Never Mind The Ballots….

 strange 

 john

Everybody more or less knows that the old left/right paradigm is gone now, never to return. But there is no mainstream consensus as to what has replaced it.

To address this issue I have been describing the emergence of Cultural Constituencies; societal blocs that are consequential to the breakdown of  ideology that underpins the Germanic Cult of Capitalism.

 

Within Saxon populations (the ‘Five Eyes’) I have now identified and named  two main Cultural Constituencies that form opposing poles in the New Duopoly. They are the ‘Sax Pistols’ and the ‘Strangeloves’.

 

I will write more about both of these groupings and their motivations in detail at a later date, but for now I will compare some of the differences I have observed in the context of the American Presidential elections and the Brexit debate:

 

 

The Sax Pistols The Strangeloves
Came out of the 1976 crisis of Capitalism Came out of the 1945 crisis of capitalism
Economics: Friedman/ Volker Economics: Keynes
Love pistols and other weapons (‘Sekint Amindmint’) Hate pistols and guns but like bombing foreigners who disagree with gay rights etc
Protestant cult Protestant cult
Catholic hatred because Pope is a One World Government lizard Archon etc Catholic hatred because of no gay marriage between priests etc
Isolationist ‘Gimperialist’ (see gay rights above)
Pro Putin becase he is white and they don’t really understand Orthodoxy Virulent hatred of Putin (see above)
Anti immigration Pro immigration
No such thing as racism although ‘everybody is racist’ when it comes to talking about blacks so as not to concede a point…. Everybody is racist whether they know it or not
Welfare is for whites (Nixon/ Reagan etc) Welfare is for hard working immigrants and not white trash who spend it on cigarettes and Oxycontin etc
We won the war single handedly I would just like to take this opportunity to apologise once again,,, etc
Constitution European Court of Human Rights/UN etc Anyway the constitution was written by white racists
America  Europe
Free markets when it suits us Treaties
Forward to the past Back to the future
Johnson is the wannabee Farrage is the reality Blair
Trump Clinton

 

Advertisements

Cultural Revolution 2: The Unacceptable Faces Of Capitalism Or Give Me The Boy Or 9 ’till 5 Or Is Your Hair Like Mine?

 

729943

 

‘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’.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/26/michelle-obama-convention-speech-female-president

 

Alex wrote the following in response to ‘Cultural Revolution Part 1’:

 

Jul 3, 2016

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.

 

POTUS Hair

 

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..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cultural Revolution Part 1 Or It’s Not EU It’s US

The description of Cultural Constituencies that I began to develop a couple of years ago was a natural progression from an analysis of the political and economic changes that had occured in the global economy as a consequence of the credit crunch. Economics as we had known it had ceased to exist and been replaced with a hybrid semi- Marxist control and command economy..the Free Marxet.

Marx was absolutely right when he deduced that the political structure within developed societies is a direct consequence of the economic structure of these societies. In order to support our previous form of political democracy it was necessary to have an economic arena wherein two opposing sides could work out a compromise of economic interests. This was a form of market in labour, wherein under controlled circumstances, ‘workers’ and ‘bosses’ could compete to secure relative econmic advantage.

In our present command economy such an arrangement is clearly insupportable. A command economy cannot allow independent institutions such as genuine trades unions that would forcibly prosecute the interests of members to the detriment of the overall planned economy.  It follows that the economic and political dichotomy required for traditional political democracy is not viable.

In this altered environment Cultural Constituencies emerge as the only possible vehicle through which differing social groups can identify and pursue their interests. The Brexit vote is the latest and most spectacular evidence of the emergence of Cultural Constituencies as the prime political force at work in the developed economies today.

The Brexit referendum was won by a little over 30% percent of the total population of Britain – a sizeable minority but not by any means a majority of the population. Despite this observation it cannot be argued that Brexit victory is somehow illegitimate. There is no minority within Britain that is greater in size than the Brexit gang so by the terms of formal democracy the vote stands.

Despite this unavoidable truth it is absolutely clear that Remain does not intend to accept the political reality of the Brexit vote or its legitimacy. This clearly brings the entire democratic framework within which the referendum was carried out into question.

Fundamental questioning of the existing democratic system is an inevitable consequence of the emergence of Cultural Constituencies. The reason for this is not complicated. The political system as we know it is designed to service economic constituencies groups who identify themselves and their interests in primarily economic terms.

If economic constituencies are no longer to be the prime building block of the system how can that system remain unaltered?

