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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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…..

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..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

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/

 

 

 

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

leo

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Stage Right

 

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

 

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

 

The Ultimate Zero Hours Contract

 

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

 

The Wild Bunch

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Stage Left

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Get the picture?

 

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

 

I think I know.

 

PART 2 Back To The Future Or Actually The Future Is Exactly What It Used To Be Or Neo Feudalism Or Now Listen You Queer, Stop Calling Me A Crypto Nazi Or I’ll Sock You In The Goddamn Face!

 

The general political and economic history we are taught focuses on forms of society over the functions that form represents. It teaches economic and political structures are primary and the forces they actually represent are secondary at best.

 

This creates a history and a politics that are at best really only a series of snapshots strung together in the semblance of a storyboard, or at worse a single blurred image, the import of which we endlessly haggle over with no hope of ever coming to a clear resolution.

 

If we accept this fragmentation of history and politics the best insight we can hope for is the pyramidal model of society that the ‘left’ and ‘right’ use.

 

The understanding we have of history and politics is not the result of unknowable abstractions, it is the concrete result of the most powerful forces in the society we live in. A fragmented and disintegrated political/ economic system inevitably produces a fragmented and disintegrated understanding of history and politics.

 

The disintegration of capitalist society we experience can be sourced to an elite – traditionally seen as the ‘top of the pyramid’, effectively drawing off a vector of wealth and power from society but not redistributing any of that wealth and power back.

 

Capitalism did not always do this, nor is it necessarily forced to this, but it has the tendency to do this. The potential to systematically and permanently vector wealth away from society to a specific elite differentiates Capitalism from all the other forms of society, contemporary and historical. It is what makes capitalism special.

 

Capitalism is a form of society where economics really can be separate from politics -an observation the left vehemently denies and the right celebrates but refuses to acknowledge the consequences of. But why does the ‘left’ deny this simple observation? Understand this and you understand the relationship between War, Welfare and Whiteism.

 

In the Divergent Split Stream Model the capitalist elite draws off wealth and power through the capitalist vector . (shown here). This wealth and power becomes increasingly INVISIBLE and UNKNOWABLE to the remaindered feudal integrated vector. For mainstream economics and politics (which are the province of feudalism), more or less the whole purpose of existence has become to try to understand what your elite is doing at any given time and hopefully to influence it.

ssm

Understanding the process of disintegration can give us historical insights into the motivations of the elite and their consequences for society as a whole.

 

At a crucial stage in its development, a capitalist elite is no longer automatically obliged to organise or defend the society they benefit from, symbolised by the moving out of military uniform that all capitalist elites eagerly undertake when they are able. I pointed out that kings and barons rise and fall with the redistribution systems they service. This is as true for contemporary feudal/integrated societies as for those that existed 500 years ago.

 

Capitalists are consciously ‘Independent’ when they no longer go to war to defend the society that protects and benefits them. Think about George Washington and the American War of Independence in this context. Think also about Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.

 

At the time of George Washington, nascent Anglo Saxon capitalists in America were in the process of creating a new separate system of wealth accumulation and redistribution based on the wholesale theft of that continent.

 

If anything distinguished the emerging Saxon American system from its European counterparts it was the fact that it sought to be pure and whole. The Anglo Saxon American process was entirely one of transferring a territory and its wealth from one racial cultural group to another; there was literally nothing else happening in America at that time. Proto America understood itself to be entirely a redistribution system.

americanmodel

And everyone who benefitted agreed that the process had great potential. It became the American Anglo Saxon evangelical project to demonstrate to the world that such a thing as a society running with only a capitalist vector was actually possible!

 

Here is America’s specific claim to moral, political, and historical uniqueness in the world; Germanic Land Democracy that you can successfully run a society without a feudal/integrated vector. Damn the Pope! Damn the European hierarchy of Church, Nobility and Society! And Double Damn Noblesse Oblige!

 

Just as ‘The King’ is the personification of the feudal/integrated system so ‘The Individual’ is the personification of this Capitalist vector. Summed up in the truly bizarre Saxon cri de coueur : ‘The Englishman’s Home Is His Castle’. Feudalism and Capitalism fused together; Germanic land Democracy.

