BOOMERBUSTER
OLD CELLO
Monday, February 28, 2022
LET'S COMPARE
Saturday, July 30, 2016
LET'S COMPARE 1812 or so to 1865 and 1942 to 1990 or so
I want to compare two eras, perhaps they are what one might call eras, or, say, just time periods, that can for my purposes to be seen in relation to each other and to other periods.
One good reason for using the United States for this comparison is that it was largely, but not solely, responsible for its domestic politics during the first period, and because it largely politically and militarily dominated, by default, non Communist world foreign policy, as well as its own domestic policy to the extent that there continued to be a difference between the two, in the later period.
One of the things I want to highlight is a comparison of the outcomes of domestic policy in the earlier period and the outcomes of foreign policy in the later one, during periods in which it seems to me a meaningful comparison of how the system has worked overall and in the long run, in both ways, can be seen in retrospect and over time.
One good reason for using the United States for this comparison is that it was largely, but not solely, responsible for its domestic politics during the first period, and because it largely politically and militarily dominated, by default, non Communist world foreign policy, as well as its own domestic policy to the extent that there continued to be a difference between the two, in the later period.
One of the things I want to highlight is a comparison of the outcomes of domestic policy in the earlier period and the outcomes of foreign policy in the later one, during periods in which it seems to me a meaningful comparison of how the system has worked overall and in the long run, in both ways, can be seen in retrospect and over time.
Allan Nevins wrote a multi volume work on part of the first period, the run up to the Civil War. In that work, time and again Nevins referred to periods of what he called drift, where nothing much, politically, happened, especially regarding the issues of slavery, states' rights, and federalism, his chosen topics, for various reasons having to do with election outcomes regarding the legislative and executive branches, and other factors. He also talked at length about economic and industrial development, which both trended upward with intermittent busts throughout the period.
These lengthy times of drift resulted, in part, from what you might call degenerate but systemic checks and balances. This drift was the single most important fact that jumped out at me from the several volumes I read.
It was not as if these drift times were times when it was good for nothing much to have happened, but that is how the system worked in practice, and also how it had been originally designed to work, unfortunately.
One might more usefully refer to some of these periods of drift as ones of bitter deadlock, especially regarding slavery, states' rights, and Westward territorial expansion, which resulted in one kind of drift, but it is also helpful to recall other periods of drift, sometimes associated with temporary prosperity, as merely times of systemic political indolence in a generally weak federal system not really designed to ever do much anyway.
I personally believe that our system has been characterized best by drift generally, whether of drift of crisis or of indolence or of some other variety, since the founding, but these periods seem to display these tendencies in high relief regarding the run up to the Civil War on the one hand, and regarding world events since WWII on the other, even better than other times.
In terms of the earlier period, its drift alternated between crisis and indolence for 5 decades, during which there were many weak so called attempts to resolve the issues dividing the sectors. They seem often to have been more designed as Congressional members' political grandstanding, or as backhanded attacks on each other or the other party, than as serious practical proposals. These all failed, including ostensible settlements of the issues which then fell through, were modified, and fell through again or were repudiated later.
Interestingly enough, during this long period of time, 50 years, the political dispute between the sectors over slavery and states' rights actually worsened, giving rise to crises and deadlocks on the one hand, punctuated by long periods of indolent drift on the other, even though politicians more or less permanently, for generations, worked on these issues, until it finally resulted in the election of Lincoln, secession, and Civil War.
Looking now at the period from 1942 to 1990, regarding foreign policy, what can one say?
Our system continued to work in its usual way, but it increasingly came to work somewhat differently in foreign policy, where the Presidency, rather than Congress, has more control over foreign policy, military matters, and especially trade. Congress remains deeply involved in all these matters however.
The Presidency has, almost from the first, sought to circumvent Congressional approval wherever possible, and certainly where necessary, simply because of the difficulty of getting anything much done there in a certain way and in a timely manner.
Our system sought by inaction or deadlock to avoid entanglement in a world war in 1940 (similarly to WWI) until it was almost even too late to determine the outcome in favor of American survival in the long term against Hitler's global aspirations.
It took an attack on Pearl Harbor to accomplish this, not American political initiative. FDR had promoted American involvement in the war, largely at Churchill's urging, not because he was deeply concerned for Germany's neighbors or for Germans, or for Britain's or the West's plight, or for the imperial powers, or for Jews, but rather because he had long disliked Germany, a recently aspiring imperial power, which had been wrongly blamed for having caused WWI. Beschloss made the point about FDR's dislike rather clearly,The Conquerors.
Although the US and allies ultimately defeated Germany, Russia had done most of the fighting. We then almost put in place an agrarianization program for Germany, the Morgenthau Plan (Morgenthau was FDR's good friend), which the Russians loved, which would have been an open invitation to Russia to take over the rest of Western Europe, while the US meanwhile had intentionally left Russia already in control of Eastern Europe and by default the Asian mainland.
Russia's non aggression pact with Japan, which had made the attack on Pearl Harbor itself possible, and their take over of the Pacific then almost inevitable, did not prevent Russia from then later trying to swoop down on Japan at the very end of the war.
This was the same Russia, a so called ally, against which we then became embroiled in what was later called The Cold War, for the next 50 years, a Cold War which was thought to be over, but which has reignited in recent years. There was no Cold War so called peace dividend for reasons set out below. (Just as there was no peace dividend at the end of the Civil War, given the realities of its costs and of the realities of Reconstruction.)
Other critical consequences of the Cold War have been an economic booming of the non communist world since 1945, promoted largely by the US.
Carrot and stick diplomacy became an accepted way to confront communism, regardless of US domestic or Western Civilizational economic welfare.
Congress generally ignored domestic corporate and working class interests. See Trading Places, " Trading American Interests ". These works show how poorly the system has worked for promoting what is called the common welfare here.
It has proven perfectly willing, since the 1980s, to ignore white collar interests as well, although it had been on the basis of keeping white collar jobs that the prior trade and investment arrangements had been secured.
