Ideology: The Nobel Prize Party and The Masque of the Red Death

masque1

Part 1:   Price Discovery
Sometimes the long way round is the short way round. Dave Harrison sent this link while pointing out that Nobel prize winner Robert J Shiller seems to have a shaky grip, (to say the least!) of the purpose and function of markets. Which leads me to wonder what exactly is going on the Shillers mind..

..and the Nobel Prize goes to Glass-Steagall 2.0

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-rent-seeking-problem-in-contemporary-finance-by-robert-j--shiller

This is the first of two parts.

‘ …An ideology is a comprehensive vision, a way of looking at things…a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a “received consciousness” or product of socialization(sic)).
Ideologies are systems of abstract thought applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics. Implicitly every political or economic tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought.’
Wikipedia

The subject of what constitutes an ideology and who has one is a loaded subject.

Loaded because in Germanic societies the idea of ideology rests on the concept of a ‘received consciousness’ (See above), of being told what to think as opposed to ‘free will’.

Since we are assured that we have ‘free will’ (refer to ‘farm fresh’ previously) it follows that we, (as opposed to the enemies of ‘our way of life’), have no ideology. Often ‘western’ politicians insult each other by claiming that this or the other position is ‘ideologically motivated’, which implies it is somehow foreign, or alien in origin. The ideological dogma, (look up the origin of dogma), of ‘no ideology’ is repeated faithfully in every book, film and newspaper and by every official outlet and any one who questions the idea that we have no ideology will be branded a heretic and dealt with.

The ‘no ideology’ perception gains strength from the fact that the practical application of ideology is unseen in the day to day world around us. Ideology operates specifically in relation to thought and since most of the mundane things we do don’t require any conscious thought at all, it is clear that there are very few opportunities to consider what we are thinking and why we are thinking it.

It is not obvious that ideology is being employed in the purchase of Fruit Loops or dog food. Even paying taxes and obeying the traffic lights are couched in the language of practical compliance. And as I have mentioned elsewhere the very purpose of the Democracy Brand itself is to exclude thought

The existence and function of ideology only ever really becomes obvious when faced with a novel situation, one which requires ‘original’ thought or modification of existing patterns of thought. The more radical the modification and the quicker it has to be carried out, the clearer the expression of ideology is revealed.

Two striking relatively recent examples of this are:
The Twin towers attack on 9/11 and the Crash of 2008. Both were novel, emergency situations requiring an innovative response.

The Twin Towers was novel as the most significant foreign terrorist attack on American soil to date. Since it appeared to be evident that foreign terrorists were now capable of infecting sizeable civilian casualties in the Homeland, the attitude to and understanding of, foreign terrorists would have to change.
As for the crash of 2008, if you don’t know what was novel about it, read ‘Crackernomics’. Its free, because I want to tell you something not sell you something.

We should also note here that it was remarkable that the Germanic ‘left’ produced no clear separate response in either of these cases. There was no distinctive left response to 9/11 and there was no distinctive left response to the Crash
Why is this?
The only possible answer is that the left did not have a separate ideology from which to conjure a separate, distinctive response! Interesting as this is, for the moment I want to confine myself to the mainstream response that did take place.

The Twin towers brought to public attention the persona of Osama Bin Laden and his shadowy organisation; Al Qaeda. (shadowy Al Qaeda, shadow banking system, how come all our enemies are shadowy?). From the Free Press we learned of the brutal, medieval, Islamic belief system that motivated them. We found out all about the routine, often cruel, oppression of women and girls- a standard part of Al Qaeda life. We learned that they are anti modern, in fact pre enlightenment in their attitudes to society, science and of course, homosexuals, etc etc.
In other words, a made to measure feudal boogie man draped in white robes, plotting the advent of a new dark ages from his cave in the Afghanistan mountains.

And how do we fight this dreadful feudal apparition? Why, more democracy and more capitalism of course!