Imagine a large university building in the process of being constructed over two or three generations. Half way through, the builders find out that the red brick they have been using will no longer be available. The alternative building material they are being offered has a different tensile strength, water absorbance characteristic etc. which means that the structure that had originally been envisioned cannot be supported by this type of brick.

The part of the building that is not already built using the old brick will have to be extensively redesigned if it is to be built using the new brick. This is the political process we are watching being worked out now in Europe and around the globe.

This tension between the old plan and the new is now beginning to make itself felt through the altering structure of political parties.  Political parties as we know them represent a hybrid solution to the problem of ‘modernising’ Germanic land democracy.

Germanic Land democracy is based upon the free ownership and transfer of land. In all the Germanic democracies, land ownership was originally the prime requirement for the right to vote- to participate in the democracy. No land, no vote.

However, with the development of the cult of Capitalism and large numbers of landless ‘workers’, who were by definition disenfranchised, it was necessary to develop a hybrid solution. Cities rapidly became large centres of landless people which gave birth to an alternative ideology to Germanic Land Democracy- later identified as Communism.

This Communism would inevitably challenge the existing order and given the superiority of urban areas in numbers and productive capacity would win.  The solution was the creation of geographically constructed constituencies that expressed an economic justification for their existence through the party system.

The voting system would formally be based on geographical location, but the motivating political dynamic for taking part in that system, the parties, would be economic in character. This is the basis for so-called modern‘universal sufferage’-the right of everybody to vote.

From the point of view of stabilising Germanic societies this served the dual purpose of avoiding a direct challenge to Germanic land democracy by those who had no land, while at the same time avoiding the obvious conclusion that the political system should be formally organised upon economic or class lines.

Geographic boundaries as the basis for politics and democracy were preserved. And this is fundamental to the continued existence of Germanic Land Demorcacy.

Despite the rhetoric to the contrary, this form of compromise has proved to be inherently UNSTABLE and prone to periodic seismic crisis. Universal suffrage only became widespread in Europe around the turn of the last century and immediately produced a series of political and economic shocks that have increased in severity to the present day.

As a consequence of these shocks, the ideology of welfarism was developed to mitigate the obvious disparities of political and economic power. Welfare is the bounty paid to the landless to prevent their overthrow of land based Germanic Land Democracy.

However, these internal developments in the Germanic economies did not occur in a vacuum. Across the world changes in the balance of power meant that developed nations were having to modernise Germanic Land Democracy against a backdrop of relatively diminishing international power.

In the late 1960’s this reached a point of absolute crisis and the formal intellectual abandonment of the free market economic model in America. The Free Market was replaced by monetarism –  continual state control of the economy through the amount of money allowed into the economy by ‘independent’ central banks.

As the effects of Monetarism became apparent, we could see the end of the distribution of wealth and resources through the work and production model and its replacement with the distribution of wealth and resources through a property or asset ownership model.

This intermediate property or asset ownership model reached its own breaking point with the snapping of the link between taxation and asset and property ownership – what has come to be known as Neo Liberalism, and just as significantly, Globalism.

In essence globalism is not the movement of capital around the globe, that has been a greater or lesser feature of economy for thousands of years. It is most significantly the break between wealth generation through asset ownership and taxation by national governments.

This gives rise to the present crisis which is expressing itself at the weakest point of the chain- the joint between economic political parties and geographic political system. In Britian today the political system is physically imploding in front of our very eyes.

The two major parties have no effective leadership and furthermore, they have no prospect of establishing effective leadership in the short to mid term foreseeable future. By this I specifically mean that they have no plan to deal with the consequences of Brexit that will not necessarily entail their own eventual political destruction!

The two opposing sides in the Brexit conflict represent not economic differences, but cultural identity differences. This has become all but impossible to hide.

The Brexit side is perfectly willing to accept any short to mid term financial problems including uncertainty and some degree of isolation so long as it achieves their long term goal of disentangling English politics from Europe.  Likewise, the Remain side is entirely comfortable with ongoing hardship,especially for young people, in the form of mass immigration and competition for resources so long as they can stay within the European ideological mindset.

These are political AND personal decisions made by the individuals who have voted for each side. In this new political environment, the existing political parties simply have no way to lead ‘Leave’ and ‘Remain’ to some form of traditional compromise. There are no economic incentives they can offer to achieve compromise.

Face Value or Down The Rabbit hole or Minority Report or Yes We Khan!

mask

 

A couple of weeks ago the Fed announced that Harriet Tubman, a slaved African ‘black’ woman would replace President Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill.

 

The arguments for and against this volte face are running more or less as you would expect.

 

The pro-Tubman side claim that introducing Tubman is more than just substituting one historical personality for another. It represents the inclusion of a whole kind of person that has been omitted from mainstream establishment American history.