We insisted on requiring, during and after WWII, as a condition of security, a security now threatened with withdrawal for the first time by Trump, dismantling of Western civilization's colonial empires in the name of a liberal international globalist egalitarian economic order.
What have sprung up as a result of these Amerian iniatives since WWII, in the place of colonial empires, are aggressive nationalistic developmental regimes in what were once subordinate civilizations, which have now become rival economic and military states, and rival if not hostile civilizations based on rival ideologies and rival rationalities, call them rival enlightenments. Steingart's The War For Wealth is a sort of primer from a while back now.
These are problems which the government relentlessly avoids addressing directly for a variety of reasons, although it has been fully aware of the implications of its policies since the beginning really.
http://bozonbloggon.blogspot.com/2012/02/back-in-60s.html
One reason is that ideologically, Americans have no alternative to this liberal system, especially in the aftermath of WWII. Our system, which is very hard to reform in important ways, was written by men who claimed that its principles are the birthright of all people, who claimed it as their mission to spread this message everywhere, and who claimed, and still claim, to be willing to fight for the liberty and freedom of all people everywhere.
This means that we cannot even really acknowledge the existence of other civilizations. We cannot admit that they can exist outside a state; yet we built a system on an ideology which undermines all states and systems of states less than a universal state of all people everywhere.
Part of the intellectual underpinning for this ideology is connected with the Enlightenment notion of civilization, and this notion, at the time of the founding, only comprehended one civilization. It still does, on an enlightenment view.
This is where the concept of a liberal international economic order became a mechanism to work toward this impossible ideal. The main reason it has continued to be adhered to is not that it was or is feasible, but that it was immediately realized that such an ideology was congruent to existing powerful economic and financial interests in existing states everywhere (at least until the Russian Revolution).
Another aspect of the problem is that Americans turned away from Western Civilization, and especially against Britain's Atlantic hegemony at the beginning.
We cannot acknowledge Western Civilization as deserving more political allegiance than any other civilization because that allegiance itself to Western Civilization violates our founding principles which transcend mere civilizations and their component states. Huntington's The Clash Of Civilizations is required, as well as some works referred to therein.
American politicians have repeatedly had to deny that there is even such a thing as a clash of civilizations, because to admit such a thing is the kiss of death for Americanism.
What they have done is to turn apparent, and long standing, civilizational conflicts into what they call terror, and have declared a war on terror.
We are now in a situation globally similar in some ways to that of the states on the eve of the Civil War. DK sees it domestically as one analogous to the Civil War.
Other people including myself have said we have been in a global war, under the radar, for some time now. Pope Francis has said recently that the number of conflicts being waged around the globe effectively amount to “a piecemeal Third World War”.
I see global war as unfolding contemporaneously with civil war. Recent global wars have shown that this is a likely outcome for most states, even great powers. Civil wars are going on now here and there already, and other states are on the very brink of it. Professor Kaiser thinks we are, for example.
We have deadlock. Most people think to elect Clinton to assure that nothing drastic happens this term. I call that crisis drift. It will accomplish nothing. In fact, it will continue to exacerbate the tendencies in political economic social and civilizational developments adverse to American and Western interests that have been building, through political drift, since 1945.
See also this post: http://bozonbloggon.blogspot.com/2014/07/i-will-try-to-explain-something-hard-to.html
I will publish this post now, as a work in progress, and will edit it as I go along.
One might more usefully refer to some of these periods of drift as ones of bitter deadlock, especially regarding slavery, states' rights, and Westward territorial expansion, which resulted in one kind of drift, but it is also helpful to recall other periods of drift, sometimes associated with temporary prosperity, as merely times of systemic political indolence in a generally weak federal system not really designed to ever do much anyway.
I personally believe that our system has been characterized best by drift generally, whether of drift of crisis or of indolence or of some other variety, since the founding, but these periods seem to display these tendencies in high relief regarding the run up to the Civil War on the one hand, and regarding world events since WWII on the other, even better than other times.
In terms of the earlier period, its drift alternated between crisis and indolence for 5 decades, during which there were many weak so called attempts to resolve the issues dividing the sectors. They seem often to have been more designed as Congressional members' political grandstanding, or as backhanded attacks on each other or the other party, than as serious practical proposals. These all failed, including ostensible settlements of the issues which then fell through, were modified, and fell through again or were repudiated later.
Interestingly enough, during this long period of time, 50 years, the political dispute between the sectors over slavery and states' rights actually worsened, giving rise to crises and deadlocks on the one hand, punctuated by long periods of indolent drift on the other, even though politicians more or less permanently, for generations, worked on these issues, until it finally resulted in the election of Lincoln, secession, and Civil War.
Looking now at the period from 1942 to 1990, regarding foreign policy, what can one say?
Our system continued to work in its usual way, but it increasingly came to work somewhat differently in foreign policy, where the Presidency, rather than Congress, has more control over foreign policy, military matters, and especially trade. Congress remains deeply involved in all these matters however.
The Presidency has, almost from the first, sought to circumvent Congressional approval wherever possible, and certainly where necessary, simply because of the difficulty of getting anything much done there in a certain way and in a timely manner.
Our system sought by inaction or deadlock to avoid entanglement in a world war in 1940 (similarly to WWI) until it was almost even too late to determine the outcome in favor of American survival in the long term against Hitler's global aspirations.
It took an attack on Pearl Harbor to accomplish this, not American political initiative. FDR had promoted American involvement in the war, largely at Churchill's urging, not because he was deeply concerned for Germany's neighbors or for Germans, or for Britain's or the West's plight, or for the imperial powers, or for Jews, but rather because he had long disliked Germany, a recently aspiring imperial power, which had been wrongly blamed for having caused WWI. Beschloss made the point about FDR's dislike rather clearly,The Conquerors.
Although the US and allies ultimately defeated Germany, Russia had done most of the fighting. We then almost put in place an agrarianization program for Germany, the Morgenthau Plan (Morgenthau was FDR's good friend), which the Russians loved, which would have been an open invitation to Russia to take over the rest of Western Europe, while the US meanwhile had intentionally left Russia already in control of Eastern Europe and by default the Asian mainland.
