NATIONALISM DONE RIGHT:
Friday, March 4, 2011
RE HUNTINGTON'S CLASH REVISITED BROOKS' NONSENSE NYT EDITORIAL
Whom do you believe, Huntington, or Brooks?
Anyone who reads this blog knows which side I come down on.
Brooks claims that nationalism is contrary to Huntington's theses.
Nationalism is also contrary to Brooks' kind of multicultural cross civilizational, globalist (non)-states, call them market states, which Brooks lionizes.
Call nationalism the clash of civilizations' 'double whammy'.
Really, what can one properly say about Huntington's arguments on Brooks' editorial page, given its very limited scope and purposes?
What else, really, would the average American be entitled to, comprehend, or deserve, at this point, other than a short, incorrect, misleading critique, from Brooks, or for that matter from anyone else, in this format?
Term search various terms.
Whom do you believe, Huntington, or Brooks?
Anyone who reads this blog knows which side I come down on.
Brooks claims that nationalism is contrary to Huntington's theses.
Nationalism is also contrary to Brooks' kind of multicultural cross civilizational, globalist (non)-states, call them market states, which Brooks lionizes.
Call nationalism the clash of civilizations' 'double whammy'.
Really, what can one properly say about Huntington's arguments on Brooks' editorial page, given its very limited scope and purposes?
What else, really, would the average American be entitled to, comprehend, or deserve, at this point, other than a short, incorrect, misleading critique, from Brooks, or for that matter from anyone else, in this format?
Term search various terms.
Anyone who reads this blog knows which side I come down on.
Brooks claims that nationalism is contrary to Huntington's theses.
Nationalism is also contrary to Brooks' kind of multicultural cross civilizational, globalist (non)-states, call them market states, which Brooks lionizes.
Call nationalism the clash of civilizations' 'double whammy'.
Really, what can one properly say about Huntington's arguments on Brooks' editorial page, given its very limited scope and purposes?
What else, really, would the average American be entitled to, comprehend, or deserve, at this point, other than a short, incorrect, misleading critique, from Brooks, or for that matter from anyone else, in this format?
Term search various terms.
Friday, March 4, 2011
RE HUNTINGTON'S CLASH REVISITED BROOKS' NONSENSE NYT EDITORIAL
Whom do you believe, Huntington, or Brooks?
Anyone who reads this blog knows which side I come down on.
Brooks claims that nationalism is contrary to Huntington's theses.
Nationalism is also contrary to Brooks' kind of multicultural cross civilizational, globalist (non)-states, call them market states, which Brooks lionizes.
Call nationalism the clash of civilizations' 'double whammy'.
Really, what can one properly say about Huntington's arguments on Brooks' editorial page, given its very limited scope and purposes?
What else, really, would the average American be entitled to, comprehend, or deserve, at this point, other than a short, incorrect, misleading critique, from Brooks, or for that matter from anyone else, in this format?
Term search various terms.
Whom do you believe, Huntington, or Brooks?
Anyone who reads this blog knows which side I come down on.
Brooks claims that nationalism is contrary to Huntington's theses.
Nationalism is also contrary to Brooks' kind of multicultural cross civilizational, globalist (non)-states, call them market states, which Brooks lionizes.
Call nationalism the clash of civilizations' 'double whammy'.
Really, what can one properly say about Huntington's arguments on Brooks' editorial page, given its very limited scope and purposes?
What else, really, would the average American be entitled to, comprehend, or deserve, at this point, other than a short, incorrect, misleading critique, from Brooks, or for that matter from anyone else, in this format?
Term search various terms.
Anyone who reads this blog knows which side I come down on.
Brooks claims that nationalism is contrary to Huntington's theses.
Nationalism is also contrary to Brooks' kind of multicultural cross civilizational, globalist (non)-states, call them market states, which Brooks lionizes.
Call nationalism the clash of civilizations' 'double whammy'.
Really, what can one properly say about Huntington's arguments on Brooks' editorial page, given its very limited scope and purposes?
What else, really, would the average American be entitled to, comprehend, or deserve, at this point, other than a short, incorrect, misleading critique, from Brooks, or for that matter from anyone else, in this format?
Term search various terms.
Thursday, July 11, 2019
Friday, October 26, 2018
LEOPARD IN JUNGLE SEEMS TO CHANGE HIS SPOTS DAVID BROOKS AMERICAN NATIONALIST
You never heard him say anything like this in 30 years, or did you?
If he did, he was lying back then.
Is he lying now?
You decide.
He cites Ernest Renan. Take a look at Renan, Wikipedia.
Rather hard to believe that Brooks would make such a reference knowingly regarding Renan as an ideal for his (Brooks') nationalism.
Here's a tip: Brooks' American nationalism is Brooks' American globalism.
he confesses he has made an extensive study of how americans feel. What does it show?
There is virtually no national feeling here whatsoever.
The vast majority of Americans apparently identify with their local area.
He doesn't tell you how many identify with humanity in general (maybe his code word for his globalism), but given that the vast majority of Americans, as he himself admits, identify locally, not even nationalistically, the whole situation is pretty goddamned pathetic any way nyou think you mwant to turn it.
So Brooks, even if he were a nationalist, would be a fish out of water in localist populist America.
Perhaps Professor Kaiser can regale us with his views on this most treacherous of topics....
You never heard him say anything like this in 30 years, or did you?
If he did, he was lying back then.
Is he lying now?
You decide.
He cites Ernest Renan. Take a look at Renan, Wikipedia.
Rather hard to believe that Brooks would make such a reference knowingly regarding Renan as an ideal for his (Brooks') nationalism.
Here's a tip: Brooks' American nationalism is Brooks' American globalism.
he confesses he has made an extensive study of how americans feel. What does it show?
There is virtually no national feeling here whatsoever.
The vast majority of Americans apparently identify with their local area.
He doesn't tell you how many identify with humanity in general (maybe his code word for his globalism), but given that the vast majority of Americans, as he himself admits, identify locally, not even nationalistically, the whole situation is pretty goddamned pathetic any way nyou think you mwant to turn it.
So Brooks, even if he were a nationalist, would be a fish out of water in localist populist America.
Perhaps Professor Kaiser can regale us with his views on this most treacherous of topics....
If he did, he was lying back then.