 

On the other hand the ‘anti’s are obviously wary of falling into the trap of outright opposition, so they suggest that slavery and its most significant protagonists should be celebrated and included in some other way. Keep the money for ‘dead presidents’ they conclude.

 

On the face of it, (pun intended), it seems peculiar that Germanic capitalism- a form of society that lays claim to the inheritance of the Enlightenment and Reason, should be putting anyone’s face on money. Surely this is uncomfortably close to the sort of feudalistic impulse that Capitalism claims to have superseded.

 

The truth is that the ‘primitive’ roots of having the face of king or emperor on a coin legitimises the modern money we have today just as it did in times past. It lays bare Capitalism’s dirty little secret- it is parasitical upon the social forms created by ‘feudalism’ and always has been.

 

Capitalism cannot generate the social traditions necessary to enlist the loyalty of the ordinary people it claims to represent! It needs ‘feudalism’ to do that. For instance, why do you think soldiers dress up in fancy uniforms?

 

Why don’t capitalist armies dress up for their parades in business suits?! Surely the suit and tie is the ‘folk costume’ of the capitalist nation and its armies!

 

But experience has shown that people won’t fight and die for Capitalism and capitalists know this better than anyone. Capitalism needs feudalism to survive.

 

The face on money controversy proves that the past is alive and well and not just in the matter of money.. Donald Trump has achieved the Republican nomination in all but name. There may be sour grapes and carping but for the moment his enemies in the Republican elite dare not attack him outright.

 

Trump is a prime example of feudal capitalist king and outstanding expression of the ever increasing importance of cultural constituency in the politics of the west. In Obama and now Trump we are witnessing the end of representative democracy and beginning of Constitutional Embodiment.

 

As I have explained in previous writing on cultural constituencies, politicians like Trump are Cultural Specifics as opposed to ideological representatives. They are not there to represent an idea held in common. These politicians are not old style REPRESENTATIVES of a political ideology, they are the new style EMBODIMENT of a CULTURAL IDENTITY.

 

A Cultural Specific does not reflect and represent an idea that his constituency wishes to endorse. A cultural specific reflects the way that the members of his constituency wishes to be seen by the world. A representative represents an idea. An embodiment represents you (or not!)

 

They have no meaningful political perspective based on economics- that is not what they are there to do. They are there to VALIDATE the identity of their CONSTITUENCY. No-one understands this better than Trump himself.

 

Showing one of the startling flashes of prescience that have made him so successful despite his limitations, Trump has decided to go after Elizabeth Warren -supposed ‘left wing’ scourge of Wall Street and self described native American who,Trump says, is ‘as native American as I am’. Which means of course, not at all.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-donald-trump_us_572d4282e4b096e9f0919399

 

It is fundamental to classic Germanic Land Democracy, that national and cultural identities are social commodities, available to anyone born in a particular time and place.

 

Rachel Dalziel may have taken it to an extreme, but she was only doing what ‘Americans’ feel is their right and due. To dip into ‘black’ ( or other) culture for a ready to wear drip dry identity.

 

Ms Warren feels able to take her own personal journey down the rabbit hole with her proclamation of Nativeness (is that a word?). Surely a look in the mirror would help her to understand the truth of the matter.

 

Here Trump shows a clear instinctive understanding of Whiteism. Since it is about identity, unlike economic rationale no compromise is possible. You can’t split the difference- you either are a Native American or you aren’t.

 

Elizabeth Warrens firestorm Twitter response to Trumps IDAttack tells the whole story. She is clearly fighting for her political life. If Trump wins, politicians like Warren and the people she represents will be in imminent danger of becoming politically extinct.

 

The key to understanding Trump and his supporters is to realise that they now identify and act as a minority; the VolkAmerika cultural constituency, and are no longer interested in being the majority with no benefits and loads of associated social political and economic costs.

 

Trump doesn’t see himself as being part of the majority tasked with keeping the edifice standing against the minorities. He no longer sees why his supporters should be willing to make sacrifices to keep the system going. He is as ready to kick at the foundations of modern America as any other minority…

 

Closer to home the election of Sadiq Khan in London as the first Muslim mayor of a major European city extends the advance of cultural constituencies

 

Khan ran as ‘the son of a Pakistani bus driver’ against the offspring of a Jewish billionaire Zac Goldsmith and accordingly the papers in this part of the Saxon Axis resound to claims of ‘Anti Semitism!’ and corresponding counter charges of ‘Islamophobia!’

