Profile: The Strangeloves Or Down And Out In London And Paris

5345475

 

I have been writing about the Sax Pistols and the Strangeloves; the two main competing Cultural Constituencies that dominate politics in the Saxon Axis. Last time I explained how the Sax Pistols were born out of the crisis of the 70’s and developed the radical outsider capitalist ideology that leads directly to Trumpism.

 

It seems that events have overtaken analysis. In the aftermath of the American Presidential election the Sax Pistols have seized the palace and the Strangeloves have fled to the alleys and the backstreets.

 

This profile has turned into something of an obituary even while being written. But it might not be wise to kiss off the Stangeloves just yet. Despite many crises in the years since the end of the Second World War they have proven to be both resilient and resourceful and it is doubtful that they are going to let 70 years of effort and planning go without a fight.

 

The Strangeloves came into existence as a social force on the NW Eurasian continent around 1946, virtually 30 years exactly before the Sax Pistols appeared in the Anglo Saxon world.

 

To be clear, the Strangeloves could not be regarded as a cultural constituency then, because the shreds of capitalist economics still hung on- albeit in a distorted form. The Strangeloves were the product of military and political dislocation just as the Sax Pistols were the product of economic dislocation three decades later. So both these groupings represent the mutation and change of capitalism -a  process of transformation from a nominally political and economic system into an expressly cultural one.

 

The role of the state in organising and controlling the markets exploded in the years after the Second Germanic War. This is hardly surprising since the state effectively usurped the market and created a full command economy during the conflict. The Strangeloves emerged during this process both as beneficiaries of the state run system and as an elite who saw its purpose to expand the system both to guarantee the survival of Germanic societies and for the benefit of the world in general.

 

This international element is essential to understanding the central role that immigration plays in Strangelove ideology. It is the repudiation of a German identity that identified both sides in the two Germanic Wars of the C20th. And in contrast, it is the repudiation of Strangelove internationalism, globalism and multi-culturalism that defines the Sax Pistols.

 

The Strangeloves get their peculiar historical cultural character as Germanic survivors of the C20th wars. Just like the Peter Sellars character they are of dubious morality and character but necessary to the system because of their ‘scientific’ knowledge and planning ability. Their defects can be overlooked in the cause of rebuilding Germanic society.

 

Both the Strangeloves and the remnants of the ancien regime displaced by war did not foresee was the extent of the success of the planned economy. In the two decades after the Second World War there was a massive redistribution of wealth throughout North Western Eurasia that led to not only to the rebuilding of post war national (sort of), economies but their development and expansion at a level unguessed at.

 

For example, the efficiencies generated by nationally insured collective health meant that there was a surplus of personal wealth to be spent by ordinary people on discretionary products. This process in health and other fields was the beginning of the so-called consumer society.

 

Ironically, though often regarded as the golden age of the ‘American dream’, American 50’s consumerism is based not on the free market but on it’s denouement- state control of markets. Just as in NW Eurasia, the North Americans succumbed to a state maintained semi cultural model.

 

The welfare state was a concession to indigenous Germanic populations and just as importantly, to the international community. This was  driven as much by a political cultural imperative as by an economic one. The reason for this is not hard to understand.

 

The elite of the western world had been discredited by their conduct in the first and second Germanic Wars, both through their incompetence and collaboration with fascistic regimes. So creating an effigy of the market system was always going to be primarily a cultural and political project. It follows that the Strangeloves who administered this system would have to be at least partially, a cultural grouping. Without this insight you cannot understand Keynesianism.

 

Keynesianism is culture and politics dressed up as economics.

 

The ubiquity and hegemony of welfare planning went unchallenged until the ‘crisis’ of the 1970s that gave rise to the Sax Pistols. But it is of the utmost importance to emphasise that this was NOT a general crisis but a crisis of the lower middle class and not primarily an economic crisis but in essence a political one.