Russia's non aggression pact with Japan, which had made the attack on Pearl Harbor itself possible, and their take over of the Pacific then almost inevitable, did not prevent Russia from then later trying to swoop down on Japan at the very end of the war.
This was the same Russia, a so called ally, against which we then became embroiled in what was later called The Cold War, for the next 50 years, a Cold War which was thought to be over, but which has reignited in recent years. There was no Cold War so called peace dividend for reasons set out below. (Just as there was no peace dividend at the end of the Civil War, given the realities of its costs and of the realities of Reconstruction.)
Other critical consequences of the Cold War have been an economic booming of the non communist world since 1945, promoted largely by the US.
Carrot and stick diplomacy became an accepted way to confront communism, regardless of US domestic or Western Civilizational economic welfare.
Congress generally ignored domestic corporate and working class interests. See Trading Places, " Trading American Interests ". These works show how poorly the system has worked for promoting what is called the common welfare here.
It has proven perfectly willing, since the 1980s, to ignore white collar interests as well, although it had been on the basis of keeping white collar jobs that the prior trade and investment arrangements had been secured.
We insisted on requiring, during and after WWII, as a condition of security, a security now threatened with withdrawal for the first time by Trump, dismantling of Western civilization's colonial empires in the name of a liberal international globalist egalitarian economic order.
What have sprung up as a result of these Amerian iniatives since WWII, in the place of colonial empires, are aggressive nationalistic developmental regimes in what were once subordinate civilizations, which have now become rival economic and military states, and rival if not hostile civilizations based on rival ideologies and rival rationalities, call them rival enlightenments. Steingart's The War For Wealth is a sort of primer from a while back now.
These are problems which the government relentlessly avoids addressing directly for a variety of reasons, although it has been fully aware of the implications of its policies since the beginning really.
http://bozonbloggon.blogspot.com/2012/02/back-in-60s.html
One reason is that ideologically, Americans have no alternative to this liberal system, especially in the aftermath of WWII. Our system, which is very hard to reform in important ways, was written by men who claimed that its principles are the birthright of all people, who claimed it as their mission to spread this message everywhere, and who claimed, and still claim, to be willing to fight for the liberty and freedom of all people everywhere.
This means that we cannot even really acknowledge the existence of other civilizations. We cannot admit that they can exist outside a state; yet we built a system on an ideology which undermines all states and systems of states less than a universal state of all people everywhere.
Part of the intellectual underpinning for this ideology is connected with the Enlightenment notion of civilization, and this notion, at the time of the founding, only comprehended one civilization. It still does, on an enlightenment view.
This is where the concept of a liberal international economic order became a mechanism to work toward this impossible ideal. The main reason it has continued to be adhered to is not that it was or is feasible, but that it was immediately realized that such an ideology was congruent to existing powerful economic and financial interests in existing states everywhere (at least until the Russian Revolution).
Another aspect of the problem is that Americans turned away from Western Civilization, and especially against Britain's Atlantic hegemony at the beginning.
We cannot acknowledge Western Civilization as deserving more political allegiance than any other civilization because that allegiance itself to Western Civilization violates our founding principles which transcend mere civilizations and their component states. Huntington's The Clash Of Civilizations is required, as well as some works referred to therein.
American politicians have repeatedly had to deny that there is even such a thing as a clash of civilizations, because to admit such a thing is the kiss of death for Americanism.
What they have done is to turn apparent, and long standing, civilizational conflicts into what they call terror, and have declared a war on terror.
We are now in a situation globally similar in some ways to that of the states on the eve of the Civil War. DK sees it domestically as one analogous to the Civil War.
Other people including myself have said we have been in a global war, under the radar, for some time now. Pope Francis has said recently that the number of conflicts being waged around the globe effectively amount to “a piecemeal Third World War”.
I see global war as unfolding contemporaneously with civil war. Recent global wars have shown that this is a likely outcome for most states, even great powers. Civil wars are going on now here and there already, and other states are on the very brink of it. Professor Kaiser thinks we are, for example.
We have deadlock. Most people think to elect Clinton to assure that nothing drastic happens this term. I call that crisis drift. It will accomplish nothing. In fact, it will continue to exacerbate the tendencies in political economic social and civilizational developments adverse to American and Western interests that have been building, through political drift, since 1945.
See also this post: http://bozonbloggon.blogspot.com/2014/07/i-will-try-to-explain-something-hard-to.html
I will publish this post now, as a work in progress, and will edit it as I go along.
Saturday, February 26, 2022
SADLY THESE ARE TYPICAL UKRAINIANS NOT BIG ON BRAINS
Snake Island: Ukraine says soldiers killed after refusing to surrender
Friday, February 25, 2022
NYT: SHE WAS AWOKE IN KYIV TO THE SOUND OF BLASTS: SHE WAS A KIEVAN WOKE STOKELY!
THE LATEST VICTIM OF ORIGINAL SIN WHITE MALENESS
WHITE PUTINNESS!
SHE'S A UKRAINIAN JESSICA KRUG!
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/D3E2/production/_114224245_dwghxqcu0aa9jhk.jpg
DAVID KAISER'S CURRENT POST DESERVES TO BE POSTED HERE IN ITS ENTIRETY GREAT ARTICLE
Sunday, February 20, 2022
An Individual Perspective
This week I have read Woke, Inc., Inside Corporate America's Social Justice Scam, by 37-year old Vivek Ramaswamy--a book notable both for its content and for who wrote it. Ramaswamy is a second-generation American, the son of immigrants from India. Like so many second-generation Americans in previous, he rose to the top of our society via the educational system, attending a Catholic high school in the Cincinnati area and graduating from Harvard in 2007 and from Yale Law School some time later. Rather than practice law, he worked in hedge funds for a few years and then started a biotech company, Roivant, which has created a number of FDA-approved drugs. He stepped down as CEO of Roivant in 2021, partly because of disputes with employees over the company's response to the death of George Floyd. He is a real individualist with an unusual and provocative set of views--many informed by the kind of intense, personal vision of what the United States should be that children of immigrant families often have.