 

But the game is more nuanced that that. Khan was the Muslim who goes on day trips to his local Synagogue (EuroSlam) and Goldsmith a multi-millionaire who cares ‘passionately’. about the environment. (‘Green’back capitalist a la Richard Branson)

 

So which would you rather be personally identified with:

 

‘EuroSlam’ Pakistani or ‘GreenBack’ Jew?

 

Welcome to the post economic rationale world…

 

And North of the English border comes the starling news that the Tories who have been rank outsiders for decades have returned to centre stage.

For around half a century the Conservatives, traditionally seen in Scotland as quintessentially English, have been a fringe party in Scottish politics.

 

They were tarnished with Thatcherism which promoted a form of politics centered on the Saxon heartlands of ‘Middle England’. Most famously Thatcherism is associated with the poll tax whose purpose was to make local taxation entirely regressive and removed from ability to pay.

 

So how did they come back? Or more importantly, where did they come back?

 

The answer to this is; all along the East coast, the area of Scotland whose population is by majority Lowland Saxon Germans.

 

The Scottish Nationalist Party maintained its share of vote among the West Coast population. The sea change is that the Saxon East coast population has abandoned Labour, an English ‘left wing’ party no longer seen as providing adequate cover for their interests. Now they openly vote for Tories as an East coast Saxon opposition to West coast Gaelic SNP!!

 

I have long argued that ‘left wing’ and ‘right wing’ are redundant in the modern world,(if they ever really meant anything) and especially in the case of the Saxon Axis. There has never been a significant ‘Socialist’ party in any part of the Saxon world and there never will be. This is not an historical co-incidence.

 

The left/right divide was always only a political tool for the promotion of Germanic political culture, Germanic Land Democracy and the Germanic Cult of capitalism.

 

Now that it no longers serves any practical purpose for the Germanic population of Scotland, they are abandoning it.

 

And this is happening all around the world- The Great Unravelling

Blink- News From Around The Five Eyes

 

200Blink -May 5 2016-   by Joe Jones
Fury Boxed In

I have been recently trying to get in touch with Tyson Fury to arrange an interview before the Anglo-Saxon press really try and tear him apart. In this press conference he declares how he does not care about boxing and how he is fighting just to put food on the table.

Good on him, he has a pregnant wife at home and family is his main concern.

Fury, who is the undisputed heavyweight champion, has got nowhere near the credit any other British World champion has had. This is because he does not enter into the Anglo-Saxon model. He is an Irish traveller with a Christian belief system, and what’s more, he is outspoken.

The press will be eyeing up their next move.

 
Death To America!
Debt To America!

White Working Class Mortality Rates Are Increasing
Other studies indicate rising death rates for a white working class that is in a slow-motion economic and social meltdown. Self-destructive behaviors are outpacing …
The Anglo Saxon Empire is spiralling into chaos and the Anglo Saxon poor have been abandoned.

http://www.nationalreview.com
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434544/white-working-class-mortality-rates-are-increasing

Wildfire

In 2013 USE predicted that a white population in the developed world would be made into refugees as the consequence of natural or man-made disaster. A little bit later than predicted but this could be it…

https://unitedstatesofeverywhere.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/wildfire/

Fort Mc Murray Evacuated

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/04/world/fort-mcmurray-fire-canada/

Then Water..

Obama Leading from the front drinks some Flint water (filtered of course) Yum!

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/4/11591894/obama-flint-water

Rice

Prices for Rice can be expected to rise sharply in the coming year. Apparently it’s the fault of the weather- chaos caused by commodity speculation will have got nothing to do with it…

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/global-rice-crisis-el-nino-prices-increase-a7012526.html

TRiUMPh of the Will

Trotskyist World Socialist Website can’t decide if the Don is an insider pretending to be an outsider or an outsider pretending to be an insider..

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/05/05/pers-m05.html

And AS liberals can’t decide if they even want democracy anymore..

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trump.html#

This Is Not America

This article is titled ‘How is Donald Trump affecting American culture’. Donald Trump IS American culture..As many of the entries indicate.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-donald-trump-readers-thoughts-20160428-snap-htmlstory.html

Whiteism: Get The Picture? Or Exit Pursued By A Bear Or A Sea Of Troubles Or Full On Ultra Primitive Cultural Constituency Or I Yam What I Yam

leo

Although perhaps not widely recognised for such, over the years Leonardo DiCaprio has quietly developed a talent for personifying some of the most significant developments in capitalism through the medium of film.

 

In ‘Titanic’, DiCaprio takes the role of a romantic Irish artist who, along with so many others of his class and ethnicity ended up dumped in the freezing cold water of the Atlantic Ocean.

