|Home||Switchboard||Unix Administration||Red Hat||TCP/IP Networks||Neoliberalism||Toxic Managers|
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Skepticism and critical thinking is not panacea, but can help to understand the world better
|News||Neoliberalism as Trotskyism for the rich||Who Rules America||Recommended Links||Secular Stagnation under Neoliberalism||Donald Trump -- an unusual fighter against excesses of neoliberal globalization||The Far Right Forces in Ukraine as Trojan Horse of Neoliberalism||American biblical nationalism and religious far right||Economic nationalism|
|American Exceptionalism||Anti-globalization movement||Immigration, wage depression and free movement of workers||Brexit as the start of the reversal of neoliberal globalization||TTP, NAFTA and other supranational trade treaties||Neoliberalism and Christianity||Pope Francis on danger of neoliberalism||Anatol Leiven on American Messianism|
|Debt slavery||The Grand Chessboard||American Imperialism, Transnational Capitalist Class and Globalization of Capitalism||IMF as the key institution for neoliberal debt enslavement||Merchants of Debt||Greece debt enslavement||Eroding Western living standards||Ukraine debt enslavement||Russian nationalists|
|New American Militarism||Predator state||Neoconservatism||Madeleine Albright as a precursor of Hillary Clinton||Hillary "Warmonger" Clinton||Merkel as Soft Cop in Neocon Offensive on Eastern Europe and Russia||Robert Kagan||Wolfowitz Doctrine||Neoliberalism as a New Form of Corporatism|
|National Security State||Neo-fascism||Elite Theory||New American Militarism||Christian Theocratic Movements||Financial Humor||Quotes||Humor||Etc|
|And nationalism is given a special virulence when it is said to be blessed by Providence.
Today we have a president, invading two countries in four years, who announced on the campaign
trail last year that God speaks through him.
We need to refute the idea that
our nation is different from, morally superior to, the other imperial powers of world history.
-- Howard Zinn
Neoliberalism creates powerful nationalistic impulses die to its failure of fulfill its promises. Disappointed, impoverished, and, especially, unemployed people are easy recruits for far right movements. In this sense the situation is similar to Bolshevism, which after being discredited as ideology (which was based on the promise of rising standard of living and eventual overtaking the capitalist West in prosperity) failed to keep the country together because of growing (and lavishly supported both in propaganda and financially by the West) wave of nationalism which swept the USSR into oblivion. Disintegration of the USSR was based on two major factors -- betrayal of the "nomenklatura" which switched to neoliberalism, and abandoning Comminist ideology (in which actually nobody believed after 1970th) and the tide of nationalistic sentiments.
Now nationalism is on the rise in all major Western countries. Such events as Brexit and election of Trump are links of the same chain of events.
Nationalism informs our ideas about language, culture, identity, nation, and State--ideas that are being challenged by globalization and an neoliberal economic order and ideology. Neoliberalism as Trotskyism for the rich is generally hostile to nationalism. It often purposely destabilize the nation-states to open them to transnational corporations ("creative destruction" of sort), the dominant political players under neoliberalism. For example, when the federal government of Canada adopted neoliberal policies one immediate consequence was the termination of the funding programs for the francophone community cultural programs (along with the termination of the welfare programs). Indeed, the Official Languages Act itself was overhauled.
The United States' pursuit of global primacy is based upon a complex melding of neoliberal economics and hegemonic politics which produce strong anti-American sentiments in various part of the globe, fueling nationalism. US imperialism is inherently predatory and profoundly different from the productive capitalism that had been the basis of American economic success. It is essentially a War and color revolutions based racket. It has important difference with classic colonialism: what traditional colonialism tried to achieve with standing armies now is achieved using financial instruments and tiny strata of "comprador elite" within the given country. Putting the nation into debt-bondage proved to be even more effective in extracting resources from the countries then the old colonial rule.
Ethno-nationalism is not the only form of nationalism in existence. Moreover, Ethno-nationalism is in decline, as it is now discomforting intellectually and morally for many people. But two other, more modern and no less powerful forms of nationalism emerged: "cultural nationalism" and "economic nationalism".
As social scientists demonstrated nationalistic sentiments are often a product of culture, often deliberately constructed by the local elite to achieve pretty nefarious and selfish goals. Still the culture can as solid core of nationalism as ethnicity. this new form of nationalism became an important player on the world scene.
Ukrainian color revolution of February 2014 (EuroMaydan), despite surface slogans about Eurointergation, was fought and won by Western Ukrainian nationalists, which later tried to impose their will on the rest of the country provoking the civil war in Donbass (with substantial help from Russia, which decided to support Russian speaking population against Ukrainian nationalists cultural assault). While they were ethnic nationalists in the past, now they by-and-large converted in cultural nationalists, which oppose not Russians as a national by Russian culture and language and try to instill Ukrainian culture and language in the country were the majority of population speaks Russian.
So far the net result was a destruction of the Ukrainian economy due to break-up of Soviet era ties with Russian industries and abandonment of Russian market (while Ukrainian goods are no values as much in Western markets and face various often artificial barriers in EU). In 216 the impoverishment of the population reached the Central African states level (less then $2 dollar a day for the majority of population).
Americans generally are strongly negative to the idea of ethnic nationalism and that's is one of the best features of Americans as a nation. After all, in the United States people of varying ethnic origins live in peace. For example within two or three generations of immigration, ethnic identities of Western and Eastern European immigrants are attenuated by cultural assimilation and intermarriage. In general, immigrants to the United States usually arrive with a willingness to fit into their new country and reshape their identities accordingly. But for those who remain behind in lands where their ancestors have lived for generations, if not centuries, political identities still sometimes take more ancient ethnic or religious form, producing powerful claims to political power. In the past, the creation of nation-states in Europe has often the product of a violent process of ethnic separation.
While the apogee of ethno-nationalism was probably in 1930th and during post war decolonization, ethno-nationalism while in decline still remain a powerful social force in some countries. In many way ethno-nationalism is still linked with national socialism. But traditional national socialism version of ethno-nationalism was slowly but surely replaced by what the form that is based on colon culture and language -- "cultural nationalism". I think that American Exceptionalism is one of the most interesting examples of this type of nationalism. And the fact that US flags in the USA are everywhere definitely signify its strength in mind of the people. Unlike many European state were driving a car with the national flag would be considered bad manners, in the USA it is OK behaviour.
The US elite as the leading imperial elite that overtook British elite on the world stage achieved great mastery in using divide and conquer strategy by inciting nationalistic feelings all over the world. This mastery (despite Bush "Chicken Kiev" speech) was especially demonstrated in facilitation the break-up of the USSR. It was nationalism that had blown up the USSR when it started experiencing economic difficulties and crisis of the political doctrine under which it was created as well as suffering from the losing Afghan war.
It is interesting to note that the crisis in the USSR was amplified due to supply of modern technology. Personal computers inside the country which broke traditional hold on distribution of literature by Communist Party (which rules the country as a religious sect, crushing even minor deviations form holy doctrine), were very similar to Stringers hand held missiles in Afghan war, which deteriorated Russian air superiority, and limited the use of helicopters (with a pretty nasty effect 30 years later). This along the money with which the USA and Saudi financed radical Islamic fundamentalism converted Islamist revels it into a powerful political force. Political Islam was if nor born then strengthens in Afghan war. Which paradoxically is another example of "cultural nationalism", were the religion serves as the cementing force and identification of us vs. them. .
People often forget that Osama bin Laden was essentially a recruiting agent on Saudi Intelligence payroll during the USSR Afghan war. In this sense tragedy of 9/11 was simply a blowback of previous efforts to defeat the USSR in Afghan war by whatever means possible. And one of those means was spreading of Wahhabism and what can be called "Islamic cultural nationalism".
As author of the note Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11? observed:
I would indeed go further and say that Islamic schools infuse a dangerous and un-Islamic Islam-supremacist, and indeed now sectarian Wahhabi-supremacist view vis-à-vis all other religions and cultures and this is at least partly responsible for many of the problems Muslims face around the world today.
In other words with the ascendance of neoliberalism nationalism re-emerged as a powerful countervailing force. Brexit was just the first powerful manifestation of this effect.
likbez : , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 02:47 PMNeoliberalism creates an impulse for nationalism in several ways:
1. It destroys human solidarity. And resorting to nationalism in a compensational mechanism to restore it in human societies. that's why the elite often resorts to foreign wars if it feels that it losing the control over peons.
2. Neoliberalism impoverishes the majority of population enriching top 1% and provokes the search for scapegoats. Which in the past traditionally were Jews. Now look like MSM are trying to substitute them for Russians
3. Usually the rise of nationalism is correlated with the crisis in the society. There is a crisis of neoliberalism that we experience in the USA now: after 2008 neoliberalism entered zombie state, when the ideology is discredited, but forces behind it are way too strong for any social change to be implemented. Much like was the case during "Brezhnev socialism" in the USSR.
So those who claim that we are experiencing replay of late 1920th on a new level might be partially right. With the important difference that it does not make sense to establish fascist dictatorship in the USA. Combination of "Inverted totalitarism" and "national security state" already achieved the same major objectives with much less blood and violence.
In the post-Second World War period until 1989, superpowers were committed to upholding existing state boundaries. While decolonization was permitted, the borders of states were treated, in international law and practice, as permanent—non-negotiable—features of the international state system.
Secessionist movements are based on groups that have a strong national identification, and are fuelled by nationalism. Minority nations, in multination states, often criticize state policies on the grounds that they implicitly privilege the majority national group on the territory. They have resisted majority control over certain aspects of state policy, and have made claims for state protection of their culture or for recognition of their distinct identity. This usually means that they want their language to be used in official capacities and their children to be educated in their language and about their culture. They typically demand their own political institutions, to enable them to control their own affairs.
As a political principle nationalism postulates that the political and national unit should be congruent. That naturally leads to secessionist movements. It has many variations and in weaker form presuppose the moral significance of the national community, its existence in the past and into the future, and typically seeks some form of political protection to safeguard its future existence.
One advantage of viewing nationalism as a normative theory about the value of national membership and national communities is that it can account for the key policies or demands of nationalists. On this conception, the demand for national self-determination is an important plank in many nationalist movements although not, contra Gellner, a fundamental principle of nationalism. Nationalists may, and often do, seek complete independence or state sovereignty. However, in some cases, where the costs of independence are too high, or the benefits of independence too precarious, nationalists may seek other forms of institutional recognition.
,,, ,,, ,,,
the category 'nation', like 'friends' and 'lovers', falls into the second group. It is contingent on its members' sustaining a certain image of it based on their perceptions and feelings—although of course there are a number of conditions which lead to the construction of an image of a nation, such as shared religion, language, law, geographical isolation, colonial policies, bureaucratic decisions, and the like.
... ... ...
David Miller lists five elements that together constitute a nation: it is, he writes 'a community (1) constituted by shared beliefs and mutual commitments, (2) extended in history, (3) active in character, (4) connected to a particular territory, and (5) marked off from other communities by its distinct public culture'. 12 This definition also suggests that the subjective identification is crucial.
... ... ...
One common line of argument, associated with the work of Gellner, Anderson, Hobsbawm, and others, is that national identity is linked with broad historical forces. National forms of identity become prominent in the modern period as a result of industrialization, and the social and bureaucratic changes that accompany industrialization—or precede it, in the case of states aspiring to be industrialized. In Gellner's formulation of the argument, the modern economy is crucially dependent on standardized modes of communication and cultural practices, and people's life chances are shaped by the language in which they communicate, as well as other cultural forms of interaction. This is in contrast to the premodern period when cultural or linguistic differences were politically irrelevant.
That means that the language and culture became the most important components which defines the boundaries of national identity, while all other characteristics that define nationality, such as specific for given ethnos DNA, receded. That consideration gave rise of élite-manipulation models of nationalism. They view national identity as the product of actions by political or economic élites, who foster national identities for their own (self-interested) ends. More sophisticated élite-manipulation theories describe élites as encoding violence or antagonism as ethnic or national which could be described in other ways—as criminal or class violence, say—for their own ends. Nationalism is merely a means for élites to preserve or enhance their own power and status in the society. This is a variation of the old Plato's argument that the masses are easily duped and so cannot steer the ship of state. The fact that nations are socially constructed does not suggest that they are less real or are to be regarded with suspicion. Some people focus on the fact that they are 'imagined' communities to suggest that they may have no basis in 'reality'.
The social image is important because it is impossible for all its members to engage in face-to-face contact with each other at all times. Therefore members must refer to their perception of the image of the nation. Of course, on this definition, many, if not most, communities, except the very smallest, are imagined in the same way. Religious communities are imagined; my university is imagined; even my extended family is imagined. 26 But they may all be important, and legitimate, bases of identification.
That means that it is more accurate to describe national identities as existing along a continuum, with the language, the habits or customs or character of the group on one end and the institutional structure of state on the another. For example, in immigrant societies such as the United States, Canada, and Australia, where groups of people left their various 'homelands' to become part of a different political project, immigrant groups do not have the "national territory" as a basis to reproduce their own culture en masse and the political identities in question—the Canadian, Australian, and American identities — are genuinely available to them, in the sense that the host society did not exclude them from the political project and the political project propose to then a new, "born again" cultural and political identity. In case the have like, for example in Quebec -- their nationalism assumes the forms that are typical for Old World.
Similarly in the case of France, ethnic groups were incorporated or integrated into France prior to the Age of Nationalism, and assimilation was largely effective. There has been some attempt to revive these minority nationalisms, but minority nations typically lack much shared (institutionally separate) history—since Normandy, Brittany, Aquitaine, Languedoc and Burgundy were all incorporated into France prior to 1500. They lack an institutional basis, as well as social differentiation. The nationalisms are accordingly very weak. The French formula cannot be applied to other areas, where separate institutional or bureaucratic structures were in place by the time of mass democratic participation and the politicization of national and cultural differences by the bureaucratic modern state. But the reaction against immigrant communities, especially Muslim community was very strong.
At the same time, as little as forty years ago, Britain was thought to be a homogeneous society, with strong class politics, but little in the way of national politics. Now, however, the conglomerate 'British' national identity seems to be eroding and is challenged by Scottish, Welsh, and to a lesser extent—and mainly in reaction to the other two nationalisms—English national identities.
The issue of rights to territory is also important because one basis of the distinction between immigrant groups and national groups is that the latter have territory and the former do not. Whether a group has territory is therefore crucially important, not only to this conceptual distinction, but it also affects, on at least one influential argument, the kind of rights and entitlements that attach to the groups.
Given the chronic availability of nationalist and ethnic idioms in modern polities, one might expect economic crises to foster heightened nation-statist or ethnic exclusion. Intensified efforts to blame national and ethnic outsiders for economic distress, to protect domestic producers and workers against foreign (or ethnically “alien”) competition, or to treat politically vulnerable minorities as scapegoats. And earlier crises furnish ample precedent for such efforts. This review has suggested, however, that economic crises do not automatically or uniformly generate such responses and that nationalist and ethno-political responses to the present crisis have so far been relatively muted.
The credit crisis on 2008 was mainly interpreted in nation-statist terms and was blamed (outside the United States) on the American profligacy, American-style casino capitalism, the global financial system, or an externally imposed neoliberalism.
Until Brexit nationalist reaction of the crisis of neoliberalism — or reactions with a more or less pronounced nationalist components were not successful outside a few countries such as Hungary and Russia. Legal and institutional constraints, complex forms of economic interdependence, and prevailing cultural idioms have all worked to inhibit radical measures designed to protect domestic producers or labor markets (although more limited forms of protection were widely implemented). Even in the USA, the citadel of neoliberalism, the disenchantment with neoliberalism led to the rise of such politicians as Sanders and Trump.
It is too soon to assess consequences of Brexit on neoliberal globalization, but it is clear that the growing wave of nationalism is able at least to slow if not revert that recent neoliberal "advances" in this direction. If you add coming oil crisis the future of neoliberal globalization now looks more and more uncertain.
As Indonesian Chinese massacre of 1998 proves modern societies are sill not above finding ethnic scapegoats in case of severe economic crisis:
Oct 13, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
At its core, exceptionalism places America outside of normal history into a category of its own. Our initial "escape" from history followed two interrelated tracks: one was the religious radicalism of the Puritans, the other was the frontier experience. Both paths were the warpath.
The early settlers believed that they were "chosen" -- blessed by a special relationship to their God. They viewed their " errand in the wilderness " as a holy mission destined to bring a new and better way of life to the world. God's judgment on their progress was revealed in the bounty of a harvest or the outcome of a war.
Exceptionalism was not a free-floating idea but was forged into a lasting culture by the frontier wars aimed at the elimination or assimilation of native people and the conquest of land. America's frontier history produced a lasting mythology that popularized empire and white settler culture while cloaking their many contradictions.
I know it is hard to believe that the Puritans are still camped out in our minds. The old religious radicalism has taken modern form in the liberal-sounding belief that the US military is a "force for good (read God) in the world." The double-edged sword of exceptionalism traps us into repeating history: our high moral standards and special role in the world gives us license for wars and aggressions. It is the liberal elements of exceptionalism that are most seductive, most difficult to wrap our heads around, and the most effective at winning our consent to war.Exceptionalism Wins Our Consent to War With A One-Two Punch
On the one hand, we have the "hard" exceptionalism like that of the Cold War (New and Old) and the War on Terrorism. These war stories revolve around a rigid binary of good and evil. After 9/11, in scores of speeches, George W. Bush repeated the mantra that there were "no gray areas" in the struggle between good and evil.
On the other hand, "soft" exceptionalism takes a slightly different tack by appealing to the liberal in us. Stories of rescue, protection, democracy and humanitarian efforts assure us of our goodness. Obama mastered this narrative by claiming the US had a "duty to protect" the weak and vulnerable in places like Libya.
These two strains of war stories are the narrative one-two punch, winning our consent to war and empire.
Here is how war propaganda works: if authority figures in government and media denounce foreign leaders or countries or immigrants as an evil threat and repeat it thousands of times, they do not even have to say, "We are the chosen people destined to bring light to the world." They know that millions of Americans will unconsciously refer to the exceptionalist code by default because it's so deeply embedded in our culture. Once made brave by our exceptional character and sense of superiority, the next moves are war, violence and white supremacy.Myth Meets the American War in Vietnam
The Vietnam War, and the resistance to it, profoundly challenged all existing war stories. At the heart of this disruption was the soldier's revolt. Thousands of US soldiers and veterans came to oppose the very war they fought in . An anti-war movement inside the military was totally unprecedented in US history. The war-makers have been scrambling to repair the damage ever since.
Following the defeat of US forces in Vietnam, the elites shifted gears. The idea that the US could create a new democratic nation -- South Vietnam -- was an utter illusion that no amount of fire-power could overcome. In truth, the US selected a series of petty tyrants to rule that could never win the allegiance of the Vietnamese people because they were the transparent puppets of American interests. The ruling class learned a lesson that forced them to abandon the liberal veneer of "nation-building."The Next Generation of War Stories: From "Noble Cause" to "Humanitarian War."
Ronald Regan tried to repair the damaged narratives by recasting the Vietnam War as a "Noble Cause." The Noble Cause appealed to people hurt and confused by the US defeat, as well as the unrepentant war-makers, because it attempted to restore the old good vs. evil narrative of exceptionalism. For Regan, America needed to rediscover its original mission as a "city on a hill" -- a shining example to the world. Every single President since has repeated that faith.
The Noble Cause narrative was reproduced in numerous bad movies and dubious academic studies that tried to refight the war (and win this time!). Its primary function was to restore exceptionalism in the minds of the American people. While Regan succeeded to a considerable degree -- as we can see in the pro-war policy of both corporate parties -- "nation-building" never recovered its power as a military strategy or war story.
The next facade was Clinton's "humanitarian war." Humanitarian war attempted to relight the liberal beacon by replacing the problems of nation-building with the paternalistic do-gooding of a superior culture and country. In effect, the imperialists recycled the 19th Century war story of "Manifest Destiny" or "White Man's Burden." That "burden" was the supposed duty of white people to lift lesser people up to the standards of western civilization -- even if that required a lot of killing.
This kind of racist thinking legitimized the US overseas empire at its birth. Maybe it would work again in empires' old age?From the "War on Terrorism" to the "Responsibility to Protect."
After the shock of 9/11 the narrative shifted again. Bush's "global war on terrorism" reactivated the good vs. evil framing of the Cold War. The "war on terror" was an incoherent military or political strategy except for its promise of forever wars.
Just as the Cold War was a "long twilight struggle" against an elusive but ruthless communist enemy, terrorists might be anywhere and everywhere and do anything. And, like the fight against communism, the war on terrorism would require the US to wage aggressive wars, launch preemptive strikes, use covert activities and dodge both international law and the US Constitution.
9/11 also tapped into deeply-rooted nationalistic and patriotic desires among everyday people to protect and serve their country. The first attack on US soil in modern memory powerfully restored the old binary: when faced with unspeakable evil, the US military became a "force for good in the world." It's easy to forget just how potent the combination is and how it led us into the War in Iraq. According to The Washington Post :
Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks, even though the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this.
The mythology is so deep that at first the people, soldiers especially, just had to believe there was a good reason to attack Iraq. So we fell back on exceptionalism despite the total absence of evidence. Of course Bush made no attempt to correct this misinformation. The myth served him too well -- as did the official propaganda campaign claiming Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
But in due course, some of the faithful became doubters. A peace movement of global proportions took shape. But in the US far too much of what appeared as resistance was driven by narrow partisan opposition to Republicans rather than principled opposition to war and empire.
But fear not war-makers -- Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton came to the rescue! As they continued Bush's wars in the Middle East and expanded the war zone to include Libya, Syria and then all of Africa, they sweetened "humanitarian war" with a heaping dose of cool-coated "Responsibility to Protect." Once again, American goodness and innocence made the medicine go down and our wars raged on.
Obama restored legitimacy to the empire so effectively that it took years for the illegal, immoral, racist and "unwinnable" wars to reveal themselves to the public. I was told by one of the leaders of About Face: Veterans Against War that they almost had to close shop after Obama was elected because their donor base dried up. Obama's hope was our dope. Just as the daze was finally lifting, Trump started to take the mask off.Is The Mask Off?
Today's we face an empire with the mask half off. Trump's doctrine -- "We are not nation-building again, we are killing terrorists." -- is a revealing take on military trends that began with the first US – Afghan War (1978-1992). US leaders gave up nation-building and opted for failed states and political chaos instead of the strong states that nation-building, or its illusion, required. The US military began to rely on mercenaries and terrorists to replace the American citizen-soldier. The soldier revolt of the Vietnam Era already proved that everyday Americans were an unreliable force to achieve imperial ambitions.
Nothing rips the mask off of the humanitarian justifications better than the actual experience of combat in a war for oil and power -- so the war managers tried to reduce combat exposure to a few. And they succeeded. The number of official US troops abroad reached a 60-year low by 2017 . Even still a new resistance movement of veterans is gathering steam .
Can the mask be put back on? It's hard to say, because as The Nation reports, Americans from a wide spectrum of political positions are tired of perpetual war.Can the "Green New Military" Put The Mask Back On?
The recycled imperial justifications of the past are losing their power: Manifest Destiny, White Mans' Burden, leader of the free world, nation-building, humanitarian war, war against terrorism, responsibility to protect -- what's next? If only the military could be seen as saviors once again.
A last-ditch effort to postpone the collapse of the liberal versions of war stories might just be the " Green New Military ." Elizabeth Warren's policy claims, "Our military can help lead the fight in combating climate change. " It's a wild claim that contradicts all evidence unless she is also calling for an end to regime-change wars, the New Cold War and the scaling down of our foreign bases. Instead, Warren is all about combat readiness. She did not invent this -- the Pentagon had already embraced the new rhetoric . Given that the Working Families Party and some influential progressives have already signaled their willingness to accept Warren as a candidate, she might just silence dissent as effectively as Obama once did.
But, the lie is paper-thin: "There is no such thing as a Green War." You can fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time but you cannot fool mother nature one little bit. War and climate change are deeply connected and ultimately there is no way to hide that.The New Cold War and More of The Same Old Wars
So far the New Cold War against Russia and China has recycled the anti-communist conspiracy of the old Cold War into the xenophobic conspiracy theory of Russia-gate. Even a trusted tool like Mueller could not make it work as a coherent narrative but no matter -- the US did not skip a beat in building up military bases on Russia's borders .
The media and political attacks on Russia or China or immigrants, or Iran or Syria are likely to continue because propagandists cannot activate the exceptionalist code without an evil enemy. Still, it takes more than evil. An effective war story for the US ruling class must project the liberal ideas of helping, protection, saving and the spread of democracy in order to engineer mass consent to war. Hence the need for "Humanitarian War," "Duty to Protect" or maybe the"Green New Military."
Let anyone propose a retreat from any battlefield and the "humanitarian" war cry will rally the empire's pawns and savior-types. If we practice our exceptionalism religiously -- and religion it is -- then the US empire will never ever pull back from any war at any time. There is always someone for the empire to "protect and save:" from the "Noble Savages" and innocent white settlers of the frontier, to the Vietnamese Catholics, to the women of Afghanistan, to the Kurds of Syria.
We so want to see our wars as a morality play, just as the Puritans did, but the empire is all about power and profit."War is the Continuation of Politics by Other Means." -- Carl von Clausewitz
All the Big Brass study Clausewitz because he is the founder of western military science -- but they are so blinded by the dilemmas of empire that they make a mess of his central teaching: War is politics.
None of the war narratives and none of the wars can solve the most important question of politics: governance . Who will govern the colonies? The overwhelming verdict of history is this: colonies cannot be democratically or humanely governed as long as they are colonies. Until the empire retreats its heavy hand will rule in places like Afghanistan.
The empire is reaching the limits of exceptionalism as both war narrative and national mythology. This is why our rulers are forced to desperate measures: perpetual war, occupation, intense propaganda campaigns like Russia-gate, the reliance on mercenaries and terrorists, and the abuse and betrayal of their own soldiers.
Just as damning to the war machine is the collapse of conventional ideas about victory and defeat. The US military can no longer "win." The question of victory is important on a deep cultural level. According to the original mythology, the outcome of wars waged by "the chosen people" are an indication of God's favor or disfavor. In modern terms, defeat delegitimizes the state. Endless war is no substitute for "victory."
But it's not military victory we want. Our victory will be in ending war, dismantling the empire, abolishing the vast militarized penal system and stopping irreparable climate chaos. Our resistance will create a new narrative but it can only be written when millions of people become the authors of their own history.
The empire is slipping into decline and chaos – one way or another. Will we be actors deciding the fate of the American Empire or will it's collapse dictate our fate? But these wars will, sooner or later, become the graveyard of empire -- or else America is truly exceptional and we really are God's chosen people.
Oct 05, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com
Fred C. Dobbs , October 01, 2019 at 12:24 PM"In our modern age, the continuation of racially based violent extremism, particularly violent white supremacy, is an abhorrent affront to the nation," said Kevin McAleenan, the acting director of homeland security.ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , October 01, 2019 at 01:42 PM
Homeland Security Dept. Affirms Threat of White Supremacy
After Years of Prodding https://nyti.ms/2oTNJmQ
NYT - Zolan Kanno-Youngs - October 1
WASHINGTON -- The Department of Homeland Security is beginning to address white supremacist terrorism as a primary security threat, breaking with a decade of flagging attention after bigoted mass shooters from New Zealand to Texas took the lives of nearly 100 people in the last six months.
In a little-noticed strategy document (*) published last month to guide law enforcement on emerging threats and in recent public appearances by Kevin K. McAleenan, the acting secretary of homeland security, the department is trying to project a new vigilance about violent white nationalism, beating back criticism that the agency has spent a decade playing down the issue.
"I would like to take this opportunity to be direct and unambiguous in addressing a major issue of our time. In our modern age, the continuation of racially based violent extremism, particularly violent white supremacy, is an abhorrent affront to the nation," Mr. McAleenan said during an address last month, describing white nationalism as one of the most dangerous threats to the United States.
The department's new stance contrasts that of President Trump, who has repeatedly dismissed white supremacy as an insignificant fringe movement. But beyond words and documents, many officials trying to combat the threat throughout the country remain skeptical that the full weight of federal law enforcement is finally being used to give bigoted domestic terrorism the attention it deserves. ...
* (Could be this.)
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK
FOR COUNTERING TERRORISM AND TARGETED VIOLENCE
Pull out the racist cards!
Sep 26, 2019 | www.unz.com
The conservative movement's unwholesome obsession with Israel is not an entirely organic obsession to be sure. There is a whole lot of dark kosher oligarch money lurking behind the neoconservative cause, Christian Zionism, and the Reagan/Zioboomer battalion. Nevertheless, whether organic or not, the boomer generation's excessive regard for Israel is today authentic and undeniable. A strong fealty to Israel is deeply entrenched amongst boomer-generation conservatives. Indeed, when it comes to defending Israel and its conduct, many of these types are like samurais on meth. They don't seem to care at all if their entire state or city should devolve into a semi-anarchic New Somalia, but god forbid some Somali congresswoman should lambaste the sacred Jewish state. That simply can't be countenanced here in the land of the free!
Mind you, this article is not meant to constitute a polemic against Israel, or Jewish ethnopolitics for that matter. The BDS movement is just as wrongheaded as Ziocuckoldry, in my humble opinion. Although there is much wrong with Israel, there is plenty right with it as well. Despite what the modern left may believe, there is nothing inherently illegitimate about a state like Israel, one rooted in history, in genes, in religion, and in race. States built around a shared ethnicity or a shared religion (or, as in Israel's case, an ample helping of both) are generally more stable and successful than diverse societies erected upon propositions most people and peoples don't really accept, or leftist values that have ideological quicksand for their foundations.
With that said, there is something awfully peculiar, almost disturbing about the old guard's infatuation with Israel. I mean, why are American boomers so concerned about the Jewish state and its survival? How exactly does a tiny apartheidesque ethnostate half-way around the world affect their everyday lives? Are they simply mind-slaves to a mainstream media dominated by powerful Jews and powerful Jewish interest groups? Is this all really about scripture as Christian radio likes to contend? Or is there something else afoot here? Well, in short, there is.
White Westerners, white Americans in particular, are a thoroughly vassalized, deracinated people. We aren't allowed to celebrate our own race's host of historic accomplishments anymore. That would be racist. We aren't allowed to put our own people first either, as all other peoples do. That would likewise be racist. White Western peoples aren't even allowed to have nations of our own any longer, nations which exist to advance our interests, and which are populated by and overseen by people like us, who share our interests and our attitudes. That also would be, you guessed it, racist. Our very existence is increasingly little more than an unfortunate, racist obstacle to a brighter, more diverse future, in the eyes of the Cultural Marxist sociopaths who rule the Western World. Needless to say, most white Americans would rather be dead than racist, and so we are naturally, quite literally dying as a result.
The white American psyche has been tamed, broken as it were. Ziocucking is a symptom of that psychic injury. Because white boomers possess no group/tribal identity any longer, or collective will, or sense of race pride, or civilizational prospects, because they have been enserfed by a viciously anti-white Cultural Marxist overclass, they have opted to live vicariously through another race. White Americans can not, they must not, stake claim to an identity or a future of their own, so they have essentially committed themselves to another people's identity and future instead of their own. Indeed, just as the cuckold doesn't merely permit another man to penetrate his wife, but actually takes a kind of perverse pleasure in the pleasure of that other man, in large measure by fetishizing his dominance and sexual prowess, the Ziocuck likewise doesn't merely allow his civilization to be debased, he takes an equally perverse pleasure in the triumphs of other peoples and nations, and by so doing imagines, mistakenly of course, that America itself is still as free and proud a nation as those foreign nations he fetishizes.
Actually, Donald Trump's electoral victory is at least partially attributable to a very similar psychological phenomenon. White Americans, who have largely lost the self-confidence to stand behind their traditions and convictions, still had the gumption to vote for a man who possesses in oodles and cringy oodles, the self-same self-confidence they lack. White Americans are thus engaged in an almost unstated, indirect, vicarious defiance of Cultural Marxism via Trump/Trumpism, a tangible, albeit somewhat incoherent, symbol of open revolt against Western elites. The repressed group will of whites is longing for an authentic medium of civilizational expression, but can only find two-bit demagoguery and Israel worship. The weather is not fair in the white, Western mind.
Through this sordid, vicarious identitarianism, threats to Jewish lives become threats to their own white lives. Jewish interests become tantamount to their own interests. It is a sad sight to behold anyhow, a people with no sense of dignity or shame, too cowed by political correctness to stand up for their own group interests, too brainwashed to love themselves, too reprogrammed to be themselves, idolizing alien peoples. Nevertheless, the need for belonging in place, time, and history, and for collective purpose, doesn't just go away because Western elites say being white signifies nothing but "hate". As white civilization aborts and hedonizes itself into extinction, as whites practice suicidal altruism and absolute racial denialism, atomized white individuals seek out other histories, other stories, other peoples to attach themselves to and project themselves onto.
White Americans have thus foolishly come to see their own destiny as inseparable from the destiny of a people whose destiny they don't really share. After all, the birthrates of Jews in Israel are at well above replacement level . Israelis are optimistic about the future. As whites in the West fall on their proverbial sword to atone for their racist past, Jews in Israel are thriving. As whites in America suffer from various epidemics of despair , their fellow white Americans seem more interested in the imaginary plight of Israelis who can't stop winning military skirmishes, embarrassing their Arab enemies, and unlawfully acquiring land and resources in the Levant. The actual, visceral plight of their own people seems almost an afterthought to most white Americans. The whole affair is frankly bizarre and shameful.
This peculiar psychological phenomenon of vicarious identitarianism is at least partially responsible for the Zioboomer's undying devotion to Israel. Furthermore, that unwholesome obsession will not dissipate until whites reclaim their own history, rediscover their roots, learn to take their own side, and demand a place in the planet's future (yes, I said demand , since the white race's many enemies have no intention of saving a place for them or willingly handing them a say in that future). Until whites have a story and a spirit of their own, they will only, and can only, live through the identities and triumphs of other races. And perhaps most critically, they will continue to be a ghost people on the march to extinction.
nymom , says: September 26, 2019 at 4:24 am GMTWell you are almost right.silviosilver , says: September 26, 2019 at 4:59 am GMT
We can say Israel is the canary in the coal mine for the US. Might be closer to the truthA related phenomenon is Russia-cucking. White American conservatives who have seen through Jewish bullshit often seem to conclude that the racial predicament in America is hopeless, so they switch to Russia-cucking. Being pro-Russia is obviously more sensible than being pro-Israel, but it's nationalism by proxy all the same.
Sep 23, 2019 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com
Northern Star September 18, 2019 at 4:18 pmStoogesJen September 18, 2019 at 4:48 pm
Any thoughts on this?
Like LikeSeeing that both the Canadian ambassador to Banderastan and his boss the Canadian Foreign Minister having family histories rooted in western Ukraine / Banderastan Ground Zero – Waschuk's father and Freeland's maternal grandmother both from Ivano-Frankivsk – what thoughts are we expected to have on Waschuk's participation and Freeland's approval for him to attend other than that cliche: "Birds of a feather flock together?"Moscow Exile September 18, 2019 at 8:48 pmIvano-Frankivsk; formerly Stanyslaviv, Stanislau, or Stanisławów. Became part of the UkSSR within the USSR as per the shifting of the pre-WWII Eastern Polish frontier (set by the Treaty of Versailles, 1919, but ignored by Poland) westwards and the transference of the Habsburg Austro-Hungarian Empire's Kronland of Galitsia, capital Krakow and administrative language Polish and not German as in other Kronländer , with the exception of Hungarian in the Hungarian part of the dual Hapsburg Empire.Mark Chapman September 18, 2019 at 5:00 pm
Religion: Roman Catholic or Greek Uniate, depending whether you are a Polish Pan or a Ruthenian peasant shitkicker.
Built in the mid-17th century as a fortress of the Polish Potocki family, Stanisławów was annexed to the Habsburg Empire during the First Partition of Poland in 1772, after which it became the property of the State within the Austrian Empire.
The fortress was slowly transformed into one of the most prominent cities at the foothills of the Carpathian Mountains. After World War I, for several months, it served as a temporary capital of the West Ukrainian People's Republic.
Galitsia, as Porky Poroshenko said, is the essence of
Like LikeWhat a disgrace.Moscow Exile September 19, 2019 at 1:47 am
Like LikeThe descent into a regime of terror:et Al September 19, 2019 at 8:56 am
Ukrainian Nazis Celebrate the Murder of a DPR Militiaman, Western "Human Rights Defenders" Silent
September 17, 2019 Stalker Zone
"Higher Justice is always done Once again, using humanistic principles, I address the enemies of the Ukraine: 'Surrender to Ukrainian law enforcement! Voluntarily go to Ukrainian prisons and don't leave them! Because God's punishment will inevitably come! Glory to the nation! Death to enemies!'" -- Dmitry Yarosh, commenting on his Facebook page on the murder of a DPR militiaman in Mariupol.
What can be said about this? A day has already passed since this extremist statement was made, but no human rights organisation or international observer has reacted. The murder of a DPR militiaman in Mariupol is obviously on the hands of nationalist battalions, but this case, like many others, will be registered as unsolved or fabricated. The fact of the exemplary punishment of people who supported the creation of the People's Republics testifies to the true attitude of Kiev towards the residents of Donbass. That is why Zelensky is against amnesty and wants elections after the People's Militia lays down their arms. As soon as the UAF come here, objectionable persons will be simply slashed and killed, and Yarosh only confirms this
The Mother of the DPR Militiaman Killed in Mariupol Named the Organiser of Her Son's Execution
September 17, 2019 Stalker Zone
About the Exaltation of Banderist Murderers
September 18, 2019 Stalker Zone
Like LikeI'll say it again, the world's great democracies don't have a problem with little nazis and extremists. After all, they can be put back in their boxes when time is due, just as they did with Adolf Hitler and just as they did with ISIS in Syria.Northern Star September 19, 2019 at 3:18 pm
You wonder how many times these countries go around this bush of backing 'small groups' that they then 'lose control of' leading to a much larger conflagration.
Accidental? Unintended? Repetitive? You won't have the great and good democratic institutions or the representatives of the great free press publicizing cause and effect much at all. What a bunch of Britneys!
Like LikeWell it seems to me that the solution to a particular individual problem rests upon removing the problem permanently.Northern Star September 19, 2019 at 3:28 pm
Like LikeAs I understand it if a scope equipped assault automatic weapon can be targeted at point A to point B, its versatility enables it to operate the other way 'round..from B to A.Northern Star September 19, 2019 at 3:43 pm
Like LikeMoscow Exile September 19, 2019 at 6:53 am
Like LikeMoscow Exile September 19, 2019 at 6:56 am
Typical Times twat!
Pay, if you wish, to gain access to the shite that he has written!
Funny, though, how a state that he and his ilk consider to be weak, failed and "isolated" from the "World Community" always seems to win.
Like LikeAnd as regards the "crimes" in the Ukraine that he mentions, I should not imagine that amongst those he includes the very recent and public murder of a Mariupol "Vatnik" and the praise for which crime the murderer/s has/have very publicly received in Banderastan.Moscow Exile September 19, 2019 at 7:13 am
Like LikeThe clipped paragraph in Boyes' Times article above reads:Moscow Exile September 19, 2019 at 7:39 am
Now we're at it again. Thirty-five Ukrainians, including a film director and two dozen hapless sailors, were this month traded for some hardnut separatists including Vladimir Tsemakh, the commander of a Russian-backed unit in Donetsk which shot down the civilian MH17 airliner in 2014.
Plenty of Dutch and Australian relatives of the victims of that Malaysian Airlines flight are unhappy that Tsemakh is
Like LikeIf anyone should wish to do so, Boyes' article can be back translated from its Russian translation that is at, inosmi.ruMark Chapman September 19, 2019 at 3:19 pm
The Times (Великобритания): Путин нужен Трампу, чтобы побеждать за рубежом
which ends with:
Perhaps it seems to Trump that Putin is the lever that will raise his moral weight and authority. Perhaps he seems to him to be a useful partner in times of extreme global confusion and volatility. It is possible that, in the opinion of the American president, a rapprochement with Putin will strengthen his reputation in the world, and will by no means will look like a fatal retreat. However, the principle should be that relations with Russia cannot return to normal, as long as it keeps the Crimea, cynically taken away from the Ukraine five years ago.
The Kremlin will try to fool the new and inexperienced president of the Ukraine, hoping that Western leaders will put pressure on him and forget a lot. However, the country where Sergey Skripal and his daughter were poisoned right before everyone's eyes should not silently watch this rehabilitation.
[back translation from the Russian]
Hear him, hear him, I say!
Let's hear it again for Great Britain!!!!
Those British are no fools and know full well what those damned Russkies are up to!
Like LikeOr the ubiquitous "Agent 404" and his well-earned down-time for killing journalists in Ukraine.Mark Chapman September 19, 2019 at 3:16 pm
Like LikeWell, there must be some truth to what he says – western food actually does plump you up.
Sep 07, 2019 | caucus99percent.com
gjohnsit on Fri, 09/06/2019 - 12:07pm A little over a year ago I wrote this .Politically the Tories have no plan at all, and when the clock stops on Brexit they will completely implode. The Tories are so deadlocked on Brexit that they can't even talk to themselves.
...This is a political and economic disaster, not just waiting to happen, but firmly scheduled...unless Labour's neoliberal Blairites save them, the Tory government is headed for an epic collapse.
It's rare that my predictions are 100% accurate, but this time I totally nailed it. To give you an idea of how badly the Tories have bungled things, look at these two headlines.
You know the conservative party is full of incompetent wankers when the business community prefers a radical socialist over them.But while Corbyn may be less popular than no deal among the public, The Daily Telegraph says "the scourge of bankers and avowed opponent of capitalism, is winning support from unexpected new quarters" with two of the biggest global banks operating in the City of London "warming to the Labour leader".
According to the paper, he is now seen as the lesser of two evils by analysts at Citibank and Deutsche Bank, two titans of the financial system.
Christian Schulz at Citi says "perhaps" Corbyn is no longer as bad an option as no deal, while Deutsche's Oliver Harvey says fears about the Labour leader "may be overstated".
"It is not that the financiers favour the opposition leader's plans for 'higher taxes, tighter labour laws, spending increases and the nationalisation of network industries', but that this may cause less harm than leaving the EU without a deal" says the Telegraph.
To put this sentiment in hard numbers , a coalition led by his party would spur the pound more than 5%.
As for those overstated fears about the Labour leader, that's because of a highly coordinated three year smear campaign by the very same business community.
Just a few days ago the headline was: U.K.'s Super-Rich Prepare to Flee From Corbyn Rule, Not Brexit Now they want Corbyn to save them. Without the business community undermining him at every turn, Corbyn has easily managed to hold the opposition together. At the same time Corbyn has outmaneuvered the Tories and left them helpless.Then, his efforts to secure a snap general election -- with the goal of replacing the sacked lawmakers with a new slate of candidates more aligned with his hard-Brexit views -- were scuppered when opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn refused to play along.
Now, he is effectively trapped in Downing Street, with Corbyn holding the keys. The government plans to propose new elections again on Monday, but the opposition leader says his party will only support the move when its efforts to prevent a no-deal Brexit are locked down.
"Certainly his biggest tactical mistake so far was not to realize that it was Corbyn, as leader of the opposition, who effectively had veto power over when a general election could be held," said Professor Tony Travers, director of the Institute of Public Affairs at the London School of Economics.
This allows time for Corbyn to appear like a professional leader, so that when he finally allows a general election the memory of his steady hand will be fresh in the public's mind.
thanatokephaloides on Fri, 09/06/2019 - 6:20pmcatch-a-Toryedg on Fri, 09/06/2019 - 3:58pm
Like all other Tories worldwide, Boris "Tiny" Johnson is a charlatan. Hopefully, the British People will wake up and end their decades-long nightmare by placing him [Corbyn] in power.
As we need to do, ourselves.
edit: Added Corbyn's name to clarify that last sentence. And we, too, need to remove all Tories from power.Enemiesgjohnsit on Fri, 09/06/2019 - 4:19pm
The value of an idea is often assessible by the number and strength of the enemies arrayed against it. Since so many entrenched interests and Powers-That-Be and elitists/globalists are against Brexit, I'm beginning to think that deal or no deal, Brexit must in the best interests of the 99%. Otherwise, the 1% wouldn't fight against it so hard.I think you are partly correctludwig ii on Fri, 09/06/2019 - 4:06pm
I think Brexit is like tariffs. Tariffs are a good idea for the working class because it puts a cost on off-shoring jobs. BUT the way Trump is doing it is stupid and doesn't help anyone. Same thing with Brexit. It probably helps the 99%, but not the way the Tories are going about it.
The value of an idea is often assessible by the number and strength of the enemies arrayed against it. Since so many entrenched interests and Powers-That-Be and elitists/globalists are against Brexit, I'm beginning to think that deal or no deal, Brexit must in the best interests of the 99%. Otherwise, the 1% wouldn't fight against it so hard.What's the problem with no-deal?UntimelyRippd on Fri, 09/06/2019 - 8:41pm
The fact that Blair, the City of London, and neoliberals the world over hate Brexit and especially no-deal Brexit makes me think it's probably a good thing. Anything that chips away at the hegemony of global finance seems positive.for starters, it really screws up the Irish situation.
The fact that Blair, the City of London, and neoliberals the world over hate Brexit and especially no-deal Brexit makes me think it's probably a good thing. Anything that chips away at the hegemony of global finance seems positive.
Sep 14, 2019 | www.theguardian.com
With John Bolton dismissed, Taliban peace talks a fiasco and a trade war with China, US foreign policy is ever more unstable and confrontational
It was by all accounts, a furious row. Donald Trump was talking about relaxing sanctions on Iran and holding a summit with its president, Hassan Rouhani, at this month's UN general assembly in New York. John Bolton, his hawkish national security adviser, was dead against it and forcefully rejected Trump's ideas during a tense meeting in the Oval Office on Monday.
...Bolton's brutal defenestration has raised hopes that Trump, who worries that voters may view him as a warmonger, may begin to moderate some of his more confrontational international policies. As the 2020 election looms, he is desperate for a big foreign policy peace-making success. And, in Trump world, winning matters more than ideology, principles or personnel.
The US president is now saying he is also open to a repeat meeting with North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, to reboot stalled nuclear disarmament talks. On another front, he has offered an olive branch to China, delaying a planned tariff increase on $250bn of Chinese goods pending renewed trade negotiations next month. Meanwhile, he says, new tariffs on European car imports could be dropped, too.
Is a genuine dove-ish shift under way? It seems improbable. Since taking office in January 2017, Trump has not merely broken with diplomatic and geopolitical convention. He has taken a wrecking ball to venerated alliances, multilateral cooperation and the postwar international rules-based order. He has cosied up to autocrats, attacked old friends and blundered into sensitive conflicts he does not fully comprehend.
The resulting new world disorder – to adapt George HW Bush's famous 1991 phrase – will be hard to put right. Like its creator, Trump world is unstable, unpredictable and threatening. Trump has been called America's first rogue president. Whether or not he wins a second term, this Trumpian era of epic disruption, the very worst form of American exceptionalism, is already deeply entrenched.
The suggestion that Trump will make nice and back off as election time nears thus elicits considerable scepticism. US analysts and commentators say the president's erratic, impulsive and egotistic personality means any shift towards conciliation may be short-lived and could quickly be reversed, Bolton or no Bolton.
Trump wanted quick 'n' easy, primetime credit for a dramatic peace deal in Afghanistan with the Taliban, pushed ahead blindly, then changed his mind at the last minute
Trump is notorious for blowing hot and cold, performing policy zigzags and suddenly changing his mind. "Regardless of who has advised Mr Trump on foreign affairs all have proved powerless before [his] zest for chaos," the New York Times noted last week .
Lacking experienced diplomatic and military advisers (he has sacked most of the good ones), surrounded by an inner circle of cynical sycophants such as secretary of state Mike Pompeo, and driven by a chronic desire for re-election, Trump's behaviour could become more, not less, confrontational during his remaining time in office, suggested Eliot Cohen, professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins university.
"The president has proved himself to be what many critics have long accused him of being: belligerent, bullying, impatient, irresponsible, intellectually lazy, short-tempered and self-obsessed," Cohen wrote in Foreign Affairs journal . "Remarkably, however, those shortcomings have not yet translated into obvious disaster. But [that] should not distract from a building crisis of US foreign policy."
This pending crisis stems from Trump's crudely Manichaean division of the world into two camps: adversaries/competitors and supporters/customers. A man with few close confidants, Trump has real trouble distinguishing between allies and enemies, friends and foes, and often confuses the two. In Trump world, old rules don't apply. Alliances are optional. Loyalty is weakness. And trust is fungible.
As a result, the US today finds itself at odds with much of the world to an unprecedented and dangerous degree. America, the postwar global saviour, has been widely recast as villain. Nor is this a passing phase. Trump seems to have permanently changed the way the US views the world and vice versa. Whatever follows, it will never be quite the same again.