Is he lying now?
You decide.
He cites Ernest Renan. Take a look at Renan, Wikipedia.
Rather hard to believe that Brooks would make such a reference knowingly regarding Renan as an ideal for his (Brooks') nationalism.
Here's a tip: Brooks' American nationalism is Brooks' American globalism.
he confesses he has made an extensive study of how americans feel. What does it show?
There is virtually no national feeling here whatsoever.
The vast majority of Americans apparently identify with their local area.
He doesn't tell you how many identify with humanity in general (maybe his code word for his globalism), but given that the vast majority of Americans, as he himself admits, identify locally, not even nationalistically, the whole situation is pretty goddamned pathetic any way nyou think you mwant to turn it.
So Brooks, even if he were a nationalist, would be a fish out of water in localist populist America.
Perhaps Professor Kaiser can regale us with his views on this most treacherous of topics....
Tuesday, September 26, 2017
SOME READERS SEE FEBRUARY STUFF BUT NOT THE GOOD STUFF! HERE IS SOME
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
BROOKS' SIMON SAYS ENLIGHTENMENT
This is a profoundly misleading account, but it is what Americans have been brought up on for generations now, throughout the 20th Century.
Brooks thinks that the Enlightenment never ended (about the time of the American Rebellion or the French Revolution, in my judgment)! From some of Professor Kaiser's remarks, he seems to share this time warp view as well.
Brooks thinks 20th century leaders, but only some of them he likes, are Enlightenment leaders! He really believes that.
Do you think Enlightenment requires democracy? It certainly never meant anything of that kind for a long time, long before the Age of the Democratic Revolution, beginning only in about 1760.
How can you claim that Brooks' view is incorrect? Who would believe you? Where in this barrage would one begin?
Do you then get pegged as a Bannonist, whatever that turns out to be?
It certainly goes back to arguments claiming that the French Revolution somehow represented the Enlightenment. The founding fathers certainly all thought of themselves as enlightenment thinkers.
Of course Napoleon turned out to be a different thing, or did he? So, was he actually anti Enlightenment then?
He certainly believed in careers open to talent, and to rationalization and consolidation of the ostensibly backward Old European Order Europe, much as enlightened despots had themselves been trying to do for decades. He didn't care for religion. That's an enlightenment plus. He wasn't fond of an aristocracy, except of his relatives. That was an enlightenment plus. Jefferson started out calling him a wonderful man. Doesn't that make him the modern enlightened ruler par excellence, even though he didn't do it very democratically, to say the least? If not, why not?
The 19th Century movements Brooks calls anti Enlightenment, socialism, fascism, communism, were also themselves intellectual children of the Enlightenment. That is the ugly little secret he doesn't tell you either. WWI was painted as an imperialist war, thus somehow Anti Enlightenment.
Nationalism was a child of the Enlightenment.
Fascism, was a child, intellectually, of the enlightenment no less than was liberal democracy.
Communism, intellectually yet another child of the enlightenment.
Both communism and fascism sort of sprang from Hegel, who himself sort of sprang from the likes of Rousseau and Kant.
Brooks doesn't really want to get into what I call this dark side of the Enlightenment, call it the Endarkenment.
He mentions Locke and Kant....He doesn't, of course, mention Rousseau, etc., classic later enlightenment thinker, hugely influential on the founding fathers and on revolutionary democratic Europe, idol of Robespierre.
He doesn't touch Hume, hugely important but poison for Brooks' theory of the power and goodness of Enlightenment reason. Yet he covers himself with his remarks on skepticism, painting it as leading to mostly good things in American democracy, separation of powers, checks and balances, things like that, things that, sadly, have not panned out at all as originally planned here, or as lauded by Tocqueville.
With Hume, on the intellectual plane, and especially with Rousseau, on the individual and emotional one, the Enlightenment worm had already turned on itself in mid 18th Century thought, actually even before the democratic revolution began in earnest in the 1760s.
Skepticism and the wantonness of the individual will represented the death of the Enlightenment, not its fruition. But the Enlightenment had plenty of offspring.
This is a profoundly misleading account, but it is what Americans have been brought up on for generations now, throughout the 20th Century.
Brooks thinks that the Enlightenment never ended (about the time of the American Rebellion or the French Revolution, in my judgment)! From some of Professor Kaiser's remarks, he seems to share this time warp view as well.
Brooks thinks 20th century leaders, but only some of them he likes, are Enlightenment leaders! He really believes that.
Brooks thinks that the Enlightenment never ended (about the time of the American Rebellion or the French Revolution, in my judgment)! From some of Professor Kaiser's remarks, he seems to share this time warp view as well.
Brooks thinks 20th century leaders, but only some of them he likes, are Enlightenment leaders! He really believes that.
Do you think Enlightenment requires democracy? It certainly never meant anything of that kind for a long time, long before the Age of the Democratic Revolution, beginning only in about 1760.
How can you claim that Brooks' view is incorrect? Who would believe you? Where in this barrage would one begin?
Do you then get pegged as a Bannonist, whatever that turns out to be?
It certainly goes back to arguments claiming that the French Revolution somehow represented the Enlightenment. The founding fathers certainly all thought of themselves as enlightenment thinkers.
Of course Napoleon turned out to be a different thing, or did he? So, was he actually anti Enlightenment then?
He certainly believed in careers open to talent, and to rationalization and consolidation of the ostensibly backward Old European Order Europe, much as enlightened despots had themselves been trying to do for decades. He didn't care for religion. That's an enlightenment plus. He wasn't fond of an aristocracy, except of his relatives. That was an enlightenment plus. Jefferson started out calling him a wonderful man. Doesn't that make him the modern enlightened ruler par excellence, even though he didn't do it very democratically, to say the least? If not, why not?
The 19th Century movements Brooks calls anti Enlightenment, socialism, fascism, communism, were also themselves intellectual children of the Enlightenment. That is the ugly little secret he doesn't tell you either. WWI was painted as an imperialist war, thus somehow Anti Enlightenment.
Nationalism was a child of the Enlightenment.
Fascism, was a child, intellectually, of the enlightenment no less than was liberal democracy.
Communism, intellectually yet another child of the enlightenment.
Both communism and fascism sort of sprang from Hegel, who himself sort of sprang from the likes of Rousseau and Kant.