 

Many pundits have used the Titanic disaster as a metaphor for financial catastrophe suddenly looming out of the dark to scupper a supposedly unsinkable vessel. I have described lifeboats reserved for the privileged few as the way democratised money acts as an escape for the financial elite.

 

Funnily enough, recently Titanic co-star Kate Winslett pointed out there was actually enough room on the door she lay on to save the DiCaprio character at the end; he really didn’t need to die next to her in the freezing water after all. A fitting description of austerity if ever there was one.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/12137124/Kate-Winslet-finally-admits-the-ultimate-Titanic-truth-Jack-could-have-fit-on-the-floating-door.html

 

In ‘The Aviator’, DiCaprio portrays Howard Hughes; famous and reclusive multi millionaire entrepreneur. Throughout the film Hughes spends his time either publicly engaging in theatrical argument with Congress or trying to get his massive and impractical seaplane, the ‘Spruce Goose’, off the ground.

 

At the climax of the film, the Spruce Goose does actually take off for a single flight, proving that Howard Hughes was right, at least in theory. Its all reminiscent of the Feds quarter point interest rate rise…. Just enough to prove its possible and then no more. And the film ends just as Hughes starts to go REALLY crazy. How apt…

 

DiCaprio ‘s latest offering, The Revenant, features our hero suffering an attack, reputed to be possibly sexual in nature, at the hands of a wild bear.

Again, this is an excellent dramatic metaphor for the ‘bear’ markets in the aftermath of the present cycle of dislocation that has caused wild fluctuations and devaluation in the global equities market.

 

Throughout the course of ‘The Revenant’ we see various European colonisers treating the natives and each other with unremitting cruelty and treachery. This cruelty is in turn mirrored by, or even exceeded by the brutal terrain which they inhabit.

 

Just like Conrad’s ‘Heart of Darkness’, the central theme of The Revenant is that Europeans revert to a savage state if circumstances warrant it. Sounds a bit like my discussion of The Great Unravelling..

 

There is a sense in which the achievements of the past decades are increasingly   lost in the New World we find ourselves in. It has become a commonplace that the children of this generation, (at least in the developed world), will find themselves in greatly reduced circumstances compared with those who have gone before them.

 

And furthermore these reduced circumstances will inevitably lead to an increase in competition and savagery. Traditional optimistic capitalism is leaving the stage, as Shakes pears famous phrase has it: ‘pursued by a bear (market)’.The only question remaining seems to be whether the character exits stage ‘left’ or stage ‘right’.

 

Stage Right

 

Should our hero decide to exit the stage on the right, waiting in the wings he will find someone, or something, like Donald Trump waiting for him. Trump is most famous for The Apprentice television series; a sometimes diverting comedic parody of the capitalist process.

 

The characters who regularly appear in ‘The Apprentice’ obviously have little or nothing to do with a serious political and economic system. They are more like a group of suburban revenants, survivors of a collapsing America, gradually having their absurd rhetoric of self worth stripped away by being asked (and failing), to perform even simple capitalist tasks.

 

The Ultimate Zero Hours Contract

 

Contestants end each episode in a kind of ‘Judasfest’ where they condemn each other before a magisterial Trump who finally informs one of the team: ‘You’re Fired!’. As I have mentioned before, since no-one is actually employed yet, this has to be the ultimate zero hours contract…

 

The Wild Bunch

 

The underling idea of ‘The Apprentice’ is to rescue something (represented by the winner) from an ever increasing set of adverse circumstances the ‘Best of A Bad Bunch’ might be a good alternative title for the program. (just as ‘The Wild Bunch’ might be a good alternative title for America).

 

In other words ‘The Apprentice’ illustrates a process of attrition -A Zero Sum Game. The irony is that since this is entirely a kind of abstract competition that   in itself represents the end of capitalism.

 

In neither TV programme or Presidential campaign, is Trump even slightly concerned with trying to maintain some kind of relevance to the logic and exigencies of capitalism or indeed any economic rationale whatsoever..

 

Trump makes proclamations that are simply broad generalisations along the lines of ‘We Will Make America Great Again’ or ‘We Will Make The Army Great Again’ that are in no way constrained by any practical considerations.

 

In essence Trump is running a salvage operation. His central claim to competence is that he can pick whatever diamonds there still are out of the dunghill. Trump is popular precisely because he does NOT bow down to the shibboleths of capitalism. In fact, Trump represents a yearning to adapt to the new set of post capitalist circumstances.