In a similar vein, in the aftermath of the Crash we began to hear tales of a ‘shadowy’ cadre of financial lords that were manipulating the system to produce (perhaps deliberately), the collapse. Apparently they had become Too Big Too Fail, cut off from democratic control and beyond the law. The name that Max Keiser among others gave to this phenomenon was Neo Feudalism.

And how were we to fight this dreadful apparition of financial feudalism? Why, more democracy,more capitalism etc etc

In both cases, under pressure, capitalist ideology produced a characterisation of the enemy as ‘feudal’. Is this a co-incidence?

The purpose of Ideology is to create and sustain a framework for common thought and action. It has been employed against a variety of ‘villains’ over the past decades from Russia to Islam, the latest being the Chinese. This apparent variety of enemies leads to a confusion between the actual nature of capitalist ideology and the modern applications for its use. To understand the core nature of capitalist ideology you must ask yourself:

When was the ideology of capitalism actually created, and for what purpose?

The ideology of capitalism was created to overcome NW European feudalism which it battled to replace. The cult of Protestantism was specifically developed in opposition to Catholic Christianity. The cult of capitalist ideology which came into existence in tandem with the Germanic pagan cult of Protestantism, developed its morality and its conception of the individual and society in opposition to feudal Catholic Christianity. It is specifically designed for this purpose. Since it was designed for a specific purpose it follows that capitalist ideology is only truly effective in this context. This leads us to the well known aphorism that :

To a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail

To a protestant capitalist every enemy turns out to be a cross between Vincent Price in the ‘Masque of the Red Death’ and the Pope! Imagine Vincent Price with brown makeup and arch pencilled eyebrows playing the part of Osama Bin Laden and you start to see how the ideology is actually constructed.

Every external enemy of the ‘west’ has been and will always be:

A feudal strong man
Surrounded by feudal warlords
Oppressing the people
By violence and
A religious cult
The people are brainwashed or terrified into submission
The strongman has secret ‘shadowy’ agents in our territory!
We must defend our ‘way of life’!

Not because this description is true or accurate but because this is what capitalist ideology was created to prevail over.

(Now take a moment to think about how the right portrays Obama…)

NB. Spotted this, perfectly illustrates the point, read it in mind of what is above…

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/10/the-chamreptileon-shapeshifting-shill-of-illusory-change-2796138.html

Advertisements

Conversation on WHITEISM: PLAYING FOR KEEPS or: What the Hell is Obama up to? or Washington’s Secret Civil War.

ReflexRedux posted the following comments on

WHITEISM: PLAYING FOR KEEPS or: What the Hell is Obama up to? or Washington’s Secret Civil War.

I have commented on his comments below.

‘Okay I’m not sure, even granting the assertion that a moral narrative is a standard component of a socially functional personality (after all, presumably not having one is tantamount to being a psychopath yet, as we know, many psychopaths are socially functional and effective), that this is especially relevant. We don’t have access to Pres. O’s moral narrative except via such clues as he may choose to present us with, and the objective record of his actions and decisions (determined by factors of which we have only limited knowledge) with the result, as indeed in ordinary social life, that multiple opinions and interpretations are possible concerning an individual’s moral narrative and, by extension, their motivation. So it may be that, as you suggest, in his own mind Obama is a moral hero whose cause is the eventual full enfranchisement (beyond formally constituted, as at present) of black and other non-white people in the USA – but he can’t say this openly because it would involve a) too radical a critique of current formal freedoms and b) he would potentially attract dangerous opposition. This is an interesting hypothesis – I can’t say that you’ve provided evidence. What you have done is suggested a context (almost certainly correct) of competing factions and pressures around Obama which he has to negotiate in order to survive politically and, accepting your interpretation become the symbol of a success which will facilitate a development in US politics for which demographic trends are currently providing a potential base.

What I like about your observation is that willingness to contextualise Obama and his power instead of (as a majority of commentators tend to) assuming that his role and title confer absolute uncontested political sway. And I think your suggestion about his _personal_ vision and motivation are interesting, ingenious, possibly persuasive, but unproven.