Clues as to what he does next may be found in what he has done so far. His is a truly calamitous record, as exemplified by Afghanistan. Having vowed in 2016 to end America's longest war, he began with a troop surge, lost interest and sued for peace. A withdrawal deal proved elusive. Meanwhile, US-led forces inflicted record civilian casualties .Facebook Twitter Pinterest The US and Israeli flags are projected on the walls of Jerusalem's Old City in May, marking the anniversary of the US embassy transfer from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Photograph: Ahmad Gharabli/Getty
The crunch came last weekend when a bizarre, secret summit with Taliban chiefs at Camp David was cancelled . It was classic Trump. He wanted quick 'n' easy, primetime credit for a dramatic peace deal, pushed ahead blindly, then changed his mind at the last minute. Furious over a debacle of his own making, he turned his wrath on others, notably Bolton – who, ironically, had opposed the summit all along.
All sides are now vowing to step up the violence, with the insurgents aiming to disrupt this month's presidential election in Afghanistan. In short, Trump's self-glorifying Afghan reality show, of which he was the Nobel-winning star, has made matters worse. Much the same is true of his North Korea summitry, where expectations were raised, then dashed when he got cold feet in Hanoi , provoking a backlash from Pyongyang.
The current crisis over Iran's nuclear programme is almost entirely of Trump's making, sparked by his decision last year to renege on the 2015 UN-endorsed deal with Tehran. His subsequent "maximum pressure" campaign of punitive sanctions has failed to cow Iranians while alienating European allies. And it has led Iran to resume banned nuclear activities – a seriously counterproductive, entirely predictable outcome.
Trump's unconditional, unthinking support for Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's aggressively rightwing prime minister – including tacit US backing for his proposed annexation of swathes of the occupied territories – is pushing the Palestinians back to the brink, energising Hamas and Hezbollah, and raising tensions across the region .
With Trump's blessing, Israel is enmeshed in escalating, multi-fronted armed confrontation with Iran and its allies in Iraq, Lebanon and Syria. Add to this recent violence in the Gulf, the disastrous Trump-backed, Saudi-led war in Yemen, mayhem in Syria's Idlib province, border friction with Turkey, and Islamic State resurgence in northern Iraq, and a region-wide explosion looks ever more likely.
The bipartisan consensus forged in the 1990s – in which the US towered over the world and, at low cost, sought to remake it in America's image – has failed and cannot be revivedStephen Wertheim, historian
Yet Trump, oblivious to the point of recklessness, remains determined to unveil his absurdly unbalanced Israel-Palestine "deal of the century" after Tuesday's Israeli elections. He and his gormless son-in-law, Jared Kushner, may be the only people who don't realise their plan has a shorter life expectancy than a snowball on a hot day in Gaza.
... ... ...
...he is consistently out of line, out on his own – and out of control. This, broadly, is Trump world as it has come to exist since January 2017. And this, in a nutshell, is the intensifying foreign policy crisis of which Professor Cohen warned. The days when responsible, trustworthy, principled US international leadership could be taken for granted are gone. No vague change of tone on North Korea or Iran will by itself halt the Trump-led slide into expanding global conflict and division.
Historians such as Stephen Wertheim say change had to come. US politicians of left and right mostly agreed that "the bipartisan consensus forged in the 1990s – in which the US towered over the world and, at low cost, sought to remake it in America's image – has failed and cannot be revived", Wertheim wrote earlier this year . "But agreement ends there " he continued: "One camp holds that the US erred by coddling China and Russia, and urges a new competition against these great power rivals. The other camp, which says the US has been too belligerent and ambitious around the world, counsels restraint, not another crusade against grand enemies."
This debate among grownups over America's future place in the world will form part of next year's election contest. But before any fundamental change of direction can occur, the international community – and the US itself – must first survive another 16 months of Trump world and the wayward child-president's poll-fixated, ego-driven destructive tendencies.
Survival is not guaranteed. The immediate choice facing US friends and foes alike is stark and urgent: ignore, bypass and marginalise Trump – or actively, openly, resist him.
Here are some of the key flashpoints around the globeUnited Nations
Trump is deeply hostile to the UN. It embodies the multilateralist, globalist policy approaches he most abhors – because they supposedly infringe America's sovereignty and inhibit its freedom of action. Under him, self-interested US behaviour has undermined the authority of the UN security council's authority. The US has rejected a series of international treaties and agreements, including the Paris climate change accord and the Iran nuclear deal. The UN-backed international criminal court is beyond the pale. Trump's attitude fits with his "America First" isolationism, which questions traditional ideas about America's essential global leadership role.Germany
Trump rarely misses a chance to bash Germany, perhaps because it is Europe's most successful economy and represents the EU, which he detests. He is obsessed by German car imports, on which protectionist US tariffs will be levied this autumn. He accuses Berlin – and Europe– of piggy-backing on America by failing to pay its fair share of Nato defence costs. Special venom is reserved for Germany's chancellor, Angela Merkel, most likely because she is a woman who stands up to him . Trump recently insulted another female European leader, Denmark's Mette Frederiksen, after she refused to sell him Greenland .Israel
Trump has made a great show of unconditional friendship towards Israel and its rightwing prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who has skilfully maximised his White House influence. But by moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, officially condoning Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights, and withdrawing funding and other support from the Palestinians, the president has abandoned the long-standing US policy of playing honest broker in the peace process. Trump has also tried to exploit antisemitism for political advantage, accusing US Democrat Jews who oppose Netanyahu's policies of "disloyalty" to Israel.
... ... ...
Sep 07, 2019 | off-guardian.org/
"Aftermath" is the latest addition to three previous publications by Rickards, Currency Wars (2011), The Death of Money (2014), The Road to Ruin (2016). Together, with the present offering (Aftermath, 2019), the author uses the analogy of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse to illustrate the themes of his four books. The latest book is thematic in its approach to the events which have taken place in the world in general and the United States in particular during this period.HIGH SOCIETY
Rickards had previously worked for the CIA (possibly still does – who knows?) but now seems to be a free-wheeling business executive, writer and strategic analyst. He tends to circulate outside of the usual middle-ranking semi-elite circles preferring to consort with the less observable, higher-ranking coteries of the inner-party. Moreover, he has nothing but disdain for the run-of-the-mill talking heads to be found (in abundance) in the media and academia – the outer-party.
His observations of this social stratum are unapologetic and caustic:
History is the first casualty of media micro-second attention span. An army of pseudo-savants saturate the airways to explain that tariffs are bad, trade wars hurt growth and mercantilism are a throwback to the 17th century. These sentiments come from mainstream liberals and conservatives and tag-along journalists trained in the orthodoxy of so-called free-trade and the false if comforting belief that trade deficits are the flipside of capital surpluses. So, what is the problem? The problem is that perpetual trade deficits have put the United States on a path to a crisis of the US$."[ 1 ]
As is apparent, his contempt is palpable.
It should be said that much of his writing and theorising is at times occasioned by a high level of sophistication, alas sadly lacking in most of his contemporaries. But for all his refinement and eloquence that doesn't stop him being, from Off Guardian's perspective (and mine), on the other side – the side of the Anglo-Zionist empire.THE GREAT BETRAYAL
Throughout this book and previous books there runs a familiar leitmotif; a sense of betrayal by the present dominant section of the US elite. This is not by any means an unusual political phenomenon and bears comparison with the stab-in-the-back myth – a notion doing the rounds in Germany circa 1918.
It held that the German Army did not lose World War I on the battlefield but it was 'traitors' on the home front, especially the traitorous republicans who overthrew the Hohenzollern monarchy in the German Revolution of 1918–19.
This precedent loosely corresponds to Rickards' belief in the perfidy of the current leadership of the US and his vitriol is directed against this globalist faction who are firmly ensconced in both Democrat and Republican parties and whom, he argues, have sold the pass in terms of America's strategic interests. He writes:
Obama, both Bushes, and Bill Clinton were globalists, defined as those willing to trade-off or compromise US interests for the sake of a stronger global community even conservative hawks like Reagan and JFK were firmly in the globalist camp, as they relied on NATO, the UN and the IMF to pursue their cold war goals.
However, all was not lost. As a result of
the Presidential election of 2016 when Donald Trump was sworn in on 17 January 2017 as the strongest nationalist since Theodore Roosevelt. For the first time in 100 years a committed nationalist was sitting in the Oval Office." [ 2 ]
The event was obviously political grist to Rickards' mill.
However, precisely how this liberation of the US from the domestic globalists' stranglehold was to be brought about wasn't made clear, and in fact is barely touched upon by Rickards.
Trump, for all his bombast and promises to Make America Great Again (MAGA), and pursue a radical foreign policy of withdrawal from globalist wars of choice and military adventurism, has been conspicuous by its absence.
Moreover, from the outset he has been beset by the ancien regime of neo-conservatives and neo-liberals – Bolton, Pompeo and Pence – entrenched in key US institutions, as well as various think-tanks and media who are still doggedly set upon the realization of neo-con foreign policy goals.
It seems odd that Rickards doesn't see fit to comment on this important development given that Trumps' campaign promises have disappeared almost without trace since he entered the Oval Office.IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID
Rickards is on firmer ground, however, when dissecting the 8th wonder of the world – US economic policy. The US sovereign debt (i.e., the debt of the Federal Government) to GDP is now at a record, this is unprecedented for a peacetime administration.
In addition, it is also worth noting the magnitude of US private debt and unfunded future liabilities, pensions, Medicaid, social security and so forth.
This would include household debt, student debt, financial debt, corporate debt, and municipal debt. Add this to sovereign debt and you get a figure roughly 5 times US sovereign debt, and even this is regarded as being a conservative figure according to many – see David Stockman, John Mauldin et al).
According to Rickards, the present situation has been largely the result of excess spending by both Democratic and Republican administrations. The spending has either been on 'Defence' – a Republican favourite – or social like L.B. Johnson's 'Great Society' programme – a Democratic favourite.
LBJ's administration contrived to conduct the Vietnam War as well as an expensive social programme, simultaneously. A guns plus butter economy. (The original version of the Guns versus butter argument was given in a speech on January 17, 1936, in Nazi Germany. The then Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels stated: "We can do without butter, but, despite all our love of peace, not without arms." )
LBJ's guns-and-butter policies were enacted in the late sixties at the height of the Vietnam war and the Tet Offensive. The utopian attempt to have the best of both worlds brought LBJ's administration to an end; more importantly, perhaps it was also the beginning of the process which brought down the curtain on the post WW2 economic world order established at the Bretton Woods conference in 1944.
Because the costs of the Vietnam war were superimposed on the economy not far effectively from full employment, the US domestic sector was severely destabilised.
Instead of taxing the nation to pay for the war, the government engaged in the more acceptable practice of deficit financing
Vietnam showed that neither the United States nor any other democratic nation can ever again afford the foreign exchange costs of conventional warfare, although the periphery was still kept in line by American military initiatives most recently in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan.
The lesson in the long term is that peace will be maintained only by governments refusing to finance the military and other excesses of the increasingly indebted imperial power." [ 3 ]
The figure for the US sovereign debt – began to rise relentlessly from the 1980s onwards approaching wartime levels by the time of the 2008 blowout.
It has been estimated by some economic theorists that any sovereign Debt-to-GDP figure greater than 60% represents a tripwire whereby governments should act to rein in government expenditures.
The EU Maastricht criteria, for example, stipulated that EU Debt-to-GDP should not go over 60% except in certain circumstances and an annual budgetary deficit should not be more than 3%.
That is a pretty tight monetary and fiscal policy EU style, but not to be outdone the spendthrift US was to go on a wild binge in both fiscal and monetary terms the result of which is a now an unpayable mountain of debt. This gives an indication of how far US economic policymaking has drifted away from any viable economic strategy.
To see how America came to this pretty pass we, one needs to review almost 40 years of fiscal policy under Presidents Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama and Trump from the period 1981-2019." [ 4 ]
Under Reagan in 1981 US Debt-to-GDP ratio was 32.5%. The President was gung-ho for tax cuts and big spending increases, particularly 'defence' spending. This trend was continued under the tutelage of the Bushes and Clinton, and Debt-to-GDP ratio rose to 56.4% when Bush Jr, took office and had risen to 82% by the time he left.
The Obama years saw the Debt-to-GDP rise to 100%. The diagram below 2009 debt-to-GDP was 82.3% This figure has risen inexorably to over 100% in 2018. Yep, here we have the dreaded law of Diminishing returns. Every new dollar of input gives you 90 cents of output.
The above diagram illustrates the growth of debt vis-à-vis National Income (GDP) since the 2008 blowout. Debt has been growing progressively faster than National Income.
The US economy, like the US shale oil industry, has become a Ponzi scheme in all but name. The Fed's issuance of new debt to pay off existing debt signals the key moment of the Minsky crisis.[ 5 ]
There doesn't appear to be any viable way out this predicament short of a straight default. But Rickards argues that 'the United States will never default on its debt because the Fed can simply print the money and to pay it off.' This will involve an engineered inflation to wipe out the debt. But in fact, inflation is the default, a default by the back door. Getting paid in worthless currency is in essence no different than not getting paid at all.NO EXIT
As for solutions to a crisis which has seemingly reached the point of no return, all that Rickards can offer is a Japanese scenario of low or zero growth punctuated by recession for the United States and by implication for the rest of the world. The United States had its first long decade from 2007 to 2017 and is now into its second decade.
This growth pattern will persist absent of inflationary breakout which the Fed seems powerless to ignite in the short run; a war; or severe depression perhaps caused by a new financial crisis.[ 6 ]
Not much of a prospect for the average family then. But Rickards does give some useful advice to his more opulent readers on how they should diversify their assets.
There are apparently "luxury bombproof bunkers built in former missile silos and expansive estates in New Zealand loaded with rations and good wines."
Really? At this point one wonders if Mr Rickards is being serious or just smug.SOCIAL IMMOBILITY AND THE RISE OF OLIGARCHY
The social and economic impact on levels of inequality in both the US and globally have been extremely deleterious and seem set to continue. Inequality in income and wealth – a phenomenon identified and outlined by Thomas Piketty – is resulting in societies which more and more resemble feudal economic and social structures rather than textbook capitalism. Social class is hardening into social caste and rates of social mobility are decelerating at an alarming rate.
The liberal notion that the individual is the author of his/her own destiny has become a very dubious proposition when the drawbridges of advantage, birth and preferment are drawn up. Moreover, high levels of income/wealth are not conducive to growth since the new aristocracy owns most of the wealth/income which is hoarded rather than spent on investment and/or consumption. Stagnation, idled capital and rent extraction becomes the economic norm.Inequality is common in college admissions where the wealthy and connected continue to send their sons and daughters to elite schools while the middle-class are restrained by sky-high tuitions and the burden of student loans.
It's true in the housing market where the rich picked up mansions on the cheap in foreclosure sales whilst the middle-class were frozen in mortgage negative equity.
It's true in health care, where the rich could afford all the insurance they needed while the middle class were handicapped by unemployment and the loss of job-related benefits. These disparities also affected the adult children of the middle-class. There are no gold-plated benefits packages in the gig society
Research shows that fewer than 50% of all children aged 30 today earn more than their parents did at the same age. This 50% figure compares with 60% who earned more in 1971, and 80% who earned more in 1950.
The American dream of each generation earning more than the prior generation is collapsing before our eyes The middle class is getting poorer on a relative basis and lagging further behind the rich whose incomes absorb an increasing share of total GDP The manner in which the rich become rich is variable.
It could be due to a number of unrelated factors Problems arise in the way that the rich stay rich become richer and pass on wealth to their children and grandchildren." [ 7 ]
It is a matter of common knowledge that the traditional techniques of preserving and creating wealth have been long established in law, customs, education and socialization; these traditional methods being practised over decades, if not centuries, have produced a system of elite self-recruitment, one moreover which endures through time.
Many of the richest US citizens – e.g., Buffet, Bezos, Zuckerberg – pay minimal tax demands. Much of the wealth of the richest Americans is never taxed because they hold onto real estate and stocks and pass them onto their beneficiaries tax-free. This is one of a perfectly legal method of avoiding tax; there are many more too numerous to cite which include various other examples of tax avoidance/evasion.
Levels of income and wealth inequality within states are usually measured by what is called the Gini Co-efficient. This measure is a commonly used measure of income inequality that condenses the entire income distribution for a country into a single number between 0 and 1 or 0% to 100%: the higher the number, the greater the degree of inequality. A rough estimate of inequality is a figure above 40%.
The United States and China are in the low forties, surrounded by underdeveloped and developing states such as The Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Burundi and El Salvador. At the other end of the spectrum are Sweden, Norway and Iceland.
In this connection the by now well-known study carried out by two American academics at Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and North western University Prof Benjamin Page argue that the US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence."
In plain English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.
The two professors came to this conclusion after reviewing answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002 on public policy issues. They broke the responses down by income level, and then determined how often certain income levels and organised interest groups saw their policy preferences enacted.
Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to be a democratic society are seriously threatened."
In summation, both gentlemen concluded that in essence the US was an oligarchy not a properly functioning democracy. All very true but somewhat self-evident.
Rickards regards the present situation as being irreversible. He does not present any alternative to this trend other than some vague hopes that the 'nationalist' President in the Oval Office will turn things around – MAGA in fact.
The golden age of post WW2 capitalism ended when Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard in August 1971, which was in effect a default by the US. Holders of surplus dollars in Europe who were no longer able to swap these dollars for gold but were merely presented with other US$s with which they had to purchase US Treasurys (Bonds) debts which were never going to be repaid. In the age of fiat currencies Europe and various other holders of US Treasuries were in fact subsidizing the United States.POOR LITTLE AMERICA
At this point the book becomes one long whinge about how hard done-by America has been and how the rest of the world has taken advantage of this benign gentle giant. This rather bizarre belief calls for further analysis. The US pays some of the bill for NATO whilst European nations pay insufficient amounts for the 'defence' of their countries.
It should be pointed out, however, that in terms of military hardware the NATO alliance is standardized to American specifications. This means large-scale purchasing of US war materiel which is a gift bonus to the US armaments industry.
Then Germany has the nerve to buy Russian gas transported to Europe via Nordstream 2 which is cheaper and more reliable than US Liquified Natural Gas (LNG), when in fact they should be buying more expensive and less reliable US LNG. Apparently, Germany ought really to be subsidising the US shale oil Ponzi racket. Bad, ungrateful Germany.
Then comes the incessant carping regarding trade policy and trade deals. The US in its speed to become a cool, post-modern, financialised economy apparently forgot about the importance of production. In the automobile industry the once dominant US triad of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler are no longer in the vanguard and Japan, with South Korea catching up, is now the leading country in the export of auto vehicles, a position which the US once held. It was the Japanese auto industry which pioneered production methods including just-in-time deliveries and lean production (Toyota). Was anyone stopping the Americans from innovating?
In rank order. Figures quoted in Global Shift – Peter Dicken.Volkswagen, Germany: Annual Output 8,576,94 Toyota, Japan: Annual Output 8,381.968 Hyundai, South Korea: Annual Output 6,761,074 General Motor, USA: Annual Output 6,608,567 Honda, Japan: Annual Output 4,078,376 Nissan, Japan: Annual Output 3,830,954 Ford, USA: Annual Output 3,123,340 PSA, France: Annual Output 2,554,059 Suzuki, Japan: Annual Output 2,483,721 Renault, France: Annual Output 2,302,769
Globally, the leading manufacturer of auto-vehicles is Volkswagen followed by Toyota. GM are 4th and Ford are 8th of ten. Hardly market leaders anymore, but Rickards apportions the blame to 'unfair practices' by foreign manufacturers and argues instead for tariffs. The same goes for other trade partners. Fact that the United States has to a large extent been deindustrialised was a political choice of its own making.
If the US has lost ground in the competition for trade on world markets that is because of its own insular provincialism and hubris, not foreign competitive malpractice. Moreover, much of its productive industry which remains has been outsourced to low cost venues such as China. The US more than anyone should know that its competitors are simply using the same policies that it itself used during the 19th century to break British trade hegemony.
It has been the same story with agriculture. Trade liberalization (this must rank as the greatest misnomer of trade theory) and trade treaties have been an example of the blatant unfairness of such agreements. During the Uruguay round of 'talks' (1982-2000):the United States pushed other countries to open up their markets to areas of 'our' (i.e. the US's) strength, but resisted, successfully so, to efforts to make us reciprocate.
Construction and maritime services, the areas of advantage of many developing countries were not included in the new agreement. Worse still, financial services liberalization was arguably even harmful to some developing countries: as large international (read American) banks squelched local competitors denying them the funds they garnered would be channelled to the international firms with which they felt comfortable, not the small and medium-sized local firms
As foreign banks took over the banking systems of like Argentina and Mexico worries about small and medium sized firms within these countries being starved of funds have been repeatedly voiced.
Whether these concerns are valid or not, whether they are exaggerated or not, is not the issue: the issue is that countries should have the right to make these decisions themselves, as the United States did in its own country during its formative years; but under the new international rules that America had pushed, countries were being deprived of that right.
Suffice it to say that agriculture has always been a flagrant example of the double standards inherent in the US trade liberalization agenda. Although we insisted that other countries reduce their barriers to our products and eliminate the subsidies for which those products competed against ours, the United States kept barriers for the goods produced by the developing countries, and the US continued massive subsidies to its own produce. [ 8 ]EXORBITANT PRIVILEGE
Oh, I almost forgot: the imperial tribute that the world pays to the hegemon; aka the reserve status of the dollar. The role of the US dollar in the world's political economy gives it advantages which the rest of the dollar surplus-states are dragooned into accepting. In the late sixties early seventies, the US was on the verge of technical bankruptcy due to its spending profligacy at home and military adventurism in Indochina. It had three choices of how to deal with this acute problem.
[The] 3 courses open to the US government on the collapse of the Gold Pool in London in 1968 were: immediately pull out of the war in South-East Asia and cut back overseas and domestic military expenditure to allow the dollar to firm again on world markets; to continue the war paying for its foreign exchange costs with further outflows of Fort Knox gold; or to induce the Europeans and other payments surplus areas to continue to accumulate surplus dollars and dollar equivalents (US Treasuries) not convertible into gold." [ 9 ]
Of course, it was option three that appealed and Nixon in his television broadcast was to announce a 'temporary' suspension of gold sales by the US to its overseas 'partners'.
The date in question, 15 August 1971, marked the end of one epoch and the beginning of another. The temporary suspension soon morphed into a permanent one and a global fiat currency regime based on the dollar came into being. This represented a culmination of a situation in which the US manipulation of the dollar was termed the 'Exorbitant Privilege' by the senior French politician Valery Giscard d'Estaing. And privilege it was.
The central political fact is that the dollar standard places the direction of the world monetary policy in the hands of a single country which thereby acquires great influence over the economic destiny of others. It is one thing to sacrifice sovereignty in the interests of interdependence; it is quite another when the relationship is one-way.
The difference is that between the EEC(EU) and a colonial empire. The brute fact is that the acceptance of a dollar standard necessarily implies a degree of asymmetry in power which, although it actually existed in the early post-war years, had vanished by the time that the world sliding into a reluctant dollar standard." [ 10 ]
There were a number of advantages which accrued to the dollar contingent on the ending of gold convertibility which Eichengreen listed these in his book. But the principle one was making the surplus nations of the world pay for America's wars with an unconvertible currency. Instead of being paid for in gold, or at least a gold-backed currency the world produced goods and services for a piece of green paper backed by nothing.
Quite a clever little racket when you think about it.
Better still is the way that the two biggest surplus nations, Japan and China, have been the US's main creditors, bankrolling the US by buying its Treasuries. This had another intended, or perhaps unintended effect: long term interest rates on US bonds came down (since bond prices and bond interest rates move in opposite directions) and enabled the property bubble to expand until the inevitable blow-out in 2008.
In mafia terms the US dollar has been a 'made' currency enjoying a set of privileges and protection which it did not earn but foisted upon others. This is a unique dispensation which is enjoyed by the US to which the rest of the world is excluded.
However, it is in the nature of things that privileges will ultimately get abused. In pushing its luck to the point of abuse the US should be aware that initial signs are that the world is sloughing off the US dollar. As it proceeds in that direction, the US currency will lose its position as the global reserve asset. Holders of trillions of dollar-denominated assets will become sellers eventuating in a collapse of the currency.
The US economy lives like a parasite off its partners in the global system, with virtually no savings of its own. The World produces whilst North America consumes. The advantage of the US is that of a predator whose advantage is covered, by what others agree, or are forced, to contribute.
Washington uses various means to make up for its deficiencies: for example, repeated violations of the principles of liberalism, arms exports, and the hunting-down of oil super-profits (which involves the periodic felling of producers; one of the real motives behind the wars in Iraq and Central Asia).
But the fact is that the bulk of the American deficit is covered by capital inputs from Europe and Japan, China and the South, rich oil-producing countries and comprador classes from all regions, including the poorest, in the third world, to which should be added the debt-service levy that is imposed on nearly every country in the periphery of the global system. The US superpower depends from day to day on the flow of capital which sustains its economy and society. The vulnerability of the United States represents a serious danger to Washington's project." [ 11 ]
In light of the above we may conclude that – in spite of the irritating name-dropping – Rickards' books are interesting well written and well-argued; per contra they are very light on facts which have been left deliberately unexamined as well as counter-narratives which have also been ignored.
This was to be expected quite simply because at bottom Rickards is a sophist much in the tradition of Protagoras, Gorgias and Thrasymachus "I say that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger" [ 12 ]
A view which Rickards would certainly endorse. Beneath the Upper Manhattan, polished chic, there resides a ruthless Cold Warrior. The further one digs into the book, the more this becomes apparent.NOTES:-
-  Rickards – Aftermath – page.21
-  Ibid., – page.65
-  Michael Hudson – Super Imperialism – pp.298/99, 32.
-  Rickards – Ibid. – page.66
-  Hyman Minsky's theories about debt accumulation received revived attention in the media during the subprime mortgage crisis of the late 2000s. The New Yorker has labelled it "the Minsky Moment". Minsky argued that a key mechanism that pushes an economy towards a crisis is the accumulation of debt by the non-government sector. He identified three types of borrowers that contribute to the accumulation of insolvent debt: hedge borrowers, speculative borrowers, and Ponzi borrowers.
- The "hedge borrower" can make debt payments (covering interest and principal) from current cash flows from investments. For the "speculative borrower", the cash flow from investments can service the debt, i.e., cover the interest due, but the borrower must regularly roll over, or re-borrow, the principal. The "Ponzi borrower" (named for Charles Ponzi, see also Ponzi scheme) borrows based on the belief that the appreciation of the value of the asset will be sufficient to refinance the debt but could not make sufficient payments on interest or principal with the cash flow from investments; only the appreciating asset value can keep the Ponzi borrower afloat.
-  Rickards – Ibid., page.85
-  Rickards – Ibid., page.239
-  Joseph Stiglitz – The Roaring 90s – pp.206/207
-  Gold Pool 1968. The price of one troy ounce of gold was pegged to US$35. The larger the gap, known as the gold window, between free market gold price and the foreign exchange rate, the more tempting it was for nations to deal with internal economic crises by buying gold at the Bretton Woods price and selling it in the gold markets. It couldn't last and it didn't.
-  Michael Hudson – Ibid. – p.309
-  Barry Eichengreen – Exorbitant Privilege – passim.
-  Plato – The Republic. Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest WhatsApp vKontakte Email
Frank Lee left school at age 15 without any qualifications, but gained degrees from both New College Oxford and the London School of Economics (it's a long story). He spent many years as a lecturer in politics and economics, and in the Civil Service, before retirement. He lives in Sutton with his wife and little dog.
GuyExcellent article by Frank Lee. Many of us are aware of the problems of the USD but few are able to so succinctly explain why and connect the dots to expose the true picture. The bottom line is that the lifespan of the USD as king is almost over .There will not be any rabbit pulled out of the hat to make America great again.That is a feel good cliché used to further induce the population to go back to sleep.FoodBowl
The US has been exposed, and so well said, as a predator nation .There must be a reason why China and Russia are buying up as much gold as their economy will permit .The exchange medium used for trade since time immemorial .
Measuring 'National Debt as a Portion of the US Economy' is for economics classes and for newspapers to publish. The Criminal Elites look at things differently. They measure the National Debt as a Portion of the 'FEROCIOUS BOMBING POWER the US Possess'. Also, 'Spreading Chaos Capabilities' is added to the Bombing Power.Fair dinkum
From this point of view, they see enormous assets, and the debts becomes less worrying as they see less urgency to deal with this ever growing liabilities.
No analysis required because it's always been the same. The few exploit the many. This has fed the cancers of psychopathy, messiah complexes and endless wars.MASTER OF UNIVE
We are rushing towards the midnight sun.
The Wall Street ethos has always been 'kill or be killed' where bears eat, and bulls eat, but pigs get slaughtered! The problem with today's market & stock valuations is that they are as hyperinflated as Real Estate Commercial & Residential sectors are which leaves no wiggle room for price discovery until there is a system wide crash that mean reverts the valuations back to a realistic price.mark
Warren Buffett is currently sitting on $55 billion in cash so that he does not get destroyed on the upcoming systemic wide crash. Buffett has never pulled this kind of bread from the table in his lifetime whilst waiting for a systemic crash & the inevitable fat tail blowout that is poised to rip the face off of the USA & EU as their eyeballs get ripped out too.
Ripping a face off & ripping eyeballs out is day trader speak for kicking counterparties in the groin for the deal. The French Revolution was all about teaching the financial elite predator class of monetary control freaks who the boss really is when the gravy train slows during Financial Winter.
And if they can't take the heat they should get out of the kitchen!
All that is happening now is that Trump is trying to solve his country's intractable economic and financial problems by looting the rest of the planet. This is not a new development, but Trump is at least refreshingly honest in his public pronouncements.Antonym
It has always been thus.
- The Roman Empire imposed tribute on its subjects. You have to send us so much grain, cattle, so many slaves, so much timber for shipbuilding, so much precious metal and base metal, so many wild beasts for our circuses. In return we won't kill you.
- The Nazi Empire imposed tribute on its conquests in identical fashion. Send us your industrial output, agricultural produce and raw materials. In return we'll give you a big credit balance at the Reichsbank.
- Uncle Sugar says send me your BMWs, fine wines, electronic gadgets, oil and minerals. In return I'll give you some worthless little pieces of green paper you can exchange for worthless IOUs called Treasury Bills.
The current (real) military budget is $1,134 billion, around 60% higher than the fictitious figure that is normally touted.
The trade deficit is $900 billion. The budget deficit $1,175 billion, over 20% of the overall budget.
America is borrowing around $4 billion a day from the rest of the world. Uncle Sam is the biggest scrounger, parasite, leech, bludger, and panhandler in the history of the planet.
The official national debt of $22.5 trillion understates the true position by a factor of over ten. Every US man, woman, child, and babe in arms is in hock to the tune of over $700,000.
Trump != the Swamp. They hate him.RobG The global economy is about to crash, yet again (because it's never really recovered from the 2008 crash)'. Answers on a postcard, please (and one that doesn't involve giving the banksters eye-watering amounts of money).Frank Lodge Without reading the book in question, this seems like an thoroughly sound and incisive review. Just one thing, "cometh" takes a singular subject.BigB Rickards attitude is famously: "Buy gold" to which he creates a fear porn scenario around the coming recession. His solution: "Buy gold". Not, lets look at the conditions that are causing the underlying boom and bust business cycles and find a solution that works for humanity. His solution: "Buy gold" which the likes of he and the others who are driving the business cyclical waves of mutilation have already done to hedge their portfolios. Fuck Ricards. I have no time for those who wish to profit from the overfinancial immiseration of humanity. And you know where you can stick your gold.mark
Good luck to anyone who produces gold in an actual collapse scenario. So you need to buy guns and bodyguards for self-protection if you buy gold...
Gold could form some kind of basis for exchange in a collapse setting. Other desirable barter items would be alcohol, cigarettes, basic drugs like aspirin and paracetamol, electrical batteries, fuel and similar goods. Maybe ammunition as well. Goods were priced in cigarettes in postwar Germany.bevin
Gold would probably be of use. Gemstones, jewellery, would not. 99.9% of people are unable to distinguish a real diamond from a piece of glass.
"he original version of the Guns versus butter argument was given in a speech on January 17, 1936, in Nazi Germany." Not for the first time Wikipedia is wrong here. Bismarck is normally credited with the choice between Guns and Butter. Goebbels was suggesting that Guns will bring Butter.Martin Usher Its nice to see this in a book but its really common knowledge. The only thing I'd dispute is this notion of an 'elite', there is no such thing, its just greed holding the reins -- its like a mass FOMO, nobody's willing to take the long view because it might mean they'll miss out on what they can grab right now.wardropper
The danger we face from this is that if a large enough economic bloc runs by more rational rules then its going to eventually cream us economically. This forces us to destroy it. This is what's at the bottom of our problems with China. The USSR wasn't strong or well organized enough to pose a real threat to us so it could be taken down primarily by economic means. The Chinese learned their lesson from the Russian experience and 'played nice' which they built their country up -- we all heard the commentariat from a few years ago about them 'not really being communists any more'. Now they're in a position to look us in the eye so we've got to confront them, to take them down. (You'll notice that one of the conditions that will end the trade war is the 'liberalizing of capital markets' -- that is, we need to take over their banking system and currency.) If -- when -- this fails then the only recourse would be actual war.
The crime in all this is in the pursuit of money -- ultimately a wholly artificial concept -- we're wasting immense amounts of resources and human potential, spreading misery and despoliation all over the planet and generally behaving like really awful global citizens. We can and must do better.
And we certainly must stop talking about "taking down" the Chinese, and instead actually try to understand where they come from, with their roots in a far more ancient civilized society than ours.Antonym
American exceptionalism, for example, takes it for granted that we in the West are good, and therefore the East must become more like us. But we are logically, and morally, obliged to look at this from the opposite perspective too: What if the Chinese take it for granted that they are good, and therefore the West must become more like them?
I have been to China, and found the people there to consist of the same mixtures of honest, good, nondescript, sinister and deplorable as we have here at home.
They also share exactly the same fundamental problem as we do: Their politicians and their people, like ours, are two entirely separate things. Of course the origins of Chinese, or Russian, society are different from ours, but that is no reason to despise them. Our origins are often pretty despicable too.
The Chinese people are as materialistic or spiritual as any; it is the local deep state (CPC) totalitarian culture that needs to change.Robbobbobin "The crime in all this is in the pursuit of money -- [w]e can and must do better."MASTER OF UNIVE
Three thousand years?
He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver; nor he that loveth abundance with increase: this is also vanity. –Ecclesiastes 5:10
Two thousand years?
For the love of money is the root of all evil –1 Timothy 6:10
Surely the Anti Deceased Equine Distress Society has lobbied some sort of statute of limitations onto the books by now?
American parasitism writ large over the last half century has amply signified to the entire world that 'manifest destiny' was merely a ruse to foist American hegemony onto all sovereign nations at the behest of an out-of-control American Oligopoly that was power-tripping post WW2 & drunk on the souls of the poor sots all over the entire world with their power hungry warmongering Military Industrial Complex.Martin Usher
Proof of their combined ignorance with respect to Cybernetics & Systems Theory was their willingness to follow the likes of the Vietnam War architects that assumed incorrectly that they could impose a closed-looped cybernetic control system over world finance & mercantilism throughout the entire world at the behest of academic failures like Macnamera who would not know a 'closed-looped cybernetic' from an open-looped cybernetic if his life & legacy depended on it.
Simply put, American printing presses at the privately owned Federal Reserve cannot even remotely help or assist in anymore financial profligacy for the Neoconservative or Neoliberal camps of the cerebrally sclerotic & Early Onset Dementia riddled, & uneducated, financial buffoons that emanated out of the now defunct Chicago School headed up by Strauss et al. in the 60s & 70s.
All the macroeconomic indicators over the last two decades have clearly indicated that the Greenspan era of asset inflation was nothing more than the undoing of Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker's hard won success during his tenure pre-Greenspan 'Maestro' halcyon days of animal spirits run amok.
In brief, the United States of America can eat my shorts as it is solely responsible for manufacturing a finance control system & requisite money pump fraud that is nothing more than a worldwide Ponzi scheme to defraud the entire world of disposable income & discretionary income gain so that all gains accrue to the rentier class of speculative investors like Warren Buffett & Bob Paulson.
Bottom line is that Warren Buffett will have to purchase all the new automobiles, trucks, houses, mansions, cottages, farms, cites, towns, railroads, roads, & precious metals as the emerging markets & first world markets all decouple just as Professor Emeritus Benoit Mandelbrot hypothesized they would just before he died.
Go ahead, America, print the fake fiat greenbacks to infinity in vain hope of extricating yourselves from the intractable financial muck & mire you are most assuredly going to find yourselves in this approaching October 2019.
Go ahead, Punk, make my day!
Are you feeling lucky, Punk?
Its not "American". We just happen to be the chosen host for this part of history. Before us it was the British Empire that was top dog.MASTER OF UNIVE
Money has no particular loyalty to a country. In pre-WW1 Europe the bourgeois were all intermarried, connected primarily by wealth and power regardless of their nominal nationality, our present equivalent are similarly connected. Just like WW1 when the chips are down we -- the ordinary people -- will be sacrificed on the alter of patriotism while they'll survive and prosper.
March 10th 2008 around 11:00am Bear Stearns time New York shitty was the virtual end of American hegemony worldwide forever more into the obvious future of Macroeconomics & Macroprudential Policy as an ongoing concern. Debt-to-GDP of all sovereign Western imperialist nations is intractably North of any semblance of sustainability vis-a-vis Finance worldwide or within Emerging Economies or First World Developed Economies.martin
Intractable debt limits were broached when Nixon declared the bankruptcy of the Bretton Woods infrastructure of gold backed USA Reserve Currency Status and then opted in ignorance for the petro-dollar bait & switch fiat USD Finance capture worldwide which has now come home to roost across the rust belt of the heartland USA, and in places that were once bastions of manufacturing for the middle class USA blue collar worker such as Detroit or Chicago. Today the business model of the USA is transnationalist whereby places across the USA are not even remotely financed into that transnationalist Wall Street model of Finance that is wholly parasitic to the point of crashing mainstreet USA across all sectors of the Service Sector Industries that were supposed to be replacing the long lost USA Manufacturing Base that was offshored to the Third World sovereigns that would temporarly increase profit margins for the transnationalist class of corporate parasites run amok to collectively destroy all life on Planet Earth for centuries to come if we are lucky.
RWMASTER OF UNIVE
You have made the common mistake of asserting that it is America, instead of those who govern (the USA and its pundits) that have engineered the problems you point out.
Why would the two parties in congress (Article II followers) and the two fellows with the Article II power, continue to [expand the debt in fake, made up and useless expenses], unless they were controlled by external forces?
Maybe bankers and their high powered corporations are finding they can no longer easily dupe Americans into delivering their resources into the pockets of the wealthy. Maybe the American people have drawn the line, no more, will they produce for the IMF, world bank?
Maybe Americans have decided to refuse the tax burdens imposed to retire the fed debt? Maybe foreign nations have denied the banks and their corporations access to their resources as a means to pay the USA debt? Maybe script has been recognized as a false capital in-capable of ruling the world? Maybe organized criminals have taken up positions in the western governments and used those positions to force on the governed many things? Maybe burdening the USA with debt is part of the plan to bankrupt America? <==but why should the banks bankrupt America, why has access to education been limited, why has the USA spied on Americans? Why have the governed Americans been denied access to the USA? Has the USA retired Americans from productive jobs, in order to accelerate the demise of America? The USA has made Americans into debtors obligated to pay bankers in the form of taxes to be collected by the USA and remitted to the bankers. <= just as is now occurring in Britain, Greece, France, and other places. Privatization, monopolization and conversion from public to private franchising and ownership have served as the transforming agents that have made the elite so wealthy.
Economic Zionism. as opposed to government regulated capitalism, condones no competition, allows no prisoners and either takes or destroys all likely competitive elements (persons, corporations, or nations) Economic Zionism demands the government that governs (as in USA governance over Americans) assist in rendering Americans broke. Is it because until Americans are broke, the EZ bandits are hampered? Is scooping resources into private, monopoly powered, already wealthy hands, the goodies to be had the goal? Maybe the USA is a privatizing agent instead of a benefactor serving Americans?
In USA governed America, there is much very-productive farm land, millions of tons of minerals, many productive seaports, and tons and tons of money making monopolies (patents, copyrights, royalties, government franchised goodies, lucrative government contracts, and plenty of government services and resources) to be privatized for profit. The goodies are located in thousands of acres of rich farmland, the major ports and services attached thereto, and embedded within little domestic American companies which the USA debt will eventually burden into bankruptcy. After all "scalping a bankruptcy" is historically a speciality of economic zionism.
In 1994 JPMorgan management & traders went on a little holiday in Miami to concoct the Global Ponzi of debt & risk associated with loans into what is known today as the Financialization Process whereby bank risk would be shuffled off of investment bank balance sheets and onto those speculators that wanted to purchase all that risk involved in the bank portfolios en masse because they knew how to offload that risk to unsuspecting greater fools that were always certain to come knocking in a climate of upward growth and yield curve convexity. But the chink in their financial alchemy was obviously debt limits and the ability to track the risk to the system as a whole given that all transactions in the derivatives world are dark & unregulated due to the helmsmen like the Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson who previous to being nominated as Treasury Secretary was in fact the top man at Goldman Sachs where he raked in approximately a smooth billion before traversing the revolving door between the Whore House & Goldman Sachs New York shitty offices.nottheonly1
Casino Banking morphed into Late Stage Ponzi Capitalism when Bob Paulson wanted more Residential Mortgage Backed Security issuance and pressured Goldman Sachs into providing more issuance via NINJA loans & Liar Loans after 05 when the Wall Street speculators had to go bottom feeding for loan issuance in order to meet investor demand & apatite for their unhinged Gordon Gecko greed.
'Maestro' Greenspan emphasized his 'flaw' in his macroeconomic model of the world when the investor greed broached fat tails on the order of a 10% crash of the power laws of distributions of loan issuance. Greenspan never assumed that the Financialization Process would exceed a default scenario greater than 5-7% of no-performing loans in the subprime issuance tranche.
American exceptionalism via Henry Paulson USA Treasury Secretary 08 is what rendered American Late Stage Ponzi Capitalism wholly defunct going forward into 2020 & beyond with a permanent lower bound CB Interest Rate Regime & specter of WW3 hot conflagration.
My money is on the pinko Commie bastards this time round the sovereign insolvency loop of domestic misery USA.
WELCOME to the New World Disorder!
To condense this lengthy essay: This ship is sinking.
This would include household debt, student debt, financial debt, corporate debt, and municipal debt. Add this to sovereign debt and you get a figure roughly 5 times US sovereign debt, and even this is regarded as being a conservative figure according to many
One – at least on this side of the screen – cannot but think that all this is by design. The cart is driven intentionally off the cliff. To start off with a clean slate? Where the wealthy still have their wealth, but the suckers are depending on hand-outs?
An old proverb alledges that: To borrow brings sorrow.
To which only those who make loads of money from lending will disagree. Where are the solutions? No solutions, just listicles as to how bad it all is? Sure, the West is reminiscent of the HMS Titanic – with the slight difference of the hole made by the iceberg (debt) extending over the whole length of the ship. It is listing beyond dancing.
Well, I am willing to tell a secret (that isn't one anymore for quite some time):
- Outlaw/prohibit Interest .
- Prohibit capital gains . Or tax them with 99%.
- Prevent under all circumstances a continuation of Performanceless Profits .
Make them punishable with prison time of no less than half of the age at which they were perpetrated. You're 30? You're going in for 15. You're 65? Easy math.
Fact is, that there are solutions galore to save our souls. Problem is, those whose lives are depending on them, don't demand them to be implemented. And why would the wealthy tax non-payers like Bezos et al want to change their 'winning team'? That is a well known no-no. The only solution the masses of the little people can hope for is 'Force Majeur' that works to their benefit. Shall we wait for that to happen?
Sep 09, 2019 | off-guardian.org
And we certainly must stop talking about "taking down" the Chinese, and instead actually try to understand where they come from, with their roots in a far more ancient civilized society than ours.
. But we are logically, and morally, obliged to look at this from the opposite perspective too: What if the Chinese take it for granted that they are good, and therefore the West must become more like them?
I have been to China, and found the people there to consist of the same mixtures of honest, good, nondescript, sinister and deplorable as we have here at home.
They also share exactly the same fundamental problem as we do: Their politicians and their people, like ours, are two entirely separate things. Of course the origins of Chinese, or Russian, society are different from ours, but that is no reason to despise them. Our origins are often pretty despicable too.
Aug 28, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
O , Aug 27 2019 17:09 utc | 178Interesting James Corbett video.
Are we being manipulated to eventually discard objective reality or at least the concept of it?
Aug 26, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com
anne , August 23, 2019 at 04:50 PMhttps://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2019/08/the-trade-deal-fetish.htmlJoe -> anne... , August 23, 2019 at 09:35 PM
August 13, 2019
The trade deal fetish
John Bolton says the UK can strike a quick trade deal with the US. This reminds me of an under-appreciated fact – that it is not trade rules that are significantly holding back UK exports.
Brute facts tell us this. As part of the European Union, the UK and Germany have the same trading rules. Last year, however, Germany exported $134bn of goods to the US whereas the UK exported only $65.3bn. Per head of population, Germany's exports to the US were therefore 60% higher than the UK's. Much the same is true for other non-EU nations. Last year Germany exported $11.8bn to Australia whilst the UK exported just $5.9bn, a per capita difference of over 50%. German exports to Canada were $12bn whilst the UK's were $7.3bn, a 28% per capita difference. German exports to Japan, at $24.1bn were 2.2 times as great per head as the UK's. And German exports to China, at $109.9bn were three times as great per capita as the UK's $27.7bn.
Now, these numbers refer only to goods where Germany has a comparative advantage over the UK. But they tell us something important. Whatever else is holding back UK exports, it is not trade rules. Germany exports far more than the UK under the same rules.
As for what it is that is holding back exports, there are countless candidates – the same ones that help explain the UK's relative industrial weakness: poor management; a lack of vocational training; lack of finance or entrepreneurship; the diversion of talent from manufacturing to a bloated financial sector; the legacy of an overvalued exchange rate. And so on.
If we were serious about wanting to revive UK exports, we would be discussing what to do about issues such as these. Which poses the question: why, then, does the possibility of trade deals get so much more media attention?
One reason is that the right has for decades made a consistent error– a form of elasticity optimism whereby they over-estimate economic flexibility and dynamism. Back in the 80s, Patrick Minford thought, mostly wrongly, that unemployed coal miners and manufacturers would swiftly find jobs elsewhere as, I dunno, astronauts or lap-dancers. The Britannia Unchained crew think, again wrongly, that deregulation will create lots of jobs. And some Brexiters in 2016 thought sterling's fall would give a big boost to net exports.
In the same spirit, they think free trade deals will raise exports a lot. But they won't - and certainly not enough to offset the increased red tape of post-Brexit trade with the EU. Jobs and exports just aren't as responsive to stimuli as they think. The economy is more sclerotic, more path dependent, than that.
Secondly, the BBC has a bias against emergence. It overstates the extent to which outcomes such as real wages, share prices or government borrowing are the result of deliberate policy actions and understates the extent to which they are the emergent and largely unintended result of countless less obvious choices. In this spirit, it gets too excited about trade deals and neglects the real obstacles to higher exports.
But there's something else. Perhaps the purpose of free trade deals is not to boost exports at all. It is instead largely totemic. Such deals are one of the few things we'll be able to do after Brexit that we couldn't do before. They are therefore a symbol of our new-found sovereignty. They are, alas, largely just that – a symbol.
-- Chris Dillow"John Bolton says the UK can strike a quick trade deal with the US. "
Clueless. The US and the UK do not need a trade deal, Brexit is happening because the UK decided it didn't need any trade deals, open market trading on whatever restrictions foreign government makes is fine with brexiters.
Way back when we were a smarter people, we assumed that trade deals are a restriction on trade. They exist to overcome protectionism which was there prior.
Aug 24, 2019 | off-guardian.org
I'll give you some "truly horrible expressions of bigotry." Palestinians are:- "beasts walking on two legs" (Begin), "drugged cockroaches in a bottle" (Eitan), "hungry crocodiles" (Barak), who "must be crushed like grasshoppers" (Shamir).
Truly horrible racist stuff. 8 -4 Reply Aug 22, 2019 1:39 AM Reader
What is it with you Mark, that you keep just bringing up the same four or six quotes from the most bigoted Jews you can find who are mostly dead? I am curious what you think it proves about anything?mark
Sure there are lunatics and there are racists and some of both are Jews, just as some are not Jews. Taking the words of the racist Jews and using that to fire up your own racist hate of all Jews, even those like me who think Begin was a one-eyed lunatic, is a waste of your life and breeds nothing but more hate. I hope God grants you peace in your heart, Mark.