 

Stage Left

 

On the other side we have Bernie Sanders offering equally vague prognosis and solutions. But where Trump perspective is avowedly Anglo Saxon, Bernie is advocating ScandiSax – the Anglo Saxon version of a Scandinavian style integrated ‘socialist’ society. Except post WWII Scandinavian society is definitely an idea whose time has come- and gone. I have discussed on numerous occasions the tension between a welfare state and a mass immigration state. It seems like the decision has been made in favour of mass immigration in Scandinavia.

 

Sanders suggests a return to primitivism in the form of an idealised Eco world which is just like Trump, but from a different perspective and with different rhetoric. The central thrust is how to save what can be saved from an ending political and economic system.

 

And then again we have to consider Frau Clinton. Who is a whole another thing. Because while Bernie and Donald are all about what they are going to do, Hillary is already totally there-in the zone.

 

Hilary can be described as Full On Ultra Primitive Cultural Constituency. Donald and Bernie have some sort of idea why they want the Presidency, other than that she just wants it Hilary has none whatsoever.

 

Hilary does not argue, I WANT x, y or z. She ‘argues’ I AM a woman. Of course, this is not an argument, it is a statement. This is the essence of Cultural Constituency. If there is no argument, there can be no logic- there is no basis for logic if there is no argument. If there is no logic, there is no rationale. If there is no rationale there is no basis for agreement or compromise. Politics as we have understood it is over. This is the Great Unravelling.

 

In Titanic DiCaprio faced the consequences of his identity and embraced it at the point of his death in the sea. He agreed to Give It All Up for his Protestant Germanic love.

 

In The Aviator DiCaprio as Hughes came to terms with isolation,separation and finally disintegration (see ‘Vector History’), from everyone else and faced the terrible consequences of this. He embraced his identity, madness and death.

 

In The Revenant DiCaprio is estranged from his own coloniser people and the native Americans. In the end he sees his Native American wife heading into a dark forest without him and- you guessed it, he embraces his separate identity and death..

 

Get the picture?

 

So that leaves the question, given this strange ability to prefigure the life of the Germanic Cult of Capitalism what will DiCaprios next role?

 

I think I know.

 

2016: The Great Unraveling

 

 

 

Had a coat of fine leather and snakeskin boots
But that coat always had a thread hangin’ loose
Well I pulled it one night and to my surprise
It led me right past your house and on over the rise’

 

‘Lucky Town’- Bruce Springsteen

 

The World’s Political And Economic Order Is Stronger Than It Looks

8:39PM GMT 30 Dec 2015

 Telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12074226/The-worlds-political-and-economic-order-is-stronger-than-it-looks.html

In the last days of 2014 I identified 2015 as the first Year Of Culture. I described the rise of the cultural constituency – a new kind of sub national grouping transforming the nature of politics internationally and domestically.

The dramatic rise of SYRIZA in Greece, PODEMOS in Spain, Trump in America, and even the division of Scotland and England between SNP and the Conservative party proved my observation to be accurate. No one else came close to predicting the rapid and transformative rise of the cultural constituency .

My analysis comes from the perspective that fundamental and far-reaching change is taking place. This affects not only the way that politics and economics is practised but the core ideological principles that underpin these disciplines in the ‘western’ world.

Economics as we have understood it has fallen apart – there is no longer an economic rationale -a unifiying ideology that underpins the debate between opposing factions. Instead, it has been substituted for by a cocktail of emotion and morality that is the precursor to fully fledged sub-national identities.

Until the end of the Cold War questions of group identity and conflict appeared to be successfully subsumed within the modern nation state. It was argued by our liberal elite that this process of sublimation to liberal democracy would continue throughout the world. Loyalty based on district or ethnicity or religion would gradually wither away and be replaced by loyalty based on ‘class’ and comparative economic advantage economic rationale.

 

This transformation was the essence of progress and modernity and was supposed to be unstoppable. But by now it is now becoming increasingly obvious that not only has the global process of liberal expansion stalled, it is now being reversed– even within the core nations of Western Europe where it began 450 years ago.

The bigger picture has been revealed over the past year. If 2015 was the first Year of Culture then 2016 is the first year of The Great Unravelling.

In a recent piece in the Telegraph, ‘The World’s Political And Economic Order Is Stronger Than It Looks’ Ambrose Evans Pritchard (AEP) compares the world as it is now and as it was in two other periods of great upheaval; the interwar decades between 1918 and ‘39 and the time of The Thirty Years War that divided Europe into Protestant and Catholic states.

In AEP’s brief description what is immediately striking is the central significance of Germanic thought in these crises; its liberal wing personified by Erasmus and Stefan Schweig, its prescriptive wing by Martin Luther and Adolf Hitler.