 

At the precise historical moment of Americas birth, two imperatives clashed in the person of George Washington. One moment he was required to act as feudal king fighting a war as guarantor and defender of a uniquely American redistribution system. The next moment he was President; a mere elected functionary.

 

Washington hovered between these two states of public (and internal!), being. As feudal king his purpose was to integrate American society, as President he was representing the interests of forces that were striving to create the first permanently disintegrated society.

 

If you doubt the feudal personification of Washington and the American elite, remember that they named America’s capital city after this single man. And they did it with straight faces and no hint of irony. Isn’t this the very essence of ‘primitive’ feudalism?

 

Now compare the American Continental War with the First World War which was the last time a significant section of European, (in particular continental German), capitalists were willing to actually fight and die for the society they were beneficiaries of. After the Somme there were to be no more trenches for the young men of these elites. It was this change in society more than any other that gave the Second World War its own character twenty years later.

 

In a bizarre mix of comedy and tragedy, German corporate bosses decided to hire a replacement mock-feudal military caste to stand in for them in the form of the Nazis, led by the corporal Hitler! Has there ever been such a catastrophic bungle by any social group in history?

 

The burgher market trader instincts of German capitalists gave birth to the most deadly set of consequences imaginable. Most horribly ironic of all, Germans clearly recognise their propensity for this kind of stupidity in the classic tale of the ‘Pied Piper of Hamlyn’. But they are doomed to go ahead and relive it anyway…over and over again.

 

So here are two Germanic elites and two very different stories. American Anglo Saxon and Continental German had to adapt to and adopt the necessities of feudal integration and both did so in very different ways. These were two nations at different times under existential threat from outside. The Anglo Saxon American revolutionaries took feudalism on wholesale, the Continental Germans tried to buy a ready made version of it off the shelf. The Anglo Saxons in America succeeded wildly and the Germans failed catastrophically. Neither outcome was happenstance.

 

The historical lesson here is that CAPITALISM ALWAYS NEEDS FEUDALISM to survive and develop. If Capitalism fails to harness the power of feudalism, it risks its own existence. You can‘t fake it as the German bourgeoisie found out to its cost…

 

Most exactly of all, Capitalism needs to construct a feudalist distribution sub system if the capitalist elite is to successfully disintegrate itself from society.

 

Who will administer society if the capitalist elite is off pursuing its own interests? On what basis, with what justification, will this administering body operate? Its only viable justification is the integration of society; the essence of feudalism

 

A bureaucracy must be formed representing a new relationship between oppressed and oppressor. Instead of paying money to the King who distributes it to his enforcers, you must pay the enforcers directly!

 

But this capitalist/feudal bureaucracy is different because of a third consequence of disintegration; the emergence of ‘social science’.

 

Social science is only possible and necessary when you want exact scientific knowledge of the ‘mass’ of people as a separate grouping. Enter the new capitalist disciplines of Sociology, Anthropology etc. In the universities and the colleges of the 18th and C19th the foundations of a new priesthood is being created.

 

By the time that the Split Stream Welfare Model is implemented the capitalist elite has effectively reproduced the pre-capitalist system but excluded the itself from it. In other words the elite has become truly ‘modern’ and ‘scientific’ by means of ensuring that the remainder of society is ‘primitive’. And every capitalist society since then is objectively judged to be successful to the extent that it manages to recreate a feudal system and visibly exclude itself from it.

sswm

Of course, we need a name for this new relationship between bureaucracy and society. We can hardly directly admit it is feudalism- that the brave new future we are building is fundamentally dependent on the past. So we give this state of affairs a new name to reflect its ‘social’ nature ; we will call it ‘Socialism’.

 

Now we can see where Germanic ‘class’ politics springs from- a concoction of feudalism, welfare and socialism (or War, Welfare and Whiteism if you prefer). This is the political structure that will support and illuminate the new redistribution system.

 

And so along with Washington and Hitler, vector history brings Karl Marx into focus.

 

Somewhat vain and self important but also brilliant, Marx was a rogue operator in the new emerging social sciences. Like an insufferably precocious pupil Marx constantly disrupts and irritates the lecturer with startling insights, speculations and guesses called out from the back of the class. Some of these catcalls were pinpoint accurate and some were horribly wrong.

