now THAT is the scientific method…
Evolution makes scientific sense. So why do many people reject it?
Child psychology studies have identified a natural human bias toward the theory of intelligent design, and pose a solution: teach evolution earlier
GERMANIC LAND DEMOCRACY 1:
Why do the Tories want to hide who owns our country’s land?
If you wonder why so many people have difficulty understanding the difference between PRIVATELY ISSUED MONEY (Derivatives) GOVERNMENT ISSUED MONEY (Currency Notes), PRIVATELY ISSUED DIGITAL MONEY (Cryptocurrency) this might help explain things…
Being an expert literally changes how you see things
GERMANIC LAND DEMOCRACY 2:
Any democracy exists for exactly as long as it’s constituent members benefit to the same extent from that democracy. Once that equality of benefit ends, the democracy is replaced by hierarchy. All ‘democracies’ naturally and inevitably give way to hierarchies…
‘Kensington-on-Sea’ goes to the polls over posh second homes
Japan has to form a currency bloc with China. There really is no other option
Can anything rescue Japan from the abyss?
Although not often headline news and analysis, one of the main purposes of quantitive easing was supposed to be to provide national economies with the space to undertake comprehensive economic and social “Restructuring “.
The Bank of International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund and a whole host of governmental and quasi-governmental international bodies, have repeatedly insisted that national governments do more to implement ‘restructuring.’ They have constantly complained that national governments have failed to undertake restructuring at a sufficient pace.
But despite being vocally interested in the pace of restructuring, these bodies have generally been quite reticent in spelling out what restructuring actually consists of. Nevertheless I suppose that you and I could hazard a pretty good guess at what is meant.
Privatisation, running down and removing public services, deregulating employment conditions, opening economies to mass migration, all form the core of restructuring. If this is indeed what restructuring is, it could well be argued that no nation is further along this road than Britain.
Britain and the City of London can rightly be considered to be at the very epicentre of Financialisation and the Credit Crunch that followed. Britain undoubtedly suffered some of the most profound economic and political shocks as a consequence of the Credit Crunch.
And Britain has been at the forefront of implementing ‘austerity’ as a response to the Credit Crunch. Indeed, Britain remains virtually alone in the developed world in adhering rigidly to the rhetoric and the logic of austerity when economists and politicians in so many other nations have abandoned it as a temporary response to the immediate aftermath of the collapse.
This was the context in which we saw so the unveiling of the latest in a series of austerity budgets by Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne yesterday, Friday the 16th 2016.
Since cutbacks in government provision of welfare for disadvantaged groups in society (including basic disability payments), have become increasingly stringent there has been something of a push back in the media and society generally.
But this media furore over headline disability cuts has tended to obscure the real significance of the budget, which is that further major elements of restructuring are being introduced into the British economy.
Unsurprisingly perhaps, most people don’t realise the significance of restructuring, and media outlets don’t find it ‘sexy’ in comparison with the headline welfare cuts. But the truth is, the measures that have been introduced are indications of a profound change in the way that society in Britain is being organised. Much more significant than any relative monetary change to the nations accounts, no matter how large or small it might be.
The two most striking examples of restructuring in the latest budget have taken place in the realm of money and education.
Money Saving and Interest
Ever since the implementation of Quantitive Easing, the policy of zero interest rates has meant that it is effectively impossible for ordinary savers to receive interest payments on the deposits they make in the banking system.
For over seven years now, savers have been told that the government issued money that they hold no longer warrants interest on deposit. It has been estimated conservatively that this has cost around £160 billion to the savers of Britain. Fortunately for the Monetarists in charge of the bank of England, the savers of England seem to be prepared to suffer this loss with relatively little complaint.
However, it is clear that this state of affairs could not continue indefinitely. The relatively old and wealthy voters who constitute the backbone of Conservative support in England have traditionally relied on interest on savings and investments as the source of income.
Zero interest rate policy has meant that these savers have had to forego interest in the traditional sense or else put their savings and investment in far riskier endeavours such as the stock market. This has been the cause of some increasing disquiet.
In response to this problem, a previous Conservative administration decided to offer what was effectively a government backed savings investment scheme that guaranteed ‘quasi-interest’ in the form of direct government ‘top-up’ payments and tax relief on savings. This was called an ISA scheme.
In addition to this, the government also allowed retirement savers to withdraw all their savings from state sponsored retirement schemes at a certain point and to do with them what they wish. In other words the policy was: ‘Since we can no longer guarantee interest payments we can at least leave you to be free as you do to do as you wish with your own money and get what you can out of it.’
Seen in isolation these two measures could just be short-term political fixes for the problem of older generation savers who could no longer get an adequate return on their savings.
But in this most recent budget, Chancellor George Osborne has expanded and developed this scheme in such a way as to indicate that it and schemes like it, are going to become an integral part of the way that money is ‘saved’ in Britain.
The new scheme is aimed at ‘young people’ of ages 18 to 40. And more importantly it is being marketed as a lifetime saver scheme. A lifetime alternative saver scheme? This implies that there is not going to be any significant interest paid on deposits in the lifetime of the young people who live in Britain today!
It is worth taking a moment to consider the significance of the implications of this statement.
This scheme is meant to provide a savings route for young people to enable them to buy a house or pay towards their retirement. And it is based upon the idea that these young people will not be able to achieve an adequate rate of interest return from any of the traditional sources in economy – for the space of their entire working lifetime !!
So it is absolutely clear that for at least the next 40 years or so, the Chancellor of the Exchequer sees no possibility that government issued money will be able to generate sufficient level of interest to pay for housing or retirement for a significant section of the population.
I have previously explained the significance of the 2- 2 ½ % interest rate that has become a de facto predicted norm in the Anglo Saxon economies. It is half the general average, indicating that from now on, government issued money will service only half the available economy. Privately issued Democratised money will service the other half.
Given that real terms inflation will continue to run at 2% or over, 2 – 2 ½ % government issued money interest rates are effectively a bust. So the government will have to directly step in and provide an alternative savings route.
But the key point to understand is that the extra donated into the savings pot of individuals IS NOT INTEREST. Interest on Government Issued Money is an idea whose time is gone. This scheme is clearly a means to transition to something else.
The significance of the Government saving scheme will gradually become apparent over the coming years. The significance of changes to the way that education is provided is as clear as a bell today.
Announced government policy focuses on two major changes:
1.Forcing schools become autonomous ‘academies’
- Taking parents off school governing boards
Before I examine these changes in more detail I first want to refer to what I wrote in Crackernomics as part of ‘2023’; a set of predictions dealing with some of the most important developments in the coming decade:
‘Title: 2023: CONTROL AND FUNCTION: Open timetables and Permeable
Core or control education universally provided by the state will increasingly
centre on enforcing social control. Control education, whose purpose is to
‘socialise’ children in openly political ways will be the core of a 3 day school
Parents who can afford it will have the option of paying directly or indirectly
for more elective days; increasingly these will be on different campuses from
control based education.
An increasing number of key skills will be designated as elective: put in
straightforward terms, ‘A’ level equivalence (pre college/university education-AP) will be effectively privatised.
High school holding pens described as technical clubs and vocational organisations run by charities and local government will begin to appear for those people who cannot afford supplemental education. They will be a place to warehouse children whose parents have to work radically longer hours.
To offset opposition and build a new social constituency to defend the changes,
governments will start offering educational discounts on elective education
(probably based on reduced interest rate loans) for: Military service reservists.
Volunteers for public events such as the Olympics. Key sections of workers in
health care, (mainly because will no longer have adequate occupational pensions
or working conditions).
These territorial paramilitaries will be the backbone of the emerging social order.
To summarise I am predicting that the social function of education is to be radically altered to fit the newly emerging requirements of society .
Social Control and Social Function
For most of the last century public education was designed and implemented to produce workers who could interact with a mass production society. It was broadly agreed across the political spectrum that the social good of the pupils and the social good of society was the same.
Mass production education was agreed to be the social function of education. Pupils receive the benefits of basic literacy and numeracy etc which was held to be an advance over what they had before. This basic technical education would benefit society generally through increased productivity and would therefore be paid for out of taxation
Since pupils now had literacy and numeracy they could also more effectively be indoctrinated in the forms of ideology and propaganda that would be required to control a new growing urban population.
But now the idea that broad swathes of the population will be provided with a technical education that they will never be able to apply because of lack of suitable jobs is simply not credible.
The market, driven by technical innovation, requires an ever decreasing number of ever increasingly more specialised technicians surrounded and serviced by an ever growing cohort of generalised menial workers.
In this environment, the social function of education is being redefined to conscript the technical cohort and control the menial cohort. In other words, to prevent the menial cohort becoming independently economically and politically active for as long as possible. This takes the form of an extended education that teaches next to nothing. And when this cohort does become economically and politically active to make sure that it can pose no threat to the new order.
So the ‘education’ element is being separated out from the ‘indoctrination’ element.
Since education can only benefit a relatively small technical cohort (because of reduced employment opportunities), it will be rationed. How will it be rationed? The same way everything else is; through the price mechanism; it will be privatised.
But the indoctrination component still benefits society as a whole (which is to say it benefits the elite in society). Especially now that the menial cohort can never expect to have access to high paying technical jobs. If they can’t have a life they can have propaganda instead. So that will be paid for out of taxation.
But there is a further wrinkle that will have to be negotiated… No matter how dumbed down the menial cohort is, some of them may figure out what is going on…
And that is where education will increasingly function as an overt way to distribute social wealth.
I made the statement that:
‘…territorial paramilitaries will be the backbone of the emerging social order.’
And that will indeed be the case. It would be a mistake to imagine that the ‘welfare state’ will be completely dismantled in the coming years. It is far too valuable a tool of control for that. But it will be redefined and reconstituted to create a social constituency whose purpose will be to enforce social control throughout society.
From this perspective we can now understand the long term significance of the policy of making schools into academies and removing parents from govenorship roles.
By making schools directly answerable to the central state as academies they are transformed into a collective resource that can be integrated into the model I describe above. Individual schools and groups of schools can be designated as warehouse or education schools as part of a nationwide system. Since there will no longer be any local control, the chances of effective political resistance at a local level are minimised.
The same is obviously true for the removal of parent input. Any resistance from parents who begin to see what is being done is effectively short circuited.
The New Welfare State is a subject I will return to in the near future….