These are not four random annoying saloon bar bores blowing off steam after one too many. They are three successive prime ministers and the head of the armed forces. Four typical political and military leaders. You could say the same about any other political and military figures. Or religious figures like the Chief Rabbi. This is normal and routine. There is a great deal that is far worse, like "Justice" Minister Shaked, who called for all Palestinian mothers to be murdered so that no Palestinian children could be born. Or a national newspaper called The Times of Israel openly advocating the extermination of the Palestinian people at concentration camps in the desert, "When Genocide Is Justified." Or two leading rabbis calling for the murder of all Palestinian children.Mandy Miller
Imagine that Cameron, or May, or Johnson, called Jews cockroaches or grasshoppers, let alone calling for Jews to be murdered. And every leading UK politician and military figure had done the same as a matter of routine for decades. Imagine the outrage. Rightly so.
I would never call Jews cockroaches. But ALL these Zionist figures ROUTINELY speak of Palestinians in these terms. This is completely normal. And nobody so much as raises an eyebrow. It is perfectly okay for the Chosen Folk to do this.
That is the point. It would be of benefit to the world if there was a little peace in the hearts of these people as well.
I didn't say they were insignificant I said they were regarded by most sensible Jews that I know as lunatics.mark
Begin did not speak for most Jews while he was alive and certainly doesn't now he's dead. I'm sure he liked to think he did, but why believe that racist schmuck? Ditto for Binyamin, who is as stupid and racist as he is crazy.
Like I said you might as well quote Hitler or Goebbels as being representative of today's Germany or claim they speak for all gentiles everywhere unless individuals specifically state otherwise. I was born a Jew, my kids were born Jews, we didn't volunteer to join! We should not need to officially repudiate Zionism or the crazy ravings of our leaders past or present in order to be assumed good people, any more than you, Mark, should have to repudiate Nazism or Mr Churchill's racism or mr Johnson's anti-Russian schtick to be considered a good person.
I would like to see a good study of Zionism here, I support the Palestinians in their struggle as again do many many Jews of my acquaintance (though, sadly not all I will admit). But do you not see how alienating and hurtful it is to see comments such as "the chosen people did 9/11", or (as was talked about a short while back) "Hebrews have a tendency toward pedophilia"? Please! Have a little respect is all. Talk about the evils of Zionism but don't conflate that with Judaism or with everyone lucky or unlucky enough to be born a Jew!
And all that oy vey goy stuff you do feels quite hurtful also, I am just curious what you think it brings to the conversation by way of enlightenment, communication and brotherly love, Mark? It just looks like you are hating on Jewishness in the same way those Nazi images of guys with hook noses etcetera did. It feels nasty. What does it achieve? Would it be a nice and helpful gesture to at least drop all that?
We have fringe racist groups in the UK and US and elsewhere. But the KKK in the US just get drunk and burn a few crosses now and again. They are totally irrelevant. If they supplied ALL the heads of state, Begin, Shamir, Sharon, Barak, Netanyahu, ALL the heads of the armed forces, ALL the religious leaders, and the media in the country, anyone with two brain cells to rub together would have to acknowledge there is a difference.Mandy Miller
You can't criticise ANY of these people because it "offends" AIPAC, the Board of Deputies, the Friends of Israel, and "hurts their feelings." You are not allowed to call them out without incurring unprecedented draconian penalties unless you have first solved world hunger, global warming, criticised every other nation on the planet, and obtained a written permit from the Board of Deputies specifying exactly what terms and language you are authorised to use.
Why obsess about Talmudistan? Because it is the tail that wags the dog. It exercises a complete stranglehold over the politics and foreign policy of the US and its satellites like the UK. It incites endless wars which those countries are expected to prosecute on its behalf. It destabilises the entire planet causing indescribable suffering and human misery. It expects and receives a free pass to commit genocide and possess a huge illegal arsenal of WMD it constantly threatens to use. It extorts unimaginable amounts of tribute from other countries. It commits terrorist atrocities like 9/11 with complete impunity. Its endless intrigues and subversion poison the whole public space in entire countries. The smear campaign against Corbyn and the Epstein organisation are just two fairly trivial recent examples. Politicians and ordinary people are not required to swear loyalty oaths to Botswana or Bolivia on pain of instant dismissal. That is the difference.
A bit of kvetching about all the above seems a little bit justified under the circumstances.
Ok, Mark, I understand that you think Israel is a bigger racist problem than the UK and all the NATO non-democracies, and I can agree with you about that. Israel is for me and many (not all) of my family and friends a place of terrible evil and shame. I hate that the suffering of so many Jews under the Nazis has been turned into an excuse to impose more suffering on other innocent people simply because of their race. So, let's agree Israel is indefensible in its treatment of the Palestinians and in its appalling foreign policy. Just awful.
My question is, how helpful is it to express those facts in racial terms? Why do you use these words that only have the effect of turning people away from you and closing down there receptiveness?
Ok, what I'm saying is, if you try to tell the average non-political nice well meaning Jewish person or liberal, of which my sister is a good example (both) that Israel is the aggressor nation in so many instances and if you tell them about the terrible plight of the Palestinian people it will be hard for you to get them to listen even if you don't use words that make you sound like a racist. But as soon as you start throwing around words such as Talmudistan and "chosen folk" and mockery of Yiddish with your "oy vey goy" routine, you are giving them a route to the exit door., which is what they want. You are giving them permission to ignore you! They can say "oh what a racist", and just leave the building.
So, my question is, why use that language? What good is it doing you that makes it worthwhile to lose so much credibility among people you could perhaps convert if you approached it differently?
I guess my question is, what does this aggressive use of offensive terms do for you that you hold on to it to the point of undoing any good you could do? Why not just say "Israel"? Why terms such as goy and chosen folk and language that can sound soooo racist and threatening?
I believe you Mark that you don't entertain real racist thoughts, but can you communicate with me why you use that language that makes it sound as if you do? Maybe you don't realize it but to a Jew it feels like a slap across the face. It triggers centuries of dormant fears of persecution. I have to try hard to put that aside and approach you without fear or anger. So I'm asking you, as a gesture toward understanding, to please not use those terms in our conversation? And maybe you might find you don't need that armour, or comfort blanket or whatever it is to you. Maybe you will find your message, which as put above is something I can get on board with, gets across more clearly.
Can we take that step, Mark? I am asking with peace and love in my heart.
Aug 19, 2019 | www.unz.com
Adûnâi , says: August 15, 2019 at 6:17 pm GMT"The other significant force in the Ukraine is the West Ukrainian (Galician) Nazi death-squads and mobs."
Where are death camps for the Jews? Where are racial laws that expel non-Ukrainians? Where is the propaganda of eugenics and healthy lifestyle? Where are construction projects bringing in jobs, and state-subsidized recreation tours?
Ukraine is a Jew-driven shithole that has nothing to do with National Socialism. They don't even honour the sacrifice of the SS Galizien.
"but what they are genuinely fantasizing about is the territory, and only the territory. As for the 2 million-plus virulently anti-Nazi people currently living on these lands, they simply want them either dead or expelled)."
A lie. Currently, more than a half of those "expelled" have migrated inside Ukraine. A stark contrast to Croatia where the Serbs were driven out of the country, and their land given to Croats.
Again, Ukraine is suicidal and full of civic nationalism, nothing about it is blood-based.
"They and their Polish supporters want Russia to break apart in numerous small state-lets which they (or, in their delusional dreams, the Chinese) could dominate."
Why do you consider this as a negative for the Russian people? The current Russian state is in its death throes as much as the US and France – the ethnic Russians are dying out, fleeing and being replaced. Any alternative might prove out more hopeful.
"In contrast, the LDNR forces seem to be doing pretty well, and their morale appears to be as strong as ever (which is unsurprising since their military ethos is based in 1000 years of Russian military history)."
I have to remind you that the Donbass was colonized far more recently than Ukraine – in the 18-19th centuries. What "ancient" traditions?
"but Novorussia also is a never healing wound in the side of Nazi-occupied Ukraine"
The Donbass has never been part of Novorussia which is to the west, from Dniepropetrovsk to Odessa. Admittedly, Novorussia's colonists were mostly from Ukraine – it is clearly seen on the language maps.
"The problem with this slogan is that there is simply no way the (relatively small) Galician population can ever succeed in permanently defeating their much bigger (and, frankly, much smarter) Jewish, Polish or Russian neighbors."
Khmelnitsky managed to do just that – 100k dead Jews. And he's on the Ukrainian currency. Too bad modern "Nazi" Ukrainians have elected a Jew President. This is not the Khmelnitsky uprising, this is Kiev under the Khazar Khaganate before Oleg came from the North.
Aug 13, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com
anne -> anne... , August 13, 2019 at 01:38 PMThe United States is openly encouraging a hard or radical split between the United Kingdom and the European Union. This by way of John Bolton. Why the administration would take such a position is a puzzle to me, and the openness is shocking.anne -> anne... , August 13, 2019 at 01:41 PMhttps://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-08-13/U-S-supports-no-deal-Brexit-with-trade-deals-ahead-says-Bolton-J7cM4HEMLK/index.html
August 13, 2019
U.S. supports no-deal Brexit with trade deals ahead, says Bolton
The United States would enthusiastically support a no-deal Brexit if that is what the British government decided to do, U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton said on Monday during a visit to London aimed at reassuring Britain over UK-U.S. ties.
"If that's the decision of the British government we will support it enthusiastically, and that's what I'm trying to convey. We're with you, we're with you," Bolton told reporters after his first day of meetings.
"They will have to figure out how to do what they can by October 31 or soon thereafter. From our point of view, we would have been happy to do it before that," the official said. "The previous government didn't want to do it, this government does. We're very happy about it," he added.
U.S. President Donald Trump wants to see a successful British exit from the European Union on October 31 and Washington will be ready to work fast on a U.S.-UK free trade agreement, Bolton told British Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
BBC quoted Bolton as saying that a bilateral agreement or "series of agreements" could be carved out "very quickly, very straight-forwardly."
He said British officials had given him an unmistakable sense that they were determined to honor the 2016 referendum vote to leave the EU.
"The fashion in the European Union: When the people vote the wrong way from the way the elites want to go, it's to make the peasants vote again and again until they get it right," Bolton said.
The central message Bolton was delivering is that the United States would help cushion Britain's exit from the EU with a free trade deal that is being negotiated by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and his British counterpart, Liz Truss.
Bolton said Britain and the United States could agree trade deals on a sector-by-sector basis, leaving more difficult areas in the trading relationship until later.
He said the ultimate aim was a comprehensive trade deal, but highlighted that financial services could be one of the more difficult industries to reach an agreement on.
Bolton had been expected to urge officials from Johnson's government to align its policy on Iran more along the lines of the United States, which has pushed a much tougher line against Tehran since withdrawing from world powers' 2015 nuclear agreement with Tehran.
But, after his meetings Bolton said talks on some of these thornier diplomatic issues could wait.
Johnson has told the European Union there is no point in new talks on a withdrawal agreement unless negotiators are willing to drop the Northern Irish backstop agreed by his predecessor Theresa May.
The EU has said it is not prepared to reopen the divorce deal it agreed with May, which includes the backstop, an insurance policy to prevent the return to a hard border between the British province of Northern Ireland and EU-member Ireland.
Aug 13, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
Grieved , Aug 12 2019 5:29 utc | 69@66 psychohistorian
Good to catch you around these economic matters. The WWIII is actually just being waged by one side, I think. China is the caravan moving on. The fading bark of the dogs is the western end of the deal, I think. But no time to enlarge on this right now, what with Europe having the vapors...
Everybody got economics going on, it seems like, and Europe is no exception. Check out below.
Brexit and the EU
Alastair Crooke has a new piece out, riffing largely on a Pritchard Evans article in the Telegraph, and including a very hot video clip from the heart of German concerns as the UK executes Brexit.
I didn't realize how important the UK is to the EU and how its exit changes everything for Germany. But the EU realpolitik illustrated in this Crooke article and in the 6-minute video clip of the German speech is an entire facet of Brexit I had never seen until now. Check this quote:Speaking in the German parliament, Alice Weidel, the AfD leader, tore into Chancellor Merkel for her and the Brussels botched handling of Brexit (for which "she, Merkel bears some responsibility"). Weidel pointed out that "the UK is the second biggest economy in Europe – as big as the 19 smallest EU members combined". "From an economic perspective, the EU is shrinking from 27 member-states to 9." [My emphasis]
Crooke and co are saying that the UK departure from the EU changes the entire regime of monetary controls within this economic union. Crucially, the lead is now shifting away from Germany and to the failed economic model of France.
To make the chronic acute, now Trump cares, and the US has a stake in this - who knew? The EU didn't know. It always thought the US was a partner, but maybe not.
If you want to dive straight into the German angst, here's the six-minute video of Alice Weidel ripping German complacency apart with a call to attention from her constituency in marginalized eastern Germany:
German view of Brexit
And for the containing article from Crooke - be warned that he quotes Paul Krugman but I have to say it sounds pretty good to me - here's his article:
Germany Stalls and Europe Craters
Aug 12, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
Formerly T-Bear , Aug 12 2019 21:30 utc | 137@ karlof1 | Aug 12 2019 20:08 utc | 129
J.M.Keynes addressed 'foreign exchange' between sovereign states in his original version of World Bank and International Money Fund, both addressing the fundamental causes of the Great Depression. These presentations to U.S. government authorities also included the British application for war debt forgiveness at the termination of hostilities to avoid repeating post WWI scenarios. These presentations were then made to the Bretton Woods Conference as the American version of the proposals, reversing institution and purpose as contrived by Washington's design. Makes interesting reading the cables between Keynes and London. What exists since Bretton Wood is the American version and as usual it was all screwed up, but Keynes original proposals contain policies needed for the EAEU's ability to function (and to avoid the economic causes of the Great Depression).
I recalled it was tax collection that became the failure of the colonial confederation, the failure of the Continental Congress to meet its obligations, but then interpretations can vary.
Aug 12, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
karlof1 , Aug 12 2019 18:23 utc | 115Grieved @69--
Finally got around to reading Crooke's latest. Yes, the EU's surely in a fix; but IMO, he's correct about the ultimate source of the problem and the inability of solving it without a total reformation. However, I would argue that reforming the EU would be a massive error. IMO, it makes far greater sense to learn from the mistakes and negotiate with Russia and China to consummate Putin's proposal for an EAEU sans the strangulating aspects of an EAEU Central Bank and currency--the Euro and EUCB being two of the EU's mistakes. Such a creation would also see the demise of NATO and the freeing of monies for war to be used on debt relief, infrastructure, and building public/human capital. Russo- and Sinophobia would immediately cease. The issues of South Asia would become easier to handle. And to be included in the club Occupied Palestine would need to become Palestine--one state--thus defusing the last colonial imposition impeding Eurasian integration/unity.
Yes, the five anglophone entities would be left out in the cold, although I can't see The City allowing its politicos to blow its opportunity to cash in by having a piece of the action (but then the British are unpredictable) while Scotland, Ireland and Wales prosper. Africa would see its future lies in joining with Eurasia.
I don't think either Merkel or Macron have the vision required to even imagine the above possibility, although I'd be happy to get surprised. But would such a suggestion need to come from either France or Germany; why not Central and Southern Europe as such a change would really benefit those nations?
Formerly T-Bear , Aug 12 2019 18:59 utc | 122@ karlof1 | Aug 12 2019 18:23 utc | 115karlof1 , Aug 12 2019 20:08 utc | 129
Don't forget the generation that formed the Treaty of Rome and conducted subsequent negotiations were mostly replaced by the 1980's with a generation not sharing common experiences that the war generation had. Also, by the 1980's the economic theories being taught had substantially changed from the economic understandings and experiences of the war generation.
The war generation had each sovereign country having sufficient and adequate laws governing banking and finance that prevented most aberrations within that country. Each country had developed from differing circumstances and had drafted their laws to those specific circumstances. Finding a common legal denominator proved to be, as they say 'a bridge too far' but as long as each country's laws were effective, no problems presented.
The subsequent generation under the neoliberal economic theories found the central EU government devoid of economic governance or regulatory structures; an open field easily commanded by removing the abilities of each country to provide such governance for their state. Centralisation of economic power became the problem and the cause of problems that remain unaddressed and unless address is done, the economic house of cards will not last for long.Formerly T-Bear @122--
Agreed! That's why I made it a point to list the EUCB and Euro as the two main mistakes that must be learned from if an EAEU is to be formulated. Both Russia and China are determined that each nation must remain sovereign, which means each must have control over its monetary and political systems. Instead of a Union implying a federal structure, the proposed political entity would be better termed as a Confederation with each nation retaining its homogeneity. The major difference being the proposed Confederation would have no trade barriers and visa-free movement for its citizens. (Recall the main failing of the initial Confederation of United States were the trade barriers erected between states that prompted the businessmen's revolt that led to the 1787 Constitution and the formation of the federal United States of America.) If a regional grouping of nations--say the former Yugoslavian entities--wanted to reform into a larger political-economic unit to better provide for their collective citizenry, there would be no objection; and the reverse would be possible as sovereignty of people would remain a foundation of human rights.
Given future challenges, IMO the above makes the best sense for Eurasia and Africa. The implosion of the Outlaw US Empire and its affect on its hemispheric neighbors remains unknown. It's possible the once formidable economic magnet of the Empire's economy will reverse its polarity and drive people out as it did during the Great Depression. The vast amount and depth of corruption within the Empire will take several generations to be extinguished, and only then will political reformation become possible.
Aug 03, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com
Christopher H. , July 23, 2019 at 03:27 PMhow those like kurt who mock economic anxiety are wrongChristopher H. said in reply to Christopher H.... , July 23, 2019 at 03:28 PM
The overwhelming correlation between austerity and Brexit
July 22, 2019
Across the pond, the Brexit disaster continues to unfold in newly disastrous ways. Theresa May has resigned as prime minister, and the Trump-esque Boris Johnson looks like a lock to replace her. Parliament members -- up to and including Johnson's own fellow Conservatives -- are panicking that the new prime minister may try hardline tactics to force Brexit through, plan or no plan.
At this point, predicting how this mess will end is a fool's errand. But there are still lessons to be learned from how it began.
In particular, the Conservatives might want to look in the mirror -- and not just because it was their government that called the Brexit vote in the first place. It turns out the brutal austerity they imposed on Britain after the global 2008 financial crisis probably goes a long way towards explaining why Brexit is happening at all.
In the run-up to the Brexit referendum in 2016, much of the campaigning in favor of "Leave" was unabashedly racist. Hard-right political groups like the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) painted a picture of native Britons overrun by hordes of foreign immigrants that were straining the country's health care, housing, public services, jobs and wages to the breaking point. The thing is, the racism was a particular poisonous way of framing a very real underlying economic fear: all those necessities really had become harder to come by.
Yet, as it is in America, actual evidence linking influxes of immigrants to rising scarcity in jobs and wages and other services is scarce. But something else had also recently happened that could explain why hospitals and schools were closing and why public aid was drying up: massive cuts to government spending.
A decade ago, the aftershocks of the global financial crisis had shrunk Britain's economy by almost 3 percent, kicking unemployment up from 5 percent to 8 percent by 2010. Under then-Prime Minister David Cameron, the Conservatives in power concluded that "confidence" among investors was necessary to restore economic growth -- and that meant cuts to government spending to balance the budget.
Thus the Conservatives pushed through a ferocious austerity package: Overall government spending fell 16 percent per person. Schools, libraries, and hospitals closed; public services like garbage collection ground to a halt; poverty shot up; and homelessness doubled. Despite unemployment staying stubbornly high and GDP growth staying stubbornly low -- in defiance of their own economic theory -- the Conservatives crammed through even more reductions in 2012. "It is hard to overestimate how devastating Cameron's austerity plan was, or how fast it happened," the British journalist Laurie Penny observed. A United Nations report from last year called the cuts "punitive, mean-spirited, and often callous."
But the damage was not evenly distributed across the country. At the district level -- Britain's units of local governance -- the reductions in spending ranged from 6.2 percent to an astonishing 46.3 percent from 2010 to 2015. The districts that were already the poorest were generally the hardest hit.
These differences across districts allowed Thiemo Fetzer, an associate professor of economics at the University of Warwick, to gauge the correlation between the government cuts and whether a district voted Leave or Remain. "Austerity had sizable and timely effects, increasing support for UKIP across local, national, and European elections," Fetzer wrote in a recent paper. He found that UKIP's share of a district's vote jumped anywhere from 3.5 to 11.9 percentage points in correlation with austerity's local impact. "Given the tight link between UKIP vote shares and an area's support for Leave, simple back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that Leave support in 2016 could have been easily at least 6 percentage points lower," Fetzer continued. As tight as the Brexit referendum was, that alone could have been enough to swing it.
Other studies have shown links between how a local British community's economic fortunes fared and how it voted for Brexit as well. Economists Italo Colantone and Piero Stanig found that support for Leave was "systematically higher" in the regions of the country hit hardest by trade with China over the last three decades. Another analysis by Torsten Bell showed a strong correlation between British income inequality as of 2015 and Brexit support, with higher local vote shares for Leave the lower the local incomes were. (It's worth noting the Bell didn't find a correlation with Brexit when he looked at how local incomes changed from 2002 to 2015, but that's also a weird time frame to choose, as it mashes together a period of wage growth before 2008 with a major drop afterwards.)
Inequality in Britain had been worsening for decades, as the upper class in the City of London pulled further and further ahead of the largely rural working class, setting the stage for Brexit. And then austerity fell hardest on the shoulders of the latter group, compounding the effect.
"Individuals tend to react to the general economic situation of their region, regardless of their specific condition," Colantone and Stanig wrote. But Fetzer was able to break out some individual data in his analysis of austerity, and he found a correlation with Brexit votes there as well. Individual Britons who were more exposed to welfare state cuts -- in particular a reduction in supports for housing costs -- were again more likely to vote for UKIP. "Further, they increasingly perceive that their vote does not make a difference, that they do 'not have a say in government policy' or that 'public officials do not care,'" Fetzer observed.
It isn't that the economic dislocation of the 2008 crisis and the ensuing austerity crunch made Britons more racist. By all accounts, half or more of the country has consistently looked askance on immigration going back decades. (Indeed, international polling suggests a certain baseline dislike for immigration is a near-universal human condition.) What changed in the last few years was the willingness of certain parts of British society to act politically on those attitudes. And that, arguably, is where the economics come in.
Work from the Harvard economist Benjamin Friedman is instructive here. He found that periods of economic growth, where people feel the future is bright, make national populations more open, generous, and liberal. Times of economic contraction and stagnation have the opposite effect.
The British people, like everyone everywhere, are a mix of good and evil impulses. But by decimating public investment in a self-destructive quest for investor-led growth, the British government created a monster from those impulses. And the reckoning for that terrible error is still unfolding.if - what should I call them? centerists? - like Krugman, Kurt and EMike really cared about racism they'd be in favor of ambitious programs so that voters' living standards rise.JohnH -> Christopher H.... , July 23, 2019 at 03:33 PM
Instead they push incrementalism and make excuses about Dems never having any power.Tut! Tut! Tut! It's not politically correct for Democrats to talk about the economy, inequality, and dislocation, is it? If people keep raising the issue, Democrats might be forced into acknowledging problems they helped to create. Worse, they might have to craft a coherent economic message that their Big Money puppeteers might not like! OMG!!! Armageddon!!!Joe -> Christopher H.... , July 23, 2019 at 04:08 PMHe presented no evidence, just pundicizing based on priors.Christopher H. said in reply to Joe... , July 23, 2019 at 06:10 PM
Well I looked and could find no change in growth, it has been declining steadily since 1990, and the ten years has been correspondingly dropping since 1980.
So, I I am supposed to see evidence, then cite the chart I am supposed to look at. We are tired of useless pundicizers.no he is presenting the agreed-upon evidence. Austerity hurt the UK.Joe -> Christopher H.... , July 24, 2019 at 03:15 AM
Cranks like you have no place in the discussion. Go entertain yourself somewhere else.No, he would have cited evidence.kurt -> Joe... , July 25, 2019 at 10:45 AM
If he had any brains he would have recognized that we got the secstags going around, meaning the one cannot just look at the eight year recession cycle, one has to look at the full monetary cycle.
It is easy to tell the dufas among economists, they never look at nor cite any data.
For example, Krugman ignored the fact that Obamacare raised monthly taxes about $500 per household, lost four elections, proved himself a dolt and now want to write off Obamacare. Never once did Krugman make any attempt to correlate the Obamacare taxes with election losses, not once. He preferred the delusion, same as most of our favorite economists, I can count the one who actually look.
As Kurt said, being delusional hysterical freaks who send hundreds of billions to wealthy people then complain? Stupid,stupid stupid.You are exactly right here - Obamacare subsidies should have tapered off or been taxed away around the top 20% of income rather than the top 60. Big mistake - but it was a compromise to get several republicans to vote yes, but they (the Rs) negotiated in bad faith and then didn't do what they promised. But hey - when have the H brothers let facts get in the way of what they know, know, know about me.Christopher H. said in reply to kurt... , July 25, 2019 at 07:03 PMJoe said nothing of the kind.
The Rs didn't do what they promised? What did you expect?
you're a naive sucker
Aug 01, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com
anne , July 31, 2019 at 11:06 AMhttps://mainly macro.blogspot.com/2019/07/there-is-no-mandate-for-no-deal.htmllikbez -> anne... , August 01, 2019 at 09:51 AM
July 31, 2019
There is no mandate for No Deal
We are told constantly that the 2016 referendum gives our government a mandate for a No Deal Brexit, and that we would not respect democracy if we failed to leave. Both arguments are obviously false, yet they so often go unchallenged in the media.
... ... ...
-- Simon Wren-LewisBrexit like Trump election was a protest against neoliberal globalization. A sign of collapse of neoliberal ideology and the grip of neoliberal elite on the population.
In essence, a "no confidence" vote for the neoliberal elite in both countries.
Of course, Simon Wren-Lewis is afraid to acknowledged this and is engaged in sophistry.
Jul 30, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
Noirette , Jul 30 2019 15:42 utc | 94EU bureaucracy is not compatible with UK identity.
I agree re. a sort of fundamental 'spirit'. So far, since 1973 (EEC, idk if this was properly done, you say not: fraudulent ) EU-UK relations have not been riven by disruptive strife or even temp. explosive argument (in part due to EU rules etc.) Accomodations were made.. An apogee of hand-holding-harmony was reached when Mitterand and Thatcher convinced the Germans to give up the D-mark in return for blessing the re-unification of Germany. The UK did not join the Euro zone (1992). So the UK was overall a big 'winner' on several levels (imho.)
Brexit is the first step in bringing politics back to local accountability
I hope so but dangers lurk and i am pessimistic. Crash-out on 31 Oct. will happen, and will have a horrific impact. In any case the political accountability of the Gvmt. in the UK is at present abysmally low.
Jul 20, 2019 | conversableeconomist.blogspot.com
Thursday, July 4, 2019 "Loyalty to the Nation All the Time, Loyalty to the Government When it Deserves It." Mark Twain wrote an essay back in 1905 called "The Czar's Soliloquy" ( North American Review , Vol. 180.No. DLXXX). The essay was triggered by a sentence in the London Times , reporting: "After the Czar's morning bath it is his habit to meditate an hour before dressing himself." Twain imagined that the Czar, standing naked in front of a mirror, was for a few moments honest with himself about the injustices and cruelties that he had allowed and perpetrated, and hoped for a better future. Imagining the Czar's words to himself, Twain wrote:There are twenty-five million families in Russia. There is a man-child at every mother's knee. If these were twenty-five million patriotic mothers, they would teach these man-children daily, saying : "Remember this, take it to heart, live by it, die for it if necessary: that our patriotism is medieval, outworn, obsolete; that the modern patriotism, the true patriotism, the only rational patriotism, is loyalty to the Nation all the time, loyalty to the Government when it deserves it.On the Fourth of July in particular, it makes me sad to run into people whose patriotism ebbs and flows according to what political party occupies the White House. There ought to be a large and real line between support of whoever who is in government at a particular time, and a broader patriotism. A country is a mixture of people, ideals, geography, history, cultures, and more. It should be possible to love your country, whether your feelings about the government are positive, negative, neutral, ambivalent, or don't-give-a-damn.
Jul 06, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
The more a local economy has been negatively affected by the two shocks, the more its electors have shifted towards the radical right and its policy packages. These packages typically combine the retrenchment against international openness and the liberalisation of the internal market and more convincingly address the demand for protection by an electorate that, after the austerity following the Crisis, no longer trusts alternatives based on more liberal stances on foreign relations and the parallel promise of a stronger welfare state.
A big reason why liberal democracies in Europe have remained relatively stable since WWII is that most Europeans have had hope that their lives will improve. A big reason why the radical vote has recently been on the rise in several European countries is that part of the electorate has lost this hope. People are increasingly worried that not only their own lives but also the lives of their children will not improve and that the playing field is not level.
On the one hand, despite some progress in curtailing 'tax havens' in recent years, there has never been as much wealth in tax havens as there is today (Zucman 2015). This is seen as unfair because, if public goods and services (including those required to help the transition to a 'green economy') have to be provided in the regions where such hidden wealth comes from, lost tax revenues have to be compensated for by higher taxes on law-abiding households.
On the other hand, fairness is also undermined by dwindling social mobility. In the last decades, social mobility has slowed down across large parts of the industrialised world (OECD 2018), both within and between generations. Social mobility varies greatly across regions within countries, correlates positively with economic activity, education, and social capital, and negatively with inequality (Güell at al. 2018). Renewed migration from the South to the North of Europe after the Crisis (Van Mol and de Valk 2016) is a testimony of the widening relative lack of opportunities in the places that have suffered the most from competition from low-wage countries.
Globalisation has come accompanied by the Great Convergence between countries around the world but also the Great Divergence between regions within several industrialised countries. The same holds within the EU. In recent years, redistributive policies have had only a very limited impact in terms of reversing growing regional inequality.
As a result, the traditional liberal package of external liberalisation and internal redistribution has lost its appeal with the electorate, conceding ground to the alternative package of the radical right that consists of external protectionism and internal liberalisation.
This is both inefficient and unlikely to lead to more regional convergence. What the political and policy debate in Europe is arguably missing is a clearer focus on two of the main underlying causes of peoples' growing distrust in national and international institutions: fiscal fairness and social mobility.
See original post for references
Jesper , July 3, 2019 at 12:37 pm
When did this traditional liberal package mentioned in the concluding remarks ever happen?
the traditional liberal package of external liberalisation and internal redistribution has lost its appeal with the electorate
Maybe if it was clear who got it, what it was, when it was done, how it happened then people might find this liberal package appealing.
flora , July 3, 2019 at 11:26 pm
Right. It would be better to say "the traditional New Deal liberal package " has not lost its appeal, it was killed off bit by bit starting with NAFTA. From a 2016 Thomas Frank essay in Salon:
That appeal to [educated credentialed] class unity gives a hint of what Clintonism was all about. To owners and shareholders, who would see labor costs go down as they took advantage of unorganized Mexican labor and lax Mexican environmental enforcement, NAFTA held fantastic promise. To American workers, it threatened to send their power, and hence their wages, straight down the chute. To the mass of the professional-managerial class, people who weren't directly threatened by the treaty, holding an opinion on NAFTA was a matter of deferring to the correct experts -- economists in this case, 283 of whom had signed a statement declaring the treaty "will be a net positive for the United States, both in terms of employment creation and overall economic growth."
The predictions of people who opposed the agreement turned out to be far closer to what eventually came to pass than did the rosy scenarios of those 283 economists and the victorious President Clinton. NAFTA was supposed to encourage U.S. exports to Mexico; the opposite is what happened, and in a huge way. NAFTA was supposed to increase employment in the U.S.; a study from 2010 counts almost 700,000 jobs lost in America thanks to the treaty. And, as feared, the agreement gave one class in America enormous leverage over the other: employers now routinely threaten to move their operations to Mexico if their workers organize. A surprisingly large number of them -- far more than in the pre-NAFTA days -- have actually made good on the threat.
Twenty years later, the broader class divide over the subject persists as well. According to a 2014 survey of attitudes toward NAFTA after two decades, public opinion remains split. But among people with professional degrees -- which is to say, the liberal class -- the positive view remains the default. Knowing that free-trade treaties are always for the best -- even when they empirically are not -- seems to have become for the well-graduated a badge of belonging.
The only internal redistribution that's happened in the past 25 – 30 yearsis from the bottom 80% to the top 10% and especially to the top 1/10th of 1 %.
Not hard to imagine why the current internal redistribution model has lost its appeal with the electorate.
Sound of the Suburbs, , July 3, 2019 at 1:50 pm
UK policymakers had a great plan for globalisation.
Everyone needs to specialise in something and we will specialise in finance based in London.
That was it.
rd , , July 3, 2019 at 1:58 pm
I think there are two different globalizations that people are responding to.
1. Their jobs go away to somewhere in the globe that has lower wages, lower labor protections, and lower environmental protections. So their community largely stays the same but with dwindling job prospects and people slowly moving away.
2. The world comes to their community where they see immigrants (legal, illegal, refugees) coming in and are willing to work harder for less, as well as having different appearance, languages, religion, and customs. North America has always had this as we are built on immigration. Europe is much more focused on terroire. If somebody or something has only been there for a century, they are new.
If you combine both in a community, you have lit a stick of dynamite as the locals feel trapped with no way out. Then you get Brexit and Trump. In the US, many jobs were sent overseas and so new people coming in are viewed as competitors and agents of change instead of just new hired help. The same happened in Britain. In mainland Europe with less inequality and more job protection, it is more of just being overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of newcomers in a society that does not prize that at all.
Sound of the Suburbs, , July 3, 2019 at 2:04 pm
I saw the warning signs when Golden Dawn appeared in Greece
The liberals said it was just a one off, as they always do, until it isn't.
How did successful Germany turn into a country where extremism would flourish?
The Hartz IV reforms created the economic hardship that causes extremism to flourish.
"Germany is turning to soft nationalism. People on low incomes are voting against authority because the consensus on equality and justice has broken down. It is the same pattern across Europe," said Ashoka Mody, a former bail-out chief for the International Monetary Fund in Europe.
Mr Mody said the bottom half of German society has not seen any increase in real incomes in a generation. The Hartz IV reforms in 2003 and 2004 made it easier to fire workers, leading to wage compression as companies threatened to move plants to Eastern Europe.
The reforms pushed seven million people into part-time 'mini-jobs' paying €450 (£399) a month. It lead to corrosive "pauperisation". This remains the case even though the economy is humming and surging exports have pushed the current account surplus to 8.5pc of GDP."
This is a successful European country, imagine what the others look like.
Adam1 , July 3, 2019 at 2:20 pm
"British referendum on EU membership can be explained to a remarkable extent as a vote against globalisation much more than immigration "
As an FYI to the author immigration is just the flip side of the same coin. Why were immigrants migrating? Often it's because they can no longer make a living where they left. Why? Often globalization impacts.
Summer , July 3, 2019 at 4:23 pm
Another recap about that really just mourns the lack of trust in the establishment, with no answers. More "I can't believe people are sick to death of experts of dubious skills but networking "
What it is just admitted that a system that can only work great for 20% of any given population if they are born in the right region with the right last name just simply not work except as an exercise in extraction?
And about the EU as if it could never be taken over by bigger authoritatians than the ones already populating it. Then see how much those who think it is some forever bastion of liberalism over sovereignity likes it .
Which is worse - bankers or terrorists , July 4, 2019 at 7:21 am
"Another recap about that really just mourns the lack of trust in the establishment, with no answers."
Usually it involves replacing the establishment or creating an internal threat to reinstate compliance in the establish (Strauss and Howe).
Strategies for initiate the former may be impossible in this era where the deep state can read your thoughts through digital media so you would like it would trend to the latter.
stan6565 , July 3, 2019 at 4:35 pm
Mmmmm, yes, migration, globalisation and such like.
But, unregulated migration into an established environment, say a country, say, UK, on one hand furthers profits to those benefiting from low labour wages (mainly, friends of people working for governments), but on the other leads to creation of parallel societies, where the incoming population brings along the society they strived to escape from. The Don calls these sh***hole societies. Why bring the f***ing thing here, why not leave it where you escaped from.
But the real betrayal of the native population happens when all those unregulated migrants are afforded immediate right to social security, full access to NHS and other aspects of state support, services that they have not paid one penny in support before accessing that particular government funded trough. And then the parasitic growth of their "family and extended family" comes along under the banner of "human rights".
This is the damnation of the whole of Western Civilisation which had been hollowed out from within by the most devious layer of parasitic growth, the government apparatus. The people we pay for under the auspices that they are doing some work for us, are enforcing things that treat the income generators, the tax paying society as serfs whose primary function in life is to support the parasites (immigrants) and parasite enablers (government).
The laws of biology and physics and whatever else say that the host that is being parasitised upon, cannot support the endless growth of the parasites attached upon it. The unfortunate host will eventually die.
Understanding of this concept is most certainly within mental capabilities of all those employed as the "governing classes " that we are paying for through our taxes.
Until such time when legislation is enacted that each and every individual member of "government classes " is made to pay, on an indemnity basis, through financial damages, forced labour, organs stripping or custodial penalties, for every penny (or cent, sorry, yanks), of damage they inflict on us taxpayers, we are all just barking.
Skip Intro , July 3, 2019 at 4:49 pm
This piece does an admirable job conflating globalisation and the ills caused by the neoliberal capture of social democratic parties/leaders. Did people just happen to lose hope, or were they actively betrayed? We are left to guess.
"negative effects of globalisation: foreign competition, factory closures, persistent unemployment, stagnating purchasing power, deteriorating infrastructures and public services"
Note that these ills could also be laid at the feet of the austerity movement, and the elimination/privatisation of National Industrial Policy, both cornerstones of the neoliberal infestation.
Summer , July 3, 2019 at 5:56 pm
Not only is globalization not new, all of the issues that come with it are old news.
All of it.
Part of the problem is that the global economic order is still in service to the same old same old. They have to rebrand every so often to keep the comfortable even more comfortable.
Those tasked with keeping the comfortable more comfortable have to present this crap as "new ideas" for their own careerism or actually do not realize they haven't espoused a new idea in 500 years.
K Lee , July 5, 2019 at 9:12 am
Putin's recent interview with Financial Times editor offers a clear-eyed perspective on our changing global structure:
"What is happening in the West? What is the reason for the Trump phenomenon, as you said, in the US? What is happening in Europe as well? The ruling elites have broken away from the people. The obvious problem is the gap between the interests of the elites and the overwhelming majority of the people.
Of course, we must always bear this in mind. One of the things we must do in Russia is never to forget that the purpose of the operation and existence of any government is to create a stable, normal, safe and predictable life for the people and to work towards a better future.
You know, it seems to me that purely liberal or purely traditional ideas have never existed. Probably, they did once exist in the history of humankind, but everything very quickly ends in a deadlock if there is no diversity. Everything starts to become extreme one way or another.
Various ideas and various opinions should have a chance to exist and manifest themselves, but at the same time interests of the general public, those millions of people and their lives, should never be forgotten. This is something that should not be overlooked.
Then, it seems to me, we would be able to avoid major political upheavals and troubles. This applies to the liberal idea as well. It does not mean (I think, this is ceasing to be a dominating factor) that it must be immediately destroyed. This point of view, this position should also be treated with respect.
They cannot simply dictate anything to anyone just like they have been attempting to do over the recent decades. Diktat can be seen everywhere: both in the media and in real life. It is deemed unbecoming even to mention some topics. But why?
For this reason, I am not a fan of quickly shutting, tying, closing, disbanding everything, arresting everybody or dispersing everybody. Of course, not. The liberal idea cannot be destroyed either; it has the right to exist and it should even be supported in some things. But you should not think that it has the right to be the absolute dominating factor. That is the point. Please." ~ Vladmir Putin
He's talking about the end of neoliberalism, the economic fascism that has gripped the world for over 40 years:
"If you're not willing to kill everybody who has a different idea than yourself, you cannot have Frederick Hayek's free market. You cannot have Alan Greenspan or the Chicago School, you cannot have the economic freedom that is freedom for the rentiers and the FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) sector to reduce the rest of the economy to serfdom." ~ Michael Hudson
Let's get back to using fiscal policy for public purpose again, to granting nations their right to self-determination and stopping the latest desperate neoliberal attempt to change international norms by installing fascist dictators (while pretending they are different) in order to move the world backwards to a time when "efforts to institutionalize standards of human and civil rights were seen as impingements on sovereignty, back to the days when no one gave a second thought to oppressed peoples."
kristiina , July 4, 2019 at 2:47 am
Very interesting article, and even more interesting conversation! There is a type of argument that very accurately points out some ills that need addressing, and then goes on to spout venom on the only system that might be able to address those ills.
It may be that the governing classes are making life easy for themselves. How to address that is the hard and difficult issue. Most of the protection of the small people comes from government. Healthcare, schools, roads, water etc.(I'm in scandinavia).
If the government crumbles, the small people have to leave. The most dreadful tyranny is better than a failed state with warring factions.
The only viable way forward is to somehow improve the system while it is (still) running. But this discussion I do not see anywhere.
If the discussion does not happen, there will not be any suggestions for improvement, so everything stays the same. Change is inevitable – it what state it will catch us is the important thing. A cashier at a Catalonian family vineyard told me the future is local and global: the next level from Catalonia will be EU. What are the steps needed to go there?
SteveB , July 4, 2019 at 5:54 am
Same old, Same old. Government is self-corrupting and is loath to change. People had enough July fourth 1776.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
FWIW: The fireworks we watch every Fourth of July holiday are symbolic!!!!
John , July 4, 2019 at 5:43 pm
The cashier seems to be envisioning a neoliberal paradise where the nation-state no longer exists. But who, then, collects the taxes that will pay for infrastructure, healthcare, education, public housing, and unemployment insurance? The European Parliament?
Will Germans and Finns be willing to pay high taxes in order to pay for those services for Greeks and Spaniards?
Look at the unemployment rate in Greece the Germans would simply say that the Greeks are lazy parasites and don't want to work (rather than understand that the economic conditions don't allow for job creation), and they would vote for MEPs that vote to cut taxes and welfare programs.
But maybe this was the plan all along you create this neoliberal paradise, and slowly but surely, people will dismantle all but the bare bones of the welfare state.
John , July 4, 2019 at 5:35 pm
I believe that one of the fundamental flaws in the logic behind the EU is this assumption of mobility. Proponents of the EU imagine society to be how it is described in economics textbooks: a bunch of individual actors seeking to maximize their incomes that don't seem to exist in any geographic context. The reality is that people are born into families and communities that speak a language. Most of them probably don't want to just pack up all of their things, relocate, and leave their family and home behind every time they get a new job. People throughout history have always had a very strong connection to the land on which they were raised and the society into which they were brought up; more accurately, for most of human history, this formed the entire existence, the entire universe, of most people (excluding certain oppressed groups, such as slaves or the conquered).
Human beings are not able to move as freely as capital. While euros in Greece can be sent to and used instantly in Germany, it is not so easy for a Greek person to leave the society that their ancestors have lived in for thousands of years and move to a new country with a new culture and language. For privileged people that get to travel, this doesn't sound so bad, but for someone whose family has lived in the same place for centuries and never learned to speak another language, this experience would be extremely difficult. For many people over the age of 25, it might not even be a life worth living.
In the past, economic difficulties would lead to a depreciation of a nation's currency and inflation. But within the current structure of the Eurozone, it results in deflation as euros escape to the core countries (mainly Germany) and unemployment. Southern Europeans are expected to leave everything they have ever known behind and move to the countries where there is work, like Germany or Holland. Maybe for a well-educated worldly 18 year old, that's not so bad, but what about a newly laid-off working class 35 year-old with a wife and kids and no college degree? He's supposed to just pick up his family and leave his parents and relatives behind, learn German, and spend the rest of his life and Germany? His kids now have to be German? Would he even be able to get a job there, anyway? Doing what? And how is he supposed to stop this from happening, how is he supposed to organize politically to keep jobs at home? The Greek government can hardly do anything because the IMF, ECB, and European Commission (all unelected officials) call the shots and don't give them any fiscal breathing room (and we saw what happened the last time voters tried to assert their autonomy in the bailout deal referendum), and the European Parliament doesn't have a serious budget to actually do anything.
I'm surprised more people don't vote for neo-fascist parties like the Golden Dawn. Ordinary liberal politics has completely failed them.
Jul 05, 2019 | www.unz.com
Miro23 says: July 5, 2019 at 11:09 am GMT 400 Words
This is a very good article on UK politics, but I would have put more emphasis on the background. Where we are today has everything to do with how we got here.
The UK has this basic left/right split (Labour/Conservative) reaching far back into its class based history. Sad to say, but within 5 seconds a British person can determine the class of the person they are dealing with (working/ middle/ upper) and act accordingly – referencing their own social background.
Margaret Thatcher was a lower middle class grocer's daughter who gained a rare place at Oxford University (on her own high intellectual merits), and took on the industrial wreckers of the radical left (Arthur Scargill etc.). She consolidated her power with the failure of the 1984-85 Miner's Strike. She introduced a new kind of Conservatism that was more classless and open to the talents, adopting free market Neoliberalism along with Ronald Reagan. A large section of the aspirational working class went for this (many already had middle class salaries) and wanted that at least their children could join the middle class through the university system.
The key point, is that this happened in the 1980's – 90's. Vast profit possibilities were opening up through digitalization, corporate outsourcing, globalization and the internet. The globalists urgently wanted that money, and had to have political compliance. They found it in Neoliberalism and hijacked both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, creating "New Labour" (leader Tony Blair) through classless "modernization" following Margaret Thatcher's lead.
The story now, is that the UK public realize that the Globalist/Zionist/SJW/Open Frontiers/ Neoliberal crowd are not their friends . So they (the public) are backtracking fast to find solid ground. In practice this means 1) Leave the Neoliberal/Globalist EU (which has also been hijacked) using Brexit 2) Recover the traditional Socialist Labour Party of working people through Jeremy Corbyn 3) Recover the traditional Conservative Party ( Britain First) through Nigel Farage and his Brexit movement.
Hence the current and growing gulf that is separating the British public from its Zio-Globalist elite + their media propagandists (BBC, Guardian etc.).
Digital Samizdat , says: July 5, 2019 at 12:43 pm GMT@Miro23Parfois1 , says: July 5, 2019 at 1:18 pm GMT
She introduced a new kind of Conservatism that was more classless …
Or just plain anti-working class.
It was actually Thatcher who started the neo-liberal revolution in Britain. To the extent that she refused to finish it, the elites had Tony Blair in the wings waiting to go.Harbinger , says: July 5, 2019 at 1:47 pm GMT
Great blast by Jonathan Cook – I feel as if he has read my thoughts about the political system keeping the proles in an Orwellian state of serfdom for plunder and abuse under the guise of “democracy” and “freedom”. Under this system if anyone steps out of line is indeed sidelined for the “anti-semitic” treatment, demonized, vilified and, virtually hanged and quartered on the public square of the mendacious media.
In the good old days, when there was a militant working class and revolting (!) unionism, we would get together at meetings, organize protests and strikes and confront bosses and officialdom. There was camaraderie, solidarity, loyalty and confident defiance that we were fighting for a better world for ourselves and our children – and also for people less fortunate than us in other countries.
But the ideas of the Chicago School in cohorts with the Frankfurters and Tavistockers were already undermining our hopeful vision of the world while the think tanks at the foundations, councils and institutes were flooding the academies with the doctrines of hardhead uncompromising Capitalism to suck the blood off the proles into anaemic immiseration and apathetic insouciance.
... ... ... .
With the working class defeated and gone, where is the spirit of resistance to spring from? Not from the selfishness of the new generation of smartphone addicts whose world has shrunk to the atomic MEism and who refuse to open their eyes to what is staring in their face: debt slavery, for life. Maybe the French can do it again. Allez Gilets Jaunes!@Miro23 ic get pissed off and vote in the conservatives who then privatise everything. And this game continues on and on. The British public are literally headless chickens running around not knowing what on earth is going on. They’re not interested in getting to the bottom of why society is the way it is. They’re all too comfortable with their mortgages, cars, holidays twice a year, mobile phones, TV shows and football.Miro23 , says: July 5, 2019 at 3:05 pm GMT
When all of this disappears, then certainly, they will start asking questions, but when that time comes they will be utterly powerless to do anything, as a minority in their own land. Greater Israel will be built when that time comes.@Digital Samizdat itants and win – which she did.
No one at the time had much idea about Neoliberalism and none at all about Globalization. This was all in the future.
And it was the British working class who were really cutting their own throats, by wrecking British industry (their future employment), with constant political radicalism and strikes.
Jun 29, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
gzon , Jun 29, 2019 8:49:43 AM | 129@ snake 90
"Nationality, is a named object, programmed by propaganda."
Nationality in the formal sense, derives from two or more feudal monopolies defining their differences and according a separate recognition to the other, usually including geographical markers. The extension of personal identity to national identity is product of the recognition of belonging to one specific feudal hierarchy. This might be natural or imposed, the theme of nation literally implies the environment or peoples one is born into.
The term multi-cultural is propaganda, the shift from "nation" to "culture" is used to atomise the perception of belonging that nation implies, into becoming one amongst many under the authority of state, which at this point has usually become an impersonal law and structure from which a bureaucratic elite govern and thrive off of private enterprise, where before a feudal lordship profited by taking a share of personal endeavour. The extremes might be Frankfurt school vs serfdom, with various combinations of philosophy in-between.
The evolution of the above has been observed to occur by financial means, but is itself also an ideology. The capitalist side to this ranges from the granting of favours (as per permission to reside) through to fractional lending backed only by national debt (spending). The taxation that must still occur to provide a sense of connectedness to real economy, and hence to provide a sense of value to the currency, punishes the established and functional society. The sum when mispent goes towards recruiting new nationals, and on paying the elite bureaucracy for their pet projects. The old hierarchy tends to maintain much control the private financial sphere, and works with the state by granting it a certain legitimacy, as well as receiving positions, contracts and favours.
The economic zionism you describe is via knowledge of finance, monetary theory, trade, weaknesses in society, political reality and more. It uses international realities as a tool. Where before international banking was a measure of trust in the clearing of accounts, this left room for manipulation, and the ability to pressure by holding control of that accounting. The reality though is that nations (leaders) became weak or corrupted, decided on grand enterprise they could not repay, and so broke trust in the old order by resorting to or accepting manipulation of accounts (for example ending the original European Monetary Union of the 19th century), and eventually resorting to war amongst themselves where outward conquest was no longer profitable enough.
Were, or are they, clients of monopolies though ? Well no, because it is an illusion that anyone holds monopoly of finance or money. However they did commit themselves to a system without which they would then be left weak, where they would lose public honour and respect if they did not produce a result of some kind. The resulting corruption between various sides became a feature of national policy, a kind of symbiosis at elite levels. "Multiculturalism" helps hide that reality, as well as serving in terms of having population with weakened identity at their disposal.
The only monopoly states are truly client to is that of the use of force.
On a more social side, there are corners of the world where various cultures exist well side by side, and where interaction is positive. This even within the boundaries of one country. However it is not that country that makes that work, the different cultures tend to hold a deeper respect and understanding for one another, but if you look you will find that they do keep to themselves voluntarily, and simply reside next to each other peacefully. They don't call themselves multiculti or anything. I expect multiculturalism theoretically could exist, but because it is so artificial a concept, it seems more like an ersatz for loss of own culture, so being sad cheap and empty once trying to celebrate it returns to common day to day reality.
You are right about the correct form being a society that knows itself, that naturally governs and watches over itself. This is often criticised as simplistic or idealised, and the reason for that is that those who seek more centralised control only have the view of putting down vast law as scripture and then forcefully imposing it, they love complexity so as to be those that clarify it. If we live outside of that the rules, and life, are much simpler, and fortunately most people have an innate understanding of right and wrong somewhere. The local culture explains or represents the true form of interaction, so if that becomes confused, so does society, and strife and unhappiness results.
Here is an interesting and very readable explanation on monetary theory, it gives a quite clear explanation of how finance actually works in social and political terms
ralphieboy , Jun 29, 2019 9:08:22 AM | 130"Multiculturalism" is a loaded term: if it is used to mean different styles of food, music and dress, then I am all for it. But it does not mean that the host nation should accept misogyny, homophobia, honor killings or other "traditional values" that immigrants bring along.
And although immigrants should feel free to speak their language at home and even in society, they will have to accept that the language of the law, commerce, education and civil authority is that of the host nation and it is up to them to learn it or at least learn how to work with or around it.
Jun 21, 2019 | www.unz.com
Jake says: June 20, 2019 at 4:24 pm GMT 300 Words @Cleburne
'Christian Zionism' is the direct fruit of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism broadly understood. Over its life, it has manifested itself in many ways. The beliefs were so powerful even before the Puritan revolution that groups of English Dissenter/Low Church Protestants existed that taught that the original natives of Britain, barbarians in every sense, had been uplifted by the arrival of the 10 Lost Tribes of Israel – this was taught to prove that the English had Hebrew blood and so were the Chosen Race, which meant that Anglophone Protestantism (Low Church) was the true faith.
By the dawn of the Victorian age, standard Brit WASP Judaizing had become secular and had discovered that Arabs are also Semites linguistically and culturally. That allowed many of the Brit WASP Elites to adopt Arabs and/or Mohammedanism as their pet Semite to elevate over the vast majority of British Isles natives that they despised.
The religiously pro-Jewish original focus of the culture produced by the Judaizing heresy that was Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was still alive and very powerful at the dawn of the 20th century. That is how the Oxford UP came to publish the Scofield Study Bible.
Churches across the South were remarkably free of any taint of overt Judaizing in the WASP vein until well after WW2. The growth was slow but steady until after the Reagan years, when it exploded. I have seen no signs of a regression in the 21st century.
You also are way off about the economic notions held by rural Evangelicals in the South.
Jun 27, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Just recently, John Judis, undisguisedly a political commentator of the Left, made an important argument in favor of nationalism. "Nationalist sentiment," he writes in his book The Nationalist Revival , "is an essential ingredient of a democracy, which is based on the assumptions of a common identity, and of a welfare state, which is based on the acceptance by citizens of their financial responsibility for people whom they may not know at all, and who may have widely different backgrounds from theirs."
Of course, nationalism can be "the basis of social generosity or of bigoted exclusion." It is therefore important, according to Judis, that enlightened state leaders push nationalism in the proper direction.
Judis points out that while "globalism" is a force that nationalists understandably oppose, "internationalism" need not clash with nationalist sentiment. In a op-ed in The New York Times last October, Judis praised his kind of nationalism as being beneficial to a successful and growing welfare state and a happier world. It can also be, he said, a stepping stone that leads beyond itself to international cooperation .
For those who study European socialism, it is clear that Judis is reprising the position of French sociologist Pierre Bordieu , who argued for decades that a socialist regime must create some kind of social glue to hold its subjects together. Judis is now transferring Bordieu's view to the American political scene.Advertisement
Now, a conference on "conservative nationalism," which will take place in Washington in July , may be pushing a "nationalism" that is at least as adaptable as Judis's. One featured speaker , Claire Lehmann, the founder of Quillette, will be talking about how nationalism "is the antidote to racism." Presumably the more inclusive the operative term, the less likely will be the Left's attack on those wielding it.
The presence of Daniel Pipes and other neoconservatives at this gathering also suggests that at least some of the panelists will be offering two approved concepts of nationalism: propositional nationhood for the United States and solidarity with Israeli nationalism. In both cases, however, the nationalism being advocated ends up tied to an aggressive foreign policy.
Nationalism, in any case, means different things for different peoples. It doesn't hold the same meaning for Estonians or Hungarians, who belong to ethnic, historic communities, as it does for a pluralistic country with hundreds of millions of people and a constantly expanding immigrant population.
In the latest issue of the Rassemblement National monthly L'Incorrect , Steve Bannon speaks of the natural fit between European nationalism and the nationalist movement that he has been promoting in the United States. Both these ideologies, Bannon says, derive from the same national principle. In an interview with me in the same publication, I treated Bannon's contention as wishful thinking. The United States has become too diverse and too culturally disunited to fit a traditional national model. Our use of nationalism will likely lead to something less quaint and less organic but more explosive than what comes from the Baltic nationalists or Viktor Orbán.The Nationalist Delusion The New Nationalism Won't Save the Right
The nationalist label has now fallen into the hands of the neocon establishment, which has managed to identify it with international meddling and a creedal nation. In other words, it's been appropriated by those who already wielded power.
The same protean label is also likely to wander onto the Left, given the nontraditional and very pliable nature of our "nationalism." John Judis may in fact be the harbinger of a new American Left that celebrates nationalism, provided that Left is allowed to define that term for the rest of us. Indeed, it may be possible to frame LGBT rights and reparations for blacks as "nationalist" issues. Nationalism also need not hinder us from letting in lots of undocumented immigrants who are only trying to join our team and learn our values.
Men and women of the interwar Right, down to such later figures as Russell Kirk and Robert Nisbet, were understandably critical of American nationalism. They identified it with social engineering and centralized government and preferred localism and regionalism to any justification for an expansionist administrative state.
But what makes American nationalism even more unpalatable now than when Robert Nisbet famously denounced it in The Present Age: Progress and Anarchy in Modern America is its rhetorical availability. It serves different agendas, depending on which power bloc appeals to it. The hope once entertained by Pat Buchanan that a nationalist cause would help slow down immigration and preserve America's traditional moral and cultural identity has not worked out as planned. Those who control our politics and culture determine the meaning of terms, which is as true of nationalism as it is of other political labels like "freedom" and "equality."
Until recently, nationalism had portentous associations for much of the political class. It signified, rightly or wrongly, ethnocentricity and dislike for outsiders. Now that's all changing. Those in power have tamed the concept and are recycling it for their own purposes. Stay tuned.Paul Gottfried is Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown College, where he taught for 25 years. He is a Guggenheim recipient and a Yale Ph.D. He is the author of 13 books, most recently Fascism: Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents .
Apr 11, 2019 | discussion.theguardian.com
Olympia1881 -> GeorgeMonbiot , 11 Apr 2019 05:37I've always said that brexit is the shock doctrine in the UK. They tried it in unstable societies and now they are doing it to us.
Jun 13, 2019 | www.theguardian.com
Looks like firms like 23andMe opened the can of worms... Use of genetics to substantiate racist stereotypes
For almost two decades, Farber and his colleagues have advocated for this immigrant community in the face of what they see as targeted discrimination. In cases of marriage, Farber acts as a type of rabbinical lawyer, pulling together documentation and making a case for his clients in front of a board of rabbinical judges. He fears that DNA testing will place even more power in the hands of the Rabbinate and further marginalize the Russian speaking community. "It's as if the rabbis have become technocrats," he told me. "They are using genetics to give validity to their discriminatory practices."
Despite public outrage and protests in central Tel Aviv, the Rabbinate have not indicated any intention of ending DNA testing, and reports continue to circulate in the Israeli media of how the test is being used. One woman allegedly had to ask her mother and aunt for genetic material to prove that she was not adopted. Another man was asked to have his grandmother, sick with dementia, take a test.
Boris Shindler, a political activist and active member of the Russian speaking community, told me that he believes that the full extent of the practice remains unknown, because many of those who have been tested are unwilling to share their stories publicly out of a sense of shame. "I was approached by someone who was married in a Jewish ceremony maybe 15, 20 years ago, who recently received an official demand saying if you want to continue to be Jewish, we'd like you to do a DNA test," Shindler said. "They said if she doesn't do it then she has to sign papers saying she is not Jewish. But she is too humiliated to go to the press with this."
What offends Shindler most is that the technique is being used to single out his community, which he sees as part of a broader stigmatization of Russian speaking immigrants in Israeli society as unassimilated outsiders and second-class citizens. "It is sad because in the Soviet Union we were persecuted for being Jewish and now in Israel we're being discriminated against for not being Jewish enough," he said.
As well as being deeply humiliating, Shindler told me that there is confusion around what being genetically Jewish means. "How do they decide when someone becomes Jewish," he asked. "If I have 51% Jewish DNA does that mean I'm Jewish, but if I'm 49% I'm not?"
Jun 11, 2019 | crookedtimber.org
MisterMr 06.11.19 at 11:16 am@nastywoman 26
" -- seems to me a very complicated explanation for: If a country doesn't produce what it consumes Such a country is entirely F ed!"
This is totally NOT what I said, so I'll restate my point differently.
IF people (localists, sovereignists etc.) really wanted less globalisation, without global supply chains, etc., then it would be possible, at a price (in terms of productivity).
BUT in reality localists, sovereignists etc. don't really want de-globalisation for the sake of it, they mostly want to increase exports and decrease imports, and in fact these localists desires are stronger in countries (USA, UK) that are big net importers, and therefore think they are losing in the globalisation race.
The reason localists want to increase exports and decrease imports is that it is a form of mercantilism: if exports increase and imports decrease, there are more jobs and contemporaneously there are also more profits for businesses, so it's natural that countries want to import less and export more.
BUT exports are a zero sum game, so while this or that country can have some advantages by being a net exporter, this automatically means that some other country becomes a net importer, so onne can't solve the problem of unemployment by having everyone being net exporters (as Krugman once joked by having everyone export to Mars).
So the big plan of localists cannot work in aggregate, if it works for one country it creates a problem for another country. This is a really big problem that will cause increasing international tensions.
We are seeing this dinamic, IMHO, in the Brexit negotiations, where in my opinion many brexiters had mercantilist hopes, but of course the EU will not accept an accord that makes it easy for the UK to play mercantilist.
I'll add that I think that Brexiters don't really realise that they are mercantilists, but if you look at the demands and hopes of many Brexiters this is their "revealed preference".
This is also a problem because apparently many people (not only the Brexiters, see also EU's policies towards Greece) don't really realise what's the endgame for the policies they are rooting for, it seems more like a socially unconscious tendency, so it is difficult to have a rational argument with someone that doesn't really understand what he wants and what he is in practice trying to do.
The reason that every country is trying to play mercantilist is that in most countries inequality rose in the last decades, which creates a tendency towards underconsumption, that must be countered through one of these 3 channels: (1) Government deficits; (2) Easy money finance and increased levels of financial leverage; (3) net exports.
The first two channels lead to higher debt levels, the third apparently doesn't but, as on the other side of net exports there has to be a net importer, in reality it still relies on an increase in debt levels, only it is an increase in debt levels by someone else (sometimes known as the net exporter -- "vendor-financing" the net importer)
The increase in leverage goes hand in hand with an increase of the value of capital assets VS GDP, that is an increase of the wealth to income ratio.
So ultimately the increased level of inequality inside countries (as opposed to economic inequality between countries, that is falling) leads to a world where both debt levels and asset prices grow more than proportionally to GDP, hence speculative behaviour, and an economy that is addicted to the increase of debt levels, either at home or abroad (in the case of net exporting countries).
The countries that seriously want to become net exporters have to depress internal consumption, which makes the problem worse at a world level. The countries like the USA, where internal consumption is too much a big share of the pie relative to what the USA could gain by exports, are forced to the internal debt route, and so are more likely to become net importers.
However, in this situation where everyone acts mercantilist, by necessity someone will end up a net importer because import/export is a zero sum game, so it doesn't really make sense to blame this or that attitude of, for example, Americans for they being net importers: they are forced into it because otherwise they would be in perma-depression.
nastywoman 06.11.19 at 11:31 am ( 30 )“But it is unquestionably and unarguably true that American conflict (which may or may not be of a military nature) with a rising China is literally inevitable”Mike Furlan 06.11.19 at 2:30 pm ( 31 )
As long as the US Casino -(”the stock market”) will react unfavourable to a (real) American-Chinese conflict – there will be no (real) American-Chinese conflict –
(just the games which are going on currently) – and just never forget – all of my Chinese friends are really ”tough gamblers”.@30
“As long as the US Casino -(”the stock market”) will react unfavourable to a (real) American-Chinese conflict – there will be no (real) American-Chinese conflict “
Crash, then conflict?
One possibility is a US market crash entirely due to domestic shenanigans, followed by demagogue blaming it all on “Chiner.”
Jun 11, 2019 | www.amazon.com
Like a thunderbolt that penetrates the dark fog of ideological confusion, American Exceptionalism and American Innocence: A People's History of Fake News -- From the Revolutionary War to the War on Terror , illuminates the hidden spaces of the official story of the territory that came to be known as the United States of America.
Meticulously researched, American Exceptionalism and American Innocence utilizes a de-colonial lens that debunks the distorted, mythological liberal framework that rationalized the U.S. settler-colonial project. The de-colonized frame allows them to critically root their analysis in the psychosocial history, culture, political economy, and evolving institutions of the United States of America without falling prey to the unrecognized and unacknowledged liberalism and national chauvinism that seeps through so much of what is advanced as radical analysis today.
That is what makes this work so "exceptional" and so valuable at this moment of institutional and ideological crisis in the U.S. This crisis is indeed more severe and potentially more transformative than at any other moment in this nation's history.
With unflinching clarity, Sirvent and Haiphong go right to the heart of the current social, political, economic, and ideological crisis. They strip away the obscurantist nonsense pushed by liberal and state propagandists that the Trump phenomenon represents a fundamental departure from traditional "American values" by demonstrating that "Trumpism" is no departure at all, but only the unfiltered contemporary and particular expression of the core values that the nation was "founded" on.
What Sirvent and Haiphong expose in their work is that American exceptionalism and its corollary American innocence are the interconnected frames that not only explain why the crude white nationalism of a Donald Trump is consistent with the violence and white supremacy of the American experience, but also why that violence has been largely supported by large sections of the U.S. population repeatedly.
As the exceptional nation, the indispensable nation, the term President Obama liked to evoke to give humanitarian cover to the multiple interventions,
destabilization campaigns, and unilateral global policing operations on behalf of U.S. and international capital, it is expected and largely accepted by the citizens of the U.S. that their nation-state has a right and, actually, a moral duty to do whatever it deems appropriate to uphold the international order. It can do that because this cause is noble and righteous. Lest we forget the words of Theodore Roosevelt, considered a great architect of American progressiveness, "If given the choice between righteousness and peace, I choose righteousness."
In a succinct and penetrating observation, Sirvent and Haiphong point out:
American exceptionalism has always presumed national innocence despite imposing centuries of war and plunder. The American nation-state has been at war for over ninety percent of its existence. These wars have all been justified as necessary ventures meant to defend or expand America's so-called founding values and beliefs. A consequence of centuries of endless war has been the historical tendency of the U.S. to erase from consciousness the realities that surround American domestic and international policy, not to mention the system of imperialism that governs both.
But the acceptance of state violence in the form of economic sanctions and direct and indirect military interventions is not the only consequence of the cultural conditioning process informed by the arrogance of white privilege, white rights, and the protection of white Western civilization. The racist xenophobia, impunity for killer-cops, mass incarceration, ICE raids and checkpoints, left-right ideological convergence to erase "blackness," are all part of the racial management process that still enjoys majoritarian support in the U.S.
American Exceptionalism and American Innocence 's focus on the insidious and corrosive impact of white supremacy throughout the book is a necessary and valuable corrective to the growing tendency toward marginalizing the issue of race, even among left forces under the guise of being opposed to so-called identity politics.
Centering the role of white supremacist ideologies and its connection to American exceptionalism and innocence, Sirvent and Haiphong argue that "communities and activists will be better positioned to dismantle them." American exceptionalism and notions of U.S. innocence not only provide
ideological rationalizations for colonialism, capitalism, empire, and white supremacy, but also a normalized theoretical framework for how the world is and should be structured that inevitably makes criminals out of the people opposing U.S. dominance, within the nation and abroad.
Paul Krugman, a leading liberal within the context of the U.S. articulates this normalized framework that is shared across the ideological spectrum from liberal to conservative and even among some left forces. I have previously referred to this view of the world as representative of the psychopathology of white supremacy:
"We emerged from World War II with a level of both economic and military dominance not seen since the heyday of ancient Rome. But our role in the world was always about more than money and guns. It was also about ideals: America stood for something larger than itself -- for freedom, human rights and the rule of law as universal principles . . . By the end of World War II, we and our British allies had in effect conquered a large part of the world. We could have become permanent occupiers, and/or installed subservient puppet governments, the way the Soviet Union did in Eastern Europe. And yes, we did do that in some developing countries; our history with, say, Iran is not at all pretty. But what we mainly did instead was help defeated enemies get back on their feet, establishing democratic regimes that shared our core values and became allies in protecting those values. The Pax Americana was a sort of empire; certainly America was for a long time very much first among equals. But it was by historical standards a remarkably benign empire, held together by soft power and respect rather than force." 1
American Exceptionalism and American Innocence refutes this pathological view of the U.S. and demonstrates that this view is a luxury that the colonized peoples of the world cannot afford.
The bullet and the bomb -- the American military occupation and the police occupation -- are the bonds that link the condition of Black Americans to oppressed nations around the world. This is the urgency in which the authors approached their task. The physical and ideological war being waged against the victims of the colonial/capitalist white supremacist patriarchy is resulting in real suffering. Authentic solidarity with the oppressed requires a
rejection of obfuscation. The state intends to secure itself and the ruling elite by legal or illegal means, by manipulating or completely jettisoning human freedom and democratic rights. Sirvent and Haiphong know that time is running out. They demonstrate the intricate collaboration between the state and the corporate and financial elite to create the conditions in which ideological and political opposition would be rendered criminal as the state grapples with the legitimacy crisis it finds itself in. They know that Trump's "make America great again" is the Republican version of Obama's heralding of U.S. exceptionalism, and that both are laying the ideological foundation for a cross-class white neofascist solution to the crisis of neoliberal capitalism.
The U.S. is well on its way toward a new form of totalitarianism that is more widespread than the forms of neofascist rule that was the norm in the Southern states of the U.S. from 1878 to 1965. Chris Hedges refers to it as "corporate totalitarianism." And unlike the sheer social terror experienced by the African American population as a result of the corporatist alignment of the new Democratic party and national and regional capital in the South, this "new" form of totalitarianism is more benign but perhaps even more insidious because the control rests on the ability to control thought. And here lies the challenge. Marxist thinker Fredrick Jamison shares a very simple lesson, "The lesson is this, and it is a lesson about system: one cannot change anything without changing everything." This simple theory of system change argues that when you change one part of a system you by necessity must change all parts of the system, because all parts are interrelated.
The failure of the Western left in general and the U.S. left in particular to understand the inextricable, structural connection between empire, colonization, capitalism, and white supremacy -- and that all elements of that oppressive structure must be confronted, dismantled, and defeated -- continues to give lifeblood to a system that is ready to sweep into the dustbins of history. This is why American Exceptionalism and American Innocence is nothing more than an abject subversion. It destabilizes the hegemonic assumptions and imposed conceptual frameworks of bourgeois liberalism and points the reader toward the inevitable conclusion that U.S. society in its present form poses an existential threat to global humanity.
Challenging the reader to rethink the history of the U.S. and to imagine a future, decolonial nation in whatever form it might take, Sirvent and Haiphong include a quote from Indigenous rights supporter Andrea Smith
that captures both the subversive and optimistic character of their book. Smith is quoted saying:
Rather than a pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness that depends on the deaths of others . . . we can imagine new forms of governance based on the principles of mutuality, interdependence, and equality. When we do not presume that the United States should or will continue to exist, we can begin to imagine more than a kinder, gentler settler state founded on genocide and slavery.
American Exceptionalism and American Innocence gives us a weapon to reimagine a transformed U.S. nation, but it also surfaces the ideological minefields that we must avoid if we are to realize a new possibility and a new people.
May 25, 2019 | www.unz.com1,200 WORDS 34 COMMENTS REPLY RSS
There is a story about an enthusiastic American who took a phlegmatic English friend to see the Niagara Falls.
"Isn't that amazing?" exclaimed the American. "Look at that vast mass of water dashing over that enormous cliff!"
"But what," asked the Englishman, "is to stop it?"
My father, Claud Cockburn, used to tell this fable to illustrate what, as a reporter in New York on the first day of the Wall Street Crash on 24 October 1929, it was like to watch a great and unstoppable disaster taking place.
I thought about my father's account of the mood on that day in New York as Theresa May announced her departure as prime minister, the latest milestone – but an important one – in the implosion of British politics in the age of Brexit . Everybody with their feet on the ground has a sense of unavoidable disaster up ahead but no idea of how to avert it; least of all May's likely successors with their buckets of snake oil about defying the EU and uniting the nation.
It is a mistake to put all the blame on the politicians. I have spent the last six months travelling around Britain, visiting places from Dover to Belfast, where it is clear that parliament is only reflecting real fault lines in British society. Brexit may have envenomed and widened these divisions, but it did not create them and it is tens of millions of people who differ radically in their opinions, not just an incompetent and malign elite.
Even so, May was precisely the wrong political personality to try to cope with the Brexit crisis: not stupid herself, she has a single-minded determination amounting to tunnel vision that is akin to stupidity. Her lauding of consensus in her valedictory speech announcing her resignation was a bit rich after three years of rejecting compromise until faced with imminent defeat.
Charging ahead regardless only works for those who are stronger than all obstacles, which was certainly not the case in Westminster and Brussels. Only those holding all the trump cards can ignore the other players at the table. This should have been blindingly clear from the day May moved into Downing Street after a referendum that showed British voters to be split down the middle, something made even more obvious when she lost her parliamentary majority in 2017. But, for all her tributes to the virtues of compromise today, she relied on the votes of MPs from the sectarian Protestant DUP in Northern Ireland, a place which had strongly voted to remain in the EU.
Her miscalculations in negotiating with the EU were equally gross. The belief that Britain could cherry pick what it wanted from its relationship with Europe was always wishful thinking unless the other 27 EU states were disunited. It is always in the interests of the members of a club to make sure that those who leave have a worse time outside than in.
The balance of power was against Britain and this is not going to change, though Boris Johnson and Dominic Raab might pretend that what has been lacking is sufficient willpower or belief in Brexit as a sort of religious faith. These are dangerous delusions, enabling Nigel Farage to sell the idea of "betrayal" and being "stabbed in the back" just like German right-wing politicians after 1918.
Accusations of treachery might be an easy sell in Britain because it is so steeped in myths of self-sufficiency, fostered by self-congratulatory films and books about British prowess in the Second World War. More recent British military failures in Iraq and Afghanistan either never made it on to the national news agenda or are treated as irrelevant bits of ancient history. The devastating Chilcot report on Britain in the Iraq War received insufficient notice because its publication coincided with the referendum in 2016.
Brexiters who claim to be leading Britain on to a global stage are extraordinarily parochial in their views of the outside world. The only realistic role for Britain in a post-Brexit world will be, as ever, a more humble spear carrier for Trump's America. In this sense, it is appropriate that the Trump state visit should so neatly coincide with May's departure and the triumphant emergence of Trump's favourite British politicians, Johnson and Farage.
Just how decisive is the current success of the Brexiters likely to be? Their opponents say encouragingly that they have promised what they cannot deliver in terms of greater prosperity so they are bound to come unstuck. But belief in such a comforting scenario is the height of naivety because the world is full of politicians who have failed to deliver the promises that got them elected, but find some other unsavoury gambit to keep power by exacerbating foreign threats, as in India, or locking up critics, as in Turkey.
Britain is entering a period of permanent crisis not seen since the 17 th century. Brexit was a symptom as well as a cause of divisions. The gap between the rich and the poor, the householder and the tenant, the educated and the uneducated, the old and the young, has grown wider and wider. Brexit became the great vent through which grievances that had nothing to with Brussels bubbled. The EU is blamed for all the sins of de-industrialisation, privatisation and globalisation and, if it did not create them, then it did not do enough to alleviate their impact.
The proponents of Leave show no sign of having learned anything over the last three years, but they do not have to because they can say that the rewards of Brexit lie in a sun-lit future. Remainers have done worse because they are claiming that the rewards of the membership of the EU are plenteous and already with us. "If you wish to see its monument, look around you," they seem to say. This is a dangerous argument: why should anybody from ex-miners in the Welsh Valleys to former car workers in Birmingham or men who once worked on Dover docks endorse what has happened to them while Britain has been in the EU? Why should they worry about a rise or fall in the GDP when they never felt it was their GDP in the first place?
May is getting a sympathy vote for her final lachrymose performance, but it is undeserved. Right up to the end there was a startling gap between her words and deeds. The most obvious contradiction was her proclaimed belief that "life depends on compromise". But it also turns out that "proper funding for mental health" was at the heart of her NHS long term plan, though hospital wards for the mentally ill continue to close and patients deep in psychosis are dispatched to the other end of the country.
The Wall Street Crash in 1929 exposed the fragility and rottenness of much in the United States. Brexit may do the same in Britain. In New York 90 years ago, my father only truly appreciated how bad the situation really was when his boss said to him in a low voice: "Remember, when we are writing this story, the word 'panic' is not to be used."
May 31, 2019 | www.counterpunch.org
Two related tendencies have sown confusion over the crisis of liberalism that continues to unfold across the U.S. and Europe. On the one hand, the forces of the political right are ascendant. Right-wing leaders are being elected as an apparent rebuke of the serial failures of neoliberalism. On the other, the will of the polity is increasingly irrelevant to the formulation and concerns of nominally public policies.
In the U.S., the political establishment continues to put forward candidates which its functionaries appear to believe can best perpetuate this illusion of democracy. Befuddlement at the rise of reactionary forces is met with an increasingly strident insistence that there is nothing to react against, that all is well if people would only shut up and follow the directions of their betters.
Despite the conspicuous failures of the existing order here and abroad -- a series of murderous vanity wars intermingled with economic crises of increasing scale and scope, the seemingly unstoppable trajectory toward full-blown environmental crisis, nuclear weapons that serve as background psychic violence and political economy that is organized to milk the polity dry at every opportunity, the political powers-that-be seek to perpetuate this radically dysfunctional status quo.
In this environment, the rise of illiberal, reactionary forces seems not only predictable, but to be the ugly cousin of the neoliberal resolve that all is well. Adding insult to injury is the insistence that the neoliberal order, the bi-partisan governance that fronts for the oligarchs, bears no responsibility for the consequences of four decades of neoliberal rule. It is the polity's unwillingness to comport with the dictates of rule by and for the oligarchs that is the point of contestation, goes the chide.
An entire functionary class that smiled and nodded approvingly when Bill Clinton launched his 1992 presidential bid at Stone Mountain, Georgia, birthplace of the twentieth century KKK, while standing in front of neatly ordered black prisoners, is mystified by the re-emergence of white nationalism. And while the Clinton / Biden 1994 Crime Bill wasn't exactly a white nationalist manifesto, it inflicted more racially targeted human misery than the late twentieth century Klan ever could have hoped for.
If enacting punitive measures against the poor is separable from the full throated and bi-partisan endorsement of the quasi-market -- heads, the rich win, tails, everyone else loses, economics of neoliberalism, where is the evidence? And how, precisely, does this con recover from the panicked giveaways of 2009 when the ' runway was foamed ' with the lives and livelihoods of tens of millions of working people and poor to prevent oligarchs from losing their fifth yacht or their seventh vacation home?
The alternative to the vile misdirection of xenophobia would be for the oligarchs and their servants in the political class to confess that their faux-market economics -- trade agreements that created the asymmetry of mobile capital and immobilized labor, was a tragic mistake that displaced millions of workers for the benefit of the oligarchs. With honest accounting of what happened and who is responsible 'off the table,' xenophobia appears to be the preferred tactic of the oligarchs.
The farce of Democratic Party functionaries shouting 'racist' at the thoroughly predictable fruit of their labors has subsided with the political ascendance of Joe Biden to complicate the line between white nationalism and liberal loathing of the audience it helped create. The neo-Nazis marching in Charlottesville were / are white nationalists. But what does this make professional-class liberals who supported the Clinton / Biden 1994 'Crime' Bill under feigned ignorance of its racial subtext?
The sub-textual connotation of the term 'dog whistle' behind the Crime Bill doesn't do justice to the social violence of its facts. The subject-object relation of the political panderer to his / her audience carries with it the moral formulation 1) we agree that overt racism is objectionable because 2) if it weren't, we wouldn't be opaque expressing it. But how is this not to assert that race represents a real, as opposed to manufactured, line of division, something akin to the white nationalist's premise of its essential character?
The dog-whistle is, to the extent that there is an audience for it in the terms given, politically motivated misdirection. The speaker won't be explicit if the audience is clear as to the true meaning of what is being said. But isn't this even more insidious than the straightforward (if ontologically implausible) claim of essential difference by race? The rhetorical layer of 'crime' gives a social logic to a host of punitive consequences. With the Crime Bill, the Clintons and Joe Biden grievously harmed the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of human beings.
There is, of course, a long history behind this relation of law and racial repression. Law, the legislative, judicial, policing and penal functions, was used to maintain the institution of slavery and later, following the Civil War, to recreate its broad contours for purposes of economic taking. Convict leasing, Black Codes, Jim Crow and mass incarceration are part of an historical trajectory. However, to the point made by Adolph Reed, degree matters -- current conditions aren't analogous to those of the Jim Crow South or slavery.
But with this history behind it, what legitimate basis is there for the sub-textual use of a relation of race to criminality? As the patriarch of modern political marketing, did Bill Clinton really believe that there was no racial subtext to his vile stunt at Stone Mountain? More pointedly, through promoting the compound storyline of race and crime, how is Mr. Clinton not promoting a slightly more complex, and insidious, version of white nationalist 'difference?' Alternatively, if crime has a social basis, why would proposed solutions be punitive rather than restorative?
All of this could be ancient history if it didn't exist at the center of current travails. Without an accounting of the failures of liberalism, these compound storylines from history provide the rhetorical core of contemporary politics. It is hardly coincidental that Joe Biden is 1) a dedicated corporatist, 2) a long-time purveyor of racist tropes, 3) the Democrats latest, if improbable, hope for restoration of the neoliberal order.
Joe Biden opposed the racial integration of public schools. He wrote most of the Clinton's 1994 Crime Bill. He was an enthusiastic proponent of NAFTA. He joined the Clintons to support George W. Bush's catastrophic war against Iraq. And he supported the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) until the very end. He authored many, if not most, of the policies of modern liberalism / neoliberalism that are being contested.
By putting Mr. Biden forward as the establishment presidential candidate, the Democrats affirm that they see themselves well-served by reactionary illiberalism. Otherwise, their rhetorical rejections of white nationalism and xenophobia could be supported by robust critiques of their own policies of the last four decades and a well-considered political program to counter their consequences could be put forward. But Mr. Biden is the antithesis of both.
The Democrats co-invented identity politics to defer blame for the consequences of their policies. If they cared about combatting racism and xenophobia, none of the Democratic Party establishment would be considered for public office. The rhetorical distinction between dog whistles and white nationalism begs the question of what objective dog whistles are intended to convey. These aren't precisely the same. Dog whistles are more insidious in that they include compound storylines (e.g. race and criminality) that are more onerous to disentangle.
White nationalism is frightening for its direct ties to the history of racialized violence. However, the scientific racism that served as the 'natural' basis for alleged racial difference used by the Nazis was an American invention. Its proponents were the professional class of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. And the intersection of these two tendencies, the brutal, barely reflexive racial loathing of the Stone Mountain KKK and the educated, liberal use of racist subtexts to facilitate 'respectable' racism amongst the modern professional class, is the apparent point of Bill Clinton's 1992 photo op.
At what point is politics about leading rather than manipulating people via a shared vocabulary? Phrased differently, how is this shared vocabulary not tied to consensus around the logic it represents? So-and-so understands the logic of racism well enough to convey it through coded language and still chooses to perpetuate it for political gain. Why not give his audience the benefit of the doubt and use this understanding to challenge the logic?
The broader backdrop of an ascendant political right in Europe emerges from a similar unwillingness / inability of European liberals / neoliberals to atone for the consequences of their policies and develop alternative political programs. Xenophobia is portrayed as arising from the shadows of twentieth-century European history as a moral failing of the polity rather than the manufactured, and predictable, political crisis that it is.
As with the American refugee 'crisis' arising from U.S. military interventions in Central America, the refugee crisis across Europe is the product of American / NATO led military incursions in the region as well as economic dislocations emerging from the structure of the EU (European Union). One reason why George H.W. Bush decided against occupying Iraq after the first Gulf War was for fear of destabilizing the region. This fear was realized when George W. Bush, with widespread support from the Democratic Party establishment, launched the U.S. war and occupation of Iraq.
Furthermore, as has been addressed ad infinitum over the last decade, through the creation of the EU, member nations exchanged fiscal sovereignty for membership in a trading bloc. When crisis struck, the inability of member nations to respond with fiscal stimulus meant that 'externally' imposed austerity was the only alternative. This flawed structure supported the interests of some member nations (Germany) against those of the European periphery. This institutionalized class warfare, carried out under the cover of fiscal probity, has led to widespread questioning of the nature and purpose of the liberal institutions the EU represents.
Across the U.S. and Europe cottage industries have arisen proclaiming critiques of the EU, globalism and liberalism / neoliberalism to be the work of nascent fascists and neo-fascists. While historical parallels exist, missing is analysis of the parallel failures (then and now) of neoliberal policies as well as a social accounting for the consequences of these failures.
More pointedly, such claims require historical parsing that lacks a cohesive logic outside of political posturing. American slavery and genocide against the indigenous population constituted the initial conditions of American industrial success going into the early twentieth century. Considered in combination with the scientific racism of eugenics, contemporaneous American imperial endeavors and oligarchic control over the U.S. economy going into the Great Depression, the Nazi political program looked remarkably similar to the American program .
Additionally, the genesis of racialized violence in economic relations has been materially misrepresented in current accounts of the rise of European fascism. This history is given substance in Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States . Mr. Zinn provides evidence of race being knowingly used by capitalists to divert attention away inconvenient class interests. This history places the modern Democrat's use of identity politics in a different light. Dog whistles and identity politics are premised in pre-existing and concrete racial divisions.
In contrast to white nationalism, these divisions can have a social basis, rather than in 'nature.' This would seem to make racial identity more malleable, and therefore more amenable to being resolved. But as establishment Democrats demonstrated through their use of dog whistles and racialized policies, rhetorical compounding can put a superficially respectable face on racialized violence. The professional class can respond to 'crime' without considering its history as a strategy of racialized economic taking, its genesis in capitalist class relations, or the violence inherent in policing and incarceration.
The Democrat's apparent strategic confusion in putting Joe Biden forward as the establishment candidate should put an end to identity politics as more than cover for the class interests that the Democrats represent. The studied ignorance embedded in the question: 'If we broke up the big banks tomorrow would that end racism' is oblivious to the relationship between Bill Clinton's neoliberal programs and his racially targeted public policies. Given the historical use of racial division as a tool of class control, the correct answer is yes, breaking up the big banks would be a step toward ending racism.
None of this is to pick on the Democrats per se. Republicans have long fostered / aligned with white nationalism. But again, given the historical genesis of the idea of race, what this suggests is that both political parties serve the interests of capital. Moral distinctions between pandering to white nationalists and the use of dog whistles and racially targeted public policies depend on parsing history in ways that the political elevation of Joe Biden calls into question.
The bitter rhetorical battle over the use, or even the theoretical coherence, of identity politics, has had no apparent impact on the Western political establishment's march into the abyss. A quick bet is that part of the political calculus behind the elevation of Mr. Biden is that he wouldn't hesitate to use dog whistles, racially divisive language and xenophobia if he thought it would help him win the election. The conceit that such would only be a tactic was belied when Bill Clinton used it to craft punitive policies like ending welfare and the Crime Bill.
The West, led by liberal / neoliberal establishments, is in a terrible way. As recent European elections demonstrate, the rise of hard-right governments has followed serial public disappointment with their liberal / neoliberal predecessors. Far from being irrational rejection of functioning liberalism, it is the inability of liberals to accept and address the consequences of their own mal-governance that is leading the move rightward.
Bill Clinton's answer to Reaganism was to triangulate Reaganite policies from the right. Joe Biden is a product of this same time, place and ethos. Whomever the Democrat's choice for president ends up being, without a fundamental redistribution of political power, the outcome will be the same -- a long march into the political abyss.
Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: ROB URIE
Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book Zen Economics is published by CounterPunch Books.
May 28, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Sid Finster says: May 23, 2019 at 11:06 am
Any time you read an article (or a comment) on Russia, substitute the word "Jew" for "Russian" and "International Jewry" for "Russia" and re-read.
If the revised article would not look out of place in Der Stuermer, that should tell you something.
May 27, 2019 | arktos.com
"Those who advocate Multiculturalism seem to have lost an important instinct towards group -- and thus genetic -- preservation. Once a society, as a whole, espouses Multiculturalism as a dominant ideology then the society is acting against its own genetic interests and will ultimately destroy itself."
Watching his incredibly entertaining Jolly Heretic You Tube channel, it's easy to forget that Ed Dutton is also an extremely serious, and increasingly prolific, researcher, author, and scientist. The recent publication by Arktos of Dutton's Race Differences in Ethnocentrism follows closely in the wake of Dutton's At Our Wits' End: Why We're Becoming Less Intelligent and What it Means for the Future (2018), How to Judge People by What They Look Like (2018), J. Phillipe Rushton: A Life History Perspective (2018), and The Silent Rape Epidemic: How The Finns Were Groomed to Love Their Abusers (2019). In Race Differences in Ethnocentrism, Dutton, who has collaborated with Richard Lynn on a number of occasions, builds impressively on the work of the latter and has offered, in this text, one of the most informative, formidable, pressing, intriguing, and poignant monographs I've read in years.ORDER IT NOW
Dutton's book is a work of science underscored by an inescapable sense of social and political urgency, and has been explicitly prompted into being by the need to address two questions "particularly salient during a period of mass migration": 'Why are some races more ethnocentric than others?' and, most urgently of all, 'Why are Europeans currently so low in ethnocentrism?' In attempting to answer these questions, Dutton has designed a book that is accessible to readers possessing even the most modest scientific knowledge, without compromising on academic rigor or the use of necessary scientific language. The text is helpfully replete with explanatory commentary and useful rhetorical illustrations, and its opening four chapters are dedicated exclusively to placing the study in context and exploring the nature of the research itself. This is a book that can, and should, be read by everyone.
In the brief first chapter, Dutton explains ethnocentrism or group pride as taking two main forms. The first, positive ethnocentrism, involves "taking pride in your ethnic group or nation and being prepared to make sacrifices for the good of it." Negative ethnocentrism, on the other hand, "refers to being prejudiced against and hostile to members of other ethnic groups." Typically, a highly ethnocentric person or group will demonstrate both positive and negative ethnocentrism, although it is very common for people and groups to be high in one aspect of ethnocentrism but not in the other. It is also apparent that some countries and ethnic groups are very high in both forms of ethnocentrism while others are extremely low in the same. The author sets out to explore how and why such variations and differences have occurred, and are still fluctuating. This is clearly a piece of very novel research. Dutton remarks that "there exists no systematic attempt to understand why different ethnic groups may vary in the extent to which they are ethnocentric." Dutton's foundation is built on a deep reading of existing literature on the origins and nature of ethnocentrism, pioneered to some extent by R. A. LeVine and D. T. Campbell in the 1970s, and built upon most recently by Australia's Boris Bizumic. These scholars advanced the argument that ethnocentrism was primarily the result of conflict. Another highly relevant theory in the study of ethnocentrism has been the concept of 'inclusive fitness,' which argues that ethnocentrism provides a method for indirectly passing on one's genes.
Dutton closes his introductory chapter by providing an interesting overview of historical observations of differences in ethnocentrism. During the so-called 'Age of Discovery,' Europeans encountered large numbers of different and distant tribes, and many remarked on the reception they received from these groups. Some, such as the natives of Hawaii and the Inuit were noted as being extremely friendly, while the negrito tribes of the Andaman Islands, near India, remain notoriously hostile to outsiders, shoot arrows at passing aircraft, and kill intruding foreigners, including an American missionary in November 2018 . The Japanese appear throughout history to have combined a moderate level of negative ethnocentrism with very high levels of positive ethnocentrism, resulting in a society typified by high levels of social harmony and in-group co-operation, and willing sacrifice for the nation in times of war. By contrast, the Yąnomamö tribe of Venezuela are very high in negative ethnocentrism but very low in positive ethnocentrism, resulting in a society riddled with lawlessness, extreme violence, poor social harmony, and an inability to form stable social structures of any kind. Differences in general levels of ethnocentrism are important because, as Dutton points out, those societies most welcoming of outsiders were subsequently colonized and fundamentally and permanently changed by migration. Meanwhile, those societies that displayed extreme hostility to outsiders have remained almost intact, and remain unchanged even centuries after the European 'Age of Discovery.'
In the second chapter, Dutton answers the question 'What is 'Race'?' Although many of our readers will be familiar with most of the material presented in this chapter, it is nevertheless a very well-presented defense of the concept of race and its unabashed employment as a scientific system for categorizing and studying humans. In Dutton's presentation, 'race' is employed to refer to what in the animal kingdom would be a subspecies: a breeding population separated from another of the same species long enough to be noticeably evolved to a different environment but not long enough to be unable to have fertile offspring with the other group. After discussing the processes through which different races or subspecies evolve, Dutton offers a summary of historical taxonomies of race, before finally answering a number of criticisms of the concept of race. In the third chapter, and following much the same framework, Dutton sets out to answer the question, 'What is Intelligence?' Here Dutton answers a number of criticisms of the concept of intelligence, particularly as they relate to Blacks, before moving to a discussion of race differences in intelligence. The debt to Richard Lynn's research is quite clear in this chapter, but Dutton presents past findings with style, conviction, and novel context, meaning that familiar elements such as Cold Winters Theory are worth getting to grips with once more.
The fascinating fourth chapter is where the study begins in earnest, and answers the question 'What Are 'Ethnocentrism' and 'Ethnicity'?' It goes without saying that both terms have entered, if not dominated, the lexicon of White advocacy, and I found it very refreshing to become more familiar with the scientific basis for them. Dutton, referring to the work of Bizumic, notes that the term 'ethnocentrism' was coined by the Polish sociologist Ludwig Gumplowicz (1838–1909) before entering English with the work of the American economist William Sumner (1840–1910). In order to better explain the nature of ethnocentrism, Dutton lays out various lexical definitions of ethnicity and discusses competing schools of thought in relation to the origins of ethnicity. The division between scholars of ethnicity can be broadly discussed in terms of two camps: 'Primordialists,' and 'Constructivists' or 'Subjectivists.' Primordialists, representing an older school of thought, assert that ethnic groups are extremely ancient and are ultimately based around common ancestry. Supporting this position, Dutton, borrowing from Frank Salter, points out that genetic data shows that ethnic groups really are distinct genetic clusters. Constructivists, on the other hand, assert that ethnic identities are merely a product of culture and environment, and are therefore arbitrary and subject to change. The author spends a great deal of time dissecting the arguments of the Constructivists and, for me personally, one of the great pleasures of Race Differences in Ethnocentrism is reading as Dutton prods and teases and the manifold weaknesses in the Constructivist position.
The author closes the chapter with an extended discussion of the sociobiological origins of ethnic identity, before providing a summary of proffered causes for ethnocentrism. These include threat and conflict, psychodynamic theory as advanced by Freud, terror management (a variation on the theme of threat and conflict), self-aggrandizement theories (ethnocentrism boosts in-group self-esteem), Marxist theory (ethnocentrism is a tactic employed by one group in order to gain power over, and exploit, another group), social dominance theory (ethnocentrism as a side-effect of certain types of personality), socialization explanations (children learn to be ethnocentric), and the sociobiological model (ethnocentrism is a product of evolution and adaptation). Dutton argues convincingly that only the sociobiological model offers answers which explain group behavior in both animals and humans, arguing that "ethnocentrism is most parsimoniously understood via a partly biological theory wherein the ethnic group is a kind of extended family."
In the fifth chapter, Dutton surveys recent evidence for the sociobiological model of ethnocentrism and ethnicity. At the core of the chapter is J. Philippe Rushton's ' Genetic Similarity Theory ,' which is treated with respect but also caution by the author, who insists that "it does not fully explain all manifestations of ethnocentrism and, accordingly, it needs to be nuanced and carefully developed." Put simply, ' Genetic Similarity Theory ' is the idea that animals will instinctively behave more pro-socially to those who share more of their genes, and that ethnic groups, which are essentially extended families, will demonstrate the same inclination towards the genetically similar in the form of ethnic nepotism. It is this inclination to support the genetically similar that paves the way for 'inclusive fitness' -- indirectly passing on at least some of one's genes by supporting kin -- and thus provides some explanation for the origins of altruism. Rushton provided a great deal of research strongly indicating that humans very much tend to marry, befriend, and otherwise associate with those who are genetically similar to them, and this is succinctly explored. Some controversy surrounds the issue of whether or not ' Genetic Similarity Theory ' is applicable to circles beyond genealogical kin, and Dutton explores the work of Frank Salter in support of the idea that it is indeed applicable. The only criticism of the concept that Dutton concedes is that 'Genetic Similarity Theory' does not fully explain variations in ethnocentrism and therefore does not appear to attribute sufficient weight to environmental factors, especially external threats to the interests of the ethny -- a factor that has demonstrably inflamed ethnocentrism throughout human history. Dutton also suggests that fluctuations in ethnocentrism may also be rooted in the dynamics of human personality, both as humans age, and as far as personality is influenced by 'Life History Strategy.'ORDER IT NOW
The sixth chapter, 'Ethnocentrism, Personality Traits and Computer Modelling,' focuses in detail on the issue of personality. Dutton explains that "we have to examine the concept of an 'ethnocentric personality' because there are race differences in modal personality. So, if there is an 'ethnocentric personality,' then this would neatly explain why race differences in ethnocentrism exist." Dutton ultimately dismisses the idea of an 'ethnocentric personality,' particularly the work of Adorno on prejudice, as having very little relevance to meaningful research on ethnocentrism. He concludes rather that it seems very likely that "ethnocentrism is not the by-product of a series of partly heritable personality traits." Instead, "ethnocentrism is a human universal and is significantly genetic, in the sense that propensity to genetic similarity is partly genetic." The chapter then moves to the concept of 'group selection,' during which is it explained and demonstrated that ethnocentric groups are more likely to win the battle of group selection. "The more ethnocentric group should always triumph in battles of group selection. This would mean that, all else being equal, races that were compelled, by the nature of their environment, to combat other groups (by being internally cooperative by externally hostile) would be more ethnocentric." Computer modelling of such battles has demonstrated conclusively that ethnocentric strategies will always triumph, leading Dutton to conclude that universalist humanitarianism is ultimately a losing strategy, "unable to sustain high levels of in-group cooperation." Humanitarian groups invariably "waste their precious reproductive potential helping out free riders who give them nothing in return."
In Chapter 7, one of the best and most provocative in the book, Dutton explores the genetics of ethnocentrism. Dutton takes as his starting point the high level of positive and negative ethnocentrism among Northeast Asians, and attempts to find candidate genes that may play a role in producing this situation. Building on research suggesting that oxytocin may contribute to in-group bias by motivating in-group favouritism and, to a lesser extent, out-group hostility, Dutton points to scholarly findings that Northeast Asians disproportionately possess ("much higher than Europeans") genes identified with fear of social exclusion and higher oxytocin levels (A118G – OPRM1). Further research has indicated that the serotonin transporter gene polymorphism (5-HTTLPR) combines with environmental factors to shape in-group bias. Dutton cites studies showing that "70–80 percent of an East Asian sample carried the short form of this gene, that is to say the form that makes you more ethnocentric. Only 40–45 percent of Europeans in the sample carried the short form of the gene. Indeed, it was found that across twenty-nine nations, the more collectivist a culture was the more likely it was to have the short form as the prevalent allele in the population." Dutton adds that his own work found such correlations to be weak, and he is reluctant to attribute ethnocentrism to small numbers of specific genes. He instead finishes the chapter with the suggestion that specific genes such as these may play a small role, but only in conjunction with Life History Theory -- for example, he provides data suggesting that populations with Slow Life History strategies (typified by higher intelligence, delayed gratification, and higher investment in children) are likely to be higher in positive ethnocentrism.
In Chapter 8, Dutton presents data on race differences in ethnocentrism, and he then explores the impact of cousin marriage and religion on ethnocentrism. The chapter opens with a very interesting discussion of racial dating preferences derived from the OKCupid dating site. The data suggest that, at least in sexual terms, White women were the most ethnocentric group, overwhelmingly preferring to date men from their own ethnic group. By contrast, most non-White groups seemed to have a preference for dating Whites. Dutton explains that this data cannot be meaningfully employed in the study of ethnocentrism because the fact non-Whites want to have sex with Whites merely means that "Whites have value." He continues: "this does not, of course, mean that black people would be necessarily more inclined to lay down their lives for white people, show preference for white interests over those of their own race, vote for whites over members of their own race or any other behaviour of that kind that might be regarded as low in ethnocentrism." Dutton instead utilizes the 'World Values Survey' as a more reliable indicator of ethnocentric feeling, and finds that East Asians are among the most ethnocentric populations. At this stage, the author returns to Genetic Similarity Theory, pointing out that the East Asian gene pool is much smaller than the European gene pool -- in other words, two random Japanese men will be more closely related than two random English men. This is important because
any act of ethnic altruism by the Japanese man would have a greater payoff in terms of inclusive fitness than would precisely the same act by an Englishman. As such, we would expect higher levels of positive ethnocentrism among Northeast Asians than among Europeans. By the same token, were a Japanese person to be confronted by a foreigner, this would potentially damage his genetic interests to a greater extent than would be the case if a European, from a larger gene pool, was confronted by a foreigner.
Genetic Similarity Theory, as outlined above, is particularly salient in Dutton's discussion of ethnocentrism among Arabs and South Asians, populations with high levels of cousin marriage. Arabs and South Asians are more ethnocentric than Europeans but, unlike East Asians, the nature of Arab and South Asian ethnocentrism tends more towards negative ethnocentrism -- something Dutton links to relatively lower average intelligence. Consanguineous marriage, itself a response to a stressful and/or conflict-riven ecology and a means of developing a functioning society in populations with Fast Life History strategies, will accelerate and deepen negative ethnocentrism.
This phenomenon is deepened further by high levels of religiosity, which, Dutton argues, has been demonstrated as boosting both positive and negative ethnocentrism. Among the aspects of religion that contribute to ethnocentrism and group selection, Dutton cites high levels of fertility, matrimony, physical punishment of children, bodily mutilation, honor killing, martyrdom, celibacy, and intense violence or enmity directed at non-believers. I found Dutton's work here to be especially interesting, though I was left with some significant questions about the nature of modern Christianity, something disappointingly absent from Dutton's text despite his rich background in the study of Christian fundamentalists. Why is modern Christianity so entirely lacking in ability to promote any kind of ethnocentrism? My own instinct is that it has something to do with the development and spread of the belief in a "personal Jesus," a largely nineteenth-century American innovation, rather than the older belief in folding oneself into a community of believers under a more distant and overarching God of nations. But this would require an essay, or several, to fully articulate, rather than an aside in a book review. It should suffice to state here that more detail or illustration from Dutton in this regard would have been most welcome.
Dutton spends several pages discussing Jewish ethnocentrism, and is appreciative of the work of Kevin MacDonald in this area. Jews are clearly very high in positive ethnocentrism, as demonstrated by very high levels of in-group philanthropy, belief in themselves as members of a Chosen People with a special world-historical destiny, and the prolific production of self-congratulatory and apologetic literature about themselves that is frequently accompanied by a widespread refusal to make any concessions on negative aspects of the history of the ethnic group. Jews have also distinguished themselves throughout history with very high levels of negative ethnocentrism, including their genocides of other peoples (real or imagined) in their religious texts, very negative portrayals of non-Jews in their religious commentaries, frequent outbursts against Greek cultural influence in the Classical period, exploitative economic relationships with Europeans since at least the Carolingian dynasty, the preference for suicide over conversion in the Medieval period, high levels of culturally disruptive behaviors among host populations in the modern period, and most recently their extraordinarily hostile treatment of the Palestinians. This can be partly explained, as Dutton points out, by the highly consanguineous nature of the Jews. For example, "it has been found that the world's 10 million Ashkenazi Jews are all descended from about 350 Ashkenazi Jews who found themselves in Eastern Europe about the year 1400." High levels of inbreeding have led to the noted prevalence of several genetic disorders among the Jews, including Tay-Sachs Disease, Gaucher's Disease, and Riley-Day Syndrome. Dutton argues that Jews would have been more ethnocentric than Europeans from the earliest stages of their settlement in Europe, and that this ethnocentrism would have been deepened even further over historical time, in successive cycles, by their continued breeding within a small gene pool (intensifying the impact of Genetic Similarity Theory) and their presence in a high stress environment typified by periodic outbursts of reactive persecution (resulting in "harsh selection" for the most ethnocentric Jews). Dutton then discusses the findings of one study carried out by developmental psychologists, in which it was found that Israeli infants displayed unusually intense fear reactions in response to strangers when compared with North German infants. Whereas the North German infants had relatively minor reactions to strangers, the Israeli infants became "inconsolably upset."
The author brings his eighth chapter to a close with a discussion of low ethnocentrism among Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans. Low ethnocentrism among Africans is explained briefly via their very pronounced r -strategy, resulting in low rates of consanguineous marriage and a much broader gene pool and genetic diversity . On the other hand, Europeans, argues Dutton, occupy a 'Goldilocks Zone' of very low ethnocentrism because they are less K -selected than East Asians, have a larger gene pool, and their environment is less harsh, leading to lower levels of group selection. There appears to be a position on the r – K spectrum, lower than East Asian K strategies, where cousin marriage is selected for (boosting ethnocentrism) and this position is occupied by Arabs and South Asians rather than Whites, who instead occupy a position below East Asians but above Arabs and South Asians. The trade-off for this relatively weakened position of Europeans is that for a population with moderate-to-high intelligence, "low ethnocentrism would permit a greater ability to trade and pool resources and so, ultimately, the creation of an extremely large coalition with a very large gene pool. This group would be more likely than a smaller group to produce geniuses."
Dutton thus argues that, in a sense, some level of selection took place for low ethnocentrism in Europeans -- a "genius" group evolutionary strategy. Dutton argues that groups with high levels of genius but low levels of ethnocentrism will triumph over groups with high levels of ethnocentrism but low levels of genius so long as certain conditions are met. The most important condition is that the genius group should maintain a basic level of ethnocentrism. Should this base level decline or collapse, the genius strategy would fail and highly ethnocentric groups would eventually dominate. European ethnocentrism has clearly been stronger in the past than it is at present, a fact the author very capably discusses within the framework of broader fluctuations in ecology (especially the advent of the industrial revolution) and ongoing evolutions in race itself.
In Chapter 9, Dutton explores in detail several variables that may impact ethnocentrism at individual and group level. Highly stressful situations in which survival is at risk have been shown to boost ethnocentrism, and researchers have found that playing violent video games is even sufficient to increase aggression to perceived out-groups. Mortality salience, or the fear of death, has also been shown to lead people to believe in a way which is highly defensive of their in-group. Although Dutton does not explore the theme in any great depth, I was moved to reflect on how anti-stress Western civilization has become during the last 60 or so years, not only in terms of industrialization, radically lowered infant mortality, and medical advances (all of which Dutton explores), but also in the extraordinary emphasis placed by modern culture on individual transient pleasures and prolonging youth (and therefore delaying or avoiding confronting death). Decadence, which is what such a culture essentially decays into, is therefore obstructive or oppositional to the development of ethnocentrism, and 'weaponized decadence' therefore strikes me as a particularly useful strategy that could be employed by a highly ethnocentric group with significant cultural influence in a host society with pre-existing moderate-to-low levels of ethnocentrism -- a way of pushing a stronger "genius evolutionary strategist" into a fatally lower level of ethnocentrism and thus, ultimately, into defeat and destruction. Other variables impacting upon levels of ethnocentrism, and discussed by Dutton, include age, gender, pregnancy, intelligence and education, and ethnic diversity.ORDER IT NOW
I found the last of these the most salient. Dutton, following from Vanhanen and Salter, argues that multi-ethnic societies are much less capable of successfully defending themselves against incursion from outsiders. This is for three key interrelated reasons. The first is lower levels of trust, as sapped confidence in one's group leads to radically fewer sacrifices on behalf of the group. The second is that a multi-ethnic society will be able to draw on significantly lower reserves of positive ethnocentrism. The third is that ethnic minorities will tend to support immigration, essentially acting as a fifth column; allies to the outsiders engaged in incursion. So much for the "diversity is our greatest strength" mantra.
In the penultimate chapter, Dutton makes the argument that the industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for European ethnocentrism. Industrialization has significantly reduced human ecological stress in the West, and has accelerated the decline of European religion -- one of the key supports for an already low level of European ethnocentrism. Advances in medicine and developments in the welfare state have led to wholesale dysgenic impacts such as the extraordinary rise in numbers of people with moderate to severe genetic disorders (26 percent increase in hemophilia, 22 percent increase in cystic fibrosis, and a 300 percent increase in phenylketonuria). The author posits that the increased proliferation of unhealthy mutations has further precipitated the decline of healthy instincts rooted in healthy genes that promoted survival (on a related note, it is interesting that those identified as ethnocentric score very highly in disgust sensitivity -- a trait associated with disease avoidance ). Dutton and some of his colleagues have come to describe such negative mutations as "spiteful mutations" which "cause people to act against their own genetic interests." He continues:
If [carriers of 'spiteful genes'] influence society, they can persuade even non-carriers of these 'spiteful' genes to act in self-destructive ways and they can undermine structures -- such as religion -- which help to promote group interests. Woodley of Menie et al. call this 'social epistasis.' As a consequence, modern (liberal) religion and ideology -- far from being an indirect means of genetic preservation -- would in fact reflect a sick society's growing desire to destroy itself. An obvious example can be seen in the ideology of Multiculturalism and Political Correctness.
In Dutton's reading of our present situation then, the worst of our traitors are in fact what perhaps Nietzsche was referring to when he condemned "the botched and the bungled" -- malformed and maladapted offspring eager for self-destruction, and dragging the healthy down with them.
The final, brief, chapter of Race Differences in Ethnocentrism offers a neat summary of the findings and central arguments of the book before ending on a warning and offering some meagre light at the end of the tunnel. The warning is clear:
Europe is increasingly allowing into its borders people who are extremely high in ethnocentrism as predicted by their high levels of religiousness, low median age, their practice of cousin marriage, low average intelligence, and (likely) low mutational load. We have noted that the ethnocentric strategy will, eventually, tend to dominate all other strategies in the battle for group survival. Alternate strategies can also work, such as the development of large and highly inventive coalitions, but these cannot last if they promote ideologies which are actively to the detriment of their genetic interests, as it happening with Political Correctness, which actively promotes an effective destruction of European people.
And yet this may be a night that is necessary before the dawn, as Europeans are once more plunged into a cleaning cauldron of harsh, selective conditions:
We are now living under these conditions. But it will be the collapse of [European] civilisation and power that will likely lead, many years hence, to their becoming more ethnocentric once again.
It is the humbling, unenviable, and largely thankless task of websites like The Occidental Observer
- obwandiyag says: May 24, 2019 at 2:37 am GMT Oh, positive ethnocentrism is all well and good. It's just that you have to ignore how rotten the actual individual members of your own group that you actually know are. Then, it's pride all the way! Read More • Replies: @Endgame Napoleon , @Anon , @Parsnipitous Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Colin Wright says: • Website May 24, 2019 at 3:23 am GMT • 100 Words ' By contrast, the Yąnomamö tribe of Venezuela are very high in negative ethnocentrism but very low in positive ethnocentrism, resulting in a society riddled with lawlessness, extreme violence, poor social harmony, and an inability to form stable social structures of any kind.'
It would be a cruder version of Israel, then. Read More • Replies: @AaronB Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Colin Wright says: • Website May 24, 2019 at 3:51 am GMT • 200 Words ' "The more ethnocentric group should always triumph in battles of group selection '"
At least in the short term, this would seem questionable.
At one extreme, consider the US from 1780 to about 1970. By very willingly accepting and incorporating newcomers, it increased in size roughly fifty-fold, and grew to be the most powerful state in the world. Our subsequent history demonstrates that it's possible to have too much of a good thing, but
At the other extreme, consider Jews -- a group very assiduously devoted to preserving its group identity, and not at all interested in absorbing outsiders. Over the last century, roughly a third have been exterminated, another third are rapidly being assimilated in the US notwithstanding their efforts at self-preservation, and the last third have decided the course of wisdom is to pack themselves into a strip of semi-desert and attack all their neighbors without actually crushing any of them.
Whatever the failings of the strategy of the US, it's far from demonstrated that the opposite course makes for an improvement. Read More • Replies: @Wally , @notanon2 , @RobRich , @John Gruskos Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Ron Unz says: May 24, 2019 at 4:01 am GMT • 200 Words Well, most of the article was pretty interesting. But I'm quite skeptical about this claim:
Dutton instead utilizes the 'World Values Survey' as a more reliable indicator of ethnocentric feeling, and finds that East Asians are among the most ethnocentric populations.
This doesn't really make any sense. Until the last hundred years or so, I'd guess that something like 99% of Han Chinese had almost never even *seen* a non-Han during their entire lives, and that was also true for almost all of their ancestors for many, many centuries. Probably the same for Japanese and Koreans.
But if you and almost all of your ancestors have lived all of their lives in a nearly 100% ethnically-pure social environment, how would any tendencies toward ethnocentricity ever evolve or be maintained? Wouldn't they be about as useful as wings on a gopher?
In support of this theoretical framework, isn't it an empirical fact that China has always been one of the most "absorptive" nations in the world, with some of the lowest barriers to ethnic intermarriage and assimilation? That's why the Chinese have absorbed so many other groups over the millennia, including all the groups that conquered them.
Moreover, there's that famous dictate by Confucius that foreigners who come to China and act like Chinese should be considered Chinese. Indeed, I think you could make a reasonable case that China is the world's oldest "Propositional Nation." Read More • Agree: Godfree Roberts , Mr. XYZ • Replies: @Thulean Friend , @micheal8 , @AaronB , @notanon2 , @Anon Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Colin Wright says: • Website May 24, 2019 at 4:03 am GMT • 100 Words ' "it has been found that the world's 10 million Ashkenazi Jews are all descended from about 350 Ashkenazi Jews who found themselves in Eastern Europe about the year 1400." '
Given the large Jewish populations expelled from Britain, France, and the German states in previous centuries, this statement seems almost fantastically improbable. Surely there were more than 350 Ashkenazim in Eastern Europe in 1400, and surely more than 350 of them contributed to the genes of the modern population of Ashkenazim. This leaves aside the visible resemblance of German Jews to Gentile Germans, of Polish Jews to Gentile Poles, etc -- and the implications of that. Read More • Replies: @Ron Unz , @Johnny Rottenborough , @notanon2 , @Anon Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Ron Unz says: May 24, 2019 at 4:23 am GMT • 200 Words @Colin Wright
' "it has been found that the world's 10 million Ashkenazi Jews are all descended from about 350 Ashkenazi Jews who found themselves in Eastern Europe about the year 1400." '
Given the large Jewish populations expelled from Britain, France, and the German states in previous centuries, this statement seems almost fantastically improbable.
I'm not up on the latest genetic research, but it does sound a little garbled
From what I recall seeing a decade or so ago, almost European Jews are descended from the offspring of a few hundred Middle Eastern males and Northern Italian females who lived around 500-800 AD (the date was disputed and it's also fuzzy in my memory).
However, by the time the Jews established themselves in Eastern Europe, perhaps around 1000 AD or later, there were probably some tens of thousands of them.
So maybe new scientific findings have updated the history or (more likely) the writer is getting the two different foundation events mixed up. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Endgame Napoleon says: May 24, 2019 at 4:42 am GMT @obwandiyag Glorifying other groups doesn't help to purify your own group, either. Humans are "all too human," as the man said. Where is BatMan when you need him? He is enjoying himself in Gotham & Gomorra. Read More • LOL: Tusk Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Anon  • Disclaimer says: May 24, 2019 at 5:42 am GMT @obwandiyag Ignoring that is harder for some groups who are lousy with rotten members (nearly everyone). Other groups merely have to deal with an unavoidable standard deviation that is part of the human condition. Those groups invented advanced prison systems, long ago, along with the rest of advanced civilization. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Anon  • Disclaimer says: May 24, 2019 at 5:52 am GMT • 200 Words Ethnocentrism is about two things: psychological health and political protection.
That humans require identity and belonging, things that by definition require barriers, isn't debatable in terms of their salubrious effects on the individual's mental health.
Humans require political protection from other groups. Humans without political or other protection that arises from the in-group traditionally had de facto or actual slave status in the presence of other groups. The same is true today.
Slavers, with slaver religions, push for an end to out-group ethnocentrism for their desired slaves because it eradicates that group's ability to politically or physically defend themselves in an effective manner. Due to lack of effective in-group cooperation.
Those resisting slavery should always work to build a deep and single ethnic culture and the genetic in-group that it incubates over time.
Once this is formed, political power will follow via the deep in-group cooperation that this genetically and culturally deeply linked group encourages.
Self-protection, independence, and self determination are all attainable thereafter. All which are correctly seen as fundamental Human Rights.
Those that fail to cooperate effectively enough, even when allowed their ethnocentrism, will continue to be controlled by out-groups. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Johnny Rottenborough says: • Website May 24, 2019 at 10:39 am GMT • 100 Words @Colin Wright Colin Wright -- Haaretz carried the story in 2014:Read More • Replies: @res , @Colin Wright Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
A model based on the genetic sequencing of 128 Ashkenazi Jews concludes that today's Ashkenazim descend from the fusion of European and Middle-Eastern Jews during the medieval era, between 600 to 800 years ago.
The math also indicates that today's sprawling community of Ashkenazi Jews -- there are more than 10 million around the world -- derived from just 350 people or so.
- Sean McBride says: May 24, 2019 at 2:19 pm GMT • 100 Words How would one go about ranking contemporary nations by intensity or degrees of ethnocentrism?
How would one go about ranking groups, organizations, individuals, social networks and publications by intensity or degrees of ethnocentrism?
Could one use automated methods to produce and update these rankings in real time by tracking and mining social media and all media in general?
One obvious approach: count up the number of times an agent mentions its ethnic identity, issues, problems, enemies, etc. in its communications.
Questions that would be interesting to answer: which are the most ethnocentric groups in contemporary American politics? In contemporary European politics? In contemporary global politics?
Which are the most significant and strategic ethnic conflicts in contemporary global politics? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- res says: May 24, 2019 at 7:43 pm GMT • 200 Words @Johnny Rottenborough Here is the underlying paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms5835
One issue here is that the effective population size may be (much) less than the census population size at any given time. This page gives some reasons for that:
For some perspective, 10,000 is commonly quoted as the effective population size for modern humans based on https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0016672310000558
(with most of that variation coming from Africa).
This more recent paper gives a range of 622 to 10,437: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21450133
It would be good to hear from a real population geneticist about this. This graphic from the first link above seems to indicate much larger effective population sizes than the other two links. Note that AJ = Ashkenazi Jewish and FL = Flemish.
Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Colin Wright says: • Website May 25, 2019 at 2:55 am GMT • 200 Words @Johnny Rottenborough 'Colin Wright -- Haaretz carried the story in 2014:
A model based on the genetic sequencing of 128 Ashkenazi Jews concludes that today's Ashkenazim descend from the fusion of European and Middle-Eastern Jews during the medieval era, between 600 to 800 years ago.
The math also indicates that today's sprawling community of Ashkenazi Jews -- there are more than 10 million around the world -- derived from just 350 people or so.'
Then either (a) Haaretz inaccurately reported the results of the research, or (b) the research itself was flawed.
Enough historical data exists so that we effectively know all Ashkenazim were not descended solely from 350 ancestors living between 600 and 800 years ago.
If I announced that a genetic study showed that all whites currently living in America were descended from four hundred Irishmen present in New York City in 1860, would you believe it?
since most of us don't clearly understand genetics or how research into it is conducted, there's a tendency to accept any stated result as certain truth, handed down at Mount Sinai.
Actually, I suspect -- and some of the results proferred imply -- it's no more certain than anything else. Read More • Disagree: Ron Unz Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wally says: May 25, 2019 at 6:43 am GMT • 100 Words @Colin Wright said:
" consider Jews Over the last century, roughly a third have been exterminated"
Complete Zionist horseshit that has not, cannot be proven.
Jews have been lying about '6,000,000 dead Jews' since the early 19th century.
No wonder that it's called The Big Lie .
"No alleged human remains of millions to be seen in allegedly known locations, no 'holocaust'."
See Colin Wright & his curious fantasies demolished in the comments here:
American Pravda: Holocaust Denial , by Ron Unz: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/
http://www.codoh.com Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- VUU THE GREAT says: May 25, 2019 at 8:47 pm GMT • 100 Words Eh, it's the superiority-cuckery cycle
A bunch of dumbasses start being punished for their idiocy, forcing them to adapt and become smart. Then they strut around the world like they own the place, but then relax, become cucked and then regress to the start. At that point another group is on it's rise, or it's a dark age until the same group starts over Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Bardon Kaldian says: May 25, 2019 at 10:24 pm GMT • 100 Words
Dutton then discusses the findings of one study carried out by developmental psychologists, in which it was found that Israeli infants displayed unusually intense fear reactions in response to strangers when compared with North German infants. Whereas the North German infants had relatively minor reactions to strangers, the Israeli infants became "inconsolably upset."
By the way, a very good review &, as far as I can tell, an intriguing book. Read More • Agree: Thulean Friend , anon19 • Replies: @AaronB Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Thulean Friend says: May 27, 2019 at 4:40 am GMT • 100 Words @Ron Unz
isn't it an empirical fact that China has always been one of the most "absorptive" nations in the world, with some of the lowest barriers to ethnic intermarriage and assimilation? That's why the Chinese have absorbed so many other groups over the millennia, including all the groups that conquered them.
These foreigners have been Mongolians, Manchu etc. People who are closely related kin. It's like various tribes of Europe absorbing each other and forming greater nations.
It's qualitively different when you talk about people who look radically different from you, because that implies the genetic distance is also far greater. There is no reason to assume that North East Asians are on par with Northern Europeans in their low ethnocentrism, though it is likely lower than many assume since intermarriage rate with Whites is quite high (but only really with Whites. Whereas Whites mix with a lot of groups). Read More • Replies: @Ron Unz , @david fields Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- anon19 says: May 27, 2019 at 4:44 am GMT All races, except for brainwashed-by-Jews, unorganized whites are extremely ethnocentric. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Cyrano says: May 27, 2019 at 5:03 am GMT • 200 Words I don't think I buy this theory about low European ethnocentricity at all. I think it's all the rich degenerate elites who are to blame for the "decline" in ethnocentricity.
The rich degenerates think that being rich is their ethnicity – and the only one worth defending – not some genetic similarity with the great unwashed whom they despise.
That's why they invented that most humane of all altruisms – multiculturalism – because it defends their ethnicity based on money, to hell with genetically based ethnicity.
I think that ordinary Europeans are as ethnocentric as they always were, someone else is expanding their ethnic acceptance against their will in order to preserve their financial ethnocentricity.
And first of all why blame the Europeans – like they were the ones who invented multiculturalism? If European civilization is going to collapse – it's not going to happen in Europe first – it's going to happen in the birthplace of multiculturalism. Read More • Replies: @Wizard of Oz , @notanon2 , @Anon Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Ron Unz says: May 27, 2019 at 5:26 am GMT • 100 Words @Thulean Friend
These foreigners have been Mongolians, Manchu etc. People who are closely related kin. It's like various tribes of Europe absorbing each other and forming greater nations.
It's qualitively different when you talk about people who look radically different from you, because that implies the genetic distance is also far greater.
At least with regard to China, I just don't think that's correct
As far as I know, Westerners who've moved to China and taken up Chinese wives and Chinese customs have been absorbed as easily as other Asians.
And here's a notable historical example. For various reasons, Jews have traditionally been exceptionally resistant to absorption into local populations, remaining as a distinct group sometimes after thousands of years of living within a particular host population. But China absorbed its Jews long ago, being just about the only documented case that easily comes to mind. Read More • Replies: @jeff stryker , @Wizard of Oz , @Thulean Friend , @j2 , @Anon , @AaronB , @Anon Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Roderick Spode says: May 27, 2019 at 5:26 am GMT
at least in sexual terms, White women were the most ethnocentric group, overwhelmingly preferring to date men from their own ethnic group.
So many Unzers BTFO here Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: May 27, 2019 at 5:37 am GMT • 100 Words @Cyrano Aren't you mistaken in attributing multiculturalism to the rich? Certainly they don't participate in it as perhaps you imply when you say that being rich is their ethnicity. Mark Zuckerberg and his wife are perhaps typical , and, I would suggest, not people of different cultures but from one which is not that of the rich but of the upper middle class educated. Perhaps you are suggesting that people like that underrate the importance of differences in culture that isn't actually part of their experience and therefore rather softheadedly say "each to his own" in libertarian style without understanding what they are thereby encouraging amongst the lower classes. Could you spell out your case please? Read More • Replies: @Cyrano Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- jeff stryker says: May 27, 2019 at 5:52 am GMT • 100 Words @Ron Unz RON
Ashkenazi Jews appear to be 40-50% Italian according to DNA tests on the female side.
Which means at some point following the diaspora from Judea in Roman times there was a massive degree of intermarriage between Jewish men and Roman women prior to the fall of Rome.
Also, considering that Jews trace their origins through their mothers, one would think that they would all consider themselves Italians.
So they Jews had to absorb non-Jews into their gene pool at some point.
As for Westerners assimilating into Chinese culture, this is relatively commonplace. A small number of Portuguese live in Macau and of course there are more recent examples. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: May 27, 2019 at 6:05 am GMT • 300 Words @Ron Unz I have hardly even a vague knowledge of China's absorption of Jews (and haven't, I confess, asked Google an obvious, let alone probing, question). But what you say raises the question of how much more impressed with Chinese culture, custom and governance the Jews in China were than the Jews elsewhere. Dark Ages Europe (and the ME) with Christian mobs destroying ancient art and learning may not have looked good compared with Tang or Sung dynasty China (though I invite someone to tell me about differences within China in those times). Alternatively one might ask whether the Jews in Europe were only clinging to Judaism through desperately strict reliance on the/a Talmud which helped maintain separation whereas the Jews in China may have been free of that limiting influence. Compare indeed the rapidity with which Jews in America, not least, I believe, the poor of Eastern Europe, began to assimilate at least in so far as intermarriage implies assimilation. To that plenty of grouches would no doubt point to Jewish corruption of what the grouches would like to think of as the culture they were assimilating with (whereas I am more a "Jewish Century" interpreter) but my emphasis would tend to be rather on the division and, for a time, arrested development, of American Jewry by the creation of Israel and its drawing on people's need for tribalism and at least equal need to have an object or ideal beyond themselves. (Isn't being a good American enough? Well, hardly, when you are a prosperous part of the one superpower .). I suspect assimilation is going to win. Read More • Replies: @jeff stryker Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Ghali says: May 27, 2019 at 6:06 am GMT Dutton's book has NO science. It is a fabricated lie that relies on racism and prejudice. Multicultural societies are the opposite of monocluturals; they are rich in diversity and culture. Just like monoagriculture, monocultural societies are empty of all the organic ingredients. Read More • Disagree: Robert Dolan • Replies: @Anon Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Thulean Friend says: May 27, 2019 at 6:27 am GMT • 100 Words @Ron Unz
Westerners who've moved to China and taken up Chinese wives and Chinese customs have been absorbed as easily as other Asians.
What percentage are they of the total population? 0.01%? Hardly relevant as an example.
China absorbed its Jews long ago, being just about the only documented case that easily comes to mind.
Jews in China were always an extremely small minority, several orders of magnitudes lower than in leading Western countries as a percentage of the population. Harder to build buffers in such an environment. Also, I would take issue with your characterisation of Jews as unable to assimilate. Non-Orthodox Jews in the US have an intermarriage rate of 72%. The rabbis are constantly reminding us of the 'silent holocaust'. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- notanon2 says: May 27, 2019 at 6:49 am GMT very interesting
Why is modern Christianity so entirely lacking in ability to promote any kind of ethnocentrism?
50+ years of sustained media attack.
the only defense against television is a television station of your own. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- notanon2 says: May 27, 2019 at 7:02 am GMT @Colin Wright with Jews very concentrated in urban areas i would have thought the Black Death could have caused a bottleneck like that (as the plague didn't reach Poland for some reason).
map of spread of black death
note big gap in Poland Read More • Replies: @Republic Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- notanon2 says: May 27, 2019 at 7:32 am GMT @Colin Wright
At least in the short term, this would seem questionable.
the simulations used to study this set a level playing field so it won't be true in all real world situations. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- j2 says: May 27, 2019 at 8:10 am GMT • 400 Words @Ron Unz Ron, the claim, when correctly understood, is correct also concerning China. Chinese are especially negative towards Blacks, anybody with dark skin color. (They think Blacks smell bad.) They appreciate white skin color. They avoid tanning and use whitening creams. Yes, they absorb Whites, including Jews, but they are ethnocentric towards other peoples.
I have this kind of a small theory why this is so. Consider a trait, like intelligence, being not a product of additive gene alleles, but by a combination of favorable alleles of several genes. We can assume the combinations are mostly two gene combinations. Assume a population has two alleles of each two genes (A,a and B,b) with A,a and B,b being each of 50% frequency, and one combination AB raises the trait. Thus, 1/4 of the population has AB. Mixing this population with a population with two other alleles for these genes, D,d and E,e, produces a population where the trait increasing combinations, AB and DE, occur in 1/8 of the population. Thus, the average of the trait decreases from mixing.
From this one can conclude that populations with a large number of alleles increasing the trait has a lower average on the trait, like IQ in Sub Saharan Africa. In SSA genetic diversity is high and thus there are many alleles of all genes. While in East Asia genetic diversity is lower than in Europe and the IQ trait is higher. Indeed, if we plot genetic diversity against average IQ we should get more or less a Piffer plot, a straight line. This would come from a PGS being not additive but a combination of pairs of two (or more) IQ genes. To support this idea, notice that additive positive alleles should make a sweep and become fixed and the variance at the both ends of the trait should be small because the distribution converges to normal. But this is not so, we do not have populations with average IQ of 150, while we have very tall or very short dog races produced by selection. It indicates that the height trait is additive but IQ is not additive.
From this idea it follows that ethnocentrism is higher in populations with low genetic diversity, average values of traits are higher in populations with low genetic diversity (as natural selection cannot act if diversity is high: descendants too seldom inherit the trait of the parents). It would follow that East Asians are ethnocentric, have a higher IQ and low diversity. They would still like to mix with people possessing the trait they admire (white skin), so it is not a contradiction. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- RobRich says: • Website May 27, 2019 at 8:36 am GMT • 100 Words @Colin Wright Good point. As libertarians point out the US grew 30-fold with relatively open borders then tripled that with variations of the current more restrictive but open to extended family/high achievers (Have a close relative, great invention or a million bucks to invest in the US? To the head of the line! Otherwise take a number, BTW the waiting list is 100 years long–good luck!) still pretty open compared to most countries. By 1970 is was near a 100-fold, not 50-fold, growth, so your case is even better. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Republic says: May 27, 2019 at 11:04 am GMT
Some, such as the natives of Hawaii and the Inuit were noted as being extremely friendly,
Didn't Capt.Cook get killed and eaten by those "friendly," natives of Hawaii? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- micheal8 says: May 27, 2019 at 12:32 pm GMT • 100 Words @Ron Unz There are lots of apocryphal data saying many things about the Chinese over history.
Of course, in the US of 330 million people at least 46.6 million are foreign born (by far the highest number of any country, according to Wikipedia).
China has a population of a billion or so, but less than a million foreign born. This despite the dramatic improvement in their culture and economics.
So over 14% of the US population are foreign born vs 0.1% of Chinese. One can argue as to the basis for this difference, but almost all nations are restrictive on accepting immigrants, unless they provide value.
Would seem the Chinese are similar to the Japanese (who are now absorbing more foreigners due to a shortage of young workers), who will not tolerate big changes in their society or mores unless brought about internally. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Catiline says: May 27, 2019 at 12:36 pm GMT Andrew Joyce are you back on Twitter? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- jeff stryker says: May 27, 2019 at 12:45 pm GMT • 100 Words @Wizard of Oz WIZARD
While coming from a similarly ancient civilization I suspect Jews found less ability to trade or profit in China than Europe which is why less of them gravitated there than to Europe.
Jews did not really make much of an impact in India either.
I suspect that because money-lending was never a crime in China or India, there was not much of living in either of those countries for Jews compared to Europe where they thrived.
Jews in America arrived as Edison was inventing the film camera and industrialization required many lawyers, bankers and so on. China never needed these. Read More • Replies: @Wizard of Oz Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- david fields says: May 27, 2019 at 12:56 pm GMT • 200 Words @Thulean Friend I tend to agree with Unz, that Chinese are quite open to mixing with and/or assimilating other ethnic groups. Apart from the well-known examples of Manchus and Mongols, a large community of Jews migrated to China during the Middle Ages and settled in Kaifeng, China where they gradually and non-violently assimilated. If one observes the behavior of Chinese-Americans in the U.S., a large plurality if not a majority marry Caucasians within one or two generations, usually with little opposition from their families.
For a literary work that touches on of this Chinese cultural trait, I refer readers to James McKenna's excellent novel, "The Sandpebbles", which was based on his experience in the U.S. Navy in China in the 1920s. At that time was not unusual for retiring navy enlisted men to settle down in China, often with a Chinese woman. To paraphrase a line from the novel, 'For the Chinese, it's quite natural for a foreigner to become a Chinese'. Read More • Replies: @the grand wazoo Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- AaronB says: May 27, 2019 at 1:55 pm GMT • 300 Words @Colin Wright Astute observation.
Ethnocentrism is not a directly selected for thing – it is unfortunate that HBD promoters no longer understand second-order effects.
To HBD people, every trait is a simplistic directly selected for thing, not a second or third order effect of some other trait.
This is a sign of the declining intelligence of our times, this inability to think complexly.
Anyways, ethnocentrism is a second order effect of egoism – you love yourself, you love your group. Your group is just a version of yourself.
An ethnocentric society is also a highly competitive and stratified by status one internally, because it is a society with a high level of egoism – when whites were ethnocentric, it was the same way with them. And it's the same way in other ethnocentric societies like China.
The reason whites went from being an intensely ethnocentric group to not being one in the space of less than a century has nothing to do with genetics, of course, but because they lost the egocentric perspective – partly as a result of loss of religion, which inculcated positive self image (one is in a relationship with God), and partly as a result of the so called objectivity and neutrality required by science, which makes you lose touch with your natural self love.
If whites ever become ethnocentric again, there will have to be a general rise in competitiveness also.
Of course, the picture is not one dimensional, and is balanced out by warmth, camaraderie, and brotherhood. Israelis are fiercely competitive with each other but also extremely brotherly and helpful to anyone in need.
And whites will be the same way if they become ethnocentric again – but let there be no illusions about the bad side as well. Read More • Replies: @jeff stryker Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Anon  • Disclaimer says: May 27, 2019 at 2:28 pm GMT • 100 Words @Ron Unz It all depends if the other group is thought to be *higher* or *lower* , higher and lower meaning what they quite universally mean in human business.
See how well a vast number of races are absorbed in China
(Corollary 1: a group seeing itself as *above* all others will avoid intermixing with every other group).
I don't venture into saying this is wrong this is right these are better those are worse. Behind the surface, everyone agrees to the rules of the game. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- AaronB says: May 27, 2019 at 2:53 pm GMT • 100 Words @Ron Unz Individual Jewish communities, especially in extremely remote locations without connections to the rest of the world, have disappeared. That's not at all unusual. And Jews have been assimilating into gentile populations throughout history.
Plus, the Jews of Kaifeng have not entirely disappeared.
But I agree with your point that Chinese can and do assimilate racial outsiders – all ethnocentric groups do. There are Chinese and Indian looking Jews in Israel, and of course conversion to Judaism is a very real thing.
I cannot think of any ethnocentric group that isn't prepared to assimilate racial outsiders in the right numbers, provided they demonstrate commitment to the culture – skin in the game – and aren't numerous enough to rapidly alter the racial character. Read More • Replies: @jeff stryker Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- jeff stryker says: May 27, 2019 at 2:54 pm GMT • 200 Words @AaronB AARON
We do see a detente in politics. Jews and Irish-Americans initially distrusted and disliked one another. Southern Democrats, who produced Clinton and Carter, obviously harbored anti-Jewish feelings (The word anti-Semite refers more to Arabs).
However, Irish-Americans and Jews and Southerners worked together in the Democrat party. Without the Jewish vote, Clinton would never have been elected (He was undone by his involvement with one, however).
In this sense, ethnocentrism was replaced by politics.
As for the white identity in America, it was always based upon a value system. Whites were from all corners of Europe and never bound by blood but by a sense of political and moral identity.
Once this was gone, whites had no cultural anchor. Asians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Italian-Americans to a lesser extent always had a cultural anchor of sorts. White Americans, for whatever reason, did not seem to. When drugs swept through America, encouraged by Jews (As well as by Irish-Americans like Timothy Leary and Charles Manson of course) they ravaged whites and not Jews. BEASTIE BOYS were the first "whiggers" but Jews never sought to imitate them. Ron Jeremy and Sarah Silverman and Al Goldstein all espoused sexual freedom and promiscuity but the out-of-wedlock birth rate never soared among Jews.
Similarly, Asians-Americans and Hindus and Muslims have not really be affected by the media like whites.
These are only a few of the reasons. But I agree with you that science (Rationalism and passivity) somehow eroded belief systems essential to European-Americans. Read More • Replies: @John Gruskos , @AaronB Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- jeff stryker says: May 27, 2019 at 3:11 pm GMT • 100 Words @AaronB AARON B
In a number of societies Jews did not particularly thrive. For example, in Calcutta the Iraqi Jews failed completely and most moved to Israel simply in order to survive economically (Not due to persecution).
I knew Jews in Kerala personally and they had fared slightly better by intermarrying with Brahmin women to become the so-called St. Thomas Christians.
But Jews have come and gone from several major civilizations without making a great impact.
European Jews were, you remember, just that. Sometime after the Diaspora they intermarried with Roman women at a time when Rome was in the late stages of its glory and the Askenazi Jews as a race began and subsequently found themselves in the Rhineland as this rose in prominence.
Jews probably NEVER fared as well in Spain or India or China or Persia as they did in Europe. Why?
This is debatable. Read More • Replies: @AaronB , @notanon2 , @Anon Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- John Gruskos says: May 27, 2019 at 3:24 pm GMT • 100 Words @Colin Wright
By very willingly accepting and incorporating newcomers, it increased in size roughly fifty-fold, and grew to be the most powerful state in the world.
Most of the increase was due to high birth rate among old stock Americans, which was in turn due to affordable family formation (low land prices / high wages).
The highest % increases ever recorded in the decennial census occurred 1790-1830, during a period of very low immigration levels.
America would have become the world's greatest economic and military power, even if the total number of immigrants from 1780 to 1970 had been precisely 0. Read More • Agree: Ron Unz Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- John Gruskos says: May 27, 2019 at 3:37 pm GMT • 100 Words @jeff stryker
for whatever reason . . . somehow eroded belief systems essential to European-Americans
Read Culture of Critique .
American (aka real American, aka un-hyphenated American, aka old-stock American, aka White American) ethnocentrism was deliberately attacked and destroyed by a series of Jewish intellectual and political movements, with the intention of facilitating the group interests of Jews.
The education system, news media and entertainment industry are all viscerally hostile to American ethnocentrism, but supportive of the ethnocentrism of diaspora peoples living among the Americans, especially the Jews. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: May 27, 2019 at 3:45 pm GMT • 100 Words @jeff stryker It may be pedantically logical to say so, but I think what you are effectually doing is to deny significance to what Ron said by saying there weren't really very many of them (because of lack of opportunity for exercosing their particular skills).
As to your last paragraph, what bearing do you think it has on the assimilation, past, present and future, in America. It could be said that the value added by lawyers and bankers in industrialising America was very different from the activities in Eastern Europe which, with or without justice, aroused antagonism. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- AaronB says: May 27, 2019 at 4:07 pm GMT • 300 Words @jeff stryker I'm not sure about that. I believe the Iraqi Jews who traded in India were very successful, and Iraqi Jews in Israel have a good reputation. I believe the extremely wealthy British Sasoon family were Iraqi Jews who made their fortune in the India trade.
Interestingly, Iraqi Jews took over many Indian dishes like curry and mango chutney (known as amba in Israel, and put on schwarma).
The Syrian and Persian Jewish community were also very successful, and Jews had a Golden Age in Spain.
You are correct though that nowhere did the Jews achieve the same level of prominence as in post 18th century Europe – and the reason is obviously the European Enlightenment, which enshrined the rule of Reason and destroyed healthy traditions that allowed Europeans to compete against Jews.
Before this period, Jewish success in Europe was on par with their performance in Syria or Persia – successful, but nothing amazing.
And yes, Ashkenazi Jews are indeed actually 50% European (90% and up on the mothers side), Italian, to be specific, with northern European admixture.
There is a surprising number of Hasidic Jews who look Aryan – tall, blond, and blue eyed. And if you stroll through the Hasidic areas of Brooklyn you will see lots of blond kids with blue eyes and pale skin. But there are lots of darker Med types as well.
The truth is that each Jewish community mixed heavily with the local population – very heavily – and Jews are anything but a pure ethnic group.
There is an ethnic core, to be sure – but what really shapes them and unites them is the culture and religion. That's what it takes to make a people and nation. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- AaronB says: May 27, 2019 at 4:19 pm GMT • 300 Words @jeff stryker This isn't quite true. I grew up in the modern orthodox community in Brooklyn in the 90s, and heavy drug use was extremely widespread even among kippa wearing religious Jews, and indeed all sorts of dysfunction including wild parties and sex. It was truly wild times – today's kids are so much tamer all across America.
Perhaps it wasn't as bad as in the white community today, and the drugs were different but not always, but Jews are not magically insulated from social trends.
However, most of these guys that I knew are married with kids and jobs today – Jewish culture, with its traditions, social cohesiveness, and general rejection of abstract Enlightenment culture, provided a level of protection and resilience that deracinated and de-culturalized whites do not have, tragically.
These are only a few of the reasons. But I agree with you that science (Rationalism and passivity) somehow eroded belief systems essential to European-Americans.
This really key to understanding what's going on with whites, and you understand this because you live in Asia, and can see a more organic culture first hand.
The solution is simple but very daring and bold – simply relax the role of rational and abstract thought in life, and an organic culture based on intuition and different ways of engaging with the world will begin to spontaneously regenerate itself among whites.
Simply acknowledge human powerlessness and dependence on God.
But this is extremely difficult to do for people addicted to ego and control, and probably a real collapse is needed before they are willing to accept the help of a higher power. Read More • Replies: @jeff stryker Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Grace Poole says: May 27, 2019 at 5:02 pm GMT • 200 Words I listened closely to several of Dutton's videos -- he's gifted and highly knowledgeable; it would be great to see Dutton & E Michael Jones at a grand conference, UNZpac USA.
re his, Why do the Irish have a low IQ? (93 compared to British 100)
Among other things, he argues that
a. it takes intelligence to migrate
b. the Potato famine induced massive migration; -- the best Irishmen left Ireland
At the same time, I'm trying to get some work done on a house, and in my region, only Hispanics/Latinos do this work. I'd hire an English-speaking tradesman if I could find same, but I can't.
The painter, electrician and wannabe carpenters working on my property do not speak English and understand only rudimentary English; they neither read nor write -- preparing a prioritized list for their use is pointless. They possess a certain group canniness -- the painter suggests the electrician, etc., and they are diligent about their work. But Honduras is not experiencing a brain-drain based on these men.
So I wonder if Dutton got it wrong in some fundamental way: Was the Potato famine pursued and prolonged by the British precisely to drive cheap labor to Anglo-America, and / or to pursue the Talmudic dictum, Kill all the best gentiles?
That is pretty close to what we are slowly slowly discovering happened to the German (and Italian -- thanks, Guido Preparata) people and nation.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/TFqCiJOpWhk?feature=oembed @notanon2 Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- AaronB says: May 27, 2019 at 5:05 pm GMT • 100 Words @Bardon Kaldian Presumably, those Israeli children are seeing racially similar people. So the response was not to different race people, but to strangers.
Secondly, Israeli culture is no doubt quite different, closely at war with a neighboring people and subject to periodic terrorist attacks, and infants are conditioned differently at an early age.
This does not say anything about genetic differences. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- notanon2 says: May 27, 2019 at 5:10 pm GMT • 100 Words @jeff stryker
Jews probably NEVER fared as well in Spain or India or China or Persia as they did in Europe. Why?
nepotism is one aspect of ethnocentrism.
if group A is more nepotistic than group B then they gain an advantage in small scale competition (e.g. business) .
Jews in India/China etc hit a wall cos their competitors was the same as them – this is the thing, Jewish nepotism isn't unusual, most peoples are like that, WEIRD peoples are the odd ones out.
(this is why they're starting to get out-competed in the US particularly by Indians)
nb ethnocentrism operates at different scales – in peacetime most "ethnic" competition is very small scale i.e. two extended families competing over a business opportunity. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- AaronB says: May 27, 2019 at 5:12 pm GMT • 200 Words @Ron Unz
But if you and almost all of your ancestors have lived all of their lives in a nearly 100% ethnically-pure social environment, how would any tendencies toward ethnocentricity ever evolve or be maintained? Wouldn't they be about as useful as wings on a gopher?
But most people across the world lived like this, so the whole genetic ethnocentrism or non ethnocentrism thing seems like it doesn't really make sense. Most Swedish people probably never saw a non European, and most Anatolian Turks probably never saw a non Turk, and most Omani Arabs likewise.
Only a very few groups would have had the chance, for relatively short periods, to live in cosmopolitan cities are areas with clear racial fault lines.
Ethmocentrism is surely a second-order effect and an acquired cultural trait. It also doesn't make sense that Europeans went from being intensely ethnocentric to very little in the space of a century. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- anonymous  • Disclaimer says: May 27, 2019 at 5:14 pm GMT • 200 Words It is not a race/ethnicity specific thing; it is an in-group thing. It is also very much tied to cultural unity.
