BOOMERBUSTER

BOOMERBUSTER
OLD CELLO

Monday, August 8, 2016

POLITICAL LINEAGE OF RHODES SECRET SOCIETY

"Part of the answer, but only part,..." 

"So what was the other part?"

I am going to briefly describe 'another part', as an outsider, that is, what seems to me to have been the transformation of Rhodes' secret society, into and through the Milner Group, and then into and after WWII until now.

It is a work in progress.

This was his amended Confession of Faith:




"Rhodes originally wrote this on June 2, 1877, in Oxford. Later, that year in Kimberley, he made some additions and changes. What follows is that amended statement. The spelling and grammar errors were in the original.

It often strikes a man to inquire what is the chief good in life; to one the thought comes that it is a happy marriage, to another great wealth, and as each seizes on his idea, for that he more or less works for the rest of his existence. To myself thinking over the same question the wish came to render myself useful to my country. I then asked myself how could I and after reviewing the various methods I have felt that at the present day we are actually limiting our children and perhaps bringing into the world half the human beings we might owing to the lack of country for them to inhabit that if we had retained America there would at this moment be millions more of English living. I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings what an alteration there would be if they were brought under Anglo-Saxon influence, look again at the extra employment a new country added to our dominions gives. I contend that every acre added to our territory means in the future birth to some more of the English race who otherwise would not be brought into existence. Added to this the absorption of the greater portion of the world under our rule simply means the end of all wars, at this moment had we not lost America I believe we could have stopped the Russian-Turkish war by merely refusing money and supplies. Having these ideas what scheme could we think of to forward this object. I look into history and I read the story of the Jesuits I see what they were able to do in a bad cause and I might say under bad leaders.

At the present day I become a member of the Masonic order I see the wealth and power they possess the influence they hold and I think over their ceremonies and I wonder that a large body of men can devote themselves to what at times appear the most ridiculous and absurd rites without an object and without an end.


The idea gleaming and dancing before ones eyes like a will-of-the-wisp at last frames itself into a plan. Why should we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule for the recovery of the United States for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire. What a dream, but yet it is probable, it is possible. I once heard it argued by a fellow in my own college, I am sorry to own it by an Englishman, that it was good thing for us that we have lost the United States. There are some subjects on which there can be no arguments, and to an Englishman this is one of them, but even from an American’s point of view just picture what they have lost, look at their government, are not the frauds that yearly come before the public view a disgrace to any country and especially their’s which is the finest in the world. Would they have occurred had they remained under English rule great as they have become how infinitely greater they would have been with the softening and elevating influences of English rule, think of those countless 000’s of Englishmen that during the last 100 years would have crossed the Atlantic and settled and populated the United States. Would they have not made without any prejudice a finer country of it than the low class Irish and German emigrants? All this we have lost and that country loses owing to whom? Owing to two or three ignorant pig-headed statesmen of the last century, at their door lies the blame. Do you ever feel mad? do you ever feel murderous. I think I do with those men. I bring facts to prove my assertion. Does an English father when his sons wish to emigrate ever think of suggesting emigration to a country under another flag, never—it would seem a disgrace to suggest such a thing I think that we all think that poverty is better under our own flag than wealth under a foreign one.

Put your mind into another train of thought. Fancy Australia discovered and colonised under the French flag, what would it mean merely several millions of English unborn that at present exist we learn from the past and to form our future. We learn from having lost to cling to what we possess. We know the size of the world we know the total extent. Africa is still lying ready for us it is our duty to take it. It is our duty to seize every opportunity of acquiring more territory and we should keep this one idea steadily before our eyes that more territory simply means more of the Anglo-Saxon race more of the best the most human, most honourable race the world possesses.

To forward such a scheme what a splendid help a secret society would be a society not openly acknowledged but who would work in secret for such an object.

I contend that there are at the present moment numbers of the ablest men in the world who would devote their whole lives to it. I often think what a loss to the English nation in some respects the abolition of the Rotten Borough System has been. What thought strikes a man entering the house of commons, the assembly that rule the whole world? I think it is the mediocrity of the men but what is the cause. It is simply—an assembly of wealth of men whose lives have been spent in the accumulation of money and whose time has been too much engaged to be able to spare any for the study of past history. And yet in hands of such men rest our destinies. Do men like the great Pitt, and Burke and Sheridan not now to exist. I contend they do. There are men now living with I know no other term the [Greek term] of Aristotle but there are not ways for enabling them to serve their Country. They live and die unused unemployed. What has the main cause of the success of the Romish Church? The fact that every enthusiast, call it if you like every madman finds employment in it. Let us form the same kind of society a Church for the extension of the British Empire. A society which should have members in every part of the British Empire working with one object and one idea we should have its members placed at our universities and our schools and should watch the English youth passing through their hands just one perhaps in every thousand would have the mind and feelings for such an object, he should be tried in every way, he should be tested whether he is endurant, possessed of eloquence, disregardful of the petty details of life, and if found to be such, then elected and bound by oath to serve for the rest of his life in his County. He should then be supported if without means by the Society and sent to that part of the Empire where it was felt he was needed.