Nationalism was a child of the Enlightenment.
Fascism, was a child, intellectually, of the enlightenment no less than was liberal democracy.
Communism, intellectually yet another child of the enlightenment.
Both communism and fascism sort of sprang from Hegel, who himself sort of sprang from the likes of Rousseau and Kant.
Brooks doesn't really want to get into what I call this dark side of the Enlightenment, call it the Endarkenment.
He mentions Locke and Kant....He doesn't, of course, mention Rousseau, etc., classic later enlightenment thinker, hugely influential on the founding fathers and on revolutionary democratic Europe, idol of Robespierre.
He doesn't touch Hume, hugely important but poison for Brooks' theory of the power and goodness of Enlightenment reason. Yet he covers himself with his remarks on skepticism, painting it as leading to mostly good things in American democracy, separation of powers, checks and balances, things like that, things that, sadly, have not panned out at all as originally planned here, or as lauded by Tocqueville.
With Hume, on the intellectual plane, and especially with Rousseau, on the individual and emotional one, the Enlightenment worm had already turned on itself in mid 18th Century thought, actually even before the democratic revolution began in earnest in the 1760s.
Skepticism and the wantonness of the individual will represented the death of the Enlightenment, not its fruition. But the Enlightenment had plenty of offspring.
He mentions Locke and Kant....He doesn't, of course, mention Rousseau, etc., classic later enlightenment thinker, hugely influential on the founding fathers and on revolutionary democratic Europe, idol of Robespierre.
He doesn't touch Hume, hugely important but poison for Brooks' theory of the power and goodness of Enlightenment reason. Yet he covers himself with his remarks on skepticism, painting it as leading to mostly good things in American democracy, separation of powers, checks and balances, things like that, things that, sadly, have not panned out at all as originally planned here, or as lauded by Tocqueville.
With Hume, on the intellectual plane, and especially with Rousseau, on the individual and emotional one, the Enlightenment worm had already turned on itself in mid 18th Century thought, actually even before the democratic revolution began in earnest in the 1760s.
Skepticism and the wantonness of the individual will represented the death of the Enlightenment, not its fruition. But the Enlightenment had plenty of offspring.
Sunday, October 28, 2018
GET A LOAD OF BROOKS' RECENT POSTS!
He's worse than Liberace!
The Materialist Party
The Neighborhood Is The Unit Of Change (He mimicks TLF's New Localism here. What a fucking idiot.)
The Rich White Civil War (See my other posts on Brooks on nationalism, Lincoln, globalization, etc.)
Brooks is really, at heart, surprise, a lower Manhattan localist.
But, however, surprise, he is really, at heart, an American nationalist.
(But, however, surprise, (secretly), he is still the same old Brooks globalist you have all, everywhere in the world, always known, and loved.)
Brooks is fun to follow, in a sick sort of way, because he is quite intentionally rather a swirling dervish of an editorial journalist.
Even trying to criticize him is rather like trying to shoot snipe, one of the most evasive of flying wild sport fowl.
Witness his current article, which I have tackled in several ways, not because I wanted to, but rather because the article changes ground, topic, and point of view, phrase by phrase, and sentence by sentence, as it goes along.
Brooks: Yes, I am A Snipe!
He's worse than Liberace!
The Neighborhood Is The Unit Of Change (He mimicks TLF's New Localism here. What a fucking idiot.)
The Rich White Civil War (See my other posts on Brooks on nationalism, Lincoln, globalization, etc.)
Brooks is really, at heart, surprise, a lower Manhattan localist.
But, however, surprise, he is really, at heart, an American nationalist.
(But, however, surprise, (secretly), he is still the same old Brooks globalist you have all, everywhere in the world, always known, and loved.)
Brooks is fun to follow, in a sick sort of way, because he is quite intentionally rather a swirling dervish of an editorial journalist.
Even trying to criticize him is rather like trying to shoot snipe, one of the most evasive of flying wild sport fowl.
Witness his current article, which I have tackled in several ways, not because I wanted to, but rather because the article changes ground, topic, and point of view, phrase by phrase, and sentence by sentence, as it goes along.
Brooks: Yes, I am A Snipe!
Brooks is really, at heart, surprise, a lower Manhattan localist.
But, however, surprise, he is really, at heart, an American nationalist.
(But, however, surprise, (secretly), he is still the same old Brooks globalist you have all, everywhere in the world, always known, and loved.)
Brooks is fun to follow, in a sick sort of way, because he is quite intentionally rather a swirling dervish of an editorial journalist.
Even trying to criticize him is rather like trying to shoot snipe, one of the most evasive of flying wild sport fowl.
Witness his current article, which I have tackled in several ways, not because I wanted to, but rather because the article changes ground, topic, and point of view, phrase by phrase, and sentence by sentence, as it goes along.
Brooks: Yes, I am A Snipe!
Friday, October 26, 2018
LINCOLN WAS THE GREAT AMERICAN SECTIONALIST MASQUERADING AS A NATIONALIST
So, Brooks has Lincoln all wrong, re Brooks' nationalism.
The Republicans were the sectionalist party, not at all a nationalist party, not the Democrats, and Douglas, who were the actual nationalist party.
If Brooks says Trump is a sectionalist, then I say his classic, quintessential predecessor is Lincoln, Brooks' own so called nationalist hero.
Go figure.
So, Brooks has Lincoln all wrong, re Brooks' nationalism.
The Republicans were the sectionalist party, not at all a nationalist party, not the Democrats, and Douglas, who were the actual nationalist party.
If Brooks says Trump is a sectionalist, then I say his classic, quintessential predecessor is Lincoln, Brooks' own so called nationalist hero.
Go figure.
The Republicans were the sectionalist party, not at all a nationalist party, not the Democrats, and Douglas, who were the actual nationalist party.
If Brooks says Trump is a sectionalist, then I say his classic, quintessential predecessor is Lincoln, Brooks' own so called nationalist hero.
Go figure.
LET'S JUST SAY WHAT BROOKS' NATIONALISM IS: YORAM HAZONY NATIONALISM
Not lower Manhattan localism, masquerading as nationalism.
Yoram Hazony nationalism......Trust me.
He says as much in his article....read it.