 

But by effectively second guessing a whole raft of developments in the emergence of social science, rogue student Marx managed to disrupt the entire inaugural lecture. The carefully planned unveiling of ‘Social Science’ collapsed into chaos!

 

And it has never recovered..Is it any wonder the establishment regards him as they do?

 

It’s hard not to see young Marx as something of a Victor Frankenstein character (as in Prometheus), seeking forbidden knowledge, failing to heed the warnings of his teachers and ultimately heading for disaster.

 

And while we are about it; seeking to raise what was dead through the newly acquired power of science… Given what we know about young Mary Wollstonecraft and her antecedents, I think I can make an argument that the Frankenstein story itself is a metaphor precisely for the emergent scientific capitalist class bringing feudalism back from the dead.

 

This is Not America…

 

By the time America invaded Vietnam in the 1960’s none of its national elite or their children went to die in wars. And nobody seriously expected them to. This certainly gave the Vietnam war its very own peculiar nature. American society at large was well aware of the extent this change even if it did not understand the full significance of it. What this meant was that America and its elite, despite its peculiar development path was becoming more like the European states.

 

The documentary film ‘Best of Enemies’ records the televised debates in 1968 between liberal Gore Vidal and conservative William F. Buckley Jr. and it happens to capture perfectly this moment of America’s final transition from ‘capitalist+’ to ‘capitalist-‘ society. As the publicity blurb for the documentary has it:

 

‘ Intended as commentary on the issues of their day, these vitriolic and explosive encounters came to define the modern era of public discourse in the media, marking the big bang moment of our contemporary media landscape when spectacle trumped content and argument replaced substance’

 

To make it absolutely clear: The Nixonian/ Neo Con movement as espoused by William F Buckley jr that emerged in the late 1960’s is a welfare system just as its liberal counterpart espoused by Gore Vidal was. It’s specific argument is that welfare should be constructed in such a way as to benefit white Anglo Saxon society and particularly white working class Anglo Saxons at the expense of other sections of American society. In other words it seeks to exclude some sections of society to more clearly cohere the remainder around a specific identity.

 

It is no coincidence that Nixonian welfare centered on the Moral Majority emerges precisely when the elite begins to very consciously disengage (as in the Vietnam war) from American society. The project is to then put in place a comprehensive new welfare system that society will rely on to maintain cohesion. Buckley and Vidal are arguing over what the nature of the new sub system feudal welfare system, (LBJ’s The Great Society), will be.

 

It is every bit as consciously redistributive as so called liberal or socialist opponents. Its difference centres on who qualifies. And who qualifies will be decided by which version of the history of America becomes the dominant narrative.

 

From this perspective the animus between the two antagonists comes into clear focus. It is no accident that both are populist disseminators of American history. It is no accident that their central argument revolves around what the content and meaning of American history is.

 

If Thine Eye Offend Thee..

 

And now we can finally move towards a rational explanation for what seems totally irrational oxymoronic Neo Conservatism: It is America’s admission that it needs feudalism in some form if the elite is to successfully disengage. But in this admission America’s previous strength is revealed as a weakness because it has no feudal backstory to hang its welfare state on. It is going to have to invent one.

 

This is the opportunity for ‘right wing’ public intellectuals like Buckley and Irving Kristol to prove their worth. We can explain how Neo Conservatism can draw together an establishment WASP like Buckley and an ex ‘Trotskyist’ like Kristol within the context of American politics. On the surface their political trajectories would appear to be irreconcilable. But if we understand that their shared struggle is not to re-formulate the future but the past, many of the apparent contradictions evaporate.

 

Both Kristol and Buckley realised that in the creation of Neo Conservatism, their shared purpose was to try to find a way to create a vision of the past and to present it as the future; feudalism as welfare. The inspiration of Neo Conservatism is to accept the practical reality of the need for feudalism, while publically denying it with all your might. In a moment of clarity Kristol realised that feudalism/integration was essentially what his Trotskyist Socialism had been about all along.