Take another case, let us fancy a man who finds himself his own master with ample means of attaining his majority whether he puts the question directly to himself or not, still like the old story of virtue and vice in the Memorabilia a fight goes on in him as to what he should do. Take if he plunges into dissipation there is nothing too reckless he does not attempt but after a time his life palls on him, he mentally says this is not good enough, he changes his life, he reforms, he travels, he thinks now I have found the chief good in life, the novelty wears off, and he tires, to change again, he goes into the far interior after the wild game he thinks at last I’ve found that in life of which I cannot tire, again he is disappointed. He returns he thinks is there nothing I can do in life? Here I am with means, with a good house, with everything that is to be envied and yet I am not happy I am tired of life he possesses within him a portion of the [Greek term] of Aristotle but he knows it not, to such a man the Society should go, should test, and should finally show him the greatness of the scheme and list him as a member.

Take one more case of the younger son with high thoughts, high aspirations, endowed by nature with all the faculties to make a great man, and with the sole wish in life to serve his Country but he lacks two things the means and the opportunity, ever troubled by a sort of inward deity urging him on to high and noble deeds, he is compelled to pass his time in some occupation which furnishes him with mere existence, he lives unhappily and dies miserably. Such men as these the Society should search out and use for the furtherance of their object.

(In every Colonial legislature the Society should attempt to have its members prepared at all times to vote or speak and advocate the closer union of England and the colonies, to crush all disloyalty and every movement for the severance of our Empire. The Society should inspire and even own portions of the press for the press rules the mind of the people. The Society should always be searching for members who might by their position in the world by their energies or character forward the object but the ballot and test for admittance should be severe)

Once make it common and it fails. Take a man of great wealth who is bereft of his children perhaps having his mind soured by some bitter disappointment who shuts himself up separate from his neighbours and makes up his mind to a miserable existence. To such men as these the society should go gradually disclose the greatness of their scheme and entreat him to throw in his life and property with them for this object. I think that there are thousands now existing who would eagerly grasp at the opportunity. Such are the heads of my scheme.

For fear that death might cut me off before the time for attempting its development I leave all my worldly goods in trust to S. G. Shippard and the Secretary for the Colonies at the time of my death to try to form such a Society with such an object."

___________________________________

There are things to sympathize with and other things to disagree with, for me, in this Confession and in the text below, but that is not my topic here.

Let's move on to Rhodes' Secret Society itself.

"On September 19, 1877, Rhodes drafted his first will; at that time, he had an estate of only about £10,000. (Although he changed his will quite a number of times in years following, the objective remained the same. After his death, the directors of the Rhodes Trust set up the Rhodes Scholarships as the best way to achieve his objectives.) The first clause of the 1877 will bequeathed his wealth as follows:

To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom, and of colonisation by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire and, finally, the foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible and promote the best interests of humanity."

What can I say about this Confession and about this clause in Rhodes' will?

The first thing to mention it seems to me is that these views regarding the West versus the rest were typical of people throughout the West, not just Englishmen, and included people of all classes.



Sunday, August 7, 2016

RE COLD WAR MYTHOLOGY STALIN POSTSCRIPT TO POST BELOW

RE THE RISE OF HITLER FDR THE JUNCKERS OR STALIN


Most people still believe that we spent the Cold War fighting a relatively unified international communist ideology.

While it is true that there was coordination and sympathy between and among communist regimes here and there over a long period of time, at the top of the communist powers, and especially for Stalin, other communist regimes and their leaders were of the greatest concern, greater even than those of the West. 

So why did we foolishly throw ourselves into fights against so called world communism everywhere as the very theme of the Cold War, such as Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, the Middle East etc.?

Why did we boom defeated and underdeveloped countries, to the industrial, commercial, and civilizational disadvantage of the West, and raise up economic and political rivals, and their alien civilizations, against the West, ostensibly to deter world communism?

Part of the answer, but only part, is that we were the dupes of Stalin, and of later Soviet, and Chinese, leaders, as well as those in the West and in Asia, such as Japan, Taiwan, and Korea, who knew they had something to gain, whether at our expense or not.

No doubt you don't believe me regarding Stalin and his objectives, or that of later great power communist leaders.

Read "Stalin as a Statesman" in Russia and the West under Lenin and Stalin. Kennan

You may say "Kennan was the very author of "containment". To that I reply that his concept of containment was a diplomatic one, not a military one, although it did I believe imply covert operations, which were ubiquitous in the diplomatic world of his time, and of ours. It was almost immediately turned into an overt military one by forces working around him.

"Part of the answer, but only part,..." 

So what was the other part?

BOOP

Everything outgassing there made in China....

Just think: canary in the tunnel!

All the best

audience today snapshot

EntryPageviews
United States
46
Germany
29
France
2
Canada
1
Saudi Arabia
1

RE THE RISE OF HITLER FDR THE JUNCKERS OR STALIN

I just want to advert to a discussion on this subject of which virtually all Americans are either totally ignorant, or else choose to ignore.

How did the Weimar Republic fall so fast, and Hitler rise so high so fast in Germany?

If you follow the FDR line, Hitler was just another manifestation of aristocratic and imperial German self assertion, the same last seen before, during, and after WWI. I have pointed out elsewhere here the falsity of this view. 