Ramaswamy has experienced the great wave of Wokeness first hand both in academia and in the business world. He was at Harvard when Larry Summers was forced out as president after presenting data suggesting that actual differences between men and women might explain male predominance in academic science. For reasons familiar to those who have read my autobiography, my opinion of Summers happens to much lower than his, but it was interesting to learn that Ramaswamy was a student representative on the committee charged with finding Summers' successor and that it was clear that the choice simply had to be a woman. Then, in 2020-1, he was a CEO when corporate America jumped on the anti-racist bandwagon in the wake of George Floyd's murder. He objected to this mainly on the grounds that the business of corporations, in his view, should be business, and that they serve their shareholders and employees by making money and serve the public by making useful products--just as universities should serve the public by providing excellent education at a reasonable cost. Thus he especially dislikes of "stakeholder capitalism"--a euphemism for adopting certain political causes--and the ESG funds that favor enterprises that profess proper environmental, social and governance goals. Taking up popular woke causes, he argues convincingly, allows corporations and universities (on whom he spends much less time) to claim moral superiority without necessarily performing the tasks they are designed to do. In addition, he argues that their new emphasis on diversity is really false and destructive, since it really values people who hold identical views about the importance of diversity and what it should mean--diversity based on race, gender, and sexual orientation--rather than diversity itself, which would include--if not emphasize--a diversity of views and perspectives.
None of this is particularly original of course, but Ramaswamy's later chapters provide some new information about corporate America's policies and its relationship to wokeness that I found very striking. One chapter deals with the way that major corporations such as movie studios and the National Basketball Association kowtow to Communist China to maintain access to its market. Disney filmed Mulan in Xinjiang province despite the campaign of ethnic intimidation that the Chinese government is carrying out against the Uighurs there, but it announced that it would find it very difficult to film in Georgia if Georgia adopted new laws on voting procedures. It also dropped a Tibetan character from another movie, Dr. Strange, when the Chinese objected since they do not recognize Tibet as a country,. Air BnB has shared data on millions of users with the Chinese government. When the general manager of the Houston Rockets tweeted in support of Hong Kong's democracy protesters, the NBA and several leading players denounced him and professed their love for China. Perhaps, Ramaswamy suggests, gestures towards social justice activists at home can make up for damage to their image based on unsavory relationships abroad. Both Google and Apple, he claims, have allowed Chinese surveillance agencies to use data they gather on users.
Several chapters of the book deal with the growing power of social media to censor ideas, even in the midst of elections, and what might be done with it. Ramaswamy in thee chapters puts his legal training to good use. He is evidently a free speech absolutist and he is shocked that conservative voices, including of course Donald Trump, have simply been banned from these platforms. He is equally angry that social media decided to block references to a New York Post story about Hunter Biden's lobbying activities at the height of the 2020 election campaign--a story that now seems to have been essentially true. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 gives them this power. On the one hand, it exempts the owners of social media platforms for liability for anything people use them to say; on the other, it immunizes them from liability for "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively biolent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected. [emphasis added]." This is, he argues, subcontracting censorship--and he cites some Supreme Court precedents stating that the federal government cannot in fact authorize private enterprise to take steps violating rights which the federal government cannot take itself. Another extended legal argument from the book questions whether companies have the right to fire people simply for making statements that offend woke orthodoxy, such as the Google engineer who suggested that there might be reasons other than sexism why most coders were men. Wokeness, he argues--echoing John McWhorter, whom he quotes--is really a religion, and the Supreme Court has ruled that one cannot be fired either because of his religion, or because he refuses to accept the religion of his employer.
The most eye-catching story in the book, to me, appeared in the Wall Street Journal in 2016. Essentially, it explained that the Obama Administration's Justice Department had used its power to enrich nonprofits, including specifically leftist ones such as La Raza, the National Urban League, and the National Community Reinvestment Coalition. The Justice Department lawyers who collected billions in settlements from the big investment banks after the financial crisis allowed them to pay off the fines at a discount by donating money to approved non-profits. A $1.5 million Bank of America donation to La Raza, for instance, wiped out $3.5 million of debt. The settlements were supposed to go for "consumer relief," but very little of the money seems to have reached the consumers who lost their homes thanks to subprime mortgages. Unfortunately the article, which appeared on August 28, 2016 (and which I read on Proquest, not the WSJ site) included only very incomplete data on this phenomenon.
Ramaswamy believes in the American ideal partly because he spent many summers in India while his family's ancestral village was only beginning to experience modernity. His own politics are not easy to discern. Anti-wokesters like himself (and myself) cover most of the political spectrum. He is very opposed to corporate influence upon politics, which he insists should be ruled by the voters, but I don't think he ever specifically comes out against corporate campaign contributions. He believes inequality has gone much too far in the United States, but he doesn't say much about specific steps to undo it. He does want some form of national service for all American youth--done mainly during summers in their high school years--and he realizes what was lost when the nation abandoned the military draft. He wants producers to produce, schools to educate, and governments to try to meet the voters needs, and he believes, as I do, that all those things can be done much better without our current obsession about race and gender. He belongs to a growing demographic himself, and evidence is mounting that many Asian and Hispanic Americans now reject wokeness too. They may in fact turn out to be the critical swing voters in the next few elections.
THE BETRAYAL OF CIVILIZATIONS: WESTERN CIVILIZATION, THE CLASH OF ITS DEGENERATES
This has been a relatively recent phenomenon in human history and prehistory.
Normally, and normatively, people within a civilization exalt it, beyond its actual or reasonable characteristics.
But in modern Western Civilization history, Western Civilization itself became the prime object for rejection among its own white Western Civilization rebel elements, not only for mere repudiation, but also, now, increasingly, along with the hostile voices of other more base and more degenerate civilizations, for its outright extinction, and extermination by other famished and vengeful rival degenerate civilizations.
WHY CANDYCOAT AFRICA RELIGION? ETHNICITY AND MUSLIM NEGRO HERITAGE!
SEE THOMAS SOWELL'S BOOK, INDEX: AFRICA, SWAHILI.