Yoram Hazony, New York: Basic Books, The Virtue of Nationalism, 2018
The nod to Renan, the Christian stooge apologist, and then Hazony, the real Orthodox Jewish power behind Brooks' NYT Christian Renanian stooges.
Not lower Manhattan localism, masquerading as nationalism.
Yoram Hazony nationalism......Trust me.
He says as much in his article....read it.
Yoram Hazony, New York: Basic Books, The Virtue of Nationalism, 2018
The nod to Renan, the Christian stooge apologist, and then Hazony, the real Orthodox Jewish power behind Brooks' NYT Christian Renanian stooges.
Yoram Hazony nationalism......Trust me.
He says as much in his article....read it.
Yoram Hazony, New York: Basic Books, The Virtue of Nationalism, 2018
The nod to Renan, the Christian stooge apologist, and then Hazony, the real Orthodox Jewish power behind Brooks' NYT Christian Renanian stooges.
Friday, October 26, 2018
BROOKS' NOT JUST BUT IT IS SIMON SAYS NATIONALISM
"What does this national attachment feel like? It feels a bit like any other kind of love — a romantic love, or a love between friends. It is not one thing that you love but the confluence of a hundred things. Yes, it is the beauty of the Rockies, but it is not just the land. It is the Declaration of Independence, but not just the creed. It’s winning World War II and Silicon Valley, but it is not just the accomplishments. It is the craziness, the diversity, our particular brand of madness."
What would Simon Brooks Says say American nationalism is not?
He doesn't say........................................................................
Since, as Brooks admits, almost no Americans are actually nationalists (5%), this must include a hell of a lot........................
"What does this national attachment feel like? It feels a bit like any other kind of love — a romantic love, or a love between friends. It is not one thing that you love but the confluence of a hundred things. Yes, it is the beauty of the Rockies, but it is not just the land. It is the Declaration of Independence, but not just the creed. It’s winning World War II and Silicon Valley, but it is not just the accomplishments. It is the craziness, the diversity, our particular brand of madness."
What would Simon Brooks Says say American nationalism is not?
He doesn't say........................................................................
Since, as Brooks admits, almost no Americans are actually nationalists (5%), this must include a hell of a lot........................
What would Simon Brooks Says say American nationalism is not?
He doesn't say........................................................................
Since, as Brooks admits, almost no Americans are actually nationalists (5%), this must include a hell of a lot........................
Sunday, November 11, 2018
KRUGMAN THE RIGHT MEDIA BROOKS VS KRUGMAN THE MYSTERY MEAT
"Not to put too fine a point on it: What Donald Trump and his party are selling increasingly boils down to white nationalism — hatred and fear of darker people, with a hefty dose of anti-intellectualism plus anti-Semitism, which is always part of that cocktail. This message repels a majority of Americans. That’s why Tuesday’s election in the House — which despite gerrymandering and other factors is far more representative of the country as a whole than the Senate — produced a major Democratic wave.
"But the message does resonate with a minority of Americans. These Americans are, of course, white, and are more likely than not to reside outside big, racially diverse metropolitan areas — because racial animosity and fear of immigration always seem to be strongest in places where there are few nonwhites and hardly any immigrants. And these are precisely the places that have a disproportionate role in choosing senators." PK
This passage highlights, among other topics, what one might call the white black racialism promulgated and carried out by the right media.
That's even rather how Krugman puts it, if you read between the lines; he is also criticizing the right media as well as its white black racialist Republican offspring.
What Krugman is criticising is itself really a media monster, but contrary to the story he tells here, it is the monster not only of the right media rather than the liberal or left media, but really ultimately a deranged perverted and deformed creature of them both, The Free Press Mystery Meat!
The liberal and left media have also relentlessly beat the white black racial drum of color, for their own special liberal globalist purposes.
Witness the very pairing of Brooks' article and Krugman's, and the related articles of Leonhardt and his source author Cherlin, counterposing racism and economics as sides of a coin, a coin that the NYT would assert it never itself had flipped.
Neither globaliation, nor the two sided coin of race and economics, were ever really inevitable.....as Brooks' Cass work now cynically claims for the globalization they now abjure, and fail to mention by name.
"Not to put too fine a point on it: What Donald Trump and his party are selling increasingly boils down to white nationalism — hatred and fear of darker people, with a hefty dose of anti-intellectualism plus anti-Semitism, which is always part of that cocktail. This message repels a majority of Americans. That’s why Tuesday’s election in the House — which despite gerrymandering and other factors is far more representative of the country as a whole than the Senate — produced a major Democratic wave.
"But the message does resonate with a minority of Americans. These Americans are, of course, white, and are more likely than not to reside outside big, racially diverse metropolitan areas — because racial animosity and fear of immigration always seem to be strongest in places where there are few nonwhites and hardly any immigrants. And these are precisely the places that have a disproportionate role in choosing senators." PK
This passage highlights, among other topics, what one might call the white black racialism promulgated and carried out by the right media.
That's even rather how Krugman puts it, if you read between the lines; he is also criticizing the right media as well as its white black racialist Republican offspring.
What Krugman is criticising is itself really a media monster, but contrary to the story he tells here, it is the monster not only of the right media rather than the liberal or left media, but really ultimately a deranged perverted and deformed creature of them both, The Free Press Mystery Meat!
The liberal and left media have also relentlessly beat the white black racial drum of color, for their own special liberal globalist purposes.
Witness the very pairing of Brooks' article and Krugman's, and the related articles of Leonhardt and his source author Cherlin, counterposing racism and economics as sides of a coin, a coin that the NYT would assert it never itself had flipped.
Neither globaliation, nor the two sided coin of race and economics, were ever really inevitable.....as Brooks' Cass work now cynically claims for the globalization they now abjure, and fail to mention by name.
This passage highlights, among other topics, what one might call the white black racialism promulgated and carried out by the right media.
That's even rather how Krugman puts it, if you read between the lines; he is also criticizing the right media as well as its white black racialist Republican offspring.
What Krugman is criticising is itself really a media monster, but contrary to the story he tells here, it is the monster not only of the right media rather than the liberal or left media, but really ultimately a deranged perverted and deformed creature of them both, The Free Press Mystery Meat!
The liberal and left media have also relentlessly beat the white black racial drum of color, for their own special liberal globalist purposes.