In the intervening years, during and after WWII, it has been convenient for American historical opinion to simply adopt FDR's view; the alternative, seeing Hitler as a brother lower class right populist, but nationalist, revolutionary movement, analogous to the sans culottes, and the American Rebellion, and other European patriot rebellions in the late 18th Century, has been unacceptable to American Liberal opinion.

For American Democrats, and many Republicans, all the way from WWI in 1917, with the Russian Revolution (which we welcomed), to the very end of WWII, to the very brink of the Cold War,  Russia was our friend and Germany was our enemy.

See a very different take, see Kennan's discussion in Russian and The West Under Lenin And Stalin, "The Rise of Hitler".


DECLINE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION RHODES TRUST

This can be seen in part by inconsistencies within, and transformations of, the Rhodes Trust, and then of the Milner Group. 

We have been living in a post Milner Group world, really, since WWII.

What were the Rhodes Trust ideas, and later Milner Group ideas, that were inconsistent? 

They involved believing on the one hand that the British Empire, Western Imperialism, and Western Civilization generally, were good things, and were the highest expression of Enlightenment ideology.  

On the other hand, they involved believing that Enlightenment values of liberty, equality, and fraternity, for the governing of subject nations, races, and civilizations by the West, and for their eventual equality with Western Civilization and its citizens, was a good thing.

There are two important points I would make about this discussion:

1. You will find this discussion virtually no where else than in Quigley's book.

2. Even Quigley does not make this point which I am making, directly, himself, but rather one has to infer it from studying his text as a whole.

One other most important point I should make, for discussions to follow presently.

One gets the impression, from how The Anglo-American Establishment ends, that the influence and power of the system that had been set up by the Milner Group had been shown by the disaster of WWII, following on that of WWI, to have been totally overturned by events, and that all that was left of Milner Group on world events going forward after WWII were the Rhodes Scholarships and bad memories.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Saturday, August 6, 2016

SHALL WE SAY

We have been cheating on currency and debt, they have been cheating on trade.

How long can such a system go on?

RE THE NEW FINANCIAL CONSERVATISM WITHIN THE LIBERAL INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ORDER

"The late nineteenth century was, like the early 21st, a deflationary period in economics.  Both prices and wages were falling, driven down by agricultural surpluses and cheap labor, ...

"The radical solution to the nation's ills was the inflation of the currency, to be accomplished by a massive coinage of silver.  That, it was thought, would reduce value of debts, while increasing wages and prices.  The opposite view, represented by President Cleveland and most of the Republican Party, held to the gold standard and "sound money."  That was the establishment position the world over, and especially in the world's financial capital, London.... 

"To the Establishment, free silver seemed as subversive and disastrous as Trump's protectionist ideas seem today.  It would force the United States inward, taking it away from the world economy, and threaten chaos.  The nation's press lined up behind McKinley, just as our punditry is abandoning Trump today." DK

The big banks, including the central banks which are really large private banks, later concluded that they could control interest rates, wages, prices, and profits, off the gold standard, by controlling the money supply in tandem with trade and investment liberalism and welfare benefits: not much inflation, not much deflation, profits remain stable, not much prosperity at least over here, not much apparent depression over here. There are winners and losers in the global economy, but this fact is masked by the process.They were helped in this direction by the fact of the dollar having served as a reserve currency, even after the US abandoned the gold standard. As I have pointed out, the gold standard was never the stability panacea that the banking community had always made it out to be, in any event. 

Yet, even so modern an economist as Piketty warned against going off the gold standard without extensive regulatory controls over the banking sector. I have to believe that he is implying restraints on fractional reserve banking in tandem with a verifiable physical gold reserve regardless of lack of convertibility, and constraints on printing money. In spite of his warning, in our system, the banking tail wags the global economy dog.

Postscript: Re above: "not much inflation, not much deflation, profits remain stable, not much prosperity at least over here, not much apparent depression over here...." 

See for example Irwin article today: ...Slow Growth World...

I reiterate: "There are winners and losers in the global economy, but this fact is masked by the process."

RE BERNANKE GOLD AND BULL

There are a few things very few people seem to know. There are others they all seem to think they know. Which is which?


One of the above is that the gold standard was not the real cause of the great depression, as Bernanke asserted in the quote.



This is a fact that even he admitted, in the same quote: "Effective international cooperation could in principle have permitted a worldwide monetary expansion despite gold standard constraints...." 


If what he had already said were true, then how? Was it the cause or not? Which time was he not telling the truth, the first or the second?


Another almost unknown fact, it seems, is that even the gold standard was never really what it was always claimed to be. There are a lot of historical reasons for that. There were runs on banks, under the gold standard, long before the West went to paper so called fiat currency. Just take my word for it. 


It is called fractional-reserve or fractional reserve banking. It has been ubiquitous since the beginning of banking really. This is a problem which the gold standard was not designed to solve.  It is a problem whether you hold physical gold, or thin air, as reserves. In fact, in practice, it was a problem which the gold standard developed in part to conceal.


Another great perennial myth that everyone seems to think they know is that Hoot Smalley, and tