Five Questions And Five Answers.

donkip

Question 1: What Just Happened?

 

Cultural constituencies exploded onto the political scene is what just happened.

 

I have described cultural constituencies as sub national cultural/moral formations produced by the end of the market economy. I foresaw that as the planned Free Marxet economy became ever more dominant, cultural constituencies would in turn dominate the political sphere-a process that is most advanced in the Saxon Axis. This has proved to be the case in both the Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump as President of the USA.

 

Now the argument has increasingly become about how these two events are linked. And if they are in turn somehow also linked to other anti-Globalisation/pro-nationalist movements in France and Italy etc. The outcome of this debate will determine how politics is conducted and understood for years to come.

 

As a matter of note I foresaw the appearance and rise of transnational cultural parties such as the Sax Pistols/Saxon Nationalists in a post that appeared in ‘Crackernomics’ four years ago. I even managed to predict when these organisations would appear on the political stage with an accuracy of about six months!

 

Now we hear that Donald Trump openly ‘suggested’ to the British government that Nigel Farrage should be appointed as British ambassador to the USA.  An amazingly blatant example of Saxon nationalists on both sides of the Atlantic openly building diplomatic relations between two parts of the Sax Pistols international party within the Saxon Axis!

 

While I have been busy describing cultural constituencies, parts of the so-called liberal left are desperately trying to reconstruct the argument that the emergence of what they refer to as ‘white nationalism’ is the product of the economically ‘left behind’. This is not too hard to understand as a response by the besieged ‘left’. Without the economic argument you can’t have classes and without classes you can’t have the left. So this is a ‘do or die’ ideological battle.

 

At the same time the liberal right are going all out to cast their approach as economic nationalism -as opposed to the ‘white’ kind of course. They understand that they have a tiger by the tail in the form of the ‘alt right’ and other disaffected elements. If they were to allow a race narrative to become established on either or both sides, it would dog the entire Trump presidency. It has become ever more clear that Trump only intends to use the Sax Pistols as a stage army if he can and now the Republican establishment wants to do the same.

 

But both Saxon progressives and neo cons reserve their special venom for any arguments that challenge their narrative on the root cause of what has happened. They refer to this alternative understanding disparagingly as ‘identity politics’ or ‘cultural Marxism’. Why is it so important to attack identity politics on both sides of the Saxon left and right?

 

Because if a punter within the Saxon Axis can decide about his or her own identity he or she might decide wrong. Might decide that he or she is not a ‘worker’ or a ‘capitalist’ or a ‘loyal American’. And we can’t have that, can we? And if you start thinking about your own identity you also might start thinking about German identities and we DEFINITELY can’t have that.

 

Is That Even A Thing?

 
So it seems that we have lots of different kinds of nationalism floating about. We have Anglo Saxon nationalism and we have white nationalism and we have economic nationalism.

 

Can there be such a thing as ‘white nationalism’?

 

No, because the Germanic nation state subsumes concepts such as ‘whiteness’ and  ‘blackness’. That is the whole point of the Germanic nation state- to subsume ethnic cultural identity underneath an economic identity.

 

But the concept of White Nationalism points towards a fundamental dynamic within Whiteism. The instability arises from whether ‘Whiteness’ is part of ‘Germanness’ or ‘Germanness’ is part of ‘Whiteness’. The desire to impose Germanic whiteness on all whites is fundamental to understanding the Germanic cult of Capitalism and the Germanic cult of Socialism.

 

So can there be such a as economic nationalism? Well yes, but only if you can figure out which is most beneficial: Nation subordinated to economy or economy subordinated to nation. No-one has managed to produce a consistent and stable relationship between the two for over two hundred years.

 

So can there be such a thing as Anglo Saxon nationalism? – after all Anglo Saxon is a sub national grouping as well isn’t it? I’ll get on to this in a moment.

 

 

Question 2: What Is Going To Happen Next?

 

After the election the Democrats/Strangeloves have lost access to all the main bases of political power in the American system. They have lost the Senate, they have lost the House and they have obviously lost the Presidency. And this is not the full extent of the rout.