 

It is also striking to note that despite recognising the centrality of German politics and culture in the rise of Protestantism and the World Wars, AEP somehow fails to recognise the possibility that German culture and politics is again at the centre of a global crisis we now find ourselves in.

 

Indeed, it is not even clear that AEP is sure that there IS a specific crisis.

 

‘Readers have scolded me gently for too much optimism over the past year, wondering why I refuse to see that the world economy is in dire trouble and that the international order is coming apart at the seams’.

 

His central prognosis is that things could be a lot worse; is this justified optimism or blindness?

 

AEP is unable to see both the ‘Germaness’ or the danger in the present crisis because contemporary events frame the end of Empire, something which is likely to be beyond the ability of the adherents of that empire to discuss rationally.

 

Protestantism and the Enlightenment were markers for the beginning of the age of the modern Germanic nation state which displaces ethnic and cultural regional identity. Luther and Protestantism represent the birth and growing pains of an Empire Of Thought co-existing with the physical Germanic empire. The split between Protestant and Catholic thought in Germany was characterised by German philosophy as the failure of Catholic thought.

 

The World wars that began almost exactly three hundred years after the Thirty Years War represented another intellectual milestone -an irretrievable split between Continental German and Anglo Saxon thought. This split centered on the failure of the liberal continental German tradition of Goethe and Schiller (and even Marx) to resist the rise of barbarism. This was in turn characterised by Saxons as the failure of continental German thought.

 

There is a pattern here: The prevalent form of thought is said to have failed as a competing form of thought emerges, then there is an unraveling that spirals into conflict.

 

The Technical Basis For Civilisation

 

A global unified Germanic philosophy emerged from Protestantism, based on the idea that there was a technical basis for ‘civilisation’ that dominated more or less the entire world:

 

‘Zweig’s description of Europe in the years leading up to 1914 is intoxicating. Everything seemed to be getting better: wealth was spreading, people were healthier, women were breaking free’….He could travel anywhere without a passport, received with open arms in Paris, Milan or Stockholm by a fraternity of writers and artists. It was a cheerful, peaceful world that seemed almost untainted by tribal animosities’ (!-AP)..

 

It was believed that the more technologically advanced a society was, the more civilized it was. The more civilised it was, the more morally developed it was. The impulse and capability leading someone to develop a combustion engine is the same impulse leading someone to create a sewer system, universal education etc. It is a process of improving the lot of mankind through individual effort.

 

Ironically perhaps, this argument reaches its apotheosis in Karl Marx (a Protestant family converted from Judaism, missing out Catholicism on the way!), who claimed that a physically materially advanced society is better in every way than a non developed society more intelligent and more moral. Crudely put, it is further along the road to ‘inevitable’ revolution and socialism.

 

But the fetishisation of technological development ended in Auschwitz and Hiroshima, after which it was undeniable that technology was also an enabler for what can only be called bestiality. WWII showed the world that you could be a savage with a V2 rocket and a computer just as easily as you could be a savage with a hatchet and a headress. The chimera of technology and civilisation was dead.

 

After the worldwide discrediting of German philosophy a section of the elite sought to preserve what they could of German intellectual heritage and corresponding cultural and political power. Welfare and Multiculturalism are what they took from the burning ruins of Germanic philosophy. These were the post WWII liberals that created the Germanic welfare societies and the European Union.

So what does it mean to say that the German elite wanted to save global Germanic philosophy? They wanted to save it from being lost within the world. The C20th saw German philosophy transformed in a few decades from a global transformative force to one in danger of being completely despised and ignored. Post war Germanic politics, both ‘left’ and ‘right’, is the process of rehabilitating German philosophy and society in the eyes of the world

 

This collapse of German philosophy was exactly the inevitable consequence of a fratricidal inter-Germanic war. After all, how can German philosophy claim to be the all inclusive end point of human civilisation when both types of Germans are trying to destroy each other?

‘even during the slaughter of the First World War, Europe still had a moral conscience. All sides still bridled at any accusation that they were violating humanitarian principles.

…Two decades later, even that had disappeared. Zweig lived to see his country amputated, cut off from its economic lifelines, and reduced to a half-starved rump.’.

German philosophy is at its root a philosophy of total world domination – its proponents on ‘left’ and ‘right’ only differ in that they advocate the use of force or industry or intellect to achieve this end.

 

From its inception German philosophy understood itself to be the future the product of progress and development. All nations HAVE to become nation state democracies because this is the consequence of ‘inevitable’ development- It claims that everybody in the world ‘yearns’ to be ‘free’ etc. German philosophy is based on Universalism therefore it has to be all subsuming. It cannot be just one of many philosophies. In a grand irony, the philosophy of competition cannot ever accept the validity of any competition with itself!