I’m very interested by what you say in closing about ‘the moral rehabilitation of Anglo-Saxon America’ and ‘Whiteism’ as a discussion. To take the moral rehabilitation point first, there is surely no official recognition of moral collapse, so the rehabilitation ‘project’ is presumably more a pet fantasy of a liberal-left constituency in the USA (which does feel the moral taint of the slide towards a fascist police state and the global military grandstanding and trashing of international law that are projected externally), including a few voices in the commentariat. Regarding ‘Whiteism,’ which I take to be your coinage, I thought from reading you this was a political stance based upon a background assumption of ‘white’ superiority (in effect, one possibility of a ‘speciation’ model of human variation, which reifies visible physiological differences into differing core endowments and then takes this to imply a hierarchy of human sub-species). If this understanding is correct (I’m really struggling to understand ‘Whiteism’ as a discussion) then I think it is fairly clear to see the cultural narratives which are already in place to make ‘Whiteism’ possible and, given that the background assumptions _are_ background and culturally tacit, the ease with which what is effectively a global _supremacist_ political stance/project can draw strength and support from large numbers who are not consciously committed to global apartheid. How an ideological position can be a discussion (as opposed to being discussed) I don’t see. Alternatively, to describe as a discussion the historical struggle for such a position to become politically dominant or hegemonic seems to stretch the boundaries of metaphor unnecessarily.

I am genuinely interested in your ideas and in particular your reading of the global economy today resonates very strongly with my own experience, so I hope you won’t be offended by these comments, which might appear somewhat critical. My own blog, reflexredux, is where I am trying to map my own struggles to comprehend the world but it is private and, having tried to invite you to it, I find that I don’t have the wp ID required to do so successfully.

I have grouped together related comments and then responded

We don’t have access to Pres. O’s moral narrative except via such clues as he may choose to present us with, 

and

multiple opinions and interpretations are possible concerning an individual’s moral narrative and, by extension, their motivation.

This perspective assumes that the moral narrative Obama operates within is somehow generated by Obama alone which I point out, would make it powerless. Obama’s moral worldview was not created by him and in truth has not even been taken further by him. (It would be hard to argue that Obama is an intellectual in that or any other sense). Obama’s moral narrative was created outside of him, it is something that he portrays. Two elections show that the narrative is  demonstrably held by a large majority of non-whites and a substantial majority of Saxons. In fact, Obama’s moral worldview and even his ‘personal’ vision of himself was created by Anglo Saxon society! This is what  is worth writing about. Not the second rate politician Obama actually is. To attempt to ‘understand’ Obama and his actions on a personal level is as odd an enterprise as those people who shout at an actor in the supermarket because of something the character he portrays said or did in a soap opera. The Obama you know is a social construction and that is all. You or I will never know anything truly personal about Obama- it is bizarre to think you or I ever could. Once you begin to grasp the implications of this you can begin to consider Nelson Mandela, the template for Obama. Who created Nelson Mandela? And what is the name of this soap opera?

Moral narratives are group creations and the debate over Obamas morality is a moral, social and political debate. Think about the critique of the way that Obama operates politically and as an individual. Even the ‘Obama is a Muslim’ meme has a moral component. The moral debate over Obama is really : ‘Did we do the right thing in inventing civil rights? Have we done the right thing in allowing a ‘black’ man into the Whitehouse?’ and so on.

‘he would potentially attract dangerous opposition. This is an interesting hypothesis – I can’t say that you’ve provided evidence.’

‘What I like about your observation is that willingness to contextualise Obama and his power instead of (as a majority of commentators tend to) assuming that his role and title confer absolute uncontested political sway.   I think your suggestion about his _personal_ vision and motivation are interesting, ingenious, possibly persuasive, but unproven’.