 

From this perspective we can see that the Cold War arguments over whether communist Russia was more advanced than USA is really an internal argument about the future of America. America is projecting its hopes and anxieties onto Russia and later Japan and China. Because now the American elite continually gazes upon feudalism with fear and a kind of sick desire. They are painted into a corner. They are all turned around.

 

This has reached some kind of crisis point with Islamism. The modern Protestant welfare society finds itself powerless to launch an all out attack on feudalism. How can it? It will be cutting its own throat. No matter how much it is offended it cannot put its own eye out or cut off its own hand.

 

Disintegrated history and politics experiences its dislocation and confusion through the medium of past, present and future. Whenever the West tries to describe an alien society it does so in terms of primitive or advanced etc. The West is permanently confused as to whether China is modern or backwards. Or modern and backwards. Or whether it is going forwards or forwards and backwards at the same time.

 

The West looks for markers of ‘modernity’ like mobile phones or gay marriage. If you have a modern mobile phone network but not gay marriage is your society modern or backwards? Was Iran becoming more modern or less modern when it overthrew the Shah of Iran? Is the Arab Spring a leap forward or backward? Was Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood progressive or regressive? Confusion multiplies and reigns.

 

Something like this happened with astronomy. Retrograde motion is an observed phenomenon in astronomy in which planets appear to move ‘backward’ across the night sky. Of course, this is impossible, planets can no more move backward in space than societies can move backwards in time. Retrograde movement is the consequence of planets with relative trajectories seeming to accelerate at different speeds. They are all going forward in perfect order, it is just that from one point of view it can seem as though they are not.

 

When a model of the solar system was put forward that more accurately mirrored reality, all the confusion disappeared. Soon astronomers were able to predict the whereabouts of any given planet at any given time. It happened when they realised they could not calculate correctly with the earth as the centre of the system. The same thing must happen now with Anglo Saxon societies. The world does not revolve around them. History does not revolve around them.

 

Societies can appear to move backwards but of course they don’t really. They are all progressing forwards we just have to find a model to explain how. Vector history can do that. The key is to identify or restate a problem in a way no one has before and offer a solution. That is what I have done here.

 

 

 

‘Saxism’ or If It Bleeds It Leads or Beyond The Pale or The Sorcerers Apprentice or ‘Duck, Donald!’ or Or Crazy Like A Fox

The consensus in the press was that remarks made by Donald Trump in the Presidential debate would more or less be the end as far as his political ambitions went. The basic MSM line was that ‘blood out of her eyes and wherever‘ comments wildly overstepped the mark in civilised discourse.

Journalist Megyn Kellys challenge was clearly designed to put Trump on the wrong side of women voters in the Presidential debate and mark him as Beyond the Pale in civilised society. However, instead of offering some kind of lame mea culpa for past transgressions, Donald chose to adopt a combatitive tone himself, forcefully attacking Political Correctness and by extension Megyn Kelly for adopting it..

 

And so far, the popular backlash against Trumps ‘caveman’ attitude hasn’t happened. Instead Trump seems to be holding his own in the court of public opinion. If anything the tide has turned somewhat and the question become: ‘Was Megyn Kelly put up by Fox news to take Trump down?’

 

Corporate conspiracy theory probably has some substance to it but the whole story is somewhat more subtle and interesting than mere corporate infighting.

 

The first thing to understand is the Trump shtick. The innovation lies not really what Trump is seeking to do but his method in going about it. Trump offers a variation on the well worn and well known:

 

‘I buy direct, in volume, and pass the savings on to YOU, the customer!’

 

spiel familiar from a thousand adverts and infomercials.

 

It is standard knowledge that Oligarchs buy politicians through donations and influence public opinion directly through investments in the media.

 

General wisdom is that Oligarchs use this method because they are essentially unattractive to the public. Rubbing the public nose in the methods of the Oligarch system won’t go down well in the long run so national politicians and national media operate respectively the HR and PR departments of American Oligarchy Inc.

 

Donald Trump represents a challenge to this way of thinking essentially saying:

 

I can do media as well as anyone; I have my own reality show- ‘The Apprentice’. I am at least as an attractive a public proposition as Jeb Bush et al. And I have got the money so I don’t need to beg anyone for funding. Lets do Direct Oligarch rule and cut out the middleman passing on the savings onto YOU, the customer!’.