Why is modern Christianity so entirely lacking in ability to promote any kind of ethnocentrism?
Europeans lost faith in Christianity after WW2. In 1945, Europe was in ruins with millions dead, after having fought yet another war that supposedly nobody ever wanted. People turned inwards and reflected on the past 500 years of European history. There were numerous wars between Christian states and between Christians and non-Christians. There was the age of exploration, slavery, colonialism, conquistadors, etc. Christianity itself was not necessarily blamed, but it didn't need to be; it was just enough that it was associated with the entire time period. And in 1945, whether rightly or wrongly, these associations were overwhelmingly negative. Christianity has remained in Europe, of course, but these days certain aspects are emphasized ("love thy neighbor", "turn the other cheek") over others. Even secular Europeans still retain certain Christian values which are then conveniently incorporated into their acceptance of mass immigration.
In comparison, Christianity in the US still retains an aspect of being a force for local unity in a way that has been lost in Europe. Recent American conflicts have usually been subtly framed as being a triumph of Christian America over atheist commies or Muslims. Of course, I am sure that it is just a coincidence that this exists to the benefit of a certain tribe. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- notanon2 says: May 27, 2019 at 5:25 pm GMT • 100 Words @Cyrano
I don't think I buy this theory about low European ethnocentricity at all. I think it's all the rich degenerate elites who are to blame for the "decline" in ethnocentricity.
my understanding of ethnocentricity is although it's always there, unless people are under a direct threat it is a relatively weak force except at the scale where people are most related e.g. extended family, clan etc and to be a big factor at higher scales it needs cultural reinforcement.
in the past western elites promoted that cultural reinforcement whereas now they do the opposite.
so i think euros did gradually get less ethnocentric but it was disguised because the elites compensated for it artificially with patriotic cultural reinforcement and then when the elites suddenly stopped (from WW1 onwards) the underlying low ethnocentricity remained. Read More • Replies: @Cyrano Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- notanon2 says: May 27, 2019 at 5:41 pm GMT • 200 Words @Grace Poole
re his, Why do the Irish have a low IQ? (93 compared to British 100)
based on personal experience i both believe and disbelieve this data.
one of the things you notice if you ever work in areas with lots of blue collar immigrants is the kids are taller and smarter than the parents even if they're marrying other immigrants from the same place.
i worked construction (a long time ago) with people from rural Ireland so yeah i can see where the 93 figure comes from but at the same time I worked with the kids or grand kids of same and they were "normal" so i think there's a rural inbreeding effect which is being missed – not inbreeding in the sense of actively marrying close cousins but a long term effect of people in the same valley marrying each other for so many centuries they're all effectively close cousins and all it takes to get rid of negative homozygous effects is marrying someone from the next valley.
i think there's potentially big jumps in average IQ between rural and urban for this reason and differences in average IQ between genetically similar populations may often be the result of differences in the ratio of urban : rural : mountain rural. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Anon  • Disclaimer says: May 27, 2019 at 5:41 pm GMT @Colin Wright English:
"a language is a dialect with an army and navy"
"a shprakh iz a dyalekt mit an armey aum yam – flot
Eine Sprache ist ein Dialekt mit einer Armee und einer Marine
A comparison of three Germanic languages; where's the supposed Slavic? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Cyrano says: May 27, 2019 at 5:51 pm GMT • 300 Words @Wizard of Oz Multiculturalism was invented in lieu of real Socialism – in order to avoid it. They even borrowed the main mantra from socialism – "We are all equal".
Socialism is about equality, not capitalism. When you hear capitalist talk about equality you have to know that there is some kind of scam involved.
The whole idea of multiculturalism stinks of Nazi Germany influence. They were the first to use the term "socialism" for propaganda purposes and the same thing is with the multiculturalism – it was created for purely propaganda purposes to portray the west as progressive and liberal – in order to prevent demand for social improvements.
What makes things funnier is that both the Nazis and present day "democracies" were sworn enemies of socialism – as being the "evil" system, yet when they want to fake humanization of their system, they borrow elements from socialism. Is than irony or what?
They are obviously lying about socialism being the "evil" system, because with their actions they admit that the only way capitalism can progress – is toward socialism. Now, I am not advocating conversion towards total socialism – that has been tried – it didn't quite work out. But the improvements that need to be made in capitalism have to be borrowed from socialism – the only other option is to borrow from feudalism and that's not going to work either.
"Real" socialism advocated equality among nations and among people within a nation – provided they stayed where they are. The modern Frankenstein of socialism that they created in the West with chopped up body parts of socialism, misaligned them and breathed into the monster the holy spirit of capitalism and they expected it to work.
How can you achieve "equality" by bringing hordes from the 3rd world when you haven't achieved equality among the original, native born population? But that's the whole point – isn't it – to pretend that you are striving for some kind of equality, because you don't want the native born population to move one inch closer to being equal with the rich elites. Read More • Replies: @notanon2 Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- notanon2 says: May 27, 2019 at 6:10 pm GMT • 100 Words @Ron Unz
if you and almost all of your ancestors have lived all of their lives in a nearly 100% ethnically-pure social environment, how would any tendencies toward ethnocentricity ever evolve or be maintained?
i think people are assuming the "ethno" part of ethnocentricity developed at and for the ethnic group scale whereas i think it mostly came into being at the clan or extended family level.
those evolved traits can then be culturally reinforced to operate at the ethnic group level depending on various factors
– inclination of elites to promote that cultural reinforcement
– how actually related the group is at the group level
– peace or war Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Cyrano says: May 27, 2019 at 6:13 pm GMT • 100 Words @notanon2 So what are you saying, that in order to strengthen ethnic bonds, they should organize pow-wows? Ethnic bonds are as strong as ever in Europe.
The rich elites are ruining societies in order to preserve their personal wealth.
If they want to test how strong are the ethnic ties, why not one single country which is now under threat of multiculturalism has organized a referendum on immigration? Then you'll find out how strong the ethnic bonds are.
But I guess "democracy" was only designed to let you choose which clown from the deep state you want to entertain you in the next 4 years. You were never asked for opinion on things that really matter.
Every western country should organize "Brexit" style referendum on such a crucial issue which threatens the survival of the state – immigration. Read More • Replies: @notanon2 Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- notanon2 says: May 27, 2019 at 6:16 pm GMT @Cyrano
Multiculturalism was invented in lieu of real Socialism
the multicult was invented cos slavery was abolished and Emma Lazarus' family needed a new source of cheap labor. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Republic says: May 27, 2019 at 6:25 pm GMT @notanon2
note big gap in Poland
That is the general area where The Pale of Settlement was established hundred of years later by the Jews Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- notanon2 says: May 27, 2019 at 8:05 pm GMT • 200 Words @Cyrano
So what are you saying, that in order to strengthen ethnic bonds, they should organize pow-wows?
the elites used to actively promote patriotism to reinforce ethnocentricity but now they promote anti-nationalism.
Ethnic bonds are as strong as ever in Europe.
they're still strong in south and east Europe but less so in NW Europe.
The rich elites are ruining societies in order to preserve their personal wealth.
yes partly that but also partly an anti-nationalist reaction to the world wars because Europeans developed technology that made war dysgenic even for the winners.
If they want to test how strong are the ethnic ties, why not one single country which is now under threat of multiculturalism has organized a referendum on immigration? Then you'll find out how strong the ethnic bonds are.
imo the level of overt ethocentricity displayed by a population will be a combination of
– baseline level
– the level of elite reinforcement (or not)
– the level of external threat
so yes even with a low baseline and the elites actively suppressing the normal reaction to being replaced in your own homeland, being replaced is clearly enough of a threat to get people to vote against it in a referendum but so far not enough to force politicians to put it to a referendum.
so far all most people do is move away. this may change when there's nowhere left to run. Read More • Replies: @Vianney Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Vianney says: May 27, 2019 at 8:48 pm GMT • 100 Words @notanon2 The trials by NY Jewish lawyers of Alt Right protesters in Charlottesville COULD serve as a referendum if a few, or better yet, a group or Law School summoned the cajones to argue on the side of American heritage.
It's Thomas Jefferson's city, fer chrissake, that is being reduced to "remember Munich" status.
No mere happenstance.
Is there no one left in Charlottesville with enough pride to snatch up and raise high the American flag rather than the blue 6-star? Read More • Replies: @notanon2 Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- notanon2 says: May 27, 2019 at 9:12 pm GMT @Vianney given the education system only went fully anti-white c. 10 years ago the people who understand what is happening and have (or will have) the skills to fight back in the courts are probably still in college or only recently left. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Anon  • Disclaimer says: May 27, 2019 at 10:16 pm GMT • 300 Words @Ron Unz Chinese have lived in Southeast Asia since the 1800's, yet in virtually all SEA countries, they remain distinct as an ethnic group, rarely intermarry with non-Chinese. Growing up as an ethnic Chinese minority in Malaysia, I was taught to believe that the Chinese were the superior race, compared to the lazy, low IQ Malays or Indians.
Since immigrating to the US in my teens in the 80's, I have watched with alarm how much immigration from mainland China has grown in the US in the last 2 decades. My mixed race kids tell me the Chinese kids in school tell them their mainland Chinese parents always tell them "China #1!", and they wonder why their parents moved to the US (the answer: because they are all corrupt and need to get out with their ill gotten gains before they get thrown in jail). Chinese ethnocentrism is real and it is ugly.
However, as with all generalization, there are always exceptions and I am one such. I've grown to despise my own tribe over the last 4 decades. I see how the Chinese behave the world over, whether they are the majority or minority, they are greedy, selfish, dishonest, rude, loud, clannish and have excessive ethnic pride, which causes many to completely lack introspection. They are also a filthy tribe who does not take care of their environment, their yard, and lack any kind of civic mindedness. The Cantonese are an especially obnoxious tribe among the Chinese, absolutely abominable.
I think fewer Chinese is a good thing for the world. My tribe needs to die out, either through childlessness or intermarriage. The world will be a better place. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- mcohen says: May 27, 2019 at 10:30 pm GMT • 100 Words "Those who advocate Multiculturalism seem to have lost an important instinct towards group -- and thus genetic -- preservation. Once a society, as a whole, espouses Multiculturalism as a dominant ideology then the society is acting against its own genetic interests and will ultimately destroy itself."
Bullshit.inbreeding leads to retardation and genetic diseases
gerund or present participle: inbreeding
breed from closely related people or animals, especially over many generations.
"persistent inbreeding has produced an unusually high frequency of sufferers from this disease" Read More • Replies: @anon Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- the grand wazoo says: May 27, 2019 at 10:33 pm GMT • 100 Words @david fields I doubt the Chinese, or Asians in general are quick to assimilate by marriage. How many mixed couples, i.e. Asian/White, Asian/Black, do we see. Not many and closer to none, even here in liberal metro LA. I was at a party in Palos Verdes, Ca. the other day. There were a number of Asian couples present, but not 1 mixed. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Anon  • Disclaimer says: May 27, 2019 at 10:38 pm GMT • 200 Words @Cyrano Lack of ethnocentrism in whites is almost entirely caused by the last 5 decades of relentless Jewish brainwashing and browbeating through their control of the media and the education establishment. Jews have beaten white guilts into the white psyche to the point where whites are either afraid to express their true feelings or are completely brainwashed into believing in their own evilness. It's a real shame as Northern Europeans especially from Germany and Scandinavia are probably the best race: intelligent, industrious, and quite possibly the only truly honest people on earth.
European countries are the most beautiful places on earth not because they are the richest -- many Europeans actually live quite modestly by American standards, they live in small apartments or homes and don't make that much money compared to many upper middle class professionals in the US, but they take care of their environments. They build beautiful homes, grow beautiful gardens and yards, keep their environments clean and tidy, and obey the law. It makes their societies look rich by comparison.
People in other parts of the world need to take a page from the Northern Europeans and take better care of their environments. Beautiful places put people in better moods, and make them want to be better people, e.g. more honest and law abiding. Read More • Replies: @Cyrano Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- anon  • Disclaimer says: May 27, 2019 at 10:46 pm GMT @mcohen I agree, therefore all Jews should be forced to interbreed exclusively with Nigerians to solve their severe inbreeding problem. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Anon  • Disclaimer says: May 27, 2019 at 10:59 pm GMT • 300 Words @Ron Unz
For various reasons, Jews have traditionally been exceptionally resistant to absorption into local populations, remaining as a distinct group sometimes after thousands of years of living within a particular host population.
Throughout ancient Europe, Jews were not allowed to own land and were often despised as the money lenders throughout the diaspora. I don't know how hard it would've been for the Jews to ditch Judaism, adopt Christianity, intermarry and completely assimilate with the native Europeans, but at least the Spaniards had tried to get them to do that, to no avail. I can only surmise that the Jewish religion is a very strong religion that keeps the Jews believing out of fear or a strong sense of kinship.
However, many Jews in the US have become secular, yet continue to identify as Jews. Perhaps this is because membership has its privileges, Jews help out other Jews in business, academia, politics etc. But lately I'm thinking it has a lot to do with Israel. There seems to be more and more "Holocaust Museums" being built all over the west. Who is building them? Nearly 80m died in WWII, yet all we ever hear about are the 6m. Israel depends on support from the diaspora to survive, esp. those in the US, both financially and politically, so they continue to fan up the Holocaust to keep Jews loyal to the tribe, even as the influence of Judaism wanes. As such, as long as Israel is still around, Jews will never fully assimilate to whichever country they live in, because Israel wouldn't let them. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Anon  • Disclaimer says: May 27, 2019 at 11:05 pm GMT @Ghali Multicultural societies are all failed societies, dysfunctional, chaotic, dog-eat-dog, every man for himself, everybody hates everybody. Just look at Malaysia or Brazil.
The US is turning into Brazil x 10, with nukes. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Parsnipitous says: May 27, 2019 at 11:07 pm GMT @obwandiyag You're such an idiot, Obi Wan. I don't mind the leftist/antiracist bent, but you're making such poor arguments. What is your connection here? You getting paid? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Cyrano says: May 27, 2019 at 11:20 pm GMT • 100 Words @Anon Here we go about the Jews again. Can we leave them out of at least one conversation? Ethnocentrism is "losing strength" today because it's actively suppressed by the elites. They do this by equating ethnocentrism with racism and accusing only the deplorables of being racists, while they – the rich degenerates are so above it.
The elites implemented multiculturalism because it's the cheapest form of "socialism". Cheapest for them – it didn't cost them a penny, in the long run Multiculturalism is going to be the most expensive and destructive form of phony socialism for each country that embraced it. Read More • Replies: @Time to Wake Up , @Vianney Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Anon  • Disclaimer says: May 27, 2019 at 11:26 pm GMT • 100 Words @jeff stryker
Jews probably NEVER fared as well in Spain or India or China or Persia as they did in Europe. Why?
Jews did well in Europe because the native Europeans are honest and easy to rip off. The dishonest always make the honest look stupid by comparison.
But the Spaniards, Indians, Chinese, Persians are as dishonest and unscrupulous as the Jews, so they have no advantage over these groups. Read More • Replies: @jeff stryker Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Time to Wake Up says: May 27, 2019 at 11:58 pm GMT @Cyrano Yep, the (((elites))) wanted multiculturalism. When every group is an outgroup, (((they))) will no longer stick out as the only outgroup and be easily called out for all their treacheries. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Vianney says: May 28, 2019 at 12:23 am GMT • 100 Words @Cyrano Jewish-designed, intended and enforced brain washing -- they, themselves, call it psychological warfare, is an historical fact and a present reality.
There may be other groups or causal factors responsible for breakdown of ethnocentricism, but Jewish ideology and praxis ranks at or near the top of the list.
It's foolish and self-destructive to ignore an accurate diagnosis out of fear of 'offending the Jew.' That is a Jewish defense mechanism. A soldier does not refrain from dispatching an adversary just because the adversary calls him names. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Agathocles says: May 28, 2019 at 12:25 am GMT • 300 Words We should recognise that within Europe there is significant disparities in levels of ethno-centrism. For example, the Greek belief in the superiority of its culture compared to others (somewhat of a proxy of ethno-centrism) is through the roof compared to northern and western Europe.
Greeks also show high values for anti-diversity and anti-immigrant views.
Despite being one of history's most important trading people, being in a part of the world which is not isolated and also having been colonised by Muslim Turks for 400 or so years, Greeks have retained remarkable consistency in their genetic composition with only relatively small intrusions of Slavic ancestry primarily in Macedonia and some Levantine intrusions in Cyprus.
The key to ethnocentricity, which is not addressed by many, is a strong and stable family structure as ethnicity is largely passed on by genes and family education. Of course, state education is also critical. And Greeks again show some of the healthiest signs in the developed world on this front. Children born out of wedlock in the two Hellenic states of Greece and Cyprus are very low.
Also, divorces rates are very low; particularly, in Greece.
Of course, even the Greek family is not immune to modern lifestyle-related diseases as witnessed by the low birthrate.
As for state education, although the Greek state has sometimes been disorganised, wherever Greeks go, they establish two things first: a church and school often with the support of the Greek state. Both institutions are key vehicles for the perpetuation of ethno-centric values Read More • Replies: @utu Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- utu says: May 28, 2019 at 12:44 am GMT @Agathocles And Greeks have been ranked with the highest in Europe anti-Semitism index by ADL. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- jeff stryker says: May 28, 2019 at 12:50 am GMT @Anon 427
Similarly Chinese cannot get over on Koreans or Japanese like they can on Southeast Asians. Why? Because they have the same characteristics as Chinese.
Makes sense the Jews fared less well in Southern Europe getting over on wary and shrewd Sicilians or Spanish. Read More • Replies: @AaronB Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- AaronB says: May 28, 2019 at 1:11 am GMT @jeff stryker How do you explain the Jewish Golden Age in Spain, which was almost comparable to later Jewish prominence in Northern Europe?
But I agree with your general point – Jewish dominance after the Enlightenment is only because northern Europeans made themselves vulnerable to group competition.
This is undoubtedly correct. Read More • Replies: @jeff stryker Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- jeff stryker says: May 28, 2019 at 1:23 am GMT • 100 Words @AaronB AARON
Jews had their Abbie Hoffmans (A real charmer who once doled out advice on how crash Bar Mitzvah's in STEAL THIS BOOK) and their whiggers (BEASTIE BOYS made EMINEM look positively sophisticated) and their sexual degenerates (Goldstein, Ron Jeremy, Sarah Silverman).
But Jews never regarded these people as examples of any kind. They merely regarded them as degenerates who HAPPENED to be Jewish.
Similarly, crack cocaine's popularity affected Jews in the boroughs of New York as well. But statistically less.
As for wild teenage behavior among whites or Jews, this seemed to reach a peak in the post-70's period of FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH and by 1983 dissipated during the Reagan Revolution.
When one watches the original KARATE KID today their first thought is "where are the police? Where's the principal?" Read More • Replies: @AaronB Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- AaronB says: May 28, 2019 at 1:32 am GMT @jeff stryker I have always despised the Beastie Boys, I can tell you that. Utterly talentless, vulgar, hacks. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- jeff stryker says: May 28, 2019 at 1:37 am GMT • 100 Words @AaronB AARON
Spain is ostensibly easy to explain. There was less animosity between Muslims and Jews at that time than between Muslims and Catholics, provided the Jews paid their taxes. Same as the Maghreb. Which the Catholics were aware of and so expelled the Jews along with the Muslims.
In addition to the Enlightenment is the European class system, from which Jews were relatively free.
Whereas in Southern Europe, trade had existed in Rome for a long time. There was also the issue of usury.
May 26, 2019 | www.zerohedge.comAuthored by W Stephen Gilbert via Off-Guardian.org,
History will not be kind to Theresa May. By the standards she forthrightly set herself at the outset of her premiership, she has been a dismal failure. She proposed that, contrary to most impartial expectation, she would be a socially liberal prime minister who would strive to relieve the economic pressure on the poorest members of British society (the briefly famous "just about managing"), but the only small concessions towards the relief of poverty that have been wrung from her government have done nothing to reduce the incidence of homelessness, food banks and wage rates that undershoot the demands made by private landlords, services starved of funds and price rises.
And that's without even mentioning Brexit.
Following the self-inflicted disaster of the 2017 general election, in which May utterly failed to project herself with any conviction as "strong and stable", she became, in George Osborne's devastating phrase, "a dead woman walking".
That campaign was the most complacent, least effective ever fought by a major political party in Britain, and the only explanation for the media's astonishment at the result can be that editors and columnists had so convinced themselves that they had rendered Jeremy Corbyn, in their description of choice, "unelectable" that they could see no outcome other than a thumping Tory victory. What they could not see was that Corbyn is an inspired and inspiring campaigner, while May is as dull as ditchwater.
The social media commentator Aidan Daley summed her up admirably: "Mayvis: a political nonentity of such crushing mediocrity and insignificance that even when standing in direct sunlight she casts no shadow. A third-rate office manager elevated light years beyond her intellectual capacity, professional capabilities and pay grade. A national embarrassment and global laughing stock ".
This unsparing but unarguable buttonholing raises a historical problem for the Conservative Party that shows no sign of quick resolution. When May was elected Tory leader and hence prime minister, the field of choice was notable for its lightweight uniformity. Given the length of her cabinet experience, May clearly outshone her rivals, if not in charisma (a quality conspicuously lacking from the field). But the quality of leadership of the party has been modest at best for years. Among Tory leaders since the war, only Margaret Thatcher has managed to catch the climate of her time and impose her personality on a discernible period, however much one may deplore that climate and that period.
What is striking about Conservative politics is that those who wish to hold onto power and wealth for their own class and who have the ambition and talent and imagination to make a difference do not go into politics. They become entrepreneurs, traders, speculators. There is too much regulation and self-abnegation in politics for such people. Look back over the leadership of the Tory party and you get to Harold Macmillan before you encounter anyone who came from a (brief) career in business.
Comparing May with Thatcher and Macmillan is instructive.
May has failed to create any sort of arresting public persona for herself. Aside from the tiresome bromide "Brexit means Brexit", she has turned no phrase that immediately summons her to mind. Who could essay her political philosophy, other than hanging on grimly against insuperable odds and paying heed to no advice?
She has no imagination, no resourcefulness, no wit and no management skills. When pressed, she retreats to prepared responses, regardless of their irrelevance to the question in hand. We are now told that she is "a patriot" – the last refuge of a political scoundrel – and that she has "tried her best", which was clearly grossly inadequate to the task .
The mainstream media will be eternally grateful to her for betraying emotion at the end of her resignation statement, thereby providing the "human interest" angle that cements the moment in history and will be trotted out in every story about the May premiership for ever after, much like Thatcher's tear-stained face in the back of the limo as it pulled away from Downing Street for the last time. Whether this emotion sits appropriately with the "dignity" that her admirers are rushing to credit to her is a question for others to ponder.
Attention now turns to her successor. Vast though the field is, it is again notable for its lightweight nature. Smart money will be on Rory Stewart, already a media darling and a politician unusually capable of sounding thoughtful and candid. He also has the advantage of having led a colourful pre-politics life, thereby bringing instincts to his politics from beyond the confines of career consultants and spads. But most speculation centres on Boris Johnson, despite the high level of suspicion that he generates among Tory MPs. He is said to be enthusiastically supported at the grassroots.
In this as in other aspects, he brings to mind Donald Trump. If Rory Stewart would offer a safe pair of hands, Johnson would suggest a Trump-like level of gaffes and embarrassments, thrills and spills.
CashMcCall , 5 hours ago linkcaesium , 5 hours ago link
Britain's Chief problem is that it has become a US poodle for nothing. Essentially insolvent and small Britain indulges in middle East Wars and US Sanctions and Boycotts. What do they get in return? Nothing at all.
This is a giant hangover from WWII. It wasn't enough that WWII destroyed Britain, the US had to take advantage of it in the Anglo American loan and Bretton Woods.
Anyone that has studied WWII knows it was the Russians that killed Germany, not the US and most certainly not Britain, though cracking the Enigma was certainly useful. But it was Brute force of the Russians a KURSK that laid waste to Germany.
The US came out of the War essentially unscathed. Britain was bombed out rubble. The US took full advantage with hard terms in their Anglo American Loan.
The relationship of the US to Britain is more like Abusive parent to abused child. It is anything but equals. The US only calls on Britain for British Intelligence, or military support to do something stupid like engage in the Iraq war. The poodle does as told.
ARM was founded in Britain. Now sold to Softbank in Japan. It was the INTEL giant killer. Had Britain not been a poodle to the US, this one company would have been a driving force in 5G. But the Abusive parent, essentially told the Brits who could and could not associate with ARM. Now in an even more abused poodle Japan, the world's most emasculated nation. Brits take their marching order from Donald Trump a bloody moron.
The Tide is out on the British Empire. It is irrelevant at this point what happens with Brexit. Stall long enough and nobody will care. Instead of branching out and leading in 5G, they are following their abused parent into the dark ages.
Britain should be making its own deals with China while the US is foundering under Turmp. Some businesses are such as Rolls Royce that is offering a Rolls Royce jet engine plant to forward China's local and narrowbody jets. Britain can come in and be a reliable partner with Huawei and get access to the largest markets in global history China and Asia. Instead the Gov. wants the UK to be just a US poodle lucky to get a few scraps.
Protectionism can NEVER work in Britain. The Isles NEED TRADE. They cannot survive without out it. Yet here they are with their brilliant engineering taking orders from Donald Trump the idiots idiot.
May was just a symptom of the Poodle problem. Do as told, show no spine and live in the shadow of the USA abuser parent. That is why NO PM in the UK casts a shadow. They are under the oppressive shadow of the US. Taking orders, Killing off British soldiers for nothing.
The wars are over for Britain. Become a global reliable trading nation that honors contracts and business ties, the very elements that made Britain Great. It sure has not been the Wars especially the poodle wars. You laugh at May's tears and under performance but you may as well be looking at yourselves.
Brexit under the shadow of the USA just strengthens the choke chain in Trump's insane hand. You become dependent on an unreliable country with the most unreliable administration in US History. As they do now, they dictate where you may trade and to whom you may sell your products... and you go along with it like an obedient abused child seeking approval of the Parent Abuser.
Get some spine and break ties with the USA that are carrying you into the abyss. Why should Britain be holding Venezuela Gold on behalf of Donald Trump? There is no yield in this, there is no value but a soiled reputation as an unreliable trader. Banks in Britain should be honest dealers not playing politics with contracts. Every country in the world is looking at this British poodle conduct. No country wants to deal with a poodle that refuses to return assets or that weaponizes Trade. You are cutting your throats for any future global investment FOR NOTHING!GreatUncle , 6 hours ago link
It's not clear that all MI5/MI6 operatives are remainers. I suspect they are as divided as everyone else. The gang who attacked Trump simply did it because it was business and not personal. They even outsourced to Steele because they thought it might be cheaper. Outsourcing is perceived as cool in government circles and makes people feel good about themselves. It's the deep state offering value for money.philipat , 7 hours ago link
May achieved what she set out to do being a BREMAINER from the outset.
To block, stall and prevent at all costs BREXIT.
As a BREXIT supporter thank you May because you created a new party in the process as an alternative to the fake" Conservative BREXIT party" and the EU Labour Custom Union slaves". I swear Labour = Democrats in the US and their belief in social slavery to them.
When can we get them EU election figures ... as this is going to be such fun if the BREXIT party manages to achieve an overwhelming vote it is like a 2nd referendum on the previous referendum. ... Fingers crossed here though because you just know MI5 / MI6 and all the other mercenaries are going to be ballot stuffing like **** and with no exit polls to prevent the electoral fraud they will be carrying out on the orders of their paymasters.Dr. Acula , 8 hours ago link
Spare the tears, **** you got exactly what you deserved for your betrayal of British democracy whilst constantly lying and pretending to support both UK AND US values.
May has done precisely what she was tasked to do by the Establishment: First to "negotiate" a Withdrawal deal that "Only the loser of a major war would agree to" after wasting two years, then do everything else possible to delay Brexit as long as possible and water it down to the point that the UK would even with a "delivered Brexit" still essentially be bound to the EU indefinitely.
The final irony here is that it is ultimately only Parliament's duplicity and treachery, in spite of the fact that Parliament desperately wanted to ensure the UK "Remain", which has prevented her and the Globalists from achieving their goals through what they believed to be a process of "subtle subterfuge".
The ONLY way forward now is a "Hard" Brexit because Parliament has rejected everything else, it is still the legal default position which does NOT legally require approval by Parliament and it restores the negotiating position with the EU that May deliberately pissed away over two years. And the lesson here to other countries wanting to get out of the clutches of Brussels is this; If you want to leave the EU, JUST LEAVE. Let the Bureaucrats work out the details later; they aren't that important.
She will indeed go down in history as a footnote of no significance or perhaps as the PM who showed the greatest betrayal of the British people on behalf of the Establishment
**** off and go away to enjoy the corrupt benefits of your service to the Globalists until you RIP.
May fits in with the other Prime Ministers of the Paedoph Isles:
"Rules which bar sex offenders from working with children are 'unfair' and even convicted paedophiles should have the right to adopt, a leading legal academic has said."
"UK Government Under Gordon Brown Urged Police not to Investigate Muslim Child Rape Gangs"
May 24, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
May, the second - but certainly not the last - female prime minister in the UK, will abandon her supremely unpopular withdrawal agreement instead of trying to force it through the Commons for the fourth time. May's decision to call for a fourth vote on the withdrawal agreement, this time packaging it in a bill that could have opened to door to a second confirmatory referendum, was more than her fellow conservatives could tolerate. One of her top cabinet ministers resigned and Graham Brady, the leader of the Tory backbenchers, effectively forced May out by rounding up the votes for a rule change that would have allowed MPs to oust her.
During her tumultuous tenure as PM, May survived two no-confidence votes.
Though May will stay on as caretaker until a new leader can be chosen, the race to succeed May begins now...odds are that a 'Brexiteer' will fill the role. Whatever happens, the contest should take a few weeks, and afterwards May will be on her way back to Maidenhead.
"It is and will always remain a deep regret for me that I was not able to deliver Brexit...I was not able to reach a consensus...that job will now fall to my successor," May said.
Between now and May's resignation, May still has work to do: President Trump will travel to the UK for a state visit, while Europe will also celebrate the 75th anniversary of D-Day.
It's fitting that May touted the virtues of her moderate approach to governance during her resignation speech, considering that her attempts to chart a middle path through Brexit ended up alienating hard-core Brexiteers and remainers alike. Her fate was effectively sealed nearly two years ago, after she called for a general election that cost the Tories their majority in Parliament and emboldened Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
The pound's reaction was relatively muted, as May's decision to step down had been telegraphed well in advance.
CheapBastard , 18 minutes ago linkkeep the bastards honest , 39 minutes ago link
Crying May. What a Loser. Plus, she may have well co-conspired against Trump.
They should lock her up in the Tower.bluecollartrader , 45 minutes ago link
She didn't cry for syrians when she declared bombing Syria and using the firm her husband is involved in,. They made billion, and she didn't cry over her makeover afterwards new hair clothes and big jewels and cuddles with her husband in the media.HRClinton , 27 minutes ago link
She and John Boehner should start a therapy group.
There's no crying in politics.HRClinton , 16 minutes ago link
The plan was Merkel, May and Hillary.
That's a hell of a bullet we just dodged.
Riiiight. Instead, 10,000 Pentagram "Monitors" will be dodging bullets and bombs in the ME.
"(Bibi,) you'll be so tired of winning" - Candidate Trump
Why, you didn't think that he was talking about America's Main Street, did you? Sucker !
Many women in esteemed positions are just affirmative action or window dressing to placate the masses with supposed maternal love but they end up being wicked as heck.
Perhaps, but it's worse than that:
They are part of the Divide & Conquer strategy, while (((Global-lusts))) are plundering the Wealth Of Nations and taking over the real reigns of power.
Americants are easily distracted or fooled.
ps. "...wicked as heck." Wicked? Heck? What's up with the careful avoidance of "cuss words"? It's ok, you're safe... No "ladies or preachers" (bitches or scammers) nearby. And the Tylers or NSA won't rat you out.
May 23, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
... ... ...
So whoever chose to be Prime Minister and set the Brexit time bomb ticking (which would have to have happened at some point, although May's rush to send in the Article 50 notice was one of her major mistakes) would be destined to preside over a colossal mess. However, the distinguishing feature of May's time in No. 10, her astonishing ability to take pain and fight off challenges, was enabled by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, which made it far more difficult to dissolve Parliament. Under the old rules, May would have been gone long ago. But the result may have been a series of coalition governments, or alternatively, a coalition that couldn't agree on anything regarding Brexit while that clock was ticking.
Even though I do feel a bit of sympathy for May, the flip side is that her record at Home Office, particularly with the Windrush scandal, means there is not likely to be much that historians will be able to find to cast her as anything other than relentless and exceptionally unimaginative, except in her idiot-savant genius at political maneuvering.
It was vlade who I believe typed her out as the sort of manager who won't change course even when circumstances make clearer that a revision in plans is necessary. Of course, May did in the end, witness her getting to a deal with the EU, but only after beating her head against the wall for many months.
I imagine May's one hope for near term solace is if Boris is indeed the next prime minister. Even she will benefit from being compared to him.
John A , May 23, 2019 at 8:12 am
"Watching Boris be utterly outclassed "
That's immaterial. Boris is exactly like Trump, he lies and lies and lies, and even when caught out lying, he simply does not care and carries on lying.
As for Leadsom saying a second referendum would be 'dangerously divisive', what planet is she on? The first referendum has proved incredibly dangerously divisive. To the extent, I doubt there can ever be any general acceptance of either leave or stay, whichever happens.
vlade , May 23, 2019 at 5:42 am
If turnout is high, and Farage polls > than LD+SNP+GREEN+TIG, it could be seen as a strong signal for no deal. Low turnout means little.
High turnout + result can mean something. But what exactly depends on the result. Even then, high turnout with Farage winning (even getting less votes than remain) could easily generate some pro no-deal headlines.
Best pro-remain result (but IMO extremely highly unlikely) would be high turnout (>50%), Farage +/- same as LD (say even with LD second but only by a few points), but significantly less than LD+G+SNP+TIG.
Ignacio , May 23, 2019 at 6:34 am
Thank you vlade! We will have to wait until Sunday. The results will be interesting anyway. This are not routine post-dem elections anymore. It migth mark the end of the end of history hahahahahah!
BIllS , May 23, 2019 at 6:48 am
I know this is anecdotal, but many of my European friends would like the Brits to stay in the EU. However, as vlade mentions, the EU elections are being viewed as a second referendum on Brexit as well as a test of populist parties in general. If the populist gains are weak in the EU elections and the Farage clique receives a mandate for hard Brexit, it is possible that the EU will severely punish the UK. Many European citizens want the Brits to stay, but are tired of their whinging and the anti-european propaganda being vomited forth by the UK tabloid press. Assaults on EU citizens speaking European languages are becoming all too common. If Farage is elected with a big turnout, EU citizens will demand punishment.
Synoia , May 23, 2019 at 3:28 pm
There is no mandate granted by the EU elections, because there is no method a small EU splinter faction (Farage's Faction, large only in his imagination) can achieve anything against the "we are in the EU to stay" majority in the European Parliament.
The Farage Faction in the EU parliament, will be less effective that the Lone Libertarian Senator in the US Senate, who is only there to demonstrate that the Republican Party are no completely crazy, and do have one of two realistic policies.
Synoia , May 23, 2019 at 3:44 pm
Two possible outcomes:
1. No GE, May for Ever, Brext limbo, EU Membership continues until the UK stops paying the EU, or the people over 50 die and the young eliminate this circus.
2. The Labor, Green, Scot's Nat's, and LibDems form a collision (intended) Government, and continue (1).
Parliament has clearly demonstrated the wishes of the British people: No to the EU, No to the EU EU dictated withdrawal agreement (aka the MAY (Make Everybody Yell in pain) agreement, and No Crash out (No British 2 fingered salute, equivalent to the US 1 fingered salute)*
What remains is Limbo, without flexibility – Remain but with Denial, and a change from a Badly Managed County, to a Badly Managed Country by a different set of Clowns.
As Maggie Thatched remarked: There Is No Alternative.
* The UK uses a two fingered salute, because British Men can consider two things at the same time, Beer and Women, unlike the French (Hereditary Enemies) who can only consider one thing at a time.
**Just to clarify – British men can CONSIDER two things at the same time. Actually performing two things at the same time runs into the standard limitations of the Male Brain.
The Rev Kev , May 23, 2019 at 4:45 am
And to think that it was only yesterday that yet another Brexit date went by. That was the one agreed to in March where the EU agreed to delay Brexit until May 22nd if British MPs back Prime Minister Theresa May's deal. The idea was that any later and a resentful UK would be taking part in the EU elections. Well, that didn't work out for anybody.
It turns out that Margaret Thatcher was wrong. There is such a thing as society. It is that which forms the bonds not only between people themselves but those who are supposed to run the country. The UK has cut those bonds and the results are so bad that the United Nations has come out with a report ( https://undocs.org/A/HRC/41/39/Add.1 ) saying that they have created a "harsh and uncaring" environment for people, that '14 million UK residents live in poverty, and that some 1.5 million of them were unable to afford basic essentials in 2017.' No wonder people feel little connection between themselves and those running the country
I was just listening to the news and it sounds like May was making all sorts of concessions in the deal that she was working on without consulting anybody else in government. There are so many people leaving her side now, that she may be the last person left standing in government. She is still clinging onto power but her own party members are busy stomping on her fingertips as a tipping point has been reached. Labour does not seem to be gaining by this either as they are bleeding votes to other parties due to their own Brexit position. This is going to get ugly when it comes time to choose a new leader. Prime Minister Nigel Farage anybody?
skk , May 23, 2019 at 11:07 am
Knickers ! No " underwear " please, we are British" ( with apologies to the British farce from the late 60s).
ambrit , May 23, 2019 at 1:23 pm
Yaargh for the "No Sex Please" reference!
Plus, "skidmarks" is a common reference of an insulting nature here Down South. Kudos!
The infamous joke ends with; " and the dude had skidmarks on the front of his drawers!"
So, 'skidmarks' is all too likely a result from the upcoming EU elections.
fajensen , May 23, 2019 at 6:47 am
I am pessimistic. She will never resign on her own volition. The Tories have no way of forcing her to resign. There is nothing they can offer to trade with her in return for her resigning because she won't listen, ever, to anyone so she simply won't hear the offer being made over the din of her own droning.
Maybe The Queen can legally send some heavy-booted people over to physically drag her out of parliament?
vlade , May 23, 2019 at 6:56 am
There were rumours yesterday that she blocked the door to No 10 with a sofa..
PlutoniumKun , May 23, 2019 at 9:11 am
I heard she is taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy.
vlade , May 23, 2019 at 9:23 am
Can she skateboard?
shtove , May 23, 2019 at 10:29 am
Dirty protest? Armoured cars and tanks and guns
Anders K , May 23, 2019 at 7:05 am
AFAIK, the 1922 Committee can change the rules to allow her to be challenged. The issue – just as with Trump – is that dealing with someone who breaks the informal consensus by breaking the formal consensus (changing the rules, even if it is just "for a special case") is not necessarily easy or sure to lead to the desired outcome (what if the special vote fails to oust May? Will the next leader be challenged early, too?).
After all, if the 12-month grace period has been set aside once, it can surely be done again, and no presumptive Tory PM is interested in being more restrained by the committee (for both noble and ignoble reasons, I'm sure, though I suspect the ratio to be tilted in the latter direction).
shtove , May 23, 2019 at 7:25 am
But she's the Queen's prime minister. Doesn't matter if she's not leader of her party. Or does it? There have been mixed rumours on HM's views on the EU, which I suppose shows her subtlety. But if she is subtle, HM will find a way not to get involved.
PlutoniumKun , May 23, 2019 at 9:11 am
Now there is a prospect – May refusing to relinquish No.10, even if she is thrown out of the Tory Party.
shtove , May 23, 2019 at 10:52 am
I hadn't considered that! What if May is summoned by the chief whip and suspended, just like Heseltine when he declared he was going to vote for the Lib Dems? Can she dismiss the chief whip with a click of her fingers? L'etat, c'est moi.
I've no idea about the formal route for expulsion from the party, but it seems Widdecombe was subjected to the rules when she declared for Whatever Nigel's Having.
ChrisPacific , May 23, 2019 at 5:06 pm
Now I have a mental image of a barricaded Theresa May taking to the airwaves and calling upon the military to come to her aid by suppressing her own party in the name of the Queen.
David , May 23, 2019 at 8:33 am
It's important to remember (and too easily forgotten) that the challenge to May's position is as leader of the Conservative party, not as Prime Minister. Of course historically the two have been coterminous, but they don't absolutely have to be. Normally, what happens is that a PM's political missteps result in forced resignation or a leadership challenge, and the winner of the ensuing competition becomes PM. Eden resigned after Suez, Heath was forced out after losing the 1974 election etc. But both of these cases (and indeed Thatcher in 1990) were rather like sacking the managing director of an unsuccessful company. The Tory Party wanted to get back in power, or make sure it stayed there, and internal political and personal divisions didn't matter that much. (The Tory Party was more Thatcherite in 1990 than it was in 1975 when she took over: it was simply that the party didn't think it could win another election with her in charge.)
What we have now is different. Not only has May made a disastrous mess of Brexit, she has also had to manage a bitterly divided party, full of people who hate each other and have completely irreconcilable political views and agendas. Whilst there have been Cabinets before with warring cliques, and PMs struggling to manage divided parties, I don't think there has ever been a situation like this, where the two are lethally combined, and the incumbent PM is not capable of dealing with either. It's possible to imagine another leader having done a better job in managing the politics and diplomacy of Brexit: it's hard to imagine anyone doing it worse. But it is also hard to imagine anyone else having done a less bad job of keeping a violently fractious party together.
Paradoxically, May's actual performance under both headings has had little impact on the strength of her position. It seems to be acknowledged that she has been as a disaster as PM, but the problem is that getting rid of her is not a solution. Indeed, it would probably make the situation worse, and destroy the Tory Party completely, which is why she is still where she is. I don't think even those who want to get rid of her most fervently believe that doing so would unite the party or make it more electable. It's all about personal and political agendas. Far from resolving the crisis, her departure, which can't now long be delayed, will only exacerbate it: the first time this has happened, I think, in modern British history.
Under all the normal rules of politics, May would have been gone months, if not years, ago. That's not in dispute. But in the past there were heavyweight challengers already waiting to take over from the PM of the day, and parties (especially the Tories) would rally round a new leader to stay in power or have a better chance of taking it. It's an index of how completely the Tory Party has been destroyed by Thatcher and her successors, that it's a talent-free zone made up of people who would happily destroy a party, a government and perhaps a country, out of ambition and jealousy. The situation now resembles the last days of a weak and discredited monarch, with no apparent successor and courtiers manoeuvring for advantage. Historically, that usually led to a civil war of some kind, and I expect that, mutatis mutandis , that's what we're in for now.
PlutoniumKun , May 23, 2019 at 9:02 am
I think your last two lines are highly significant. I've been trying to get my head around how it is that Johnson has suddenly become the favourite to become PM, when he is supposedly almost universally loathed within the party hierarchy and seemed to have blown what little chance he had last year. But it is, as you say, more like the lethal jostling when a monarch is dying without a successor – half the people around are trying to manoeuvre for the crown, the other half are trying to make sure they don't lose their head if the 'wrong' person gets selected. It has nothing to do with regular democratic politics anymore.
Whatever else, it will make the next Tory party conference rather entertaining viewing now that GoT is over.
flora , May 23, 2019 at 10:53 am
For forty years now the economic and political philosophy of Milton Friedman has dominated and guided politics in the UK and the US. Reading some of his most famous quotes makes clear why it has all ended so badly, failed so spectacularly. As long as enough of the old system held on to keep things working the con continued. That's over now, even if the current crop of "talent-free people who would happily destroy a party, a government and perhaps a country, out of ambition and jealousy. " don't realize it's over.
Matthew G. Saroff , May 23, 2019 at 9:20 am
Theresa May has made a dogs breakfast of everything that she has ever done.
How has she managed to fail upward in a manner that would make Dick Cheney blush?
shtove , May 23, 2019 at 11:00 am
The phrase is, "dog's Brexit". Smooth texture on the palate, then a little gagging, and a somewhat sour aftertaste. Mmm.
Pavel , May 23, 2019 at 10:29 am
I'm afraid I have absolutely zero sympathy for May, Yves. Apart from the Windrush scandal, she has always been absolutely horrific on civil liberties. And let's not forget she has approved the sales of arms to the Saudis for their genocide in Yemen. As a believer in Scottish independence, however, if she enables a second referendum in Scotland, that would be one accomplishment, though not an intended one for her!
PlutoniumKun , May 23, 2019 at 11:31 am
As someone who shares her physical clumsiness, I used to feel quite sorry for her when she was on the receiving end of so much abuse, she seemed to me to be admirable in the way she had made her way through such a pit of vipers to get to the top. But I think the cumulative evidence now is that, quite simply, she is a genuinely hateful person – she's been responsible for too many genuinely horrible policies, many of which were promoted solely for her personal ambition. There are many, many more people deserving of sympathy.
TG , May 23, 2019 at 11:28 am
Suggestion: watch carefully what happens to May when she finally leaves office (as the surgeons say, all bleeding stops eventually). Will May sink into a shabby retirement? Or will she be quietly feted by the big banks, put on the boards of directors of various companies, end up a multi-millionaire etc., like Tony Blair was?
In other words: was May merely stupid, or was she a useful agent of chaos? Follow the money, and eventually, we will know.
Joe Well , May 23, 2019 at 8:15 pm
skk , May 23, 2019 at 12:15 pm
The current crop of first-line politicians in the UK truly are a bunch of talentless gits. I've now watched several weeks of ITN news, Peston, BBC Question Time and I struggle for phrases to describe this bunch. I found some choice ones in this article – https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/eilis-ohanlon-judging-current-crop-of-politicians-by-those-of-the-past-is-like-comparing-x-factor-rejects-with-the-beatles-37907555.html
Now I'm all for changing one's mind when the facts change/emerge – as I did – from a BrExiter ( aka a kick up the arse to the EU ( for Greece ) and the UK establishment ) to 2nd referendum/remain as the complexities, particularly the N.I. / Eire border aspect, came into focus – but this continual changes in positions by ALL sort of main-party politicians amazes me – when you compromise and STILL fail to deliver, its truly hapless, inept.
As the Belfast Telegraph put it ( back in March at that ! ):
The repeated failure to make Brexit less of a shambles suggests that politicians on all sides share that lack of conviction in their own judgment.
What's more terrifying still is that it increasingly looks as if they are right to think so little of their own abilities.
The terrifying thing is this is only the first stage.
Paradoxically, as the mess unfolds, my regular conversations and emails with Brit family and friends, all always politically engaged, this is mygen, nextgen, + nextgen+1 are less and less about it. They are all just getting on with their daily lives. I'm perhaps more animated about this than they are ! Just yesterday, all we talked about was our booking for a 4 day narrow-boat/canal boat trip and how excited the nextgen+1 are. So there is that, I suppose.
Harry , May 23, 2019 at 12:21 pm
Treeza "Apres moi, le deluge" May. I often wonder why the BoE decided to put her in "Clearing Services".
Andy Raushner , May 23, 2019 at 5:51 pm
I bet she moves onto the Mayland of Europe.
RBHoughton , May 23, 2019 at 6:53 pm
I completely agree and fervently hope that Brexit is the end of Thatcherism in the UK. We want to return to government of the people, by the people, etc., and not this constant flow of concessions to merchants that the moneymen in parliament enact to profit from. It has never yet been the case that electors in UK vote for companies – that's just the Tories working their insidious evil through the Chambers of Commerce – off with their heads. Back to Keynes and caring government.
Joe Well , May 23, 2019 at 8:17 pm
This made me smile: Glenn Greenwald gloating over Theresa May's fall . Back in the day, she detained his future husband to pressure Greenwald over the Snowden docs.
May 19, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
During the last days a right wing politician in Austria was taken down by using an elaborate sting. Until Friday Heinz-Christian Strache was leader of the far right (but not fascist) Freedom Party of Austria (FPOe) and the Vice Chancellor of the country. On Friday morning two German papers, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung and Der Spiegel published (German) reports (English) about an old video that was made to take Strache down.
The FPOe has good connections with United Russia, the party of the Russian President Putin, and to other right-wing parties in east Europe. It's pro-Russian position has led to verbal attacks on and defamation of the party from NATO supporting and neoliberal circles.
In July 2017 Strache and his right hand man Johann Gudenus, who is also the big number in the FPOe, get invited for dinner to a rented villa on Ibiza, the Spanish tourist island in the Mediterranean. They are told that the daughter of a Russian billionaire plans large investments in Austria. It was said that she would like to help his party. The alleged daughter of the Russian billionaire, who is actually also Austrian, and her "friend" serve an expensive dinner. Alcohol flows freely. The pair offers a large party donation but asks for returns in form of mark ups on public contracts.