 

The precise nature of the crisis was that lower middle class Anglo Saxons were losing their relatively privileged place in society compared to the classes below them. (see previous post on Sax Pistols.).

 

When the Sax Pistols had split from the consensus, the way was open for an alliance between the liberal elite of society, the very lowest levels of that self same society (including migrants refugees etc) and the Strangeloves. In other words we effectively had the new Saxon middle against both the top and the bottom or the centre against the edges.

 

And it was at this moment that the Strangeloves mutated fully from a economic cultural entity into a fully  cultural one- a Cultural Constituency

 

You can think of the Sax Pistols as a congealed lump of resentment like a bowling ball falling through the middle of society and the Strangeloves as being like a thousand layers of wet tissue paper surrounding it. The tissue paper can slow the bowling ball down, but can’t stop it. In the end it is going to break free.

 

Of course this image of the bowling ball and the toilet paper explains the reality of Brexit- England physically leaving the EU.

 

So what now of the Strangeloves?

 

I can’t help feeling they are a little like the Romans who were left behind when the Roman Empire fell- sort of here but not here as it were.

 

The EU is already thinking of offering them a kind of associate membership…..

Profile: The Sax Pistols

 

trump

 

The forthcoming American Presidential election and Brexit are both evidence of profound changes in the politics of the western world. The precise nature of these changes is increasingly the subject of commentary in the press and media.

The Huffington Post has suggested that Donald Trump supporters are best described as ‘white nationalists’. Others on the left have suggested that they are more accurately described as the economic victims of globalisation; the ‘left behind’.

On the other hand the social political grouping that has coalesced around the candidacy of Hillary Clinton and the Remain camp have been described as a liberal dictatorship and ‘Globalists’ by their opponents

It is obvious that highly partisan name calling offers no possibility of any real insight. It is necessary to describe the development of these rival blocs within the context of the past decades and the forces that have shaped them.

Note here that Michael Moore has exhibited a rare insight in expressly linking the white Anglo-Saxon residents of ‘fly over’ middle America with the Brexiteers of Middle England. Unfortunately, virtually no one else has had the breath of vision to try to understand the link between these two social phenomena.

I developed the idea of cultural constituencies as the product of the economic and social processes that have shaped developed economies since the 1970s. Cultural constituencies differ from, and are the successor to, the economic constituencies that are the basic building blocks of capitalist society for over one and a half centuries.

There are no longer any real ‘classes’ in the Anglo Saxon world. Instead I argue that there are now two dominant cultural constituencies which I call:

The Sax Pistols and

The Strangeloves

I will begin with an in-depth profile of The Sax Pistols

The Sax Pistols began to coalesce as a cultural constituency in the mid to late 1970s as a consequence of profound economic political and social shock that ran through the developed economies and especially the Anglo Saxon world from around 1968 onwards.

The Sax Pistols gained traction in a section of the discontented lower middle class who saw the establishment as having betrayed their interests in the ongoing economic crisis. This betrayal delegitimised the establishment in the eyes of The Sax Pistols.

The Sax Pistols saw themselves as being under attack not just from the corporate elites above but also from the poor beneath who were receiving social benefits in the post war settlement that The Sax Pistols were not entitled to but were forced to pay for through taxation.

What is truly significant here is that The Sax Pistols chose to blame the section of the middle class that was immediately above them for this state of affairs. The importance of this is that politics was transformed as a conflict between economic classes into a political and cultural conflict within what had previously been the middle class. 150 years of traditional classic class based economic conflict was over, to be replaced by interclass cultural conflict. It had to be a cultural struggle because there was no definable economic reason for an economic one since it was between members of what was nominally the same class.

The Anglo-Saxon middle class split into two opposing factions. The first was a state oriented welfare bureaucracy that existed to distribute welfare under the terms of the postwar settlement. This was the upper section of the middle class that enjoyed the support of the liberal establishment and a relatively secure existence as part of the state machine. The Strangeloves.