Thursday, February 17, 2022
WIKIPEDIA: BRIITISH EMPIRE: IT'S TIME WE MOVE TO NOT FROM THE COLONIZERS' LANGUAGE SWAHILI
Swahili's bid to become a language for all of Africa
SHE WANTS TO MOVE FROM THE COLONIZERS' LANGUAGE,
BUT SWAHILI WAS COLONIZERS' LANGUAGE.
Thursday, February 24, 2022
Wednesday, February 23, 2022
RE AN INDIVIDUAL PERSPECTIVE DK POST CF THE 1619 PROJECT BLM AMHERST COMMON LANGUAGE GUIDE
Professor
Wokeness started out as negro only racialist consciousness raising which coopted white liberalism, including feminism etc, but then also melded with pre existing anti white West colonialism. It wants to have its cake and eat it too, deny that there are racial differences, but invoke negro racial solidarity at the same time.
The problem for Western liberalism in general is that its story of denial of racial differences has now been fully debunked by liberal genomics, genetics, paleogenetics, etc.
David Reich has even tried to warn liberals themselves not to overstate racial color blindness and racial substitutability, while hailing the virtues of mixture only thus falsifying the paleo genetic record against white people (Indo Europeans), and his account is critically marred by anti white West political and linguistic biases which Nicholas Wade has pointed out.
Hindus disagreed violently with Reich's findings re India's conquest by 'white' Steppe peoples.
He softpedals modern humans' long termination and replacement of Neanderthals. Not a lot of mixture going on.
This is the barest of a thumbnail sketch.
Denial of racial differences is now no longer an option in the world of hard science, even though these subfields are developing only recently.
All the best
Professor
Fn. re some posts on BLM, 1619:
The NYT uses these, and negroes, as its stooges, for its Semitism, not for their rights, or for the truth of their "American History".
All the best
Professor
This paragraph:
"...None of this is particularly original of course, but Ramaswamy's later chapters provide some new information about corporate America's policies and its relationship to wokeness that I found very striking. One chapter deals with the way that major corporations such as movie studios and the National Basketball Association kowtow to Communist China to maintain access to its market. Disney filmed Mulan in Xinjiang province despite the campaign of ethnic intimidation that the Chinese government is carrying out against the Uighurs there, but it announced that it would find it very difficult to film in Georgia if Georgia adopted new laws on vot Both Google and Apple, he claims, have allowed Chinese surveillance agencies to use data they gather on users...." DK
He is obviously a patriotic Hindu racist re the Chinese, who very much look down on Hindus of whatever caste. Who can blame him! Gandhi had been a notorious racist re all Africans, even though he had lived and worked there.
All the best
BOBBITT GREAT STUFF: THE 1619 PROJECT BLM INSTITUTIONAL RACISM SYSTEMIC CONSTITUTIONAL RACISM
LET'S REPRISE THIS GREAT BITCH!
Tuesday, October 22, 2019
JOST THOMAS ABANDONING STARE DECISIS DRED SCOTT RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD
Jost criticizes Thomas for abandoning it.
I see Dred Scott as having been well decided under stare decisis.
I am guessing that Bobbitt would classify it as a doctrinal argument, but do not know. See Constitutional Fate, p 7, and Ch 4.
Lincoln returned to politics against it. Claimed it was wrongly decided.
He obviously did not give a good Goddamn about stare decisis.
Bobbitt, on the other hand, appears to have reached conclusion similar to mine. Constitutional Fate, p 86, 87.
Although Bobbitt has a different jurisprudential theme in this attack on Bickel re structural arguments, he mentions Dred Scott in terms of constitutional authority;.
Here is the stake in Bickel's heart:
"IF there are any rights which the Constitution confers on the basis of the citizen-relation to government, it confers these rights without discrimination. Yet with respect to the most basic aspect of the citnzen-state structural relationship, namely representation, slaves were from the start explicitly treated as something less than citizens.
"Dred Scott, does not, then, support Bickel's attack, because it does not present the spectre of a government withdrawing a human or political right by withdrawing citizenship. In America, this simply was not conferred on the Negro slave."
See Bobbitt Ch, "Doctrinal Argument", re the distinctions between types of argument re stare decisis. Doctrinal argument is overwhelmingly stare decisis driven. Other types, not.
Where does Jost, critic of Thomas, upholder of stare decisis, controlling precedent, stand on Dred Scott?
I think you will find that he is with Lincoln, and thus, with the new Thomas he hacks for abandoning stare decisis!
RE RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT: ASIDE
Professor
I have an old friend who believes that the CFR (Rhodes Secret Society, Milner Group, Foreign Affairs, The Economist, The Times, NYT, Round Table, etc.) is still running everything in global politics and grand strategy.
For me, thinking this is rather like thinking that the leaderships of the Protestant sects of the Reformation, as they emerged, were guiding the Reformation toward "The Enlightenment"!
All the best
This post is dedicated to Herbert Butterfield.
Tuesday, February 22, 2022
BIDEN IS USING POLES ON THE UKRAINE BORDER LIKE THE NYT USES AMERICAN NEGROES
LIKE HITLER USED SAAR CATHOLICS, AND LEIPZIG, AUSTRIAN, SUDETEN AND OTHER CZECH GERMAN JEWS OR GERMAN GENTILES, OR NORTH ITALIAN, GERMANS.
IT IS REALLY WILSONIAN LIBERAL ETHNO-RACIAL SELF DETERMINATION IN DISGUISE WITH NEGRO SELF DETERMINATION THE DOMINANT ONE
"... In addition, he argues that their new emphasis on diversity is really false and destructive, since it really values people who hold identical views about the importance of diversity and what it should mean--diversity based on race, gender, and sexual orientation--rather than diversity itself, which would include--if not emphasize--a diversity of views and perspectives..." DK re Ramaswamy.
Saturday, February 19, 2022
NIGERIAN ARTWORK NEEDS TO REMOVED TO DUSTBINS AND THE ARTIST
INTERNED IN A WORK CAMP, TO PAY FOR THE DAMAGE TO ST PAUL'S, IN A WORK CAMP IN AFRICA, NOT NIGERIA, RUN BY CHINESE PRISON GUARDS.