 

Forthcoming appointments to the Supreme Court and an ongoing round of elections over the next couple of years will most likely the result in the further decimation of a divided and confused Democratic party. So what will the Democrats do in these difficult circumstances?

 

The main priority will be to attempt to exacerbate differences within the mainstream Republican/Saxon Nationalist alliance that has formed. And there are clear differences between the priorities of the corporate Republican establishment and Saxon nationalist cultural constituencies.(see above).

 

Chumponomics

 

Already Trump rhetoric on New deal government spending, immigration controls etc are coming under a certain amount of pressure. This can only intensify over the coming months. The Democrats hope is that this will result in a wave of disillusion that will isolate Trump and make his political agenda ever more difficult to enact. So you can guarantee that the liberal media will play up these divisions every chance it gets. In particular it will focus on Trump the person because Trump does not represent an ideology, he is like all politicians now, Culturally Specific.

 

Now We Can Clearly See That Culture Wars Are Media Wars

 

The only power base that the Strangeloves have left intact is in the mainstream media. So this is where they will base their attack from. At the same time Trump has his base in the alt media. So it is already pretty clear that this will be a battle of media forms.

 

In July of 2015 I predicted this outcome exactly and explained how control of the media was fundamental to the new political system based on cultural constituencies (‘Money Where Mouth Is’). In passing, note that Virgin mogul Dickie Branson has said he will bankroll a second Brexit referendum to overturn the result. Cue calls for a boycott of all Virgin product by Brexiteers. This is the face of politics in the future.

 

As it becomes evidently more difficult to undertake the kind of economic reform that Trump has promised, he will be forced to try to find ways to rally the troops. In order to do this he will be looking for a major cultural constituency issue that can coral his own constituency and clearly mark out the opposition. And this is where the significance of the designation ‘Strangelove’ as a cultural constituency is brought into the most intensely sharp focus. Because The Strangeloves are identified as a cultural constituency most significantly by their medicalisation of sexuality. This is a key concept in the coming years..

 

Since the end of the Second Germanic War, the Strangeloves have propagated the concept of social and sexual ‘freedom’ through the application of scientific management techniques. In particular this has included the popularization of abortion and mass contraception. There have been further developments in this field including state sponsored sexual organ mutilation designated as ‘ gender reassignment’.

 

Already we have seen that Trump says he intends to attack Roe v Wade -the defining legal case that established the limits of abortion access in America. But the same time Trump has made it clear that he does not intend to overturn same sex marriage. How can this apparent contradiction be explained?

 

Because abortion is characteristic of the medicalisation of sexuality but same-sex marriage is not. Abortion is indicative of the Strangelove medicalisation of sexuality in a way that same sex ‘marriage’ is not’. If Trump supporters start to get restive expect an attack on ‘gender reassignment’ as well as the already signaled attacks on abortion and contraception. These will be high profile media attacks.

 

Question 3:What Will The World Do?

 

It is clear that of all the global settlement in the aftermath of the second Germanic war it is Europe that will be most challenged by events that we have seen on folding over the past months.

 

Across the nations of Europe there is a question of whether nationalist parties will be able to take advantage of a seeming upturn in nationalist sentiment. Obama visited Angela Merkel to pass on the torch of multi culti democracy as one of the last acts of his presidency. Angela Merkel has confirmed that she will run for the Chancellor ship of Germany for a fourth time.

 

This will equal the longest run in government in modern history of Germany.  But it seems that Merkels reluctance to leave go of the reins of power is not motivated by any genuine desire to implement a programme but rather by a fear of what will come after if she doesn’t.

 

On the other hand for the moment at least, the world seems to be reacting to the election of Trump and Brext with a kind of guarded optimism. This might seem counter intuitive on the face of it, but it is entirely logical given the historical precedent.

 

Essentially, the understanding is that if the European Germans and the Saxon Germans are fighting each other, they are likely in the near future to leave everyone else in peace. In the long run however, they are likely to try to drag everyone else into it. The most aware of world leaders are aware of this fact and planning accordingly.

 

Question 4 : So What Does It All Mean Andy?