Witness the very pairing of Brooks' article and Krugman's, and the related articles of Leonhardt and his source author Cherlin, counterposing racism and economics as sides of a coin, a coin that the NYT would assert it never itself had flipped.
Neither globaliation, nor the two sided coin of race and economics, were ever really inevitable.....as Brooks' Cass work now cynically claims for the globalization they now abjure, and fail to mention by name.
Friday, November 9, 2018
LET'S JUST PUT IT THIS WAY KRUGMAN VS BROOKS
Brooks' new nationalism and Krugman's old Keynesianism are still brothers under the skin:
Each confronts one side of the same Leonhardt/Cherlin coin:
Krugman's hollow attacks on stagnant wages and declining industrial base on the one hand,
Brooks' faux nationalist affirmation against anxieties about the ascent of minority groups, on the other.
Brooks' new nationalism and Krugman's old Keynesianism are still brothers under the skin:
Each confronts one side of the same Leonhardt/Cherlin coin:
Krugman's hollow attacks on stagnant wages and declining industrial base on the one hand,
Brooks' faux nationalist affirmation against anxieties about the ascent of minority groups, on the other.
Friday, November 9, 2018
SEE DAVID KAISER'S CURRENT POST KRUGMAN VS. BROOKS
This is just an introductory remark, re Krugman.
Let's just agree that Krugman once seemed to be a New Deal Democrat. I think he postured himself as one, but I seriously question that he ever really was a dyed in the wool New Deal Democrat so much as he was a liberal economist in the largest sense of the term.
However, in practice and in theory, that meant that he seemed more or less for Keynsian fiscal domestic policies, but these would not be allowed to trump a liberal globalist trade and investment agenda also promoted by him, in tandem.
If you look Krugman up on Wikipedia, it very quickly becomes crystal clear, as I have always known, that he primarily an economist of economics under globalization, and specializes in some of its aspects. This was the direction economics as a social science took from the beginning, a perspective larger than and other than the state. 'If there were an Economist's Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations 'I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage' and 'I advocate Free Trade'.' Say no more! Nuf said!
These two aspects of liberal economics, Keynesian domestic and post Keynesian globalist international, have increasingly come into opposition, for a variety of reasons. The upshot of the situation has been that globalist trade, production, and investment policies and institutions such as the IMF and the WB, Harry Dexter White's UN, and Bretton Woods, have, over time, rendered Keynsian domestic fiscal and investment policies ineffectual if not now thoroughly obsolete.
I like to call the situation The Globalization Trap, or The Economists' Trap.
He says something like, the paradox of toil, and the paradox of flexibility, exacerbate a liquidity trap.... something like 'the worm at the heart of being'.
This is not something that was not foreseen. Kindleberger saw it clearly. The ultimate goal, especially by the end of WWII, as Kindleberger pointed out, was the withering away of the nation state itself into larger and larger ostensibly safer and more peaceful economic units, ultimately ending up as a single utopian global economic unity.
Nationalism now is the scorched earth that remains after globalization.
Krugman will not stand on it or defend it at this point.
It is already now the biggest lost cause.
And that leads us next to a brief discussion, following DK, of Brooks' surprising brand of nationalism.
This is just an introductory remark, re Krugman.
Let's just agree that Krugman once seemed to be a New Deal Democrat. I think he postured himself as one, but I seriously question that he ever really was a dyed in the wool New Deal Democrat so much as he was a liberal economist in the largest sense of the term.
However, in practice and in theory, that meant that he seemed more or less for Keynsian fiscal domestic policies, but these would not be allowed to trump a liberal globalist trade and investment agenda also promoted by him, in tandem.
If you look Krugman up on Wikipedia, it very quickly becomes crystal clear, as I have always known, that he primarily an economist of economics under globalization, and specializes in some of its aspects. This was the direction economics as a social science took from the beginning, a perspective larger than and other than the state. 'If there were an Economist's Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations 'I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage' and 'I advocate Free Trade'.' Say no more! Nuf said!
If you look Krugman up on Wikipedia, it very quickly becomes crystal clear, as I have always known, that he primarily an economist of economics under globalization, and specializes in some of its aspects. This was the direction economics as a social science took from the beginning, a perspective larger than and other than the state. 'If there were an Economist's Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations 'I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage' and 'I advocate Free Trade'.' Say no more! Nuf said!
These two aspects of liberal economics, Keynesian domestic and post Keynesian globalist international, have increasingly come into opposition, for a variety of reasons. The upshot of the situation has been that globalist trade, production, and investment policies and institutions such as the IMF and the WB, Harry Dexter White's UN, and Bretton Woods, have, over time, rendered Keynsian domestic fiscal and investment policies ineffectual if not now thoroughly obsolete.
I like to call the situation The Globalization Trap, or The Economists' Trap.
He says something like, the paradox of toil, and the paradox of flexibility, exacerbate a liquidity trap.... something like 'the worm at the heart of being'.
I like to call the situation The Globalization Trap, or The Economists' Trap.
He says something like, the paradox of toil, and the paradox of flexibility, exacerbate a liquidity trap.... something like 'the worm at the heart of being'.
This is not something that was not foreseen. Kindleberger saw it clearly. The ultimate goal, especially by the end of WWII, as Kindleberger pointed out, was the withering away of the nation state itself into larger and larger ostensibly safer and more peaceful economic units, ultimately ending up as a single utopian global economic unity.
Nationalism now is the scorched earth that remains after globalization.
Krugman will not stand on it or defend it at this point.
It is already now the biggest lost cause.
And that leads us next to a brief discussion, following DK, of Brooks' surprising brand of nationalism.
Nationalism now is the scorched earth that remains after globalization.
Krugman will not stand on it or defend it at this point.
It is already now the biggest lost cause.
And that leads us next to a brief discussion, following DK, of Brooks' surprising brand of nationalism.
Wednesday, November 28, 2018
GLOBALIZATION WAS HURTING CLIMATE CHANGE NOW UN SAYS NATIONALISM HURTING CLIMATE CHANGE
LET'S TALK CLIMATE CHANGE DEPRAVITY KRUGMAN SOPHISTRIES CONVERGOLESCENCE
Krugman is a depraved Democratic pundit.
He blames fossil fuel companies, their money, and Republicans for all of this now.