Unknown to Strache the villa is professionally bugged with many hidden cameras and microphones.
A scene from the video. Source: Der Falter (vid, German)
During the six hour long party several schemes get proposed by the "Russian" and are discussed. Strache rejects most of them. He insists several times that everything they plan or do must be legal and conform to the law. He says that a large donation could probably be funneled through an endowment that would then support his party. It is a gray area under Austrian party financing laws. They also discuss if the "Russian" could buy the Kronen Zeitung , Austria's powerful tabloid, and use it to prop up his party.
The evening goes on with several bottles of vodka on the table. Starche gets a bit drunk and boosts in front of the "oligarch daughter" about all his connections to rich and powerful people. He does not actually have these.
Strache says that, in exchange for help for his party, the "Russian" could get public contracts for highway building and repair. Currently most of such contracts in Austria go to the large Austrian company, STRABAG, that is owned by a neoliberal billionaire who opposes the FPOe. At that time Strache was not yet in the government and had no way to decide about such contracts.
At one point Strache seems to understand that the whole thing is a setup. But his right hand man calms him down and vouches for the "Russian". The sting ends with Strache and his companion leaving the place. The never again see the "Russian" and her co-plotter. Nothing they talked about will ever come to fruition.
Three month later Strache and his party win more than 20% in the Austrian election and form a coalition government with the conservative party OeVP led by Chancellor Sebastian Kurz. Even while the FPOe controls several ministries, it does not achieve much politically. It lacks a real program and the government's policies are mostly run by the conservatives.
Nearly two years after the evening on Ibiza, ten days before the European parliament election in which Strache's party is predicted to achieve good results, a video of the evening on Ibiza is handed to two German papers which are known to be have strong transatlanticist leanings and have previously been used for other shady 'leaks'. The papers do not hesitate to take part in the plot and publish extensive reports about the video.
After the reports appeared Strache immediately stepped down and the conservatives ended the coalition with his party. Austria will now have new elections.
On Bloomberg Leonid Bershidsky opines on the case:Strache's discussion with the Russian oligarch's fake niece shows a propensity for dirty dealing that has nothing to do with idealistic nationalism. Nationalist populists often agitate against entrenched, corrupt elites and pledge to drain various swamps. In the videos, however, Strache and Gudenus behave like true swamp creatures, savoring rumors of drug and sex scandals in Austrian politics and discussing how to create an authoritarian media machine like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban's.
I do not believe that the people who voted for the FPOe (and similar parties in other countries) will subscribe to that view. The politics of the main stream parties in Austria have for decades been notoriously corrupt. Compared to them Strache and his party are astonishingly clean. In the video he insists several times that everything must stay within the legal realm. Whenever the "Russian" puts forward a likely illegal scheme, Starche emphatically rejects it.
Bershidsky continues:Strache, as one of the few nationalist populists in government in the European Union's wealthier member states, was an important member of the movement Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini has been trying to cobble together ahead of the European Parliament election that will take place next week. On Saturday, he was supposed to attend a Salvini-led rally in Milan with other like-minded politicians from across Europe. Instead, he was in Vienna apologizing to his wife and to Kurz and protesting pitifully that he'd been the victim of a "political assassination" -- a poisonous rain on the Italian right-winger's parade.
This leaves the European far right in disarray and plays into the hands of centrist and leftist forces ahead of next week's election. Salvini's unifying effort has been thoroughly undermined, ...
This is also a misreading of the case. The right-wing parties will use the case to boost their legitimacy.
Strache was obviously set up by some intelligence services, probably a German one with a British assist. The original aim was likely to blackmail him. But during the meeting on Ibiza Strache promised and did nothing illegal. Looking for potential support for his party is not a sin. Neither is discussing investments in Austria with a "daughter of a Russian oligarch." Some boosting while drunk is hardly a reason to go to jail. When the incident provided too little material to claim that Strache is corrupt, the video was held back until the right moment to politically assassinate him with the largest potential damage to his party. That moment was thought to be now.
But that Strache stepped down after the sudden media assault only makes him more convincing. The right-wing all over Europe will see him as a martyr who was politically assassinated because he worked for their cause. The issue will increase the right-wingers hate against the 'liberal' establishment. It will further motivate them: "They attack us because we are right and winning." The new far-right block Natteo Salvini will setup in the European Parliament will likely receive a record share of votes.
Establishment writers notoriously misinterpret the new right wing parties and their followers. This stand-offish sentence in the Spiegel story about Strache's party demonstrates the problem:In the last election, the party drew significant support from the working class, in part because of his ability to simplify even the most complicated of issues and play the common man, even in his role as vice chancellor.
The implicit thesis, that the working class is too dumb to understand the "most complicated of issues", is not only incredibly snobbish but utterly false. The working class understands very well what the establishment parties have done to it and continue to do. The increasing vote share of the far-right is a direct consequence of the behavior of the neoliberal center and of the lack of real left alternatives.
Last week, before the Strache video appeared, Craig Murray put his finger on the wound:The massive economic shock following the banking collapse of 2007–8 is the direct cause of the crisis of confidence which is affecting almost all the institutions of western representative democracy. The banking collapse was not a natural event, like a tsunami. It was a direct result of man-made systems and artifices which permitted wealth to be generated and hoarded primarily through multiple financial transactions rather than by the actual production and sale of concrete goods, and which then disproportionately funnelled wealth to those engaged in the mechanics of the transactions.
The rejection of the political class manifests itself in different ways and has been diverted down a number of entirely blind alleys giving unfulfilled promise of a fresh start – Brexit, Trump, Macron. As the vote share of the established political parties – and public engagement with established political institutions – falls everywhere, the chattering classes deride the political symptoms of status quo rejection by the people as "populism". It is not populism to make sophisticated arguments that undermine the received political wisdom and take on the entire weight of established media opinion.
If one wants to take down the far right one has to do so with arguments and good politics for the working class. Most people, especially working class people, have a strong sense for justice. The political assassination of Christian Strache is unjust. What was done during the 2007-8 banking crisis was utterly corrupt and also unjust. Instead of going to jail the bankers were rewarded with extreme amounts of money for their assault on the well being of the people. The public was then told that it must starve through austerity to make up for the loss of money.
While I consider myself to be a strong leftist who opposes the right wherever possible, I believe to understand why people vote for Strache's FBOe and similar parties. When one talks to these people issues of injustice and inequality always come up. The new 'populist' parties at least claim to fight against the injustice done to the common men. Unlike most of the establishment parties they seem to be still mostly clean and not yet corrupted.
In the early 1990s Strache actually flirted with violent fascists but he rejected their way. While he has far-right opinions, he and his like are no danger to our societies. If we can not accept that Strache and his followers have some legitimate causes, we will soon find us confronted with way more extreme people. The neoliberal establishment seems to do its best to achieve that.
Posted by b on May 19, 2019 at 01:10 PM | Permalink
May 18, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
Jen , May 18, 2019 1:46:55 AM | linkThanks to everyone who replied to my comment @ 25.
I certainly agree with Peter AU 1 @ 33 and 40 that the Western (or more specifically the English) mentality of the period in which the US was founded as a set of colonies and then later became a nation was a significant influence on the US' later conception of its place in the world. The Pilgrims must have certainly felt themselves blessed by God in surviving (with the help of native individuals like Squanto) their early years of crop failures and famines; at the same time they regarded their new environment as theirs for the taking (in their mind-set, God had willed it so) and the native people, being non-Christian, as their enemies. The Pilgrims may have seen themselves as God's Chosen people cast into the wilderness like the Israelites wandering in the Sinai under Moses for 40 years. This is one root of 'Murica's belief in itself as the Exceptional Nation. (It probably also is the root of the Special Relationship between the US and Israel.)
Overthrowing British monarchical rule and replacing it with a republican form of government (and nicking the idea of federal government from the Iroquois confederacy of indigenous nations around the Great Lakes region) no doubt reinforced this self-belief in being the Exceptional Nation. Add to that the territorial expansion across the prairies and the Rockies, then receiving waves of immigrants from northern, central and eastern Europe (mostly German-speaking) through the 19th century, wars (War of 1812 and the American Civil War) in which the British are either the enemy or aid the Confederate States, the genocide of indigenous peoples by the US government in the late 1800s and the legacy of slavery (which American slave-owning states claimed was supported by the Bible) and you have the foundation for a nation that believes that everyone around the world looks up to it for moral and spiritual leadership.
The mentality of a nation founded by people who considered themselves God's Chosen probably also finds unusual parallels in the superhero phenomenon. Most comic superheroes like Superman, Spiderman et al are "chosen" in some way (even if by accident as in the case of Spiderman). They are blessed with unusual powers and make a choice as to how to use their powers, whether for good or evil. They nearly always work alone and if they work together, they don't necessarily collaborate well but tend to work in parallel against evil. Superheroes like Batman work alone (or with a junior partner) aided by loads of technology which require his alter ego to be an insanely wealthy and eccentric industrialist. As Wage Laborer @ 35 says, all this definitely is internalised: I didn't even have to look up anything on Batman to be able to say all this!
May 14, 2019 | www.unz.com
It seems as if British Jewish pressure groups have achieved their goal: anti-Semitism is now a mass movement in the UK. The rabid Zionist Algemeiner reports that "Antisemitism and virulent Israel-hatred were rife on Saturday at a pro-Palestinian demonstration in London."
The Jewish press seems to be upset by a pro-Palestinian march that assembled at the offices of the BBC, not too far from a synagogue. I guess that the rationale is simple: once London is dotted with synagogues, human rights enthusiasts will be pushed out of the city. They will have to gather somewhere out of the green belt.
Jewish outlets complain that participants brandished 'antisemitic badges and placards,' such as "Israel provokes anti-Semitism." I am puzzled. Is this really an anti-Semitic statement? If anything, it is an attempt to identify the cause of anti-Semitism.
Jewish outlets are also upset by images of the Star of David crossed with a swastika. To start with, those who equate Israel with Nazi Germany actually contemplate the memory of the Holocaust and are by no means 'deniers.' I guess that the time is ripe for Zionists and supporters of Israel to accept that in consideration of the ongoing Israeli racist crime in Palestine, the Star of David has become a symbol of evil in the eyes of many.
The Jewish press is upset by the slogan "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" that calls for Israel's destruction. I would actually expect Jews who seem to be upset by the Hitlerian concept of an 'Aryans-only state' to accept that the concept of a 'Jews-only state' is equally disturbing.' They should support Israel becoming 'a state of its citizens' and accept that sooner or later this state will evolve into Palestine, from the river to the sea.
The Jewish press is totally irritated by Jewish Voice for Labour's Secretary Glyn Secker, who claimed that pro-Israel Labour officials were a "fifth column" in the party and asked, "What on earth are Jews doing in the gutter with these rats?" I would remind my readers that Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) is itself a Jewish racist exclusive political body that wouldn't accept non-Jews into its ranks. I have wondered more than once how it is possible that the anti-racist Jeremy Corbyn is willing to be associated with such a body. However, in his statement (if quoted correctly by the Jewish press), secretary Glyn Secker actually expresses the most disturbing tribal supremacist view. He looks down at a bunch of labour MPs whom he labels 'rats' and call for his Jewish brethren to disassociate from these low creatures. Glyn, in practice, sustains the Jew/Goy binary divide. He should actually receive the Kosher weekly award rather than be abused by the Zionist league.
But we can be reassured. Campaign Against Antisemitism has already confirmed that they are "reviewing the evidence that we gathered today. Where crimes have been committed, we will work with the authorities to ensure that there are arrests and prosecutions."
ORDER IT NOW
The facts on the ground are undeniable. The more Jewish bodies campaign against anti-Semitism the more opposition to Jewish politics is detected. The relentless Zionist campaign against Corbyn didn't hurt him, as he is still leading in most national election polls . Branding Nigel Farage as an anti-Semite didn't touch the man whose party is polling higher than the Tories and Labour combined in the coming European Parliament election. One way to look at it is to argue that Brits are not moved by the Jewish anti-Semitism hysteria. Another way to look at it is to conclude that Brits are actually grossly disturbed by the anti-Semitism frenzy. Being hated by the Zionist lobby has become a badge of honour, an entry ticket to Britain's political premiership.
Miro23 , says: May 13, 2019 at 9:36 pm GMTFran Taubman , says: May 13, 2019 at 9:09 pm GMT
The facts on the ground are undeniable. The more Jewish bodies campaign against anti-Semitism the more opposition to Jewish politics is detected. The relentless Zionist campaign against Corbyn didn't hurt him, as he is still leading in most national election polls.
In contrast to the 1960's Israel is starting to look unfashionable. Young people feel embarrassed to be associated with Jewish activism and Zionism.
Being unfashionable is a very serious state of affairs. Many failing businesses will testify to this. You do all the tried and tested stuff, and it just doesn't work.@Grace Poole Why is a Jewish only state disturbing? It is surrounded by 32 Apartheid muslim only countries.renfro , says: May 13, 2019 at 9:37 pm GMT
Could I move to Iran?
If Israel becomes a theocracy not a democracy, who cares. Look at the neighborhood.
If not Jewish only then what a Jihad state like the rest of the Arab world?
Give Israel the razor blade.
All you dog noses who claim the Jews made a banquet from the holocaust. Just look at the meal the Arabs made from those original 750,000 refugees created by the State of Israel founding war.
Cry me a river. They have an entire UN agency devoted to their every need, and status to 3rd and 4th generation children of the originals not living in the country, who have citizenship else where, How does that add up to the 5 million diaspora pals.
It is all such a game to see Israel go down mostly thru jealously that the Jews came from the ashes of near by extension to create the best country over there.
I would pay each one of the Pals 2 million to move to Jordan from the West Bank, and Gaza to the Sinai with joint ownership with Egypt. But that is a good idea and would solve the problem. No one wants to solve the problem they just want to see the Jews go down. Gilad licks his lips over it.@Fran Taubman "There's always kind of a calming feeling I tell folks when I think of the Holocaust, and the tragedy of the Holocaust, and the fact that it was my ancestors -- Palestinians -- who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity, their existence in many ways, have been wiped out, and some people's passports," said Tlaib.Anon  Disclaimer , says: May 13, 2019 at 10:03 pm GMT
"And just all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post-the Holocaust, post-the tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that time. And I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that, right, in many ways. But they did it in a way that took their human dignity away and it was forced on them."
Love it ..just the right thing to say.@Fran TaubmanJames N. Kennett , says: May 13, 2019 at 10:19 pm GMT
Why is a Jewish only state disturbing?
Because Jews hold the establishment of Israel to be a prerequisite for the destruction of all other nations in a final world war, which the Jews seem intent on instigating with Islam. Zohar Shemot 32a.
After which Israel is slated to be the only remaining national power (everyone else being destroyed).
Do not forget your books. We don't.
Why is a non-Jewish European-only State disturbing to you and other Jews?
You have your own state but refuse the same to others. You are not Europeans (Brits, Germans, etc) as these were originally ethnic-racial categories before you interfered. Yet you claim them your yourselves as well, and in doing so deny everyone else an exclusive identity.
Jews only allow themselves an exclusive identity, because your "god" (the writing of Jews) only gave Judea a nation. Correct?
Asking moronic questions at this point, which everyone knows the answer to, is insulting. You people are not innocent, are not dumb, and you know precisely why people are hostile to your mass genocidal, supremacist tribe.@Fran TaubmanJames N. Kennett , says: May 13, 2019 at 10:49 pm GMT
I would pay each one of the Pals 2 million to move to Jordan from the West Bank, and Gaza to the Sinai with joint ownership with Egypt. But that is a good idea and would solve the problem.
At a cost of $9 trillion. Who is going to pay?
Realistically, offer $100,000 per person, or $450 billion total. Double that to include the diaspora Pals, and close the refugee camps. If the resettlement took place over a decade, it would cost $90 billion a year, which could come from the US Defense budget. The latter could be wound down over the same decade, as it would no longer be needed to fight wars on behalf of Israel. Israel would get land and peace; Palestinians would be well compensated; and the USA would be relieved of its duty as a Middle-Eastern warmonger. Everybody wins. What's not to like?
However, to gain approval for the plan in the USA, it would be necessary to show that the expenditure is both worthwhile and an improvement over the status quo . This would mean explaining what the status quo actually is; and how and why it has come about. Unfortunately, this information is so inflammatory that it can never be publicly discussed.anon  Disclaimer , says: May 14, 2019 at 5:59 am GMT
Antisemitism Is Now a Mass Movement in Britain
I don't think this is true. A few years back, Daniel Finkelstein of the (London) Times characterised British anti-semitism as "background noise".
The pro-Palestinian demonstrations are the "exception that proves the rule". Their support has two cores: radical Muslims, and political activists on the Left. Neither is a mass movement.
The British Left tends to support people who have the most "victim points". Rightly or wrongly, they believe that Palestinians have a lot of victim points and, as the Holocaust moves from living memory into history, that Israelis and diaspora Jews have very few.
Furthermore, the Left particularly seeks ogres who are white and Western. Paradoxically, they dislike Israel because Israelis are similar to Britons, not because they are different. In contrast, massacres by Saddam Hussein, ISIS, or Rwandans never attracted much opprobrium from the Left. The idea of holding people to a lower moral standard, the less they look or sound like oneself, is obviously racist; but it is followed by people who genuinely believe that they are the least racist people on earth.@AnonAntares , says: May 14, 2019 at 7:09 am GMT
Why is a non-Jewish European-only State disturbing to you and other Jews?
because most jews, like taubstein, are racist, supremacist hypocritesIsrael's racism is hardcoded into law.nicholas nicola , says: May 14, 2019 at 8:09 am GMTHoorahnicholas nicola , says: May 14, 2019 at 8:14 am GMT
We have moved from the very REAL MURDER of thousands of Muslims by Jews in Palestine
to debating fluff in peoples navalsMillions of Jews have emigrated to the middle of a massive clan of muslims and formed a military enclave which is slaughtering muslims en-mass.Bill Jones , says: May 14, 2019 at 9:49 am GMT
Do you think that the collective memory of The Ummah will forget this?@James N. Kennett "which could come from the US Defense budget"Fool's Paradise , says: May 14, 2019 at 11:58 am GMT
Unfortunately the US doesn't have a "Defense Budget" It has an Attack Budget, and it's not going anywhere but up.The world won't be free until it's a mass movement everywhere. People are finally waking up to this truth: No Israel, no war.Fran Taubman , says: May 14, 2019 at 3:38 pm GMT@nicholas nicola I hope the collective Ummah looks at:mark green , says: May 14, 2019 at 4:15 pm GMT
All of Africa
All of Arabia
Slave labor in Libya
Women's rights in the Islamic world
The entire muslim population in Israel has quadrupled since 1948. I guess the slaughtering of Muslims is not going so well.
You are deranged and delusional.Well said! All Jewry wants is everything.Longfisher , says: May 14, 2019 at 6:01 pm GMT
Jews demand their own exclusive state (subsidized by goyim), the privilege to cleanse their sacred (and expanding) Jews-Only territory of native gentiles, and the right to travel (and live) among the goyim as they see fit.
And don't you dare complain about these privileges. That's anti-Semitism!
And then there's the matter of speech.
Jews not only enjoy top tier access to the MSM (since they've conspired to buy up most of it for the undisclosed purpose of advancing pan-Zionist hegemony) but they actively and openly form teams, lobbies and NGOs to limit the right and opportunity of others to speak freely and assemble lawfully for the purpose of expressing their own political grievances.
Resistance and resentment to the entrenched double-standards that favor Jews, and state-sponsored lawlessness that empowers Israel, is routinely decried as anti-Jewish 'bigotry'. It is also mislabeled as 'anti-Semitism'. This keeps the opposition weak and off-balance.
How very clever. How very diabolical.
Why not call 'anti-Semitism what it is?
So-called 'anti-Semitism' is simply anti-Jewishness (or counter-Jewisness). It is merely an attitude.
Depending upon the circumstances, this attitude might be right or it may be wrong. But 'anti-Semitism' is all about Jews, their behavior, and their impact on non-Jews. Why not focus on this inescapable fact?
And since 'anti-Semitism' is not about 'Semites' at all, the very term itself is something of a canard.
On the other hand, organized Jewry is truly powerful. Sometimes it does real damage. Sometimes it does real harm. Sometimes it destroys. Why can't we talk about it openly?
Calling morally-grounded opposition to the real damage and real harm done by Jews 'anti-Semitism' is a calculated libel.
On the other hand, identifying and castigating organized Jewry for its various sins is vital, courageous, and healthy. So do the right thing.When I was much younger and in Graduate School I hosted three British students who were on a summer sabbatical at the medical college I was attending.Longfisher , says: May 14, 2019 at 6:04 pm GMT
There was no particular reason that the Jews in America came up over beers, many beers (Texans and the British like beer equally well). But they told me that there was and expression among common British about Jews, and, no it's not that the only good Jew is a dead Jew.
It was that "antisemitism is when one hates the Jews more than is absolutely necessary".
Interesting concept, that is."Jewish outlets complain that participants brandished 'antisemitic badges and placards,' such as "Israel provokes anti-Semitism." I am puzzled. Is this really an anti-Semitic statement? If anything, it is an attempt to identify the cause of anti-Semitism."Fran Taubman , says: May 14, 2019 at 8:32 pm GMT
Yep, absolutely true.
It's not their religion about which folks object. It's not their race, if you want to call it a race.
IT'S THEIR BEHAVIOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@renfroRonnie , says: May 14, 2019 at 9:36 pm GMT
Wrong. At the time, Haj Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, was a supporter and ally of Hitler. When the two met, al-Husseini told Hitler that they shared the same enemies: "the English, the Jews, and the Communists." The two went on to scheme about how best to set upon and destroy the Jews of the Middle East. What's more, the Arabs regularly massacred Jews in Mandatory Palestine.
Lies are the lifeblood of anti-Semitism, and there's a purpose to Tlaib's false history. It serves to bolster the lie that the Jews waged war on a friendly and welcoming people, stole their land, and condemned them to ruin. Anti-Semitism depends on lies because its very motive is to hide the truth of one's own failings and lay blame on the Jews. The history of anti-Semitism is, in a sense, a history of wicked fabrications: From Jewish deicide, to the blood libel, to the claims of Jewish sorcery, to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, to the idea that Jews were tipped off about 9/11, to the claim that Jews push the U.S. into wars, to the outrage over Jews supposedly buying politicians, to lies about Israel's founding.
Tlaib and Omar are exemplars of this tradition, peddlers of anti-Semitic folktales. In addition to spouting revisionist history, Tlaib has accused America's Israel-supporters of dual loyalty. Omar has done that and more, claiming that Israel has hypnotized the world into not seeing the evil it perpetrates, and stating that America's pro-Israel policies are simply purchased by those who support the Jewish state.It is a very powerful and accurate expression to say that Israel is "unfashionable" – it is also true that most young people today feel no connection to the holocaust – when Rashida uses the word "comforting" to refer to her people's sacrifice for the Jews, I feel that the customary Zionist response to call these expressions "canards" will also be seen as an unfashionable response. Thank God for brave people like Tlaid and Omar who express distaste for the unfashionable and vulgar behavior of Israel and Zionists. Omar and Tlaib have already emboldened millions of others who share their ambivalence and horror, when they read about the Israel colonist settlers and their brutality to the Palestinians they displace .Curmudgeon , says: May 15, 2019 at 12:27 am GMT@Fran Taubman
It is surrounded by 32 Apartheid muslim only countries.
Not so. Lebanon, Syria, and even Egypt have Christian minorities that have been protected over the years. Jordan has a few, but not many. Iraq, prior to Israel's proxy war on Saddam had plenty of Christians, including Tariq Aziz, one of Saddam's ministers.. Palestine has/had Christians that were killed by Israelis in the same way Muslims were.
Could I move to Iran?
I don't know, I'm not in charge of the Iranian immigration policy. Why not ask the Jews who are members of the Majles? You know, the legislative body with seats reserved for Jews and other minorities.
Like most Zionists, you seem to ignore the part where T.E. Lawrence got the go ahead from the British government to promise Arabs, which included Palestine, freedom from the Ottomans and self rule, in exchange for a revolt against them. That promise was never kept. The philo-Semite mass murderer Churchill is alleged to have organized Lawrence's assassination.
May 03, 2019 | caucus99percent.com
Alex BudarinThe new millennium has seen a marked increase in parties and movements which appeal to racial and ethnic nationalism. What's behind it? I have an idea.
Economic globalization could be a factor, as multinational corporations have shifted operations and production around the globe, to places where labor is cheaper and there's less official concern for public well-being. That's meant the loss of skilled-labor jobs in a number of countries with relatively high wages and state regulation in the name of public interest. There's doubtless anger that such jobs have been lost to Mexicans, Chinese, Filipinos, and people of other nations. But there's also evidence that this racial-ethnic anger is local and less abstract. Something else has triggered highly authoritarian Conservatives, I think.
The studies of Conservatives and authoritarians which I've cited in previous essays [ here and here ] suggested that these individuals are more sensitive to, and more alarmed by, conditions which present them with uncertainty. Any change from the status quo will do that. Consequently, any perceived deviation from the traditional order, with its established culture and hierarchies, will cause them to band together and fight for the status quo ante.
It's my hypothesis that, in many nations around the world, the 21st Century brought with it the increased presence and upward mobility of populations which Conservative/authoritarian citizens considered non-traditional and lower status. Conservative/authoritarian citizens would have viewed these social changes as threats to their traditional cultures and hierarchies, and they would have taken political actions intended to conserve or restore their traditional orders [e.g., to "Make America Great Again"].
Between 2000 and 2015, estimated global migration increased from about 173 million migrants to 244 million migrants, a jump of 41% (if I did the math correctly). Here are the top 10 countries to which they migrated:
Apr 27, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com
Ishmael Zechariah , 27 April 2019 at 11:00 AMColonel,turcopolier , 27 April 2019 at 11:00 AM
I would appreciate your comments about John Huntsman and his remarks " each of the carriers operating in the Mediterranean as this time represent 100,000 tons of international diplomacy", "Diplomatic communication and dialogue, coupled with the strong defenses these ships provide, demonstrate to Russia that if it truly seeks better relations with the United states, it must cease its destabilizing activities around the world." Strange words coming from a "diplomat". It might be informative to see the kind of a reception he will get when he returns to Russia as "ambassador".
Ishmael ZechariahIZ A surprisingly crude expression by Huntsman but, in fact, reality in this administration.
Apr 27, 2019 | www.globalresearch.ca
The Alarming Rise of Ukraine's Neo-Nazi MPs Since the 2014 "Pro-democracy Revolution" By Shane Quinn Global Research, April 26, 2019 Region: Europe Theme: History In-depth Report: UKRAINE REPORT
Less than two years ago, the Ukraine's parliament (Verkhovna Rada) voted to outlaw the St George's Ribbon, an emblem often worn to commemorate those who liberated the Soviet Union from Hitler's rule. Up to seven million Ukrainian infantrymen comprised part of the Red Army during their struggle against Nazi Germany, as Hitler was finally broken in the east.
By winter 1943, the once apparently indestructible Wehrmacht was spinning on its tail, their officers with their heads turning about westward, as they gradually retreated towards the German frontiers. Come the spring of 1945, about 2.5 million dead Ukrainian soldiers lay strewn across central and eastern Europe, many of their bodies never to be recovered.
The decision by an increasingly far-right Ukrainian parliament to ban remembrance symbols which commemorate those who fought against the Third Reich is, therefore, a desecration of their memory. It is an attempt to wash over that awful suffering the Ukrainian state endured during the Nazi occupation, with Hitler outlining plans to turn the country into a servile colony of Germanic dominion.
Over elapsing time from the February 2014 US-instituted "pro-democracy revolution", an ever expanding group of neo-Nazis has been elected to office. Notable amid these menacing figures is the far-right military commander Yuriy Bereza (image on the right), an MP since November 2014 who was elected under the title "People's Deputy of Ukraine".
Bereza is a member of fascist-infiltrated party, People's Front, which counts among its prominent MPs the neo-Nazi Andriy Parubiy , Chairman of the Ukrainian parliament since April 2016. In the early 1990s, Parubiy co-founded the far-right Social-National Party of Ukraine with fellow extremist Oleh Tyahnybok, that later became known as the Svoboda (Freedom) party.
When, in May 2017, a few of the Ukraine's conscientious MPs objected to moves in banning the St George's Ribbon, Bereza roared down from his parliamentary seat that he would like to "grab a machine gun and shoot those bast*rds". Bereza cuts an intimidating figure. He is a tall man routinely clad in full army fatigues, with tightly-cropped hair, broad shoulders and stern expression.
In December 2018, Bereza punched in the face Nestor Shufrych , an MP with the centre-left party For Life, after the latter removed a poster from the parliamentary podium which accused wealthy Ukrainian politician, Viktor Medvedchuk (image on the left), of being a Kremlin "agent". Medvedchuk is said to be an associate of Russian president Vladimir Putin.
Bereza is familiar with the use of arms. Since April 2014, he has held the position of Dnipro Battalion leader: A fascist-linked unit which has fought Moscow-backed separatists in eastern Ukrainian regions such as the Donetsk Oblast, an area which rests directly upon Russia's south-western border, and is a mere 400 miles from Volgograd (Stalingrad). The Dnipro Battalion is subordinated to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, which among other things implements state policy.
Bereza and his regiment were involved in fighting during the autumn 2014 Battle of Ilovaisk, ending in decisive victory for the Moscow-supported Donetsk People's Republic.
Bereza's cause has drawn sympathy and backing from commercial media outlets like the Los Angeles Times, which wrote how his unit "survived on grass and rainwater as they braved five days of incessant sniper fire". The LA Times also quotes Bereza and, despite a heightened risk of nuclear war, the newspaper calls for increased funding to be granted to the far-right battalions.
Over Christmas 2014, Bereza's regiment was accused of war crimes by human rights groups, such as the deliberate starvation of Ukrainian civilians. His battalion has received more than $10 million of financial support from billionaire businessman Ihor Kolomoyskyi . There are photographs of the oligarch shaking hands amiably with Bereza in spring 2014.
Kolomoyskyi has provided critical support too for Volodymyr Zelensky , the Ukraine's president-elect, by guaranteeing him widespread exposure on television networks that the tycoon owns. Kolomoyskyi is one of the most powerful and affluent Ukrainians in the world. His corporate influence extends from the Caucasus of Eurasia to the Appalachian mountains of North America.
In a plot befitting a Hollywood film noir, Kolomoyskyi is presently under investigation by the FBI regarding claims of "ordering contract killings" and "financial crimes", including money laundering and embezzlement. In 2016, Kolomoyskyi was accused of defrauding the Ukraine's largest bank (PrivatBank) of hundreds of millions of dollars.US and NATO's Ongoing Support for Neo-Nazis in Ukraine
Also that year a criminal case was opened in Russia against Kolomoyskyi, purporting that he had organized the killings of civilians. He has been compelled to deny other allegations in the past relating to bribery and abduction.
Kolomoyskyi, who lived in the US for a period and retains vast business interests in states like Ohio and West Virginia, moved to Israel last September – which may well complicate a potential extradition to America, as he also possesses part Israeli citizenship.
Kolomoyskyi has bankrolled other far-right regiments fighting in eastern Ukraine, such as the Azov, Aidar and Donbas battalions. These armed groups have been cited by human rights activists for committing an array of offences, including war crimes – which have gone unpunished – like torture, abductions, possible executions, unlawful detention, sexual assault, etc.
An alarming number of neo-Nazis have indeed been elected to office in the Ukrainian parliament. Over the past five years of what the Washington Post calls "fledgling democracy", the following fascist figures have all enjoyed work as Ukrainian MPs, and they each comprise past and current members of the neo-Nazi Svoboda party: Oleh Tyahnybok, Ihor Mosiychuk, Oleh Osukhovskyi, Yuriy Bublyk, Oleksandr Marchenko, Oleh Makhnitskyi, Andriy Ilyenko, Ruslan Koshulynskyi, Mykhailo Holovko, Yuriy Levchenko, Igor Miroshnychenko, Pavlo Kyrylenko and Eduard Leonov.
The above's presence in the corridors of power has been almost undocumented in mass media reporting. There are other fascists receiving continued employment in the Ukrainian parliament – like Andriy Biletsky , co-founder of the now defunct white supremacist Social-National Assembly. Since late 2016, MP Biletsky has held the leadership of National Corps, a far-right party. This organization is reported to be expanding steadily with Biletsky saying last month that,
"we see how successful our movement is Ukraine is tired of the chaos, it needs new people who will protect the country".
For over two years from May 2014 Biletsky commanded the Azov Battalion, which enjoyed tacit Western support whilst fighting Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine. Azov Battalion soldiers can be seen in photographs giving Nazi salutes, while flanked with swastikas and other symbols based on SS insignia.
More far-right individuals are holding seats like Andrey Artemenko, a Canadian citizen and MP since November 2014, who claims to be a "neo-conservative" and has membership of the fascist-led Radical Party. The Radical Party leader and MP is far-right extremist Oleh Lyashko , whose militant activities in the east of Ukraine were condemned by human rights organizations, in which he was described as "one particularly errant MP". Lyashko has been accused in preceding months of corruption relating to "illicit enrichment", which he denies.
Among the Radical Party MPs is the briefly above-mentioned Ihor Mosiychuk, a neo-Nazi who is a past member of both the Svoboda party and Social-National Assembly. Mosiychuk, sworn to office in November 2014, is also a journalist and editor-in-chief of the hardline newspaper Vechirnaya Vasilkov.
Serhiy Melnychuk , former leader of the Aidar Battalion, is likewise a Radical Party MP, as he has been since November 2014. Melnychuk is currently under investigation over allegations regarding a false assets declaration, while he has previously been the subject of multiple legal cases and accused of abduction. Melnychuk was stripped of his parliamentary immunity in June 2015.
There are further far-right Ukrainian MPs embedded in seemingly respectable parties like the People's Front. Among them is Ihor Lapin, a multi-decorated militant commander who comprised part of the Aidar Battalion, which draped Nazi-style insignia over its armoured vehicles.
Holding membership of the People's Front too is the aforementioned Parubiy, who has enjoyed trips to America and Canada, and is acquainted with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg . The far-right military figure, Mykhailo Havryliuk , is himself a People's Front member and MP, with Yuriy Bereza as stated also claiming a position in that party.
There are in addition fascists posing as "independents" in parliament such as Volodymyr Parasyuk, a former soldier in the Dnipro Battalion, commanded by Bereza. Parasyuk is a past member of the neo-Nazi party, Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists. He was elected in November 2014, and still enjoys a place as MP more than four years on. Parasyuk has a reputation for physically assaulting people he does not like, including cowardly attacks on statesman Oleksandr Vilkul and security chief Vasyl Hrytsak, kicking the latter in the head while he was seated.
Boryslav Bereza is a separate extreme right-wing independent MP, and was elected in November 2014; he is a former spokesperson for Right Sector, a fascist party, and despite his surname he is no relation to Yuriy Bereza.
Boryslav Bereza is an open admirer of the Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera , speaking warmly of his "three classic principles" in interviews. Moreover, in December 2014 Boryslav Bereza acknowledged that during the fighting in eastern Ukraine, Right Sector provided important assistance for Biletsky's notorious Azov Battalion.
MP Dmytro Yarosh , the one-time head of Right Sector, is yet another neo-Nazi who in the past was placed on Interpol's international wanted list, acceding to the Kremlin's request. Since late 2014, Yarosh constitutes a Ukrainian MP, and for many years he has been leader of the Tryzub (Trident) paramilitary group, whose full title is the Stepan Bandera All-Ukrainian Organization.
In Western establishment dialogue – pertaining to regimes they support – the terms "neo-Nazi" and "fascist" have been virtually erased from official records and reporting. These unequivocal labels are instead replaced with descriptions like "ultra-conservative", "nationalist" and "maverick". The latter ambiguous words blur the lines of neo-Nazism and fascism, sowing seeds of doubt and confusion in the reader's mind. A fascist now becomes an ultra-conservative or nationalist.
There are other post "revolution" MPs who have been part of fascist regiments, like Nadiya Savchenko, an Iraq War veteran and former instructor in the Aidar Battalion. Savchenko is a far-right extremist, and had been held in a Ukrainian jail for over a year until her unexpected release last week – after being suspected of planning a terrorist attack on the Ukrainian parliament building, and intending to overthrow the government. Savchenko still faces trial regarding these claims, and prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko said her departure from prison suggests that the country's court apparatus is "gravely ill".
In June 2014, Savchenko was arrested by Russian authorities, placed on trial, and after long deliberation was charged in March 2016 with complicity in the killing of two state journalists. President Petro Poroshenko championed Savchenko's cause, describing her as "a symbol of the struggle for Ukraine"; and in March 2015 he awarded her the title "Hero of Ukraine", the highest honour that can be bestowed upon a Ukrainian citizen.
Semen Semenchenko , the far-right Donbas Battalion commander, was sworn in as a Ukrainian MP in November 2014. Semenchenko's election to parliament came weeks after his regiment was accused by a UN monitoring mission of executing war crimes on Ukrainian civilians, such as torture, beatings and sexual assault.
In September 2014, Semenchenko had arrived in Washington where he met Congress and Pentagon representatives. That same month he publicly called for US military backing, and enjoyed further visits to America later that year, while he is himself an admirer of Israel. In June 2017, an appeal was expounded against Semenchenko by former Donbas Battalion soldiers, who wanted an investigation conducted after accusing him of criminal acts.
In December 2018, Semenchenko was detained in Tbilisi, Georgia and suspected of "illegal possession and acquisition of arms". He was not arrested due to having a diplomatic passport, and thereafter travelled by airplane to an unknown destination.
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Apr 20, 2019 | consortiumnews.com
Originally from: Behind the Omar Outrage Suppressed History of 9-11 – ConsortiumnewsJeff Harrison , April 19, 2019 at 11:24
The US doesn't seem to have the ability to see ourselves as others see us. This explains why we don't understand why other countries/peoples react badly towards us. This will get worse as we move into a more imperialistic mode. We continue to use the anachronistic phrase "leader of the free world" all the while missing out on the fact that the rest of the world has, in essence, become free and they, for the most part, don't want us leading them.
Anarcissie , April 19, 2019 at 11:12
I suppose, then, that that would mean going back to the earliest days of the 20th century, when the British leadership, considering that its future navy, a main pillar of its empire, would have to be fueled with oil instead of coal, and that there was a lot of oil in the Middle East, began its imperial projects there, which of course involved wars, police, spies, economic blackmail, and other tools of empire. The US seized or wangled or inherited the imperial system from the British and thus acquired the associated regional, ethnic, and religious hostilities as well. Since the Arabs and other Muslims were weak compared with the Great Powers, resistance meant terrorism and guerrilla warfare on one side and massive intervention and the support of local strongmen, Mafia bosses, dictators, and so on on the other.
After 9/11. mentioning this important fact became 'justifying bin Laden' or 'spitting on the graves of the dead' so you couldn't talk about it.
But, yes, 'somebody did something'. You don't need a conspiracy theory, because a conspiracy is a secret agreement to commit a crime, and this crime is right out in the open. Millions of people killed for fun and profit. Not that there weren't other conspiracies as well.
Apr 19, 2019 | consortiumnews.com
Originally from: Behind the Omar Outrage Suppressed History of 9-11 – ConsortiumnewsJeff Harrison , April 19, 2019 at 11:24
The US doesn't seem to have the ability to see ourselves as others see us. This explains why we don't understand why other countries/peoples react badly towards us. This will get worse as we move into a more imperialistic mode. We continue to use the anachronistic phrase "leader of the free world" all the while missing out on the fact that the rest of the world has, in essence, become free and they, for the most part, don't want us leading them.
Apr 16, 2019 | www.unz.com
Even people on the fringe of the Jewish Israeli society, the Russian Israelis, were all for Jewish nationalism and against socialism and Arabs. This is really silly. They are hardly considered Jews, to begin with. The Ministry of Interior plans to check them for DNA and whether they are Jewish at all.
The Russians are weak economically, and their participation in the national discourse is minimal. There is not a single Russian on the national Israeli TV channels.
They have a party of their own, the party of Mr Lieberman. However, the main demands of Mr Lieberman are (1) to bring the death penalty upon Arabs, (2) to bomb and invade Gaza, and (3) to make Mr Lieberman the Minister of Defence. And the Russian Israelis voted for him – or for Mr Netanyahu – anyway.
Israelis of Oriental origins who inhabit poor peripheral towns are similar to Russians. They also vote for Netanyahu and for his nationalist right-wing party, Likud. They are proud they vote against the Ashkenazi Blue-and-White Party, though all leaders of Likud are Ashkenazi Jews.
Is there a chance to change things in Israel, with such a Parliament? Well, yes. A military defeat can change minds, like it did in many countries many times. Otherwise, it is hard to imagine what would cause Netanyahu to change his course in view of the US support, Saudi friendship, Syrian weakness, and good election results. He is not for resolving conflicts, he is for managing conflict, and he is doing that well.
Russia's Putin plays ball with Bibi, too. Perhaps he does not like Bibi's relentless attacks on Syria, perhaps his heart goes for Palestinians, but he is a cautious statesman, and he does not want to antagonise the man who can mobilise American Jews into an action against Russia. There are enough American Jews against Russia and against Putin as things are; Putin does not need more. Besides, the Israeli opposition is not keen on Putin; they are lining up with the US Democrats and with Brussels Europeans. They called for direct intervention in Syria on the side of 'moderate rebels', while Netanyahu had kept Israel out of Syrian War and did not obstruct Putin's Syrian campaign.
Will Netanyahu annex the whole of the West Bank, as he said during the election campaign? Probably not; as nothing will be obtained by such an act but making apartheid visible. Instead, he is likely to annex every place where Jews live in the West Bank, turning the territory of Palestine into a slug-eaten cabbage leaf. He also may annex Area C, a bigger part of Palestinian territory presently under Israeli military control and Palestinian civilian administration. The Jewish settlers demand it, for, they say, Palestinians damage the contiguity of the Jewish settlements.
The Jewish religious parties came out stronger in the new parliament. They also enjoy a very high natural growth with families of 5 to 8 children average. They are not eager to compete on the labour market, and prefer to be paid for studying Talmud and having kids. While it may annoy some Israelis, in my view, it is an internal issue of little interest or importance for anybody outside the Jewish milieu.
Is there a possible solution for the conflict? It is definitely not the Deal of the Century of Mr Jared Kushner, some yet undefined arrangement usually done with smoke and mirrors. Probably One Democratic State, where Jews and non-Jews are equal, is the only possible solution, as the place is too small to divide but large enough to share.
Apr 16, 2019 | www.csmonitor.com
As people were forming up to stage this year's March 8 rally for women's rights in Kiev, a group of about three dozen young men, clad in dark clothes, started harassing the marchers by tearing off their lapel pins and ripping away their placards.
Some of the men tried to pull away a banner from Mariya Dmytriyeva, a well-known spokeswoman for feminist causes. She resisted. "Woman, why are you so nervous?" they jeered at her. Fortunately, she says, police intervened and separated them.
It's a familiar scene in Ukraine these days, where radical ultra-rightists are an increasingly threatening presence on the streets. "I think that overall these groups are very insignificant in size. But they are very radical and very loud," Ms. Dmytriyeva says. "If they can get away with attacking us like that, it shows there is something dangerous there."
Though few in number overall, far-right groups operate with a high degree of impunity in Ukrainian society, allowing them to harass and attack minorities and human rights advocates without repercussions. Some worry that such groups, given their anti-democratic ideals, paramilitary discipline, and freedom to operate, could have an outsize influence should Ukraine return to political instability. Though the ultra-rightists were given much latitude due to their help protecting the Maidan Revolution and the fledgling government that followed, now they highlight a key weakness of the current system.
"During the Maidan there was a context that was comfortable for [the radical right]. During the war [with rebels in the east], it was very comfortable," says Vyacheslav Likhachev, a historian and expert on Ukraine's right-wing movements. "Today we do not have a context in which a small minority, with street fighting skills, have the means to create instability. But in case there is instability, they are a very dangerous factor."Operating with impunity
Ukraine's far-right groups, some of which include armed veterans of the war in Donbas, are an extremely controversial topic. And despite considerable stabilization in Ukrainian society over the past five years, the danger they pose appears to be growing.
Just a couple of days after the March 8 rally, scores of far-right activists belonging to the new National Corps party attacked the motorcade of President Petro Poroshenko in the Ukrainian city of Cherkasy, injuring 19 police officers . In the past year, far-right organizations have carried out over two dozen violent assaults on women's groups, LGBT activists, and Roma encampments that have left many injured and at least one person dead. It is very rare, activists say , that police intervene as they did in Ms. Dmytriyeva's case, much less bring the attackers to justice.
Analysts say the strength of these groups derives mainly from the weakness of Ukraine's post-Maidan state, or rather its reluctance to enforce law and order when it comes to the depredations of radical rightists. That may be in part due to the role ultra-right fighters played during the Maidan revolt against former President Viktor Yanukovych, as organized defenders of the protest encampment and sometimes initiators of violence against police.
Even more important is their status as war heroes who formed private battalions and rushed to the front in 2014 to battle separatist rebels at a time when the Ukrainian Army was in serious disarray. As a result they enjoy connections with authorities, and a level of social respectability, that would probably not be the case otherwise.
It's important to point out that despite their high public visibility and the apparent impunity with which they act on the streets, the far-right groups do not appear to represent any social upsurge of radical nationalism. Indeed, a joint candidate put forward by five of Ukraine's leading ultra-rightist groups in the March 31 first round of Ukrainian presidential elections, Ruslan Koshulynskyi, won less than 2% of the votes.
Rather, the fear among many here is that if Ukraine's weak state institutions should again suffer any sort of breakdown, these highly organized, disciplined, armed, violence-prone, and ideologically determined groups might punch far above their weight in determining a political outcome.'We are not democrats'
Instability is a prospect that may not be far from the surface in post-Maidan Ukraine. The Right Sector, a militant ultra-nationalist group that played a very prominent role during the Maidan uprising, has since consolidated itself as a political party with an armed wing and a youth movement. It may not be the largest right-wing movement in Ukraine, but it has maintained its revolutionary sense of purpose and complete rejection of the existing order.
"We are not democrats. We participate in elections only because they are a step to revolution," says Artyom Skoropadskiy, press spokesman of the Right Sector party. "We want to change the whole system. New people, new order, new rules in the state system of Ukraine. We oppose Russia, and we are against Ukraine joining the European Union and NATO. We want Ukraine to be a self-sufficient, independent state."
The Right Sector backed Mr. Koshulynskyi's presidential bid simply because it offered an opportunity for political agitation, he says, and the vote tally is of secondary interest.
"Our organization is designed to take power. If circumstances warrant, that could happen by nondemocratic methods. Believe me, we are very capable of acting in extreme situations," he adds. "At the Maidan we had only 300 activists, and look what we did. In fact, if you consider that there was never more than 1 million people participating in the Maidan altogether, out of a population of 42 million, it shows how things really work. The active minority always leads the passive majority. Scenarios change, and we are ready. Our purpose is to save Ukraine."
The Right Sector, and other militant street groups such as C-14 and the newly created National Corps, already pose a real and present danger to vulnerable groups of the population, such as gay and transgender people, women's activists, Roma, as well as any dissidents who might, rightly or wrongly, be viewed as "pro-Russian."
Ulyana Movchan, director of Insight, a nongovernmental group that provides legal services and other support to LGBT groups, says that people who do not belong to these vulnerable groups of the population should wake up and be more concerned about what is happening.
"The problem is that these right-wing activists are armed; they have combat experience. They are organized into illegal military groups," she says. "They are trying to control the streets and maybe, in future, political life as well. We do not know what they might do. They don't just pose a personal danger to certain activists, they are a threat to the whole society."Giving too much leeway to nationalists?
Many Ukrainian analysts argue that these new rightist groups are not "nationalist," but rather racist, intolerant, and extreme social conservatives. But it may be a problem that more mainstream Ukrainian nationalists, such as the Svoboda party – which does not participate in street violence – tend to make heroes of 20th-century "fighters for Ukrainian independence." Those include Stepan Bandera, whose fascist ideology, collaboration with the Nazis, and participation in wartime ethnic cleansing against Poles and Jews makes him and those like him poor role models for modern Europe-bound Ukraine.
The Ukrainian parliament has passed legislation making it illegal to deny the hero status of Mr. Bandera. In Kiev, a major boulevard was recently renamed "Bandera Prospekt." It should be no surprise that groups like the Right Sector model themselves on such World War II-era Ukrainian nationalist fighters.
"We are a Ukrainian nationalist group, in the image of Stepan Bandera," says Mr. Skoropadskiy.
Tensions over these historical issues are real enough, especially in the more Russified eastern Ukraine – where everyone's grandfather served in the Red Army – and they may be part of the explanation for the very high first round vote for Volodymyr Zelenskiy, a Russian-speaker from eastern Ukraine who plays down nationalist themes.