The second was the disenfranchised lower middle class that had no access to the welfare as producers and administrators and which as a consequence was forced to develop a radical reliance on the free market to sustain itself. These were the Sax Pistols.

I will deal with the state bureaucracy grouping (The Strangeloves), next time but for now I will focus on the radical capitalist section which forms the nucleus of The Sax Pistols cultural constituencies.

In intellectual terms that economic recession in the 70s gave birth to Monetarism and reconstructed radical cultural capitalism. These are broadly the component parts of Neo Conservatism and Neo Liberalism.

The fundamental political purpose of Monetarism centres on the destruction of the state as the controlling influence on the economy. Radical cultural capitalism centres on small scale capitalist production as a cultural enterprise as opposed to an economic one.

The majority of the small businesses that were created in the aftermath of the 1970s economic collapse and up to the present day have no economic rationale. They are not large enough or efficient enough to produce a surplus of wealth on a level that is commensurate with the amount of time and effort that goes into creating them.

The only reason they exist is as a cultural totem of capitalist production. They are primarily there to give an identity and a sense of purpose to the people who operate them.

This gives rise to the conception of the radical small-scale capitalist as an icon. Two classic examples of this form are Malcolm McLaren and Vivian Westwood’s ‘Sex’ shop that gave rise to the Sex Pistols and Richard Branson’s ‘Virgin’ corporate empire.

Notes the references to sex and sexuality in both Branson’s ‘Virgin’ corporation and McLaren’s ‘Sex’ shop. This is not a concept of sex that is in any way healthy or wholesome. The imagery is of a form of violent, perverted sex better understood as capitalist screwing. This is not co-incidental. As the Sax Pistols turned on the Establishment they also turned on whatever remaining vestiges of traditional Anglican morality they had and embraced full on Puritan anti human Germanic Protestantism.

Both ‘Sex’ and ‘Virgin’ began as small-scale radical insurgent hip capitalist enterprises. Of course since the 1970s they have been assimilated into the mainstream of capitalist culture economy to the extent that they are now corporate entities every bit as much as Tesco or McDonalds. The difference is they still retain some vestige of radical chic.(Hard to believe now, but in the aftermath of the Berlin Wall McDonalds had some of that radical capitalist vibe!).

Once Saxon society created the idea of the radical outsider cultural capitalist it is not hard to see how this lead directly to Donald Trump and the present presidential election.

The final significant twist in the development of the Sax Pistols came when it’s cultural ideology was adopted by a significant section of what had previously been known as the Anglo Saxon working class. This really was the final nail in the coffin of class politics as we had known it.

The section of the middle class that had been forced downwards by 1970’s recession found themselves in a position to make common cause with a section of the working class who found themselves in a parallel position for some of the same reasons.

‘Workers’ who had been made redundant from secure manufacturing and corporate jobs were also forced to adopt to a more freewheeling ‘wild west’ form of capitalism. The radical privatisation programs brought about through Monetarism offered this section of the ‘working class’ the chance to benefit it ways not previously open to them, so in some ways they experienced upheaval as a positive thing.

A section of the disenfranchised middle class together with a cohort of the working class form the backbone of the Sax Pistols cultural constituency in the Anglo Saxon world. It is these people who will be at the forefront of voting for Trump on Tuesday.

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

 

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.

BLINK Special: What Just Happened? Or Making a Killing Or Germanic Flipside Or Turbulent Priestess Or Comrade Ogilvy

200

 

As you probably know, English Labour MP Jo Cox was killed outside her constituency surgery by a man identified as Thomas Mair reported by witnesses as having used a home-made gun…

 

Although generally understated, the death of Ms Cox has occasioned a variety of sentiment.