The Nigerian artwork challenging British history in St Paul's
WHEN CHINA TAKES OVER TWO THIRDS OF WORLD GDP WESTERN LIVING STANDARDS WILL BE CUT BY 90 % AND KEEP FALLING
It is called wealth convergence, a term Piketty and other economists abjure like the plague.
Friday, February 18, 2022
RE WILSONIAN SELF DETERMINATION RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT DK POST CF UKRAINE BERCHTESGADEN GODESBERG MUNICH
"... Both the London and the Paris governments were determined not to be placed in the position of having to fight against as opposed to for self-determination in the future."
"Had there been no agreement..." Weinberg, V. II, p. 460, and fn. 327.
Stalin, who had been the sole country to denounce Munich in 1938, was in a position not only to demand a large chunk of Czechoslovakia, but also a whole hell of a lot more, all of Eastern Europe, in 1945, thanks only to the US. p. 460.
Re Ukraine, See DK post paragraph 9; The Clash of Civilizations, Huntington, with whom I mostly disagree, but see maps, p. 166, and opposite p. 158, pb. edition; and Kievan Rus', Wikipedia.
Americans, both before and since Munich, have, of course, totally misunderstood, and intentionally misinterpreted, its context, meaning, and implications, including historians, although they had been privy to much of the background through political and diplomatic channels all along. Weinberg, p. 462.
The Scheinehund of Munich would be dealt with soon enough!
RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT PARAGRAPH 3 DAVID KAISER AND EISENHOWER VERSUS KENNAN PATTON AND MONTGOMERY
"...The United States, Great Britain, and France occupied West Berlin in 1945 when the Third Reich fell. As long as they and the U.S.S.R planned to create a new all-German government, it didn’t much matter that West Berlin was well inside the Soviet occupation zone, but in 1948, when Britain and the U.S. took unmistakable steps towards setting up a separate West German state, Stalin responded by blockading land access to the city. The U.S. supplied it by air for a year, and Stalin gave up the blockade. In 1949 the Federal Republic and the German Democratic Republic were separately formed, each claiming to be the sole legitimate representative of the German people..." DK
Sunday, November 12, 2017
REPRISE EISENHOWER PATTON VERDICT OF HISTORY
(Eisenhower:) "From a tactical point of view," he said, "it is highly inadvisable for the American Army to take Berlin and I hope political influence won't cause me to take the city. It has no tactical or strategic value and would place upon the American forces the burden of caring for thousands and thousands of Germans, displaced persons Allied prisoners of war." Patton was dismayed. "Ike, I don't see how you figure that out," he said. "We had better take Berlin, and quick-- and on to the Oder!" '
'...(Patton) again urged Eisenhower to take Berlin. It could be done, argued Patton, in forty-eight hours. "Well, who would want it?" Eisenhower asked. Patton paused, then put both hands on Eisenhower's shoulders and said "I think history will answer that question for you." ' Toland, The Last 100 Days, p 371.
Perhaps someone doesn't believe me, about Montgomery.
They think only that Patton must have been deranged.
RE ROSENBERG EXONERATION EFFORT
RE FIELD MARSHALL MONTGOMERY WWII THE FIRST CHICHELE LECTURE 1957:
"Understanding what must follow from the decision of unconditional surrender, and knowing that great troubles lay ahead with Stalin over eastern Europe and the future of Germany, the Western allies should surely have ensured that their forces gained possession of the great political centres of Central Europe before the Russians---notably Berlin, Prague, Vienna. If this had been laid down as the object by Roosevelt and Churchill in January 1943, in my considered view as a soldier, we could have grabbed all three in 1944 before the Russians."
They think only that Patton must have been deranged.
RE ROSENBERG EXONERATION EFFORT
RE FIELD MARSHALL MONTGOMERY WWII THE FIRST CHICHELE LECTURE 1957:
"Understanding what must follow from the decision of unconditional surrender, and knowing that great troubles lay ahead with Stalin over eastern Europe and the future of Germany, the Western allies should surely have ensured that their forces gained possession of the great political centres of Central Europe before the Russians---notably Berlin, Prague, Vienna. If this had been laid down as the object by Roosevelt and Churchill in January 1943, in my considered view as a soldier, we could have grabbed all three in 1944 before the Russians."
"By May 1945 we had won the German war militarily, but had lost it politically vis-Ã -vis Russia." Montgomery, An Approach To Sanity, "NATO--- Past Present and Future", 1959, p. 12.
The Soviets actually took down our State Department block by block from within our own government regarding anti Soviet views there. See Evans, Romerstein, Ch 19. Kennan complained bitterly about it in his Memoirs. They cite to his remarks there.
There is a note, a footnote, in Ch 19 re Drew Pearson's aggressive crusades in these pro soviet initiatives.
Monday, December 10, 2018
SEE VENONA DAVID KARR DREW PEARSON WALTER LIPPMANN MARY PRICE
Haynes, Ch 8 re journalists, p 240 and following, re Karr and the Pearsons.
Karr was Pearson's chief aide, and a Soviet agent. How do you have a close aide like that and not be a secret communist?
Certainly the Soviets believed he was firmly on their side, probably long before he hired Karr.
If Pearson wasn't a communist, he certainly put on a good act, masquerading, time after time, from a communist perspective and against anti communist targets, in his columns.
He ruined Patton, drove Forrestal to suicide, as his own partner Anderson admitted, and besmirched countless others.
Joe McCarthy had his number as, at the very least, a sympathetic and willing chump stooge of Stalin, although he wasn't believed at the time. Haynes, Venona, p. 245.
Drew Pearson Fallacy
Karr was Pearson's chief aide, and a Soviet agent. How do you have a close aide like that and not be a secret communist?
Certainly the Soviets believed he was firmly on their side, probably long before he hired Karr.
If Pearson wasn't a communist, he certainly put on a good act, masquerading, time after time, from a communist perspective and against anti communist targets, in his columns.
He ruined Patton, drove Forrestal to suicide, as his own partner Anderson admitted, and besmirched countless others.