"During the past five years the government made more steps [to legitimize figures like Mr. Bandera] than much of society is willing to accept," says Mr. Likhachev. "Most of society feels we don't need Lenin or Bandera. But you can't really mobilize people politically with these issues. There has been no big public movement against it."
More significant is the strong attraction these new radical right groups seem to exercise over Ukrainian youth. They articulate a cause. They have slick promotional materials and maintain a big infrastructure of sports clubs, training camps, and regular activities.
"I see how many young people want to be part of a movement," says Ms. Movchan. "It's kind of fashionable these days to join something, and here they are with all kinds of tools of recruitment, such as fight clubs, training grounds, and parades. They bring out the worst emotions, like homophobia and racism, to channel their aggression. I wish we could broaden our own audience to show young people there are other ways to be active, like fighting for human rights."
Apr 17, 2017 | www.unz.com
Ethno-religious (ER) beliefs and practices have been harmless when individuals or groups linked to those practices have limited influence over the state and economy. In contrast, when such groups exercise a disproportionately powerful influence over the state and economy, they dominate and exploit majorities while forming closed self-replicating networks.
Examples of powerful ethno-centric regimes in the 1930's are well known for their brutality and devastating consequences. These include the white Christians in the US, Germany and the European colonial settlement regimes in Rhodesia, South Africa, India and Indonesia, as well as the Japanese imperialists in Asia.
In the post-colonial or neo-colonial era, ethno-centrism has taken the form of virulent anti-Islamic hysteria resulting in predatory Western regimes embarking on wars and military occupations in the Middle East.
The rise of Judeo-centrism, as an economic and political force, occurred in the last half of the 20th century. The Jewish-Zionist seizure, occupation and ethnic cleansing of historic Palestine and their rising economic and political influence within the United States has created a formidable power bloc with significant implications for world peace.
The rise of Jewish ethnocentrism (JE) has confounded its proponents as well as its adversaries; Zionists and anti-Semites alike are surprised by the scope and depth of JE.
Advocates and adversaries, of all persuasions, conflate the power of what they call 'the Jews', for their own purposes. Advocates find proof of 'Jewish genius' in every prestigious position and attribute it to their own unique culture, heredity and scholarship, rather than the result of a greater social-cultural context. The anti-Semites, for their part, attribute all the world's nefarious dealings and diabolic plots to 'the Jews'. This creates a strange duality of illusions about the exceptionalism of a minority group.
In this paper I will focus on demystifying the myths buttressing the power of contemporary Judeo-centric ideology, belief and organizational influence. There is little point in focusing on anti-Semitism, which has no impact on the economy and the exercise of state power with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia. Even the Saudi Monarchy's occasional outbursts against Israel do not inhibit it from engaging in large-scale financial transactions with the Jewish banking elite on Wall Street and City of London and from forming covert alliances with Israeli intelligence in order to overthrow secular pro-Palestinian Arab regimes – as has happened in Libya, Iraq and Syria. They have both benefited from the massive ethnic cleansing of the highly educated minority Christian populations of secular Iraq and Syria.
Fake Anti-Semitism: Operational Weapon of the Ethno-Centric Jews
Fake anti-Semitism is most recently seen in the launching of series of anti-Semitic 'threats' by ethno-centric Jews to create hysteria, serves many purposes following the recent rise of populism in Europe and the election of the American President Donald Trump who had promised to withdraw the US from wars in the Middle East. First, it secures widespread support from North American and European regimes, especially when Israel is criticized throughout the world and at the United Nations for its war crimes in occupied Palestine. Widespread fake anti-Semitic attacks divert attention to Judeo-ethno centrists and validate their claims to be the first among the history's victims. Second, widely publicized 'fake' acts of anti-Semitism arouse the ethnocentric foot soldiers and increase rich donor contributions to the illegal Jewish settlements and the Israeli military. Third, 'fake anti-Semitism' is used to threaten, repress and outlaw any organizations and individuals who criticize Israel and the influence of Jewish ethnocentric organizations in their home countries.
How many 'anti-Semitic' acts are staged is uncertain: On March 23, 2017, an Israeli-American man was arrested in Israel for sending hundreds of fake anti-Semitic threats to Jewish institutions and schools in four European countries and nine US states. Such threats led to the emergency grounding of two US airlines and the panicked evacuation of countless schools and cultural centers. This man used a sophisticated system of cloaking accounts to appear to originate in other countries. Despite his high skills at cyber-terrorism, Israeli authorities preposterously described him as a 'teenager with a learning disability'. The Israeli-American cyber-terrorist's arrest made the 'back-pages' news in the US for one day while his (and others') fake threats continued to make international headlines for weeks.
These scores of fake anti-Semitic bomb threats were cited by the major ethnocentric leaders in the US to pressure the US President and hundreds of Congressional leaders, University Presidents, etc. to mindlessly echo their clamor for greater police state investigations against critics of Israel and to offer special 'protection' for potential 'Jewish victims'. Moves to outlaw criticism of Israel as 'anti-Semitism' and a 'hate crime' increased.
Not surprisingly the leading Jewish organizations never backed down or called on the US government to investigate the source of the fake anti-Semitic threats: that is Israeli-American Zionists, who carry both nations' passports and can enter and exit with total ease and enjoy immunity from extradition.
It is almost certain that the US FBI had identified the perpetrator of these acts as they uncovered the sophisticated operation based in Israel. The FBI would have demanded Israeli police arrest 'the culprit' and shut down the operation. Israeli police staged their own 'fake' investigation and concluded that the complex cloaked cyber operations 'were the work of a shy nineteen year old with dyslexia' – clearly another example of the Jewish genius.
It is more likely that the hundreds of false-anti-Semitic threats were part of an Israeli state operation identified by the FBI who 'diplomatically' pressured Tel Aviv to cut out the monkey business. The news report of the lone-wolf teenager in Israel allowed the Israeli intelligence to cover-up their role. Once the Israelis passed off the unbelievable tale of a brilliant, if troubled, young 'lone wolf', the entire US mass media buried the story forever. In due time the so-called perpetrator will be released, amply rewarded and his identity re-cycled. In the meantime the US government, as well as several European governments, was forced to allocate tens of millions of dollars to provide extra security to Jewish institutions in the wake of these fake threats.
Jewish Power: The Top 25 American Multi-Billionaires
In February 2017, Forbes magazine compiled a list of the world's billionaires, including a country-by-country account. The top five countries with multi-billionaires among its citizens are: the US with 565, China with 319, Germany with 114, India with 101, and Russia with 96. Moreover, since 2016 the net worth of the multi-billionaires grew 18% to $7.67 trillion dollars.
While the US has the greatest number of billionaires, China is fast catching up.
Despite China's advances, the US remains the center of world capitalism with the greatest concentration of wealth, as well as the greatest and growing inequalities. One reasonably can argue that who controls US wealth controls the world.
'Jews' among the Top 25 Multi-Billionaires in the US
A review of the top 10 US multi-billionaires finds four who are identified as 'Jews': Mark Zuckerberg with $56 billion, Larry Ellison with $52.2 billion, Michael Bloomberg with $47.5 billion and Sergey Brin $39.4 billion. In other words 40% of the super-richest Americans are 'Jews' while 60% are non-Jews. Among the top ten in the US, billionaire Jews with a total of $195.1 billion are collectively less rich than the top billionaire Gentiles who own $282.7 billion.
Of the top 25 multi-billionaires in the US, 11 of the 25 are Jews. In other words 'the Jews' represent 44% of the top 25 biggest billionaires – outnumbered by Gentiles but catching up.
Analysis of the 'Richest Jews'
We place 'Jews' in quotation marks because this is a doubtful signifier – more useful to both Zionist fanatics and anti-Semitic polemicists. Most are not 'practicing' or are completely disinterested in tribal religions. Nevertheless, half of secular Jews in the US are active supporters of Israel or involved in Fifth Column Israeli 'front groups'.
In other words, about half of the richest 'Jews' do not consider themselves to be religiously or ethnically 'Jewish'. Super rich Jews are divided regarding their ethnic loyalties between the US and Israel.
Moreover what is murkier, many of the richest so-called 'Jews' were born to 'mixed marriages'. Strictly religious Jews do not recognize the children of such marriages as Jews because their mothers are not Jewish. The omnivorous Zionists, on the other hand, classify all of them as Jews on the basis of their actual or potential contribution to the State of Israel. In other words, the Zionist classification of 'Jews' becomes arbitrary, politicized and dependent on organizational affiliation. Religious practice and ethno-cultural purity are less important.
Judeo-Centrism and the Intrinsic Superiority Fallacy
Among the many zealous advocates of the Judeo-centric world, the most tiresome are those who claim they represent the product of superior genetics, culture and heritage – unique and intrinsic to Jews.
For many centuries most Jews were illiterate believers of religious tribal myths, taught by anti-scientific rabbis, who closed off the ghettos from the accomplishments of higher culture and forbade integration or mixed marriages. The high priests punished and expelled any Jews who were influenced by the surrounding Hellenistic, Romanized, Arabic, Renaissance and Rationalists cultures, like the great Spinoza.
In other words, Jews who had rejected Jewish law, the Scriptures and the Torah were expelled as apostates. But these 'apostates' were most open to the modern ideas of science. Jews greatly benefited from the emancipatory laws and opportunities following the French Revolution. Under Napoleon, Jews became citizens and were free to advance in science, the arts and finance by attending secular universities away from the primitive, superstitious Rabbi-controlled ghetto 'schools'.
The dramatic growth of intellectual excellence among Jews in the 19th century was a result of their ceasing to be Jews in the traditional closed religious sense. Did they suddenly switch on their 'genius genes' or invent a fake history or religion, as the ethno-centrist would have us believe? It seems far more likely that they took great advantage of the opportunities opened to them with major social and political developments in the greater society. As they assimilated and integrated in secular traditions, they ceased to be Jews in the tribal religious sense. Their scientific, medical and financial success came from learning, absorbing and exchanging scientific ideas, high culture and conservative, liberal and socialist ideas with the larger progressive non-Jewish society.
It is no coincidence that 'great Jewish achievers' like the totally secular Albert Einstein were educated in German universities by German professors and drew on scientific knowledge by German and non-Jewish scholars. His intellectual development was due to his free association with the great scientists and scholars of Germany and Europe, not closeted away in some ethno-tribal commune.
The Jews who remained embedded in the Polish, Lithuanian and Russian ghettos, under the reign of the leading Rabbis, remained illiterate, poor and backward. Most of the claims of 'superior' cultural heritage or traditions are the creation of a mythical folk history serving ethno-national supremacists.
The Myth of the Contemporary Genius
The modern ethnocentric ideologues ignore the 'dilution of Jewishness' in their celebratory identification with successful 'Jews'.
Many of the best thinkers, writers, scientists and political leaders were conversos (Christian converts), or integrated European secular nationalists, socialists, monarchists, bankers and professionals.
Some remained 'reformed Jews' or later transformed into secular Zionists: nationalists who despised non-Europeans as inferior and couldn't even conceive of Arab Palestine as their 'homeland'. It wasn't until the 20th century that Zionism was in part 'Judacized'. Early Zionists looked at various locations for a homeland, including Argentina and parts of Africa and Russia.
These ethno-chauvinist ideologues lay claim to all brilliant individuals, no matter how tenuous as examples of 'Jewish genius'. Even those personally opposed Jewish ethno-religious beliefs and indifferent to tribal loyalties end up being claimed as examples of the 'Jewish genius'. Once some 'matrilineal link' could be found, their success and brilliance was tied to the mystical lineage, no matter how tenuous.
This bizarre practice became even more commonplace following the Jewish military conquest and brutal ethnic cleansing of Palestine, with the military, political and financial backing of non-Jewish Europe and the United States. With myths and inflated ideas of unique virtue and brilliance, Israel was established as a racist apartheid state. A new militant, ethnocentric Judaism converted Israel and its overseas backers into an ethno-ideological international power with religious trappings, based on the myth of its 'exceptionalism'. To maintain this myth, the personal histories of all prominent 'Israel Firsters' were sanitized and scrubbed of anti-social and destructive behavior.
All Jewish billionaires were to be portrayed as uniquely philanthropic, while the exploits of Jewish billionaire swindlers (Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky) were not to be mentioned in polite company. The conquests of billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, rapist-procurer head of the IMF Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Governor Elliot Spitzer, Congressman Anthony Weiner and other similar perverts quietly slithered off the edge of the planet although all had once been hailed as examples of 'ethnocentric genius'.
Major Jewish political donors to US-UK-French electoral parties were hailed while their work on behalf of Israel was naturally assumed but not discussed. The dizzying shifts between open adulation and selective whitewash served to reinforce the illusion of superiority. Anyone, Jew or Gentile, bold enough to point out the obvious hypocrisy would be immediately censored as 'self-hating' (Jew) or 'anti-Semite' (Gentile).
Return to the Beginning: Judeo-Centric Power
As mentioned above, Jews represent a substantial minority among the top multi-billionaires, but they are still a minority. Below the top level of wealth are the single digit billionaires and triple and double digit multi-millionaires; here the proportion of 'Jews' increases. These 'less-than-super-billionaires' are among the most active and the biggest financial and political supporters of the ethno centric ideology and tribal cohesion.
Los Angeles-based Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban contributed tens of millions of dollars to support of the Jewish state's occupation of Palestine and brutal colonial land grabbing 'settlers'. His wealth is largely based on his 'genius' in pushing culturally vacuous Japanese cartoons (Mighty Morphing Power Rangers) on the nation's children. He is the primary donor to the Democratic Party pushing Israel's agenda – his number one priority as an American citizen.
The lesser 'foot soldiers' of the Zionist power structure are the millionaires and affluent professionals, dentists, stockbrokers, lawyers, doctors and impresarios. The middle and lower levels of wealth and power are a diverse group – mostly ethno-religious and secular, but very self-identified ethno-Jews. A minority is totally secular or converted to non-Jewish religions (especially Buddhism, Christianity)
Despite the constant drumbeat of ethnocentric identity, an increasing number of young US 'Jews' do not identify with Judaism or Israel. Their influence however is minimal.
The wealthy ethno-religious and secular ethnic Jews may or may not constitute a numerical majority but they are the best organized, most political and most adamant in their claims to 'speak for and represent the Jewish community' as a whole, especially during waves of (fake) 'anti-Semitism'!
The many former-Jews, anti-tribal Jews and 'non-Jewish' Jews are no match for the ethnocentric political apparatus controlled by the chauvinists.
When the tribalists appropriate the glory of a secular non-Jewish Jewish scientist or major 'prize winner' they claim his or her tribal affiliation in order to impress the 'goys' and to seduce younger more skeptical Jews about the advantages of ethno-chauvinism.
All the high-tech computer and financial billionaires are just assumed by the tribalists to view themselves as 'Jewish geniuses' even though they may have learned and borrowed ideas and knowledge from their non-Jewish partners and mentors in Silicon Valley or Wall Street.
Upward mobility within academia, government and business circles is automatically assumed by the tribalists to be a reward for superior merit – 'Jewish genius' – rather than nepotism or connections. Tribal networks and 'understandings' play a powerful unspoken role in career success and immunity from the consequences of failure, incompetence or dishonesty.
Multi-billionaires and multi-millionaires prospered because they entered establish lucrative fields or made their career choices highly profitable.
Early on, many powerful Gentile bankers provided entry for talented Jews to succeed. This is despite revisionist history bemoaning the exclusion of US Jews on Wall Street and their degrading denial of membership in select WASP country clubs. These myths of brutal oppression on Wall Street or Long Island yacht clubs have empowered generations of American Jews to assume the role of spokespersons for the oppressed everywhere. The expression 'crying all the way to the bank' comes to mind.
By the last quarter of the 20th century and especially in the 21st century, deindustrialization and the shift to financialization in the US economy increased the power and privilege of a disproportionate number of multi-billionaire/millionaire Jews. This seismic shift has coincided with the pervasive impoverishment of the marginalized working class in the former 'rust belt' and central parts of the country and the incredible concentration of national wealth at the top 1%. This is a demographic shift and ethno-class apartheid of huge, but unstudied, significance.
The most important political question is not how many Jews are super-wealthy but what proportion of them are influential political donors and active in the Democratic or Republican Parties in order to intervene on behalf of clan, tribe and motherland (Israel). Majorities among Jews are not crucial – most are not politically active. What is decisive is the percentage of all the super-wealthy who are politically active, organized and contribute substantially to influence and control the mass media to promote their ethno-centric ideology and punish critics.
Overt and covert Jewish supremacists have embroidered a fake history and legacy of exceptional intelligence ignoring the context of advanced non-Jewish science and cultures, which preceded and later provided Jews with opportunities for education and wealth.
The danger inherent in all ethno-centric tribes is that they work to dominate majority populations by creating systems of assigning superiority and inferiority. They then use these to justify growing inequalities of wealth, education and political power!
Historically favored minorities tend to overreach and, like the eyeless Sampson, bring down the Temple on everyone. Power corrupts and absolute ethno-chauvinist power corrupts absolutely. Intelligent Jews of principle are abandoning
Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com
renfro , July 4, 2018 at 7:23 pm GMT@jilles dykstraL.K , July 4, 2018 at 9:24 pm GMT
You could help yourself by learning the real history ..I suggest the foremost historian on the subject Thomas Thompson and his ' History of Arabia'. Jerusalem was not founded by Jews, i.e. adherents of the Jewish religion. It was founded between 3000 BCE and 2600 BCE by a West Semitic people or possibly the Canaanites, the common ancestors of Palestinians, Lebanese, many Syrians and Jordanians, and many Jews. But when it was founded Jews did not exist.Jerusalem was founded in honor of the ancient god Shalem. It does not mean City of Peace but rather 'built-up place of Shalem." The "Jewish people" were not building Jerusalem 3000 years ago, i.e. 1000 BCE. First of all, it is not clear when exactly Judaism as a religion centered on the worship of the one God took firm form. It appears to have been a late development since no evidence of worship of anything but ordinary Canaanite deities has been found in archeological sites through 1000 BCE. There was no invasion of geographical Palestine from Egypt by former slaves in the 1200s BCE. The pyramids had been built much earlier and had not used slave labor. The chronicle of the events of the reign of Ramses II on the wall in Luxor does not know about any major slave revolts or flights by same into the Sinai peninsula. Egyptian sources never heard of Moses or the 10 plagues & etc. Jews and Judaism emerged from a certain social class of Canaanites over a period of centuries inside Palestine. Jerusalem not only was not being built by the likely then non-existent "Jewish people" in 1000 BCE, but Jerusalem probably was not even inhabited at that point in history. Jerusalem appears to have been abandoned between 1000 BCE and 900 BCE, the traditional dates for the united kingdom under David and Solomon. So Jerusalem was not 'the city of David,' since there was no city when he is said to have lived. No sign of magnificent palaces or great states has been found in the archeology of this period, and the Assyrian tablets, which recorded even minor events throughout the Middle East, such as the actions of Arab queens, don't know about any great kingdom of David and Solomon in geographical Palestine. Since archeology does not show the existence of a Jewish kingdom or kingdoms in the so-called First Temple Period, it is not clear when exactly the Jewish people would have ruled Jerusalem except for the Hasmonean Kingdom. The Assyrians conquered Jerusalem in 722. The Babylonians took it in 597 and ruled it until they were themselves conquered in 539 BCE by the Achaemenids of ancient Iran, who ruled Jerusalem until Alexander the Great took the Levant in the 330s BCE. Alexander's descendants, the Ptolemies ruled Jerusalem until 198 when Alexander's other descendants, the Seleucids, took the city. With the Maccabean Revolt in 168 BCE, the Jewish Hasmonean kingdom did rule Jerusalem until 37 BCE, though Antigonus II Mattathias, the last Hasmonean, only took over Jerusalem with the help of the Parthian dynasty in 40 BCE. Herod ruled 37 BCE until the Romans conquered what they called Palestine in 6 CE (CE= 'Common Era' or what Christians call AD). The Romans and then the Eastern Roman Empire of Byzantium ruled Jerusalem from 6 CE until 614 CE when the Iranian Sasanian Empire Conquered it, ruling until 629 CE when the Byzantines took it back.
A. The Muslims, who ruled it and built it over 1191 years.
B. The Egyptians, who ruled it as a vassal state for several hundred years in the second millennium BCE.
C. The Italians, who ruled it about 444 years until the fall of the Roman Empire in 450 CE.
D. The Iranians, who ruled it for 205 years under the Achaemenids, for three years under the Parthians (insofar as the last Hasmonean was actually their vassal), and for 15 years under the Sasanids.
E. The Greeks, who ruled it for over 160 years if we count the Ptolemys and Seleucids as Greek. If we count them as Egyptians and Syrians, that would increase the Egyptian claim and introduce a Syrian one.
F. The successor states to the Byzantines, which could be either Greece or Turkey, who ruled it 188 years, though if we consider the heir to be Greece and add in the time the Hellenistic Greek dynasties ruled it, that would give Greece nearly 350 years as ruler of Jerusalem.
G. There is an Iraqi claim to Jerusalem based on the Assyrian and Babylonian conquests, as well as perhaps the rule of the Ayyubids (Saladin's dynasty), who were Kurds from Iraq.@jilles dykstraL.K , July 4, 2018 at 9:28 pm GMT
I understand what you are saying, Jilles, but let's be accurate, shall we?
The Jews have ZERO right to "return" to Palestine one cannot go back to a place one never left in the first place.
The story that the Romans expelled the Jews from Palestine 2000 years ago is FALSE.
See Israeli historian Shlomo Sand( the invention of the Jewish people).
At any rate, even had the story been true – and it is NOT – the notion of modern Jews laying claim to the land 2000 years later is truly bizarre.@renfro
In short, today's Palestinians and their ancestors have been living continuously between the River and the Sea for about 9,000 years."
In the preface of his book "Ten myths about Israel", Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, writes:
Were the Jews indeed the original inhabitants of Palestine who deserved to be supported in every way possible in their "return" to their "homeland"? The myth insists that the Jews who arrived in 1882 were the descendants of the Jews expelled by the Romans around 70 CE. The counterargument questions this genealogical connection. Quite a hefty scholarly effort has shown that the Jews of Roman Palestine remained on the land and were first converted to Christianity and then to Islam. Who these Jews were is still an open question -- maybe the Khazars who converted to Judaism in the ninth century; or maybe the mixture of races across a millennium precludes any answer to such a question.
Apr 13, 2019 | www.unz.com
swamped , says: March 11, 2019 at 5:06 am GMTMost places you apply to online won't take your overseas application serious, just like I don't take my" pseudonymous fictional interview serious. The Kreutzer Sonata it ain't. All the same, if you have "a Russian husband, who has himself published some essays about some of the unexpected cultural differences a Russian encounters in America", make sure your Zlobin doesn't turn out to be a Pozdnyshev.The Alarmist , says: March 11, 2019 at 12:03 pm GMT
So maybe is true this "Russian concept is that you're safe when you're with the crowd."
At least in some situations. And yes,
"Any touch to an American is taken as a violation of his personal space, so in the U.S., as a rule, people do not take each other by the elbow and do not tap each other on the shoulder if they" do not want to be charged with harassment or domestic vio and end up in American gulag.
But if "to a white guy from the West their politeness felt like fakeness and I was stressed out because of it" then this "is how many black people feel when hanging around white people. What we see as just common courtesy, comes off as" 'microaggression' and 'cultural appropriation' to them. To each his own. And not YOUR own.
No wonder the "biggest breath of fresh air that comes to mind, is the absence of PC culture".
Not a bad deal for 99.9999% of the Earth's population who would do anything to escape it.
Or "if all else fails, just buy a bus ticket [from] Minnesota" to Washington P.C. & see what it's like to live in Tel Aviv for two years.One of the more endearing compliments I ever received was from an old Russian girlfriend, who told her friends, "He's one of the good ones he has a Russian soul." She and her friends were just as described above, generous to a fault despite what was an obvious wealth gap.Digital Samizdat , says: March 11, 2019 at 12:50 pm GMT
But the funniest thing she ever did was to use her bare hand to kill a cock-roach that had dared to cross our table at a restaurant.
Should have married that girl. Then again, I might have dodged the Babooshka bomb. Interestingly enough, she had no desire to ever go to the US, so that was not a part of the calculus.
Have some sympathy for our poor consular officers abroad they spend far too much time face to face with the wretched refuse of the world trying to scam their way into the US.republic , says: March 11, 2019 at 11:08 pm GMT
The thing is, I don't want a "benevolent dictatorship" like Singapore or Russia. I want to live in a country like the Founding Fathers of America intended.
Pick a number: everybody wants to "live in a country like the Founding Fathers of America intended," probably even the Founding Fathers themselves did. But is seems that all our governments just end up being dictatorships sooner or later anyway; so that being the case, I would prefer a sane dictatorship (like Russia or Singapore) to an insane one, which is what we Americans have at the moment.
The other mistake I see people make is that they toil away for 80% of the year in a job they hate, so they can splurge for a few days in an Americanized luxury resort. Why not make every day exotic and truly get a feel for the local atmosphere by moving somewhere for a year instead?
If all else fails, just buy a bus ticket to Minnesota and see what it's like to live in Somalia for a day.
LOL!!!@yurivkuThe Alarmist , says: March 12, 2019 at 8:49 am GMT
- Russian tourist visas are a little complex, best to use a private agency. Cost should run around $200-300, takes about 10-14 days. Can get a multi entry visa good for 5 years with a 180 day stay per visit.
- One can enter Belarus without a visa for up to 7 days if flying into Minsk.
- Now also possible to stay in Belarus for 30 days during certain sporting events, same in Russia
- Ukraine is visa free for most citizens of advanced countries.
- Tourists on ships can stay up to 72 hours in St Petersburg@Digital SamizdatRabbitnexus , says: March 12, 2019 at 12:35 pm GMT
I lived in the "benevolent dictatorship" of Singapore, and it was pretty nice: Clean, orderly, low-crime, prosperous. Since I worked and didn't engage in socially unacceptable behaviour, it was very accomodating and Big Brother Goh left me more in peace to go about my life there than my crazy jealous girlfriend, Uncle Sam. In some ways, it is much freer.
I went back a few years ago to visit, and while waiting for the light to cross the street, the guy next to me threw a piece of trash on the ground, so I looked at him and said, "You wouldn't do that if Lee Kuan Yew was still in charge." He sheepishly picked it up.I reckon you're young and mixing with a set a bit more affected by Western media propaganda than they or you realise. Some of what you write about your adopted home comes across as a bit churlish as well. Also a couple of years is no time at all to get to know any place let alone the culture.Rabbitnexus , says: March 12, 2019 at 12:46 pm GMT
I've spent 3 times as long on average getting to know my new homes and they were no more distant than Denmark on one occasion.
I'd say I barely reached a plateau of understanding and appreciation after a cycle of admiration, loathing, frustration and finally reappraisal after 6 years!
Given Aussie and Danish cultures are very similar in many respects, that suggests 2 years for a Westerner in either Japan or Russia is way too little. I'm taking what you say on specifics with a grain of salt but the overall message the gist of it is accurate all the same.
Still I'd like to see you cut those apron strings to yankee land before seeing too much more of your advice about other cultures. I mean that, I'd like it because your insight is interesting all the same, you are clearly smart and thoughtful so this is not an attack. In my experience you have not even begun to scratch the surface until you begin to dream in the language of your new home.
I'm currently trying to find communion between my Western and South Asian culture of my wife and after 7 years am far from getting it. This is due to living in my country not hers though.
I'd say six years is about the mean for getting the hang of a new culture if as you are living it.@CoffeeCommandojbwilson24 , says: March 15, 2019 at 9:36 am GMT
You should see the guy who works for me in marketing. More metal crap in his face and small scooter rubber tires in his ear lobes as best I can tell, than you'd want to know about. Absolute freak show brother. He is unfortunately also extremely intelligent and competent at what he does. I say unfortunately because if his performance matched his appearance it would be easy to say bye bye, but fact is he's brilliant and a nice bloke too. Beats me why this kid would do this to himself.
He's a very handsome young man with mixed Chinese/Aussie parents. Yet his face looks like a junkyard tossed across a picturesque park. It would make more sense if he was gay but he is even straight, just like this kid writing the article appears to be. They don't even look like men when they do this, so it beats me.@Linh DinhPlato's Dream says: March 26, 2019 at 1:59 pm GMT • 100 Words
I've spent a lot of time in both, although last time I saw Ukraine was 3 years ago. The food in Ukraine is great, Russia well, horrendous. Peasant food, basically, and not particularly good peasant food either. There's a markedly different feeling in Ukraine these days, losing population like mad, poor economy, etc.
To understand Russia you have to see the other cities. You can't just go to Moscow and St Petes. It's a huge country, some parts of which are decaying due to migration and demographic collapse (e.g., Perm). Other parts are vibrant and fun. I've seen about 1/3rd of the larger cities, but never Siberia or the far East, nor Chechnya/Dagestan/Ingushetia/Adygea. Hard to travel to some of those places as a foreigner.
I like Ekaterinburg, but my wife refuses to move there.
If you think that Russian food is bad, you are either an idiot or don’t know what to order. If you go to Omsk and order sashimi, you are going to be disappointed. But native Russian dishes such as solyanka, borsch, kulebiaka, kholodets, etc etc are excellent. Not to mention the Georgian and Uzbek dishes that are as common in Russia as Mexican and Chinese are in ‘Murika. And you can eat well in a workers’ cafeteria, not just in an expensive restaurant.
In all other respects, you can’t even begin to compare Russia and Ukraine with a straight face – be that infrastructure, law and order, average incomes etc. It’s like Barbados and Jamaica – both speak English, both are in the Caribbean; but that’s where the similarity ends.
Anatoly Karlin , says: Website March 15, 2019 at 11:20 am GMTMostly correct, though:Jake , says: March 15, 2019 at 11:25 am GMT
Maybe they are. After all, I can guarantee if something like Rotherham or Cologne happened in Russia, they wouldn't wait for the right paperwork and lawyers to get justice. They would beat the living shit out of everyone in a 5KM radius and not bother navigating red tape like we do.
Overly optimistic. Such episodes are very much the exception, not the rule.
The authorities are trouble averse, so they tend to turn a blind eye to Caucasian malfeasance.
The sound waves are not uniform, but rather polarized sharp spikes. Blaring techno with bone rattling bass at 3AM. Screaming couples at 1AM. Hammering and drilling at 9AM. I finally figured out why. My girlfriend's brother told me that there's no word for "privacy" in Russian.
... ... ...
However, you should note that 11pm – 7am (I think, I might be off by an hour) are supposed to be "quiet hours" in Moscow and you have the right to complain to your neighbors about their noise, and, if they do not desist, to contact the police.anonymous  Disclaimer , says: March 15, 2019 at 8:34 pm GMT"Maybe they are. After all, I can guarantee if something like Rotherham or Cologne happened in Russia, they wouldn't wait for the right paperwork and lawyers to get justice. They would beat the living shit out of everyone in a 5KM radius and not bother navigating red tape like we do."
America used to have people like that. Primarily they were southerners. Secondarily they were European Catholic immigrants and the children of European Catholic immigrants. And then the Yank WASP Elites and their Jewish BFFs spent decades and billions of dollars forcing those people to start thinking and acting like WASP peasants bowing to the Anglo-Zionist Empire.That was F*$&#@ awesome!
Where can I personally meet this hip, tell it like it is Vietnamese guy and some of his subjects?
I love the way –Michael Kreutzer (28-years-old) just sums up the eternal Russian way of thinking about alien rapists, Islamic terrorists that sort of thing:
" I can guarantee if something like Rotherham or Cologne happened in Russia, they wouldn't wait for the right paperwork and lawyers to get justice. They would beat the living shit out of everyone in a 5KM radius and not bother navigating red tape like we do. The immigrants from the CIS countries know this and behave."
Yep, I'm 25% Russian, more like 15% as I had some German Nordic Russian nobility on that side. This Slavic gene is always there to call BS on idiot Liberals or worse Libertarians that want to talk, talk, talk make excuses for the worst Paki sexual groomers. Nah, the Russian way is better.
Daisy , says: March 16, 2019 at 8:27 pm GMTJust realistically looking at all the places I have lived, the US would be the last place I'd go to, it's an empire in decline. Morally, spiritually, economically, politically educationally and socially. (And I have lived in the US for 20 years) The only part of American life that seems appealing is the kind of homesteading movement that is occurring in some states.polaco , says: March 17, 2019 at 7:51 pm GMT
Whatever beefs one may have with Russia or Putin, corruption, noise, etc. The fact is Russia is holding it's own and improving its diplomatic relations and increasing it's allies and trade partners, has become militarily a force to be reckoned with and therefore more secure, it has become more self sufficient in many areas such as agriculture, is improving it's infrastructure, people are earning more, it has almost no external debt, huge reserves of gold, is beginning to attract tourism, is expanding in fields of science, and has the reputation of being a reliable partner.
These things would make it a much better place to be/go then a declining country/empire, such as the US, Europe and possibly China.
As for being poorer or wealthier, I can truly and emphatically from experience state, that wealth does not create or provide happiness. As the author mentions, people in Russia are very generous and family oriented. I think this gives more meaning of life and an overall feeling of well being than striving for more and more income to buy more and more stuff. Especially as particularly in the US and Europe, people are living so much on credit.@jeff stryker
Americans are mostly ignorant to the fact that they live in a 2nd world country
Although discriminated against, most Americans, except maybe those down on their luck and real life losers without any skills, live in nice, clean suburbs and in many cases they don't even need to lock their doors, except for areas that are adjacent to urban, Hispanic, or Black neighbourhoods, which they have abandoned and given up on decades ago following the anti American Civil Rights movement. Show me a place in America where garbage trucks don't come every week.
While it's not Germany or Sweden when garbage is concerned, America utilizes its trash quite properly, and about 75 to 85% is incinerated.
Meanwhile in Russia: "If government officials continue ignoring the problem, in a few years the Russians will live in a landfill, as it is now happening with the residents of Haiti"- http://www.pravdareport.com/russia/124947-russia_garbage/ or http://www.pravdareport.com/society/5701-recycling/ .
Americans in the US now total about 55% of the population: Wikipedia says: "197,285,202 (Non-Hispanic: 2017), 60.7% of the total U.S. population"- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_American , however this number is flawed as they count various non-whites like Berbers, or Turkic people like Albanians, Turks, Kurds, Georgians, and Azerbaijanis as whites.
Then we have: "About 46 million Americans live in the nation's rural counties, 175 million in its suburbs and small metros"- http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/05/22/demographic-and-economic-trends-in-urban-suburban-and-rural-communities/ . Which seems to confirm that Americans (Whites) live in either suburban or rural areas.
Apr 13, 2019 | www.unz.com
jeff stryker , says: March 18, 2019 at 1:38 am GMTEMBASSY WILL TAKE CARE OF YOUR SPOILED ASSjeff stryker , says: March 18, 2019 at 2:46 am GMT
I've seen loads of American men who blew their wad on hookers and booze at the Manila Embassy trying this.
You'll be on the street for about a month waiting for the papers to clear. Don't expect to be staying with the US Ambassador at his house while you're waiting either, you'll be on the street and in SEA or Eastern Europe (Which is cold as hell) and this is no fun.
The Embassy will make you call relatives in the US and determine that nobody will pay for your return flight.
You'll have to repay the US government for the cost of the ticket and your passport will be cancelled for two years as a punishment you won't even be able to fly to Puerto Rico.
MILITARY SPACE AVAILABLE
One American I knew in the Philippines was named Clinton Macbeth and he was a hardcore drunk and pothead who'd been stationed in the Philippines and figured he would just take military space available on a DC 10 or whatever.
The US GOVERNMENT has now cancelled this program and you cannot take military space available back to your own country.
The US Embassy will, eventually, cover the cost of your ticket back. But they make this a lonnnggg unpleasant process to prevent everyone who wants to be repatriated from simply coming into the Embassy and saying "send me home Business class".
Try sleeping for a week outside a US Embassy. Invariably the US Consular director will tell you "it will take some time for these papers to clear".
Believe me, you won't be flown back in 24 hours.
And the Marine Embassy Guards will then make sure you don't hang around. You'll be giving an appointment at the Embassy about a week after you report in. In the interim. the Marine Embassy Guards etc. will behave like bouncers to make sure you don't come back inside the Embassy.STRANDED EXPAT SEA MODELjeff stryker , says: March 18, 2019 at 3:16 am GMT
Ken was an older American from NYC who married a Filipino woman of 23. He was an architect and he spent most of his life savings building a hotel for his wife with the intent of renting rooms to Japanese tourists-which would have set him up for life.
In the Philippines, all property belongs to the wife of the expat under law. He was kicked out by security guard after their marriage collapsed-which May/September marriages in the Philippines usually do.
He was 60 and his wife and her family simply threw him on the road-no passport, money in his pocket, clothes on his back. Ken did not even have ID to prove he was an American. The first night on the road, he was mugged by Filipino street kids and did not have a peso.
Finally, he managed to get his passport. His wife had his bank card and withdrew all his savings by then. A sympathetic American paid his way to Manila where he got his brother to send him a ticket.@polaco POLACOjeff stryker , says: March 18, 2019 at 4:26 am GMT
We are invariably male, urban and lower middle class.
A great many American expats are blacks who served in the military or have a pension who can live in an Asian subdivision instead of in low-income housing with crack dealers and gangs.
For lower class whites, it is not so much dangerous as sordid in poor white exurbs or rural areas. I knew one white scrap dealer named Clayton whose son was a hopeless meth addict who beat the shit out of him in his house and robbed him. Opoid addicts in the nearby trailer park burglarized his house. Whiggers spray painted his house. He lived in a gated community in the Philippines with mostly merchant Chinese-Filipino families and was pretty glad to be away from white trash.
I've observed the following about American white expats, myself included.
1) We are generally male. I've never MET a permanent white expat female in Southeast Asia.
2) I've never met a Mexican of either gender or any black woman in Asia. And few in Europe or Dubai. The only Native American I ever met overseas was a female married to an English guy. I've never met a white American woman who was living permanently overseas.
3) The real white trash or Cholos or Hood Rats cannot live overseas. If you are on parole, probation, on welfare or a junkie you cannot get on a plane for 14 hours.
4) On the other hand I've never met a bona fide upper middle class American in Southeast Asia either. Most of the Americans I met were tradespeople-plumbers, mechanics, factory foreman, postal workers, commercial fisherman.
5) Americans under 35 are fairly rare in Asia.
Philippines is not very attractive to backpackers. You meet them in other parts of Asia, of course, but not there.
Overall, your observation is correct. The wealth divisions in the US are so vast that lower class white Americans are essentially living in an internal third world even it is only 20 miles from the suburbs.HOMELESS OVERSEAS : A WARNINGjeff stryker , says: March 18, 2019 at 4:51 am GMT
One Brit in Goa I heard of had gotten Indian credit cards and got WAYYY overextended. He also had a medical bill he could not pay. They would not let him out of the country even though he had a return ticket.
When he was sleeping rough one night, some thirsty Indian men who were drunk simply rolled him over and pinned him and 9 of them serially sodomized him.
The Indian Tourist Police called the British Embassy and demanded they do something. So he was repatriated. But he will be wearing adult diapers for the rest of his life.
If you are a foreigner sleeping rough in India or Dubai, you might be raped by prowling queers. Even if you're the toughest MMA fighter if you are malnourished and exhausted from being on the street for two weeks and 9 thirsty sodomites jump you you are going to end up buggered.
PHILIPPINES@AaronB AARON BTruth , says: March 18, 2019 at 5:54 am GMT
I lived in Dubai and the Philippines.
Hands down I was MUCH safer than I had been as a white post-college entry-level Graphic Artist in Phoenix living in Tempe on the border of the Guadalupe barrio.
Born in Ann Arbor and raised in Warren, I've seen black crime.
Asia might be more corrupt and the people materially poorer, but you are far safer in Singapore or ANYWHERE in SEA than in the urban US. None of this applies to suburban whites and hicks from the sticks.
America is not a police state because of the Founding Fathers, but because of Mestizos and Hood Rats and redneck tweakers who can only be contained by a constant police presence. Perhaps Singapore would have slightly more crime if it was not a dictatorship, but not like the US.
I moved to Dubai directly from Phoenix and believe me, riding the public transport there and living in modest-income housing was MUCH SAFER than Phoenix or Warren.
I've been in an expat for 20 years and was never again menaced by Mestizos or witnessed black crack dealers chimping out at a bus stop or was followed by a desperate redneck tweaker.
The average public school in any US city or exurb is MUCH WORSE than Asia. I grew up in Ann Arbor and Warren, hardly the ghetto, and even in these public schools were bad.
Finally, I've worked overseas my entire life and I never had to worry about a pink slip by some HR female who is 23 and was blowing every Frat guy two years earlier because I said the word "fag".
Overseas, you can say what you want (Except about them or their government) and nobody cares. You don't even have to PRETEND that you are PC.@jeff stryker I have personally known of people trapped in Kuwait and Bahrain, federal contractors who got fired and could not leave because of phone bills. Just in limbo on someone's couch hoping someone else would come up with the money from home.jeff stryker , says: March 18, 2019 at 10:24 am GMT
I also know of two female military contractors who got sentenced to TWENTY-FIVE years for selling a few grams of marijuana.@Truth TRUTHjeff stryker , says: March 18, 2019 at 3:17 pm GMT
Kuwaitis will forgive a home brewer making some beer for himself and his expat friends. But if you get caught selling hashish, you are screwed. And to be honest anyone who is dumb enough to sell hashish or smoke it in Kuwait is not intelligent enough to be overseas.
I've known some potheads in U.A.E. who refuted the statement that cannabis is not addictive. In a country where penalties include spending years in jail for a couple of joints, they STILL went out and scored pot.
They don't screw around with debt under Muslim law. If you cannot pay a phone or medical bill, you're stuck. It goes out as a warrant and you won't be able to leave the country through the airport.
You know TRUTH, being an expat is a learning curve. Some people just don't make it and do something INCREDIBLY STUPID like the kid in MIDNIGHT EXPRESS.
I want to add something. The Americans who do these things are mostly white hicks from the sticks who have no idea how to act overseas.@Truth THINGS YOU LEARN IN THE MIDDLE EASTChe Guava , says: March 19, 2019 at 4:34 pm GMT
- Marijuana is not habit forming, which is why so many Westerners cannot even go for six months without risking a MIDNIGHT EXPRESS jail to smoke a lousy joint.
- 4 foot average-looking Filipino women become the sexiest females alive to thirsty males. And sometimes these Filipino women have a penis.
- White hicks who would be white trash by Archie Bunker's standards come to believe they have special privileges because they are American in countries where anti-Western sentiment is right under the surface.
- Someone forgot to tell Kuwaitis that Jews were the chosen people given their arrogance. .
- The brotherhood of Islam does not apply to South Asians. .
- Americans who feel that whites are racist never met an Arab.
- Pakistani workers guzzle perfume.
- For such chaste women, Arab women have more anal sex than Stormy Daniels.
- The desert gets cold.
- Indian food is overpriced in the US@jeff stryker Many good points, although it may be evil (I don't think so) the total block every block of the writing, it is bullshit, sorry, I have no conscience re. Moslems, I have had enough threats to my life from them, have had personal attacks on myself and loved ones, Tarrant was perfectly logical.jeff stryker , says: March 19, 2019 at 4:44 pm GMT
How many Muslims kill and terrorize how many others?
Far more.@Che Guava CHEjeff stryker , says: March 19, 2019 at 5:40 pm GMT
I lived in the Arab Gulf for years, like Truth, and although they are the most openly opposed to Jews, they are not wallowing in porn, poverty, out-of-wedlock single mothers, drug abuse, promiscuity, petty crime, hopelessness.
Whites are increasingly stricken with all of these things. Yet Muslims, who openly detest Jews and Zionism are not suffering these social pathology.@Che Guava DUBAI vs PHOENIXChe Guava , says: March 19, 2019 at 5:55 pm GMT
In Dubai, I never was menaced by street criminals, which was a fairly common experience for me in both Phoenix and Warren, Michigan.
Mestizos in Phoenix had NO motive. They were not menacing or assaulting whites over drug deals or gang territory or even some vague religious reason. "Cholos" as these Mexicans were called, simply enjoyed assaulting or terrorizing middle-class whites for lack of anything better to do.
Whites will complain about the IQ of Mestizos or US ghetto blacks but it is a good thing they are not intelligent enough to be organized criminals like Russian or Italian mafias. If they were capable of building bombs like Muslim terrorists than they would be blowing up buildings over rival dealers selling crack on the street corner.
If you obey the laws in Kuwait or Oman or Bahrain you are going to be safer than in any US city. I know, as well as you know, that if you had to choose between walking around at night in Dubai or LA or Flint or Baltimore, you'll choose Dubai.
Much is made of the drug laws in Arab countries and the film MIDNIGHT EXPRESS but try being followed around by redneck tweakers who are desperate to get more meth.
I'm not discounting terrorism. But America, and I cannot speak for other countries, will never face the threat of extinction from Muslims.
The occasional terrorist threat does not destroy a country as fast as narco-economies run by warring gangs of Hispanics or feral inner-city blacks.@jeff stryker Asia always has nepotism, my experience, almost half life, it is less. Even the idea that 'Asia' is a term with any meaning, it does not.Che Guava , says: March 19, 2019 at 6:19 pm GMT@jeff stryker Asia always has nepotism, as has Europe, and Jews there, screw you if you don't want toBengaliCanadianDude , says: March 20, 2019 at 3:43 am GMT
Even the idea that 'Asia' is a term is without any meaning, it does not have that automatically. The origin was Roman 'any east of us'.
In Japanese, there is a triple meaning.
Truly reflecting. But I am always to know, now, that most posters here now are Ziomorons, so, there is no point in saying anything,@polaco Albanians and Georgians are a 100% white.BengaliCanadianDude , says: March 20, 2019 at 3:51 am GMT@jeff stryker Hey Jeff, it's me again.BengaliCanadianDude , says: March 20, 2019 at 3:53 am GMT
I also never got all the outrage coming from everyone in particular regarding the "draconian" laws regarding drug trafficking and drugs in general, in the Asian countries, particularly, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Phillipines,etc. People keep telling us that these are "victimless" crimes, and that these are non-violent crimes. We all know that is simply not the case.
Drug trafficking is a brutal game, involving kidnapping, common assault, robbery, harrasment and gang wars. It only leads to more criminality as well. Drugs breed criminality. It corrupts the mind of the youth, and it ruins the mind of the single mother who has to take care of her kid, or the father.
It leads to domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse and many other things. It makes me quite confused when they, the rabid liberals, try to downplay these things, and claim that these are "victimless" or "non-violent". Also, does the Italian Mafia still "exist"? Why would they, weren't they just the result of discrimination and the sorts and lack of opportunities? One would think that kind of stuff is all gone ..
Cheers@Che GuavaBengaliCanadianDude , says: March 20, 2019 at 3:59 am GMT
Tarrant was perfectly logical.
Would not say that at all@jeff strykerjeff stryker , says: March 20, 2019 at 4:40 am GMT
The brotherhood of Islam does not apply to South Asians.
It certainly does not apply to the low level cleaners and all the deplorables at least. I would beg to disagree on this one. I am very close with many Arabs in that region and friends with others and as are other South Asians who are not working the menial jobs which I have mentioned. Class-ism is very much a thing, and it exists here.
If the Indian guy is a higher class guy, they'll treat you like a brother. This is coming from yours truly ;-) I feel like I would fit right in. I sneer at the peasants and all the deplorables, and we openly joke about them.
Pakistani workers guzzle perfume
This is certainly true, they bathe in that stuff. Ever visited Muscat?@BengaliCanadianDude BENGALI
Lets take Brampton. Italians used to completely run the prostitution, trucking, extortion, drugs etc. in Ontario in industrial towns like Brampton because Anglo Canadians were basically pleasant middle-class people.
Then came Sikhs, Tamils, Jamaicans. But especially Sikhs. Sikh separatists and Tamil Tigers were not afraid of some middle-aged portly Italian men like Tony Soprano scarfing down pizza at a strip joint.
By the end of the eighties, the Italians simply decided to move into white-collar fraud like "Pump and Dump" stock scams. It was not worth getting their asses shot off by crazy gun-toting Sikhs or Tamils who would tie someone to an anthill just to prove that nobody's life mattered to them but their own.
This is why Crips and Bloods and Mexican street gangs never got a foothold in Vancouver or Ontario. Sikhs and Tamils have a reputation for being bloodthirsty maniacs that even redoubted US gangs avoid.
The same occurred in the US, really.
As for drugs, anybody who has walked through East Vancouver once has seen the end-result of a decriminalization.
That is not to say that drugs will not be consumed in Muslim countries. I've known hashish smokers my entire time in Dubai and even chewed Khat once with a Yemeni taxi driver to see what it was about (It has the kick of three cans of Red Bull but lasts longer).
But pot smokers and Khat chewers in D