 

Money markets seemed to have taken an upbeat view of the death with both the Pound and the S&P putting on gains in the aftermath of reports that the MP had expired:

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-global-markets-idUKKCN0Z202G

 

And the previously moribund FTSE rebounded sharply on suspension of the referendum:

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-stocks-idUKKCN0Z30SQ

 

On the other hand ex British National Party leader Nick Griffin, expressed the belief that Remain will seek to make more political capital out of the MP’s death, sentiments that many on the Leave side are more reticent about openly framing but agree with.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/jo-cox-death-nick-griffin-remain-campaign-response-bnp-a7087001.html

 

At the time of the killing, Leave had a 6 point opinion poll lead over Remain and momentum to increase that advantage. Increasingly, word from the Remain camp was that the leadership was worried about the direction the campaign was taking.

 

The central problem is that Remain has increasingly suffered from its commitment to mercantile nationalism – the ideological claim that a central economic justification and rationale for immigration trumps all other considerations.

 

The idea behind mercantile nationalism is that citizenship of a country has no real meaning outside of what are essentially economic considerations: what contribution you make to the economy, what social provision you require etc. It does not have any means of encompassing the idea of exclusive culture and belonging; ideas it regards as fundamentally illegitimate.

 

Because of this, Remain has increasingly shown itself to be unable to even communicate its central idea to the largest Cultural Constituencies that make up the Leave camp in Britain in particular Saxon Nationalism

 

After the Second Germanic War, the Anglo Saxon ‘liberal’ elite dedicated itself to rehabilitating Germanic culture in the eyes of the world. A fundamental part of this was to downplay the antagonism between continental Germany and the Anglo Saxon world. To achieve this, England would agree to be subsumed under a European identity just as the Germans had.

 

Key elements of this common European identity were welfarism and multiculturalism, both ideas which have been shown to be unacceptable to the contemporary Saxon Nationalist constituency. But more importantly was the idea of freedom of movement and mass immigration based on the logic of a globalised international economy- mercantile nationalism.

 

This vision of a more ‘civillised’ Europe based on the logic of mass immigration and integration has proved to be motivating to the liberal German elites in Europe and Britain but not the mass of Germanic people. This has expressed itself as an increasing intellectual and emotional gulf between the mass of the population and liberal elites.

 

Liberals have become more and more concerned that they were failing ‘connect’ with the man in the street but that could all change now, or so they hope. Now Remain have got the basis for their own cultural constituency- their own emotional identity connection point to shape their campaign around. And this of course, is in the form of Jo Cox.

 

Already the liberal media is working to endow Ms Cox with personal qualities of a saint (not a Christian one of course, but a secular one) and her various progressive foibles with the legitimacy of a canon of belief. This includes patronage through organised charity and foreign aid and a commitment to refugeeism. They have even managed to work in a favourable mention of the so called ‘White Helmets’, a Saxon Axis sponsored media front organisation for Sunni death squads in Syria.

 

The emphasis of the Remain campaign will now focus on recalibrating the emotional charge in the remaining days of the referendum. To move away from the Saxon emotional staples of anger and cold blooded calculation of personal interests and to centre instead on the Germanic flipside of maudlin sentimentality, a sense of victimhood intertwined with the ever present claim of moral superiority.

 

The Remain Cultural constituency will be based on ‘people like us’ who support ‘charity’ as a generality and the Germanic moral stewardship of the world through a network of international organisations, of which the EU is a prime example. And Jo Cox is to be the contemporary Saxon, female, Thomas Becket cut down on the altar of European integration.

becket

This is specifically tailored to appeal to the lower social strata of Saxon women who Remain believe are undecided and potentially can be swayed to Remain. The fact that they have been handed the exact media avatar they needed to implement this plan in the closing days of the campaign is a startling co-incidence.

 

Let us see if the Saxons will buy it.

 

Addition:

This article by Jo Cox’s widow appeared in todays Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/17/mainstream-politicians-clueless-on-how-to-deal-with-migration-debate-says-jo-coxs-husband

Remarkably close to what I have written, if from a different perspective…..

 

The Frailed State Or When Is A Duopoly Not A Duopoly? Or Guess Who Is Coming To Dinar..

operation_black_vote_poster

 

It has recently been reported in the news that both sides in the ongoing Libyan civil war have begun to issue their own respective currencies. It would seem that two conflicting sides both enforcing their own form of government and issuing their own respective forms of money is Duopoly writ large.

 

In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The emergence of two separate entities is the end of duopoly.

 

There is a lot of confusion about the nature of duopoly. I notice that although it is a phrase that is used a lot more since I first began referring to it five years ago, most people still do not understand the idea underpinning duopoly.

 

The often used bog standard definition of duopoly characterises it essentially as a two party political system. A classic example of this is America which has only ever had two parties with a realistic chance of forming an administration or electing a president. These are the Republicans and the Democrats.

 

But recent events in America have thrown this conception of the two party duopoly in America into doubt. On the Republican side Donald Trump, together with his new model army of disenfranchised American Dreamers, has undertaken what has been referred to as a ‘hostile takeover’ of the Republican party. On the other side Bernie Sanders is continuing to make the nomination of Hillary Clinton as the official opposition candidate difficult.

 

Commentators describe the situation as the breakdown of the old-fashioned American duopoly. They have suggested that the Republican Party will inevitably split as a consequence of the nomination of Trump.

 

Some have also suggested that supporters of Bernie Sanders will not be satisfied with a Hillary Clinton nomination. There is increasing pressure on Bernie Sanders to run as a third party independent candidate in the event that he does not receive the nomination.

 

Can we infer from all this that the traditional system is breaking down under the pressures of globalisation etc. ? Despite all the hopeful insurgent punditry the fact is that this does not represent any significant change to the duopoly.

 

The significance of duopoly does not rest on the fact that there are only two alternative parties on offer. In many nations states in Europe there are a plethora of political parties competing for office. Traditionally in these countries government administrations are made up of an amalgam of many of these different parties. Yet these multi party systems are still essentially duopoly on the Anglo Saxon model. And they should be, many of them were expressly created by America in the aftermath of   WW II.

 

Duopoly in post war Europe is crystallised in the proportional representation system which was expressly designed to prevent the dominance of any single political party and in particular, to prevent the possibility that at a communist party might rise to political prominence through the electoral process.

 

After the Second Germanic War most mainstream European political structures were discredited by the failure to fight Nazism or even active collaboration. This contrasted starkly with the success of the Soviet Union and the terrible price paid for victory but which enhanced the reputation of the Soviets across the globe.

 

This, together with the fact that the Anglo Saxon nations were struggling to rehabilitate these same European nations in the aftermath of defeat, meant that nothing was off the table in what became in effect a battle against the idea of victory against fascism. This included subversion and terrorism- famously in the affair of the P2 Masonic lodge and Operation Gladio.

 

At home in the Anglo Saxon victor nations, there was no necessity to create a system to prevent communists or even socialists from coming to pre-eminence since they were firmly excluded from the political process. And hadn’t the Anglo Saxons fought against Nazism (sort of?). There was no need to create a multi party proportional system.

 

Interestingly, that has changed now. A proportional electoral college was created by the AS Labour Party with the openly stated objective of preventing the Scottish Nationalist Party gaining an absolute electoral majority in Scotland. Of course, as we know it did not work. But it points us to the key duopoly dynamic here. That the multi party system is a means of preventing an outcome you don’t want by controlling what is on offer.

 

In post war Europe what was not wanted was communism, and the controlled offer was duopoly. Just the same, in Scotland what was not wanted was independence and the controlled offer was again, duopoly.

 

The recent Presidential elections in Austria are a further excellent illustration of the point.. Austria, like most other European countries has a proportional system that traditionally encourages many political parties. Within this framework, the Social Democrats have been traditionally dominant, forming part of the majority of administrations since WW II.

 

But in this election, both traditional parties of the ‘right’ and ‘left’, the People’s party and the Social Democrats failed to gain enough support to make it through into the second round of voting.

 

The reason for this was the rise of the so-called ‘hard right’ Austrian Freedom party whose anti immigration, anti-Muslim stance is often described in mainstream media as a polarising force in Austrian politics.

 

The left opposition to the Freedom Party coalesced around a Green ‘independent’ politician. As the final tally was revealed Austrian politics was split more or less neatly down the middle with the left gaining a majority of only 31,000 votes.

 

Given the potential significance of the election of a ‘hard right’ politician in Austria for the first time since the end of the Second World War, it seems a little odd that there has been so little further discussion of the election after the narrowest of victories for the left.

 

The general consensus in the liberal press seems to have been that they have managed to dodge a bullet and as a consequence nothing more needs to be said. I suspect that underpinning this reticence is also a desire to let sleeping dogs lie; liberals hope that the Freedom party will give up and go away.

 

But just because the hard right did not win this specific election does not mean that they are likely to go away any time soon. And this presents a very difficult problem for their opposition.

 

What has happened in Austria is that politics has cohered around a new fulcrum point. Whereas before, broadly speaking economic issues were the defining factor in politics, now immigration has become the pivot point of contention and definition.

 

The right wing have formed a coalition to achieve a very specific objective, which is to end the present immigration policy and prevent father inroads into Austrian society Muslims.. And the left-wing opposition has also formed a coalition to achieve a specific object which is to prevent the right wing from achieving their objectives!

 

But that leaves the left caught in a difficult trap of their own making. They have accepted that immigration is the central fulcrum of Austrian politics and this new right wing is not likely to change its opinion or its objectives is it? Unless something can be done to disassemble this new right wing coalition, Austrian politics will be fighting this immigration battle for the foreseeable future.

 

What can be done to disassemble the right wing coalition? The only possible answer for the left is to end the immigration that has caused all that fuss in the first place and that is hardly likely.

 

So Austrian politics is becoming locked into a zombie state that is a political corollary to the economic zombie condition that many developed nations also find themselves in. This is not coincidence, This new situation is a composite of the politics of cultural constituencies and the politics of duopoly. We can call this a Frailed State.

 

A Frailed State is one where economics is no longer the central pivot around which politics is constructed. Instead increasingly immigration and the rights and obligations of minorities is the fulcrum around which politics is organised. The Frailed state is a stopping point on the trajectory leading toward the Failed State.

 

Across the newly Frailed States, economic political parties and ‘classes’ are increasingly being replaced with cultural constituencies. The number and nature of these cultural constituencies differs from place to place and is necessarily determined by the region and geographic area they occur in.

 

But just as old style economic constituencies were variations on the theme of who gets what money and where, so new style cultural constituencies are variations on the theme of: Where do you come from and what do you expect as a consequence?

 

The important point to understand is that it did not matter how many individual economic constituencies there were in old style politics, so long as they all fit somewhere on the economic spectrum. So long as there was a left and right pole in economics, it was a duopoly.

 

The same applies to cultural constituencies. It does not matter how many individual cultural constituencies there are, so long as they all fit somewhere on the immigration spectrum. So long as there are left and right poles in immigration it is a duopoly.

 

So now we begin to understand the real significance and power of duopoly. Duopoly is not a two party system, it is an offered spectrum of choice and opinion based around two options which we cannot ignore – Duopoly is when we have to take a position somewhere along the line of a given spectrum.

 

Only a short time ago it was a spectrum of distribution at one end and private economic power at the other. The conflict that gave rise to the economic spectrum has been resolved now in favour of the Free Marxet- the synthesis of economic ‘left’ and ‘right’ !

 

Even only a couple of decades ago, it was still the standard belief and rhetoric on the left that economic disparity leads to revolution; that if the economic spectrum between left and right extremes became sufficiently stretched it would snap. This led to the Keynesian reform economics that has shaped the past six decades or so.

 

But Globalisation and the Free Marxet has led to the end of economics as the pivot and the emergence of culture and identity as the swing point of a new spectrum. I have discussed this before in writing on cultural constituencies.