Joe McCarthy had his number as, at the very least, a sympathetic and willing chump stooge of Stalin, although he wasn't believed at the time. Haynes, Venona, p. 245.
Drew Pearson Fallacy
See the discussion between Patton and Under Secretary of War Patterson, May 7 1945, The Patton Papers 1940-1945, p. 697.
If you happen to read this passage, then ask yourself: 'Whom do I believe, Patterson or Patton?'
If you happen to read this passage, then ask yourself: 'Whom do I believe, Patterson or Patton?'
Here was Bazata's obituary:
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/22/world/douglas-dewitt-bazata-artist-and-oss-officer-dies-at-88.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/22/world/douglas-dewitt-bazata-artist-and-oss-officer-dies-at-88.html
At The Casablanca Conference, where Roosevelt announced unconditional surrender, at Morgenthau's instance and under the influence at that time of Russian agents in Treasury, Stalin did not even have to attend.
As Montgomery noted, it suited his plans to the letter...
Call it: "The Roosevelt Morgenthau" decision, or even more accurately, The Roosevelt Moscow Accord, and its aftermath.
Churchill had to go along, or lose so called allies he could not then do without.
I say ' so called ' because not only was the USSR clearly planning to absorb as much of Western and eastern Europe and the Middle East as they could, with active US collusion, but they were also colluding simultaneously with Japan re a secret nonaggression pact, enabling Japan's attack on Western and on American targets in Asia, especially Pearl Harbor.
Morgenthau had arranged for Patton's dismissal, with the help of the willing muckraking tool, Drew Pearson.
As Montgomery noted, it suited his plans to the letter...
Call it: "The Roosevelt Morgenthau" decision, or even more accurately, The Roosevelt Moscow Accord, and its aftermath.
Churchill had to go along, or lose so called allies he could not then do without.
I say ' so called ' because not only was the USSR clearly planning to absorb as much of Western and eastern Europe and the Middle East as they could, with active US collusion, but they were also colluding simultaneously with Japan re a secret nonaggression pact, enabling Japan's attack on Western and on American targets in Asia, especially Pearl Harbor.
Morgenthau had arranged for Patton's dismissal, with the help of the willing muckraking tool, Drew Pearson.
Robert Allen, Pearson's longtime partner, Wikipedia:
"In 1933, Allen worked as a Soviet agent (Sh/147) for $100 a month.[5] According to John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr and Alexander Vassiliev in their 2009 book Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America,[2][6] this was legal for Allen to do, being prior to the passage of the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act, and his motivation is unknown.
In the early forties he co-wrote the newspaper strip Hap Hopper with Drew Pearson. The strip was drawn by Jack Sparling.[7]
He served on General Patton's staff in World War II.
Terms search DK site: Gerhard Weinberg.
Now, try, say, Drew Pearson.
Thursday, February 17, 2022
WIKIPEDIA: BRIITISH EMPIRE: IT'S TIME WE MOVE TO NOT FROM THE COLONIZERS' LANGUAGE SWAHILI
Swahili's bid to become a language for all of Africa
SHE WANTS TO MOVE FROM THE COLONIZERS' LANGUAGE,
BUT SWAHILI WAS COLONIZERS' LANGUAGE.
Wednesday, February 16, 2022
BBC
This school chooses to teach black history all year round, rather than for just one month.
GREAT CHOICE, SCHOOL!
BBC SUPPORTS NO VIEW OF ANY BIAS WHATSOEVER FOR OR AGAINST ANYTHING
WORSE EVEN THAN AMHERST COMMON LANGUAGE GUIDE OR BLM BULLSHIT THE 1619 PROJECT
Schools in England are being reminded to teach sensitive issues in a non-biased way, under new guidance.
It aims to help teachers cover complex topics, such as the history of the British Empire or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, without pushing one political view over another.
There is also a warning against teachers expressing their own views.
Education Secretary Nadhim Zahawi says no subject should be off limits, but teaching must be impartial.
It comes after a row over children at a Nottingham primary school who were encouraged to write a letter criticising the prime minister, and reports that young white pupils were told they were inherently complicit in racism.
The promotion of partisan political views in class is unlawful under the 1996 Education Act.
This means that where teachers present controversial political views in a lesson, they must offer a balanced overview of opposing views.
The Political Impartiality in Schools guidance, published by the Department for Education on Thursday, asks schools to think carefully when planning lessons and choosing class materials.
It draws a distinction between subject areas which may be part of teaching, such as racism or colonialism, and promoting support for campaigning groups, such as Black Lives Matter.
It urges teachers not to offer their own political views in class.
Schools are also being asked to listen and try to resolve any concerns raised by parents who feel their children have been exposed to an uncontested political view.
SWAHILI BID TO BECOME LANGUAGE FOR ALL OF AFRICA
WHAT IS FRICKIN SWAHILI?
I COULD TELL YOUR DUMB ASSES,
BUT I WON'T!
Swahili's bid to become a language for all of Africa
BBC
NYT BBC THE 1619 GLOBAL PROJECT BLM NEGRO DRUMBEAT:
A BOMB FOR YO APOPLECTIC ANGST:
"I ANGST WHITE"
This post is dedicted to Jessica Krug.
Tuesday, February 15, 2022
WHY NOT REPOST THIS PIECE OF SHIT NEWS!
Thursday, July 16, 2020
BLACK LIVES MATTER GLOBAL NETWORK FOUNDATION THOUSAND CURRENTS OAKLAND
THE 1619 PROJECT: FUNDING THE FAR LEFT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61do-MF8aw0
This NPR interview confirms the connection O'Reilly asserts.
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/878852994/a-company-that-profits-off-of-the-black-lives-matter-movement
Paul Strasburg, worked for Ford Foundation, Peace Corp guy, etc
This is a globalist Marxist Global Socialist organization.
These are like Krugman and Piketty, the globalist Socialist Left, but also both gentile Jewish and negro.
Contributions to BLM are tax deductible as a charity because it is sponsored by Thousand Currents which is.
25% of contributions is spent on salaries and benefits.
46% goes to consulting fees.