He is another one of the liberal NYT Mr Globalizations who wants to divert attention from the bigger more important ideological reasons and economic causes that institutions like the NYT actually caused, and blame the other political party.
Everyone was willing to offshore industry to Asia and elsewhere to ostensibly NIMBY solve their environmental problems here.
We all are the consumers of the lion's share of liberal expansionistic global production that drives climate change, REGARDLESS OF TRUMP'S DENIAL.
That helter skelter global production has been as eagerly encouraged by Democrats as by Republicans as long as one can remember.
GM is cutting back domestic auto production....loss of more American jobs: CONVERGOLESCENCE
Their ostensible reason:
Americans don't like small cars.
They want gas guzzling SUVs and trucks, 70% of American sales.
Why not just blame Americans for climate change.
They are the real cause.
Take a look at blaming Americans, a NYT tradition:
The Kitty Genovese Editorial
GLOBALIST CLIMATE CHANGE IS DEEPLY RELATED TO GLOBALIST CONVERGOLESCENCE
Krugman is a depraved Democratic pundit.
He blames fossil fuel companies, their money, and Republicans for all of this now.
He is another one of the liberal NYT Mr Globalizations who wants to divert attention from the bigger more important ideological reasons and economic causes that institutions like the NYT actually caused, and blame the other political party.
Everyone was willing to offshore industry to Asia and elsewhere to ostensibly NIMBY solve their environmental problems here.
We all are the consumers of the lion's share of liberal expansionistic global production that drives climate change, REGARDLESS OF TRUMP'S DENIAL.
That helter skelter global production has been as eagerly encouraged by Democrats as by Republicans as long as one can remember.
GM is cutting back domestic auto production....loss of more American jobs: CONVERGOLESCENCE
Their ostensible reason:
Americans don't like small cars.
They want gas guzzling SUVs and trucks, 70% of American sales.
Why not just blame Americans for climate change.
They are the real cause.
Take a look at blaming Americans, a NYT tradition:
The Kitty Genovese Editorial
GLOBALIST CLIMATE CHANGE IS DEEPLY RELATED TO GLOBALIST CONVERGOLESCENCE
He blames fossil fuel companies, their money, and Republicans for all of this now.
He is another one of the liberal NYT Mr Globalizations who wants to divert attention from the bigger more important ideological reasons and economic causes that institutions like the NYT actually caused, and blame the other political party.
Everyone was willing to offshore industry to Asia and elsewhere to ostensibly NIMBY solve their environmental problems here.
We all are the consumers of the lion's share of liberal expansionistic global production that drives climate change, REGARDLESS OF TRUMP'S DENIAL.
That helter skelter global production has been as eagerly encouraged by Democrats as by Republicans as long as one can remember.
GM is cutting back domestic auto production....loss of more American jobs: CONVERGOLESCENCE
Their ostensible reason:
Americans don't like small cars.
They want gas guzzling SUVs and trucks, 70% of American sales.
Why not just blame Americans for climate change.
They are the real cause.
Take a look at blaming Americans, a NYT tradition:
The Kitty Genovese Editorial
GLOBALIST CLIMATE CHANGE IS DEEPLY RELATED TO GLOBALIST CONVERGOLESCENCE
Thursday, February 8, 2018
NYT LIBERALS RAIL AGAINST REPUBLICANS DISSING CLIMATE CHANGE
We are and ideologically have always been the single biggest cause of climate change in the 20th Century and the 21st.
It is part of our globalist structural political agenda...
You can blame Republicans for climate change, but who boomed the rest helter skelter, after all.
Take a look in the mirror, think about the scientific implications of Thomas Friedman David Brooks Paul Krugman helter skelter globalization booming ...
Climate change is a lost cause.
It is a cause lost mainly by all Americans as a whole society.
So Republicans deny it.
So what?
It is merely a byword for American dumb and dumber politics.
We are and ideologically have always been the single biggest cause of climate change in the 20th Century and the 21st.
It is part of our globalist structural political agenda...
You can blame Republicans for climate change, but who boomed the rest helter skelter, after all.
Take a look in the mirror, think about the scientific implications of Thomas Friedman David Brooks Paul Krugman helter skelter globalization booming ...
Climate change is a lost cause.
It is a cause lost mainly by all Americans as a whole society.
So Republicans deny it.
So what?
It is merely a byword for American dumb and dumber politics.
It is part of our globalist structural political agenda...
You can blame Republicans for climate change, but who boomed the rest helter skelter, after all.
Take a look in the mirror, think about the scientific implications of Thomas Friedman David Brooks Paul Krugman helter skelter globalization booming ...
Climate change is a lost cause.
It is a cause lost mainly by all Americans as a whole society.
So Republicans deny it.
So what?
It is merely a byword for American dumb and dumber politics.
Thursday, December 8, 2016
A LOT OF LIBERALS BOTH PARTIES STILL TALK ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE
They fail to advert to the fact that they have been the big cause, not the solution, of global climate change, bi partisan, in first booming, then offshoring production to, less regulated places, in still going for continued growth, both economic and even population, for ever shrinking profits in a world of high population, diminishing resources, civilizational competition, and environmental degradation.
You can kid yourself about what you, Democrat or Republican have done.
It is really still another aspect of the post Milner Group, CFR IISS, etc, NYT, Davos, liberal economic globalization mantra, dressed up for environmentalism. It has been run for many decades by the biggest players in industry and commerce who have never had any interest in climate change except as window dressing. "If only we globalize a little more we can even solve climate change."
Carbon Credits, call it The Gore Fallacy, what a fiasco.
As I have discussed before, why don't we turn the whole issue into a lawyer relief act? eg: QUESTION IF ALL OF THESE INCONSISTENCIES ALREADY EXIST THEN
That's what I call looking for private sector solutions!
If Trump has had enough of globalization, why not turn the private lawyers loose on everyone in a feeding frenzy!
Smell the coffee, game over.
They fail to advert to the fact that they have been the big cause, not the solution, of global climate change, bi partisan, in first booming, then offshoring production to, less regulated places, in still going for continued growth, both economic and even population, for ever shrinking profits in a world of high population, diminishing resources, civilizational competition, and environmental degradation.
You can kid yourself about what you, Democrat or Republican have done.