I would say Mc Cains attempts to hang Obama over Syria are precisely evidence. Apparently Obama decided to go to Congress without even telling Kerry! Would you do that to a friend and confident? Can you really believe that the alliances and enmities that operate in Washington are those that are reported in tabloid newspapers and on the TV?

I believe that the test of analysis is its predictive ability. What else but the strategic perspective I have outlined can explain Obama’s strange and halting tactics leading to the bizarre, unprecedented stand off we have over Syria now? The proof (in its true sense meaning ‘test’), is my ability to predict Obamas actions and their outcomes more effectively than anyone else.

But let me go further, I would argue that the ‘moral’ narrative that endows Obama also allows politicians like Nelson Mandela to enjoy wealth and privilege while many of his compatriots who struggled as hard if not harder against apartheid, languish in poverty. This is something that should be explored.

there is surely no official recognition of moral collapse, so the rehabilitation ‘project’ is presumably more a pet fantasy of a liberal-left constituency

What about the ‘N’ word, Hiroshima and most tellingly Auschwitz? The entire edifice of modern western politics, has been built upon the repudiation of the history of the Western world. Find me anyone who matters, in any Germanic society who would dare to break these taboos. This is Whiteism. There are those who seek to overturn this straitjacket on Germanic society, they are Post Whiteists. The real division in Germanic societies is the division between Whiteism and Post-Whiteism. You are right that the liberal left was allowed to provide coverage for the discredited Germanic system in the post war period. I have written about this in ‘War, Welfare and Whiteism’ which I will post soon.

Regarding ‘Whiteism,’ which I take to be your coinage, I thought from reading you this was a political stance based upon a background assumption of ‘white’ superiority (in effect, one possibility of a ‘speciation’ model of human variation, which reifies visible physiological differences into differing core endowments and then takes this to imply a hierarchy of human sub-species).

You have hit one of the key points. Whiteism is not based upon an assumption of white ‘superiority’ but on an assertion of common ‘white’ interests. This is what makes it superior and subtle in contrast to white supremacy. I will re-post ‘ Forget about Racism, lets talk about Whiteism’ soon.

If this understanding is correct (I’m really struggling to understand ‘Whiteism’ as a discussion) then I think it is fairly clear to see the cultural narratives which are already in place to make ‘Whiteism’ possible and, given that the background assumptions _are_ background and culturally tacit, the ease with which what is effectively a global _supremacist_ political stance/project can draw strength and support from large numbers who are not consciously committed to global apartheid.

How an ideological position can be a discussion (as opposed to being discussed) I don’t see. Alternatively, to describe as a discussion the historical struggle for such a position to become politically dominant or hegemonic seems to stretch the boundaries of metaphor unnecessarily.

Since Whiteism is the assertion of a common white interest it’s purpose is to persuade non-Germanic whites to participate in white civilisation under Germanic control. Two fascinating examples:

Convincing the Slavs to take part in the war on Islam

Convincing the Irish population to integrate into the German economic system and the collapse it caused.

This is the ongoing discussion.

My own blog, reflexredux, is where I am trying to map my own struggles to comprehend the world but it is private and, having tried to invite you to it, I find that I don’t have the wp ID required to do so successfully.

Thank you for your contribution Reflexredux. Your engagement with the ideas helps to clarify and strengthen them. I look forward to speaking again.

One Way or Another…

 ‘One way, or another,

I’m gonna get ya

I’m gonna

Get ya

Get ya

Get ya

Get ya’

          Blondie

A while ago I predicted that Russians leaders would come under increasing pressure from Anglo Saxon backed forces within the territory of Russia itself.

The reason for this increased pressure would be to force Putin to come to back down from his confrontation with the Saxon Axis over Syria.

Anglo Saxon strategic thinking goes that once Syria can be turned into a staging post for Wahabi style militants Russia will be forced into a direct conflict with them. This will achieve two fundamentally important strategic goals for the Saxon Axis:

First it will tie Russia down in a re-run of Afghanistan. The Saxon elite yearns for a return to the days when Russia was embroiled in fighting Islamists in the first Afghan war. Russia was in a state of permanent emergency and being bled dry of blood and money. As a result it was no threat to Saxons plans in the rest of the world.