 

The key to understanding this phase of politics is the meaning of Nationalism and nationalist sentiment in the context of cultural constituencies. Most importantly of all, Cultural constituencies are sub national political formations, which means they cannot be characterised as nationalist in any meaningful way.

 

For example, the French nationalism of Marine Le Pen is actually a French cultural constituency. It is a sub national cultural grouping that seeks to promote a conception of a particular ethnic cultural group. It cannot assume the mantle of a French nation. Because the French nation is by definition made up of more than one ethnic group. That is what a nation is. that is what defines it in difference to an ethnic group.

 

We can now return to the question of Anglo Saxon nationalism. If the French ‘nationalism’ of the Front Nationale cannot exist, can the Saxon Nationalism of UKIP take power?. The answer is no. UKIP by definition cannot run Britain. The rise of the SNP is straightforward testament to this fact. As UKIP rises, other cultural constituencies will appear to confront it within any given designated geographical area.

 

So can the Saxon Nationalism behind Trumpism take power in the USA?

 

And the answer this time is YES.Because the USA- from Constitution to Bill Of Rights is an Anglo Saxon cultural construction. And Anglo Saxon nationalism can exist because the Anglo-Saxon national state does already exist. It is called America. Now the question is’ Will a non Germanic cultural constituency arise in America to challenge the Saxon nationalists. The answer must be yes. And it will provoke a venomous hatred from both Saxon left and right that you have not seen before.

 

It is possible to envisage a Periodic table of nationalism and culture. Where any given nation lies on the table in relation to the Germanic nation state will predict its degree of reactivity and instability in relation to cultural constituencies and the nation state.

 

I have described cultural constituencies as sub national cultural/moral formations produced by the end of the market economy. I foresaw that as the planned Free Marxet economy became ever more dominant, cultural constituencies would in turn dominate the political sphere

 

Right back at the beginning of the United States of Everywhere, over half a decade ago, I specifically said that the nature of the financial crisis and its resolution would depend upon one thing more than any other:

 

How much of the old world where the monetarists prepared to allow to return. That statement can be seen to be ever more true today than it was when it was written.

 

But the implications of what I had written then were not clear to me. I implied that in theory it would be possible to return to the pre-Monetarist state of affairs if everything were put back in place. But this is not the case. I have had to learn again the simple lesson that History is a one way street.

 

Cultural constituencies are created by the collapse of the market system. But as they come to exercise increasing influence over politics and economics they preclude the possibility of returning to that market system.

 

The ongoing mainstream economic debate is concerned with the effect of globalisation on those who are left behind – specifically the so-called ‘white working class’ in developed economies. It is widely argued on both left and right that this section of society has suffered more than any other the effects of globalisation, the credit crunch, and resulting austerity.

 

From this starting point the debate moves on to what concessions can be made to the white working class. How much of the pre-Monetarist world, the postwar settlement, can and should be allowed to return to developed economies.

 

On both the Trumpist style right and the Sanders style liberal left, there is a desire to see the world return to the 1950s with benevolent state intervention in the markets, a strong and comprehensive welfare state, the end of multiculturalism. But the question is: is this desirable and can it be achieved?

 

We return again to the central problem. The postwar settlement was founded on two primary considerations: One was concessions to the working class. The second was the rehabilitation of Germanic culture internationally through internationalism and multiculturalism. It had initially seemed that internationalism and multiculturalism had won the day. But that was before the ‘white working class backlash’.

 

Question 5: What Should I Do?

 

International media parties.

 

The political landscape will increasingly be dominated by international media parties. As the political party is to the economic constituency so the international media parties will be to the cultural constituency. Culture Wars Are Media Wars

 

Comments are closed

 

Because the international media parties is the battleground it follows that the comments section is the trenches. This is where territory is won and lost.

You will have noticed how the comments sections in more publications are being controlled or shut down altogether. There is no percentage in comments for the big mainstream media organisations. They want quality of readers who will spend money over quantity of readers who don’t. (see Money Where Mouth Is)

 

Invest Becomes Subscribe

 

Investment is a rational (or otherwise) decision to assign resources to one of a range of options. The investor is in the dominant position. Subscription as the name implies is placing oneself under the imprimatur of another. Placing oneself rather than any particular money or thing under another authority,

 

The bail in is a classic example of this. The bank is free to change the nature of the depositors relationship with the bank. A deposit is turned into a share if it suits the bank to do so and there is nothing the depositor can do about it.