 

It is not surprising that this approach resonates with a lot of people In the home of the Infomercial. But you don’t have to think very hard to see it is pretty deadly for media and politicians in general if this kind of thing were to catch on. This is the main motivation for the establishment to go after him. On an instinctive level it’s all about protecting livelihoods.

 

But what is really interesting is how designated driver Megan Kelly decided to go for Trump. The key to Trump is that he says he is the ‘whole package’, but Megyn is here to tell him he isn’t. Because he isn’t a woman. He doesn’t get women. He doesn’t get the post-post war settlement. He doesn’t get Whiteism. Of course it could have been a black or Hispanic journalist telling Trump this stuff on prime time TV, but that might have been just a little too much….

 

In other words, the whole ideological structure- expressing post war Germanic ideas of sexual and racial identity, family life, personal relations and morality that exists alongside basic capitalist economics has to be taken account of. And the priesthood (not in the exclusively male sense of course..) of this religion has to be taken account of and Donald has to bow down.

And this is where we come to the comedy and the tragedy of the matter:

 

Even if Trump wins he loses. Even if he isn’t cowed by Megyn Kelly or any one of ten thousand media/politician types that stand between him and his goal;

 

EVEN IF HE WINS THE PRESIDENCY he STILL loses.

 

Because actual plain vanilla capitalism, based on Economic Rationale, just won’t cut it anymore. Because capitalism is over. That is what Donald Trump and his campaign means.

 

The essence of the Trump campaign is the final triumph of cultural constituencies. Because under Trump capitalism itself is now just another cultural constituency in the United States of Everywhere.

 

Trump can no more apply for the real job of CEO of Americorp Inc than he can run a real recruitment process on his ‘Apprentice’ TV show. It’s not real if Trump is in it. Trump wouldn’t be interested if it was real.

 

Like Mickey Mouse in the Sorcerers Apprentice, Donald Trump is seeking to usurp the magic of the Germanic Cult of Capitalism.

 

He seeks the keys to the Magic Kingdom so that he can bring the savings direct to YOU, the consumer. But just like Mickey he is more likely to bring the whole thing crashing down around your collective heads.

 

Currency Wars or
Bet Your Bottom Dollar

 

For the third day the Peoples Bank Of China is lowering the exchange rate for the Yuan/Renminbi and nobody is sure what exactly it means.

 

It could be that currency wars involving competitive devaluation of national currencies to gain a trading advantage are finally here. After all they have been predicted for long enough. This is the negative interpretation.

 

Or it could be that China is trying to integrate itself into the global system by doing whatever it takes to make the Yuan a free floating potential SDR reserve currency. This is the positive interpretation.

 

But most people seem to agree that nobody knows what the Chinese are up to exactly.

 

Which is frankly, a load of bollocks.

 

The idea that the PBOC is screwing around with the exchange rate without talking to the Fed is ridiculous. And if the exchange rate alteration is such a big shock why no big brouhaha from America over the move?

 

So what is the deal?

 

Well first of all you can bet your bottom dollar that the PBOC has already let the Fed know that it will be devaluing the Yuan on international markets. And in plenty of good time. You can also bet that the PBOC has let the Fed know what the new target value is and what the time frame for achieving this target exchange rate is.

 

It would be hard to explain why China was doing this if its purpose is to gain an advantage in supposed currency wars.

 

So why is China doing this?

 

Well it could be that China is seeking to fully integrate the Yuan into the global system in the near future.

 

But I suspect the fundamental reason for this movement is because China no longer wants to use up large amounts of dollar and dollar denominated reserves in preserving the exchange Yuan/Dollar rate at the previous exchange rate.

 

Especially as it knows that preserving this exchange rate will become increasingly difficult.

 

Why would this be?

Because the Yuan is going come under increasing exchange rate pressure vis-a-vis the Dollar.

 

And why would this be?

 

Because the dollar exchange rate is going up .

 

And why would this be?

 

Because American interest rates are going to rise sometime soon.