Second, it will allow the Saxon Axis to complete the pivot to Asia. Once Russia and the Islamists are locked in a death embrace Saxons can turn their attention to encircling China and creating the security structure that will best suit their need in the Pacific. In part this will be also accomplished by the trans Pacific trade agreement of which I will write more later.

Outside of these two strategic objectives there is a further ideological goal for the Saxons to achieve in Russia.

Many have been struck by the apparent change in Frances attitude to the policy of interventionism and particularly Saxon interventionism that has been seen in the Middle East. It seems that France, which under traditional Gaullist philosophy has been at best lukewarm about collaborating with Saxon interests, has changed its attitude completely. Again, this was something that I predicted some time ago, and it an inevitable progression in the development of WHITEISM.

Whiteism is the ideological structure that rests on the belief that all white people have a common ‘white’ culture and common ‘white’ interests. It follows from this that all ‘white’ people should act together in political military and economic spheres. French refusal to co-operate with NATO for example was a direct challenge to Whiteism. In order to gain French co-operation it would be necessary to find a threat that clearly unified all white people around the need to defend ‘our’ culture and ‘our’ way of life- and does not Islamism fill this role admirably? Think about the way that a carefully orchestrated campaign around outlawing the Burkha in France set the groundwork for a new French attitude towards Muslim extremism.

So far so good. That’s the Gallic whites taken care of. But what about the other big group of non Germanic whites, the Slavs?

Unfortunately the first Afghan war in which Islamists were used against the Slavs by the Saxons had the side effect that Slavs developed the unhelpful,(from a Saxon point of view) perspective that theirs was a solitary fight against Islamism. As a consequence Slavs developed their own methods and philosophy in this struggle. So far it has proved virtually impossible for Saxons to subvert or gain control of this Slavic perspective despite their many increasingly desperate attempts to do so. So instead they have developed a separate track- the NGO approach, which is to use pro Saxon factions within Russian society to attack the Russian leadership, especially using that totem of Germanic Pagan religion- homosexuality. So Russia finds itself under a secret Saxon siege: check out the Guardian coverage of the mayoral elections as pure Saxon propaganda.

One way or another the Saxons intend the Slavs to join the White war against Islam. If the Putin leadership will not fall for the idea that we are all whites together, then the Saxons intend to install a leadership who will.

WHITEISM: PLAYING FOR KEEPS or: What the Hell is Obama up to? or Washingtons Secret Civil War

I am updating this piece as it is being written in the light of ongoing events

Whatever else is going on, one thing is clear; everybody is playing for keeps in Syria.

The Damascus chemical attack is a rare moment, clearly seen by everyone as a turning point and not just for the Middle East. Room for a fudge has diminished until it is vanishingly small. One way or another, everyone is now going to be forced to take sides in the Syrian conflict. On the surface this is how it splits:

The attack either took place or it did not.
There is no independent way of verifying that an attack using a known chemical weapon agent such as Sarin actually happened. The evidence of a chemical attack of this nature will always be open to dispute in any event. There is no doubt that the ‘Neo Con’ faction will say such an attack occurred even if the evidence is highly contentious.
(Cameron admitted in the House of Commons debate that evaluating the available evidence of an attack was ‘a matter of judgement’)

The attack resulted in mass casualties including women and children or it did not.
There is plenty of evidence of the Cannibal army producing propaganda material, especially to promote the case for western intervention. There is also plenty of evidence that the western media uncritically jump on this material and use it to promote war. But it is also clear that much of the public has become increasingly wary of the ‘stampede’ tactic- weapons of mass destruction in Iraq etc. If it should turn out that the footage of casualties is not all it seems to be, the media which accepted it unchallenged would suffer a major, possibly even a terminal blow.