 

In the old, class based system it was argued that people were different from each other because they were fighting for resources.

In the new system people are fighting for resources because they argue they are different from each other.

 

And the consequence of this is that it is possible to have an economic revolution and still have a country at the end of it. But if people increasingly see themselves as different from each other, the fight starts over resources, but it can only end with the nation breaking apart.

 

Frailed States lead in the end to Failed States.

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: Apr 12 2016

 

eye

Nose on your face..

 

In this piece Mr Edelman says:

 

‘Remarkably, today the derivatives positions held by the large banks approach 10 times those of 2007-2008. In four banks alone, they exceed the GDP of the entire world. This is the interesting consequence when unchecked risk management rests in bankers’ hands.’

 

Is this a co-incidence? If it is not a co-incidence, then it must be intentional musn’t it? What could be the intention behind creating ten times as many derivatives as there were in 2008?

 

It seems that central banks and politicians must want lots of derivatives what else could this mean? Why would they want lots of derivatives? What is it about derivatives that central bankers and politicians like? If you visit USE regularly I think you already know…

I’m the real-life Gordon Gekko and I support Bernie Sanders
Asher Edelman

The potential for a depression looms on the horizon. The Vermont senator is the only candidate who can stop banks from spiraling out of control again

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/12/real-life-gordon-gekko-supports-bernie-sanders-wall-street-banks-regulation

 

Things Fall Apart..

 

This diagram shows in a very clear and succinct manner the point I have been making in Vector History about capitalism and financialisation DISINTEGRATING society..

 

@ian bremner

 

The best explanation so far

 

 

Head-Brick Wall

 

American Trotskyists can’t seem to understand why information like this doesn’t provoke a move towards ‘class’ politics but instead provokes a move towards what they call ‘identity’ politics. Until they address the arrival of CULTURAL CONSTITUENCIES, they are going to have to continue stumbling around in the dark..

Life expectancy gap between US rich and poor widens
By Jerry White
12 April 2016
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/04/12/life-a12.html

 

Roll over
Reuters coverage of the Syrian theatre of war just seems to get more ridiculously lopsided by the day..

Syria’s Assad shows no willingness to compromise
CAIRO | By Samia Nakhoul

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-insight-idUKKCN0X50O0

 

Cake or Ha’penny
 

You can have millions of pretend jobs or you can have productivity growth but you can’t have both at the same time…

Britain suffers biggest downturn in productivity since the financial crisis
Figures a bitter blow to hopes the UK is finally escaping the stagnation that has bogged down the country since the banks crisis

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/britain-suffers-biggest-downturn-in-productivity-since-the-financial-crisis-a6974011.html

 

Uppity
 

This black gentleman might not quite be on the ball about everything, but he is having a go at thinking about Eurasia etc., so good for him. He seems to me like a reasonably nice, relatively harmless type.  But oh dear, check out the response..

 

Imagine a world without whiteness

Professor Calls For “Whiteness” to be “Abolished”
 “We need to….demolish the whole concept”

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
April 6, 2016

Professor Calls For “Whiteness” to be “Abolished”

 

Living History

 

This is what ancient Greek democracy actually looked and sounded like. It wasn’t Lawrence Olivier and Marlon Brando walking about in bedsheets making speeches over Gina Lollobrigida, it was this: Rape, torture, cruelty and murder. All over Athens, all over Sparta, all over. Next time someone tries to give you the spiel about how noble and great democracy was/is, show them this….

 

‘House of horrors’: Police find apparent sex slave chained to stripper’s pole in Detroit home

 

By Peter Holley April 6 Follow @peterjholley

 

When police searched the run-down, two-story house on Tuller Street in Detroit, they found something that took even longtime cops by surprise: a woman chained to a stripper’s pole, with a padlock around her neck.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/04/06/house-of-horrors-police-find-apparent-sex-slave-chained-to-strippers-pole-in-detroit-home/

 

 

 

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.