It is really still another aspect of the post Milner Group, CFR IISS, etc, NYT, Davos, liberal economic globalization mantra, dressed up for environmentalism. It has been run for many decades by the biggest players in industry and commerce who have never had any interest in climate change except as window dressing. "If only we globalize a little more we can even solve climate change."
Carbon Credits, call it The Gore Fallacy, what a fiasco.
As I have discussed before, why don't we turn the whole issue into a lawyer relief act? eg: QUESTION IF ALL OF THESE INCONSISTENCIES ALREADY EXIST THEN
That's what I call looking for private sector solutions!
If Trump has had enough of globalization, why not turn the private lawyers loose on everyone in a feeding frenzy!
It is really still another aspect of the post Milner Group, CFR IISS, etc, NYT, Davos, liberal economic globalization mantra, dressed up for environmentalism. It has been run for many decades by the biggest players in industry and commerce who have never had any interest in climate change except as window dressing. "If only we globalize a little more we can even solve climate change."
Carbon Credits, call it The Gore Fallacy, what a fiasco.
As I have discussed before, why don't we turn the whole issue into a lawyer relief act? eg: QUESTION IF ALL OF THESE INCONSISTENCIES ALREADY EXIST THEN
That's what I call looking for private sector solutions!
If Trump has had enough of globalization, why not turn the private lawyers loose on everyone in a feeding frenzy!
Smell the coffee, game over.
Wednesday, October 31, 2018
LIBERACE HAMMERS HOME NYT ONLY ANTI WHITE RACISM WHY NOT ANTI ANY RACE?
Why not smoke Liberace's lieo NYT globalist (anti nationalist, but Brooks' brand of nationalism is globalism in disguise) anti race, unirace, unrace in general, out?
Let's smoke him out:
Why not rampant Muslim racialism and religious intolerance?
Why not Chinese incredible yellow racism? They consider ethnic Chinese Chinese, anywhere in the world, and forever!
Why Not Japanese or Korean or Vietnamese racisms? Ain't there a lot of em!
Why not pan Slavic racism and ethnocentrism?
Why not the new negro African anti white racism, now in full swing?
Why not Mesoamerica Indian racism, spreading North now?
Why not Hindu racism?
Why not especially Israeli religious and blood racism?
Why not?
As Liberace now regularly says,
"Why not open up the conversation?"
Liberace and the NYT are the unwitting liberal stooges of the avalanche of different racialists of color or ethnicity or religion, all over the world, who love for organs like the NYT to run down its own white racial background and heritage while their foreign brands of race religion and ethnicity flourish in the gathering racial and cultural vacuum of the White West.
Liberace is rather like what Douglas had called, in the 1850s, Black Republicans, the one trick new party sectional ponies of abolitionism, traitors of their own race, which became crystal clear when they put freed slaves in charge of the occupied South.
Why not smoke Liberace's lieo NYT globalist (anti nationalist, but Brooks' brand of nationalism is globalism in disguise) anti race, unirace, unrace in general, out?
Let's smoke him out:
Why not rampant Muslim racialism and religious intolerance?
Let's smoke him out:
Why not rampant Muslim racialism and religious intolerance?
Why not Chinese incredible yellow racism? They consider ethnic Chinese Chinese, anywhere in the world, and forever!
Why Not Japanese or Korean or Vietnamese racisms? Ain't there a lot of em!
Why not pan Slavic racism and ethnocentrism?
Why not the new negro African anti white racism, now in full swing?
Why not the new negro African anti white racism, now in full swing?
Why not Mesoamerica Indian racism, spreading North now?
Why not Hindu racism?
Why not especially Israeli religious and blood racism?
Why not?
As Liberace now regularly says,
"Why not open up the conversation?"
Liberace and the NYT are the unwitting liberal stooges of the avalanche of different racialists of color or ethnicity or religion, all over the world, who love for organs like the NYT to run down its own white racial background and heritage while their foreign brands of race religion and ethnicity flourish in the gathering racial and cultural vacuum of the White West.
Liberace is rather like what Douglas had called, in the 1850s, Black Republicans, the one trick new party sectional ponies of abolitionism, traitors of their own race, which became crystal clear when they put freed slaves in charge of the occupied South.
As Liberace now regularly says,
"Why not open up the conversation?"
Liberace and the NYT are the unwitting liberal stooges of the avalanche of different racialists of color or ethnicity or religion, all over the world, who love for organs like the NYT to run down its own white racial background and heritage while their foreign brands of race religion and ethnicity flourish in the gathering racial and cultural vacuum of the White West.
Liberace is rather like what Douglas had called, in the 1850s, Black Republicans, the one trick new party sectional ponies of abolitionism, traitors of their own race, which became crystal clear when they put freed slaves in charge of the occupied South.
Tuesday, November 27, 2018
RE BROOKS VS KRUGMAN WHAT THE WORKING CLASS IS TRYING TO SAY THE GLOBAL TRAP HAD SAID IT ALL
Published in English in 1997, over 20 years ago.
Only three journalists were allowed to attend the Conference. One of them wrote the book.
Perhaps Krugman attended, as an economist. There were some.
See: The Global Trap, State of the World Forum, Wikipedia
Here was a video from the 1995 Forum:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_OWyr0C-5s
Published in English in 1997, over 20 years ago.
Only three journalists were allowed to attend the Conference. One of them wrote the book.
Perhaps Krugman attended, as an economist. There were some.
Perhaps Krugman attended, as an economist. There were some.
See: The Global Trap, State of the World Forum, Wikipedia
Here was a video from the 1995 Forum:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_OWyr0C-5s
Here was a video from the 1995 Forum:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_OWyr0C-5s
Monday, November 26, 2018
BROOKS LEONHARDT FRIEDMAN BRUNI BIRDS OF A FEATHER NATIONALISM ANTI GIGANTISM CHUMP MULTICULTURALISM
Leonhardt attacks corporate gigantism, a code word for globalization, rather than globalization, because the NYT has been a staunch defender of globalization, from the beginning, and I mean post WWI, not just 1980.
Who's the real amoral chump in the room here? Either Krugman or Friedman, take your pick. Your liberal conscience doesn't get you out of the Global Trap you have created.
Leonhardt attacks corporate gigantism, a code word for globalization, rather than globalization, because the NYT has been a staunch defender of globalization, from the beginning, and I mean post WWI, not just 1980.