Soros alone gave 33M.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61do-MF8aw0
This NPR interview confirms the connection O'Reilly asserts.
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/878852994/a-company-that-profits-off-of-the-black-lives-matter-movement
Paul Strasburg, worked for Ford Foundation, Peace Corp guy, etc
This is a globalist Marxist Global Socialist organization.
These are like Krugman and Piketty, the globalist Socialist Left, but also both gentile Jewish and negro.
Contributions to BLM are tax deductible as a charity because it is sponsored by Thousand Currents which is.
25% of contributions is spent on salaries and benefits.
46% goes to consulting fees.
Soros alone gave 33M.
re RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT UKRAINE NOTE POLAND
We have landed troops there.
Poland would like a big dripping chunk of West Ukraine, formerly Poland, the worst possible way!
Think about it.
Think about how they feel about the Rooskies!
Think Katyn Forest, for example............
Kind of a Stalin Morgenthau Plan for Poland, baby!
MORE ON RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT UKRAINE DK POST
Professor
Wouldn't it be rather logical, that certainly Poland, and probably others, slowly circling nearby, would be eager for a juicy chunk of West Ukraine, if Putin tears off and bolts down a quivering, dripping chunk of its Eastern hind quarter, similarly to the way in which both Poland and Hungary had been ravening for large raw chunk portions of Czechoslovakia, if Hitler were allowed, and offered, a German one, by both Britain and France, for free?
Gerhard Weinberg, V. II, circa p. 443.
All the best
UKRAINE DK POST ENERGYFLOW SOMETIMES HE IS QUITE COHERENT, THOUGH I AM HARDLY EITHER A RUSSO OR SINOPHILE
BELIEVING AS I DO, THAT WE SHOULD HAVE DISMEMBERED THE ONE,
AND PERMANENTLY VASSALIZED OR ENSLAVED THE OTHER.
"After the 2014 American supported Coup in Kiev the Russians rushed to secure Crimea(90% vote for accession to Russia) and supported the Donbass region in its struggle against the neofascists banderists who had taken power along with the oligarchs and were trained and supported by US A(our people picked and trained leaders and directed their every move). These are facts roughly stated. Since then 14000 have died in bombardment of civilian territories in Donbass and reprisals by those people. Ukrainian population has declined by young men in military age and others fleeing a dysfunctional, corrupt economy fleeing to Russia, Poland and elsewhere seeking employment. Meanwhile Russia helped end a war in Syria, showing its maturing military and technology and Russia developed a Eurasian partnership to counter the Western full court press on its southern and eastern flanks. Now that Afghanistan has been abamdoned by the US and Syria and Iraq are stable, the Russians can focus on the frozen Donbass conflict. The signed accord to create peace was essentially ignored by Kiev, goaded on by NATO. Western press propagandized Russian fault. Meanwhile NATO planes and boats harass Russia increasingly, endangering civilian flights with illegal maneuvers. A constant flow of mercenaries, military advisors and offensive weapons to Ukraine make clear that NATO non- membership is only on paper. Long term it seems an invasion of Russia a la Barbarossa is planned, once Putin goes into retirement and a weaker leader succeeds him. Therefore the Russians must obtain a cordon sanitaire. Perfidious Albion and the Ugly Americans play divide et impera and make contracts as a plan of deceit with a dagger always held behind their back( ask the indian tribes or Iran for example). The only thing a mafia boss understands is overwhelming poer. Speak softly but carry a big stick said T. Roosevelt. Putin does this well and has a similar aura of machismo." Energyflow
NYT BLM THE 1619 PROJECT SOLUTION TO KEEP GROWING STARVING AFRICANS EATING INSECTS!
IT IS NOT A FOOD SHORTAGE PROBLEM AT ALL.
IT IS A GROTESQUE OVER POPULATION OF USELESS
UNEMPLOYABLE PEOPLE MOSTLY OF COLOR
WITH ENDEMIC POLITICAL AND SOCIAL DISORDER.
Monday, February 14, 2022
BBC NYT WHIG INTERPRETATION THE 1619 PROJECT KENNETH BRANAGH HAS QUEERED AND COLORED AGATHA CHIRISTIE'S WORK
Death on the Nile and addressing racism in Agatha Christie
UK AMHERST COMMON LANGUAGE GUIDE LAWS AND CRIMINAL LAWS
In England and Wales and Scotland, the Public Order Act 1986 prohibits, by its Part 3, expressions of racial hatred, which is defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. Section 18 of the Act says:
Offences under Part 3 carry a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment or a fine or both.[9]
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 inserted Section 4A into the Public Order Act 1986. That part prohibits anyone from causing alarm or distress. Section 4A states, in part:
The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 amended the Public Order Act 1986 by adding Part 3A. That Part says, "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred." The Part protects freedom of expression by stating in Section 29J:
The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 amended Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986. The amended Part 3A adds, for England and Wales, the offence of inciting hatred on the ground of sexual orientation. All the offences in Part 3 attach to the following acts: the use of words or behaviour or display of written material, publishing or distributing written material, the public performance of a play, distributing, showing or playing a recording, broadcasting or including a programme in a programme service, and possession of inflammatory material. In the circumstances of hatred based on religious belief or on sexual orientation, the relevant act (namely, words, behaviour, written material, or recordings, or programme) must be threatening and not just abusive or insulting.[11]
The Football Offences Act 1991 (amended by the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999) forbids indecent or racialist chanting at designated football matches.[12]
The use of prisons to regulate hate speech has been critiqued from a normative perspective.[13]
Reform Section 5 campaign[edit]
In 2012, a campaign was launched by the Christian Institute to remove the word "insulting" from section 5 of the Public Order Act, saying that it constituted mere censorship. The campaign was backed by a number of high-profile activists including comedian Rowan Atkinson and former Shadow Home Secretary David Davis. On 12 December 2012, the House of Lords voted in favour of amending the Public Order Act to remove the word "insulting". In January 2013, the government announced that it would accept the amendment, despite having previously opposed it. The amendment to the Public Order Act was duly passed into law, as section 57 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.[1] Section 57 of the Act came into force on 1 February 2014.[14]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)