 

The age of the investor is over.

The age of the subscriber is here.

The age of the browser is over.

The age of the speculator is over.

The age of the spectator is over.

The age of the public square is over.

The age of the chit chat is over.

The age of the money back guarantee is over.

 

If you have somewhere to be, you should think about being there as soon as possible.

 

And follow the United States of Everywhere. If you are one step behind me, you are two steps ahead of everybody else.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

The Opposition vs. the oppositions

Imagine a constitutional democracy with two political parties and a permanent electoral majority in favour of one of those two parties. Since only one of the parties could ever be elected to power can this country can still claim to be a democracy?

 

In this hypothetical situation the permanent opposition still has a role to play in questioning and challenging the assumptions, ideas and policies of the majority party. If they do this in a coherent way that represents the interests and opinions of the minority, systematic opposition can force the majority party to make ‘better’ decisions and the majority in society to be aware of the ideas and opinions of the minority.

 

By means of constant and aggressive opposition the majority can be exposed when it has failed in the conception and execution of policy. The population at large can be made to realise when the majority party is incompetent and/or corrupt and encouraged to respond accordingly.

 

Under this ‘adversarial’ model the claim can be made that democracy is possible even if electoral maths do not support a regular change of government. But this system only works to the extent that the opposition is capable of, and committed to, systematic opposition to the majority. In other words it is only possible if the opposition is sufficiently organisationally and even ideologically, separate and opposed to the majority*.

 

But that is clearly not what we have got now in developed capitalist societies. What we do have is often understood as a Controlled Opposition model -a term usually associated with Conspiracy Theory. Head down this road and before long you are in the company of the Illuminati and Worldwide Zionism etc.

 

But conjectures as to the causes of failure of opposition such as these are really simply the expression of not knowing what has changed and how it has changed over the past four decades.

 

A serious discussion of the possibility of controlled opposition leads to two closely related questions:

To what extent is opposition ‘controlled’? and

How is opposition ‘controlled’?

 

The key to answering these two questions lies in understanding the dovetailing of the subjective experience of opposition and the objective needs of the system.

 

The objective needs of the system and the subjective experience of opposition have clearly changed. The way that political parties relate to the public and the way this relationship services the overall polity are clearly not the same as they were in the last century. So the central questions are refined to: What is the nature of the difference between now and then and: What drives it?

 

The Objective Needs Of The System.

 

The 1970’s crisis led to the merging of state and capital in the form of Monetarism and the beginnings of Financialisation. The victory of Monetarist/Marxist theory made permanent political control of the economy through control of the money supply the central plank of economics. The Anglo-Saxon world put all its eggs in the state managed capitalism basket.

 

This approach had an obvious problem though. Since total power over the economy was now vested in the state, if a genuine democratic opposition*(see above) did manage to get control of government it would potentially control everything. It could do incalculable damage to the interests of the elite.

 

This point is well Illustrated by the saga of Quantitive Easing and the ‘printing of money’ to support post 2008 collapsing financial system. Once the politically motivated mass production of money (as advocated by Monetarism), is accepted as a valid economic strategy it is only a matter of time before some bright spark advocates a ‘Peoples QE’ to benefit ordinary people instead of the banks.

 

A people’s QE of course, would mean the effective end of the system… it follows that such a movement can never be allowed to come to power. So in as far as a highly centralised system such as state managed capitalism is vulnerable to democratic political takeover a solution has to be found.

 

The solution to this centralisation problem was the Democratisation of Money and the creation of the Permanent Credit Economy. The Democratisation of Money would take care of the international element of the new system and the Permanent Credit Economy would take care of the national element.

 

The Democratisation of Money is the creation of an international economic alternative monetary system to the nation state system. It is stateless money. No matter what happens to any, or indeed every, state issued currency, the use of Democratised Money in the form of derivatives and other financial instruments means there is a safe haven for international finance.