This is the kernel inside the United States of Everywhere: ‘Do you accept the pre-eminence of German philosophy?’ Seen through a contemporary prism this question presents as: Does the developing world rise because it has adopted Germanic liberal capitalist thought or because it has resisted it?

 

This question was certainly open in the initial period of globalisation when it seemed that the ‘West’ was instigating a free and comprehensive exchange of ideas and material with the rest of the world.

 

However, since the debacle of the ongoing Mid Eurasian wars and the chaos they have brought, it is becoming increasingly harder to deny that it is only through resistance to Germanic thought that progress is achieved or even basic human civilisation maintained. Developing nations are increasingly forced to turn their back to the ‘West’ in order to survive.

 

Even Saudi Arabia-a direct creation of Anglo Saxon foreign policy now finds itself driven into conflict with the nation that sponsors it as a consequence of the chaos that is engulfing the entire Middle East.

 

This brings us to what really appears to be bothering AEP. What he describes as the “managed “rise of China as competitor to the USA. AEP chooses to see this as a matter of political and economic transition rather than a cultural one.

..The fateful rupture between the US and China that many feared has not in fact happened. Washington has so far managed the rise of a rival superpower more or less benignly.

China has just been admitted into the governing elite of the Bretton Woods financial system with the backing of the US Treasury. …Barack Obama and Xi Jinping steered through a sweeping climate change accord in Paris, the template for a new G2 condominium.

In case this all seems a little implausible:

‘This is not to deny that the Pacific Rim remains the world’s most dangerous fault-line. The South China Sea is on a hair trigger. The US Navy faces the unenviable task of defending the global commons of open shipping lanes without crossing an invisible strategic line.

But not to worry:

.. the Chinese hubris that seemed so alarming four years ago has faded with the dawning realisation that they are not magicians after all – and America is not in decline after all’

What an image- the USA as defender of a ‘global commons!’ At this point I can’t help wondering if AEP is entirely serious about all this. Still…

 

Underneath the rhetoric, AEP implies that China is so thoroughly westernised that there would be no significant difference in the way global politics and economics operates were China to become the single most powerful economic and political power in the globe.

 

In contrast, I would argue that what we have already seen of China’s limited rise to power is undermining not only the economic ideology of capitalism, but even more importantly, the cultural identity that underpins it.

The German nations of NW Europe have sought ‘moral’ leadership through their loudly proclaimed willingness to accept middle eastern refugees. However, it has become increasingly apparent that no group of nations, no matter how willing they are to adopt multiculturalism, are able to physically cope with the effects of millions of foreigners who are motivated by and adapted to, what is fundamentally an alien understanding of life, culture and morality.

 

But this is not simply about Islam. A Eurasian Identity is rapidly challenging and threatening to overwhelm European identity as we have understood it for the past 400 years. The fall of Europe and the rise of Eurasia are increasingly obviously coterminous- graphically illustrated by the wave of mass immigration that has transformed the political and cultural landscape of western Europe in the past year.

 

The stark choice is that you can have a modern open welfare system of the type that has characterised post-World War II Germanic societies, or you can have mass immigration but you cannot have both.

 

So this is where the nations of western Europe find themselves. They can continue to adhere to post WWII principles in the form of welfarism or they can continue to adhere to post WWII principles in the form of mass immigration but they cannot do both.

 

The similarity between this period of crisis and the preceding crises becomes clear. In the time of Erasmus and Luther, German societies could no longer reconcile their fundamental beliefs with those of the Catholic church. The Holy Roman Empire was split and the German empire was born.

 

At the beginning of the C20th the global Germanic empire could no longer reconcile its internal differences and split. The Anglo Saxon empire separated and the Germans tried to create the European Union as a response.

 

And now at the beginning of the C21st the German nations are beginning to split within themselves because of the tension between multiculturalism and welfarism. And this is the Great Unraveling because once these nation states go, German philosophy goes finally and completely with them.

I pointed this out in a piece I wrote about Anders Brevik and the mass killing of Norwegian Social Democrats a couple of years ago. I argued then that the killing was the symptom of precisely this impending collision between the two remaining strands of postwar thought; Multiculturalism and Welfare. Since that time this contradiction has only become sharper.

 

in writing about Vector History I have observed that the intellectual framework behind welfarism is a feudal/integrating one whereas that behind mass immigration is a capitalistic/disintegrating one. Inevitably, these two impulses will come into conflict. Both are German ideas but only one can survive.