Either the Assad regime or the Cannibal army carried out the attack.
If the Assad regime did it then there will be the perfect pretext for an attack and the overthrow of the last secular regime in the Middle East. But if the Cannibal army can be shown to have done it, then they too are finished.
(Since it is clear now that a significant minority of the public and politicians are not willing to accept the media narrative, you can expect a major corporate media offensive to shore up credibility and make the public accept their version of events)

Somebody is going down and pretty soon. Given the way these things have played out in the recent past it seems reasonable to assume (barring a major upset), that it is the Assad regime that is due to go.

But hang on a minute, the fat lady is not singing, not just yet.

First of all, there is still no widespread public support, either in USA or England for an attack on Syria despite nearly two years of pro war propaganda.

Second, there is no public trust in the official narrative with regard to Syria (eg. the public does not yet believe that Assad carried out this or any other attack)

Third, there is no widespread support within Syria for the Cannibal Army

Fourth, there is no guarantee that the Russians and the Chinese will roll over and take it.

In short, there is no guarantee that the West can pull it off.

But why should that matter? -there was no guarantee that the Saxon Axis could pull off Iraq and Libya (and in point of fact, the Saxon Axis secured at best limited and partial success in these areas), but that did not stop them going ahead with those adventures.
The determining factor is not if Obama achieves his stated objectives in atacking Syria.

What matters is that Obama can get away with it if he fails to achieve his objectives- what matters are the consequences of failure.

If you think I am predicting some kind of peasants uprising that will bring the elite to justice for war crimes across the Middle East, I am not. The danger to each faction of the elite comes not from the public but from the other of the two. One section of the elite might be willing and able to pin a failure in Syria on the other one. This is what is different and defining about contemporary events and this is why both sides in this secret war are playing for keeps.

Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq are a familiar illustration of this principle. It has been clearly shown that there were none. Which means that the invasion of Iraq was a war crime, yet no-one has been brought to book.
Why?
Because no one with the real power to cause any trouble is interested in causing any trouble. In other words the media and political elite regard it as being in their best interest to present a common front against the idea that any of them could be brought to book for events in Iraq. So even though Blair and Bush were shown to have committed what was at least a terrible act of incompetence they know they are in no danger of facing a war comes tribunal. This foreknowledge is essential if elites are going to have the confidence to act.

Ask yourself this question: What would politics look like if politicians didn’t have that confidence?

There are two elite Anglo Saxon political factions that no longer have an interest in the consensus as it has previously existed. Events in the Middle East are one arena they are fighting in. Whoever loses in the international arena as a consequence loses in the domestic arena. Most people have figured out the conflict has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat allegiances. In fact, these allegiances can be said to be secret from the public.

We need a framework within which we can understand who these two elite competing groups are, and what exactly divides them.

Obama is plainly not left wing or even liberal, either in terms of domestic or international policy. Yet it is clear that his agenda diverges significantly from that of the Neo Cons in the USA elite.
In domestic policy he has followed the policy of reducing ‘entitlements’ and supporting the financial sector.
He is plainly less enthusiastic about military action as it is undertaken by the Neo Cons. But this is not because he is anti-war;Obama likes to use drones. Obama just does not want to fight Neo con wars on Neo Con terms.

Obama’s sees himself as the forerunner of a whole generation of black politicians in the run up to 2040 (racial tipping point in USA). He sees himself as struggling against a racist Neo-Con plot to bring him down using whatever means come to hand, including Syria. His entire purpose is his personal political survival and by extension the survival of what he represents- the new black political class. He sees the ‘red-lines’ as a trap that McCain sprung on him. In return he is now busily wrapping McCain and the Neo-Cons up so tightly in the coming attack that no matter how it plays out they cannot use it against him. This is Obama’s politics and his morality- the struggle against McCain and all the other Yankee Boers- his war against American Apartheid.

The secret civil war in Washington is every bit as vicious as the one in Syria is.