 

At the same time The Permanent Credit economy creates a decentralised planning system; this is planning through bank credits to control national economies. (This model of decentralised planning through banks is subscribed to by economist Michael Hudson)

 

Now a new decentralised system is nearly in place and successfully stabilised, which means all the eggs are no longer in just one basket. Now there is some room for flexibility. This means that objectively for the first time in four decades some form of opposition is possible.

 

This describes the objective reality of opposition: The amount of opposition in any society at any given time is the amount of opposition that can be afforded by that society. The presence of internal opposition is an expression of power and stability. When a society is fundamentally threatened, as at time of war, it will allow no internal opposition.

 

But the restructured system we have now necessarily means that the nature of re-emerging opposition is fundamentally changed. How is opposition changed?

 

In the transition period after traditional opposition was discarded in the 1970’s and before Democratised Money and the Permanent Credit Economy were bedded down, it was not objectively possible to have any kind of opposition. It was just too dangerous. The economy and society were effectively on a war footing.

 

Beginning with Reagan and Thatcher, through Clinton and Blair and so on, traditional adversarial opposition has been effectively ended. But it is vitally important that you understand that not just ‘left wing’ opposition was done away with –  ALL opposition was done away with.

 

Under Blair and Clinton, ‘right wing’ opposition was decimated and traumatised just as violently as the ‘left wing’ had been under Thatcher and Reagan. Look back to the rise of Newt Gingrich and the emergence of the Tea Party in the USA, look back to the Conservatives in Britain under Hague and Howard, and you will realise that ‘right wing’ parties on both sides of the Atlantic basically had an extended nervous breakdown.

 

Traditional adversarial opposition of the kind I describe at the beginning of this piece requires a legal framework, an open media and society. But after the 1970’s the media became overtly partisan and concepts of legality were revised (e.g. Glass-Steagall repeal and liberal military intervention) so as to be unrecognisable. This affected ‘left’ and ‘right’ in opposition equally.

 

The Subjective Experience Of Opposition

 

Which brings us to the Subjective Experience Of Opposition and the rise of cultural constituencies. There is no societal support mechanism for one unified, critical opposition of the kind I described   any more. This means that existence as adversarial opposition is no longer a viable strategy for mainstream political parties in the Anglo-Saxon world. It means that a party has to get elected at any cost.

 

With media and broader society no longer willing to support traditional opposition the cost of failure is too high. From this perspective you can understand the subjective experience and motivation of Clinton and Blair…The great move towards the ‘centre ground’ started when politicians like Clinton and Blair became conscious of the new reality; institutionalised adversarial opposition was over. You could no longer justify your party’s continuing existence on that basis. Opposition was now to be redefined as meaning solely understudy to government; to be a government in waiting.

 

So how does Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders and Alexis Tsipiras and of course Donald Trump, fit into this description of the world ?

 

First of all they all clearly operate in stark contrast to the ‘understudy to government’ team. Compare Corbyn to his rivals in the Labour Party leadership race; compare Bernie Sanders to Hilary Clinton or   Trump to his republican rivals.

 

Trump, Sanders and Corbyn all represent Cultural Constituencies as opposed to mainstream understudy politicians. Mainstream politicians are seen as shifting, empty and vacuous, in thrall to corporations, whereas cultural constituency representatives are seen as the opposite of this; vital and authentic. This is because Cultural constituency representatives espouse real, absolute moral positions as opposed to the governmental compromises of understudy politicians.

 

This works because it is not as if the compromises required for national government are even seen as being that practical by the mass of people anymore. Most people understand that international finance and trade have comprehensively restricted the ability of national politician to act freely in pursuit of their goals, whatever the nature of those goals might be.

 

From this point of view, the approach of Jeremy Corbyn is not only morally superior, but has at least as good a chance of actually achieving something as the compromises of a Tony Blair.

 

There is much more to say about all this but for now the main message to take away is that since the elite have successfully created a decentralised financial/political system we will have many decentralised oppositions.

 

And the nature of these oppositions is that they will subjectively be cultural constituencies.

 

Because that is what the new world order can objectively support.