Who's the real amoral chump in the room here? Either Krugman or Friedman, take your pick. Your liberal conscience doesn't get you out of the Global Trap you have created.
Who's the real amoral chump in the room here? Either Krugman or Friedman, take your pick. Your liberal conscience doesn't get you out of the Global Trap you have created.
Wednesday, November 14, 2018
THE INTERESTING QUESTION FOR ME GIVEN THE RUNNING KRUGMAN VS BROOKS COMMENTARY HERE AND ON DK SITE
is whether Krugman also will surprise us by claiming to be a dyed in the wool nationalist too, but with a different account of his nationalism from that of Brooks!
Krugman, after all, has long sailed under the banner of having the heart, the conscience, of a liberal.
The question is, does that liberal conscience turn out, now, to have, all along, been the conscience of a nationalist, too?
is whether Krugman also will surprise us by claiming to be a dyed in the wool nationalist too, but with a different account of his nationalism from that of Brooks!
Krugman, after all, has long sailed under the banner of having the heart, the conscience, of a liberal.
The question is, does that liberal conscience turn out, now, to have, all along, been the conscience of a nationalist, too?
Krugman, after all, has long sailed under the banner of having the heart, the conscience, of a liberal.
The question is, does that liberal conscience turn out, now, to have, all along, been the conscience of a nationalist, too?
Thursday, November 22, 2018
RE DK KRUGMAN VS BROOKS
"Professor
Great very interesting post.
Elections and voting, and Krugman and brooks in one short essay.
For me, Krugman and Brooks are swirling dervishes, very difficult to pin down, article by article. They each have written books, so that makes it a little easier. I read one or two of Krugman's, couldn't get through even one of Brooks'.
My own view is that Brooks' so called nationalism is fully as sham as Krugman's ostensible concern, ostensibly Keynesian, for the so called American economy.
I have, over the years, commented on both.
Your article prompted yet some more remarks.
The proof of liberalism for the so called common man was supposedly in the pudding.
Now that that pudding has grown thin, different stories are being wound by its apologists for why that should have now somehow become the case.
All the best"
Terms search, also, this blog: pudding
Saturday, October 27, 2018
BROOKS' FAUX NATIONALISM IS THREATENED BY INDIVIDUALISM AND GLOBALISM
As well as by faux nationalists, which is how he characterizes Trump. (I already pointed out that Lincoln was also a faux nationalist....)
The greatest threats, he says, come from those who also, (paradoxically, illogically,) claim to be nationalists, but are not (He means fascists.)
David Brooks, of what you accuse Trump, right or wrong, you yourself are, in spades, a relentless globalist, masquerading, in the pages of the NYT, as a new kind, a kinder gentler, kind, of nationalist.
The greatest threats, he says, come from those who also, (paradoxically, illogically,) claim to be nationalists, but are not (He means fascists.)
David Brooks, of what you accuse Trump, right or wrong, you yourself are, in spades, a relentless globalist, masquerading, in the pages of the NYT, as a new kind, a kinder gentler, kind, of nationalist.
uesday, May 29, 2012
RE THE ROLE OF UNCLE SAM BROOKS NYT DIONNE
Brooks touches a useful area here, but as usual blunders briefly around it, and fails characteristically to even join the issues in the discussion to include Democratic failures re nationalism.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
RE THOMAS FRIEDMAN DAVID BROOKS AND TODAYS NYT EDITORIAL
He criticizes the GOP for out Israeling the Democrats, even though apparently no one has outdone the Obama administration for kowtowing to the Israelis' whims on security.
Similar comments might apply to David Brooks.
He would criticize the party du jour, but keep that good financial and military support for Israel coming (notice that Friedman does not say cut back on anything like that from way overly generous Obama).
The truth, perhaps, is that Friedman himself is now running scared about how overly far the US, both parties, long have gone,
for decades now,
in coddling his favorite resolutely anti globalist nation state.
for decades now,
in coddling his favorite resolutely anti globalist nation state.
For the dyed in the wool globalist,
Israel, and Israeli expansionist nationalism, are a dreadful liability. However, the subtext has to be that he couldn't be happier that both parties have clambered over themselves to support his Israel.
Similar comments might apply to David Brooks.
He would criticize the party du jour, but keep that good financial and military support for Israel coming (notice that Friedman does not say cut back on anything like that from way overly generous Obama).
Saturday, October 27, 2018
AGAINST ECONOMIC NATIONALISM MR MORE FREE TRADE BROOKS
"You can’t be a nationalist if you despise diversity (FREE GLOBAL TRADE). America is diversity (FREE GLOBAL TRADE); if you don’t love diversity (FREE GLOBAL TRADE), you are not an American nationalist." DB
Tuesday, February 6, 2018
DAVID BROOKS AS USUAL HAS EXACTLY THE WRONG INTERPRETATION HOW NATIONS RECOVER
How to begin?
He thinks Britain came back from what he would call disaster, and then set itself on the road to greatness, between 1820 and 1848.
Nothing could be further from the truth, yet that is exactly the story that is usually told over here, the 19th Century was peaceful after 1815 until the sudden evil surprise of German nationalism.
Why do I say such a crazy thing?
Think about what happened elsewhere in Europe in 1830 and 1848, and then only shortly later, in the 19th Century, the Crimean and Franco Prussian Wars, and then the disaster of 1914 and the terrible WWII aftermath ....and the total loss of the British Empire and all the others. That is what your British (and continental) liberalism, starting in the 18th Century not the 19th, got you, in spades.
Study this blog.
He thinks Britain came back from what he would call disaster, and then set itself on the road to greatness, between 1820 and 1848.
Nothing could be further from the truth, yet that is exactly the story that is usually told over here, the 19th Century was peaceful after 1815 until the sudden evil surprise of German nationalism.
Why do I say such a crazy thing?
Think about what happened elsewhere in Europe in 1830 and 1848, and then only shortly later, in the 19th Century, the Crimean and Franco Prussian Wars, and then the disaster of 1914 and the terrible WWII aftermath ....and the total loss of the British Empire and all the others. That is what your British (and continental) liberalism, starting in the 18th Century not the 19th, got you, in spades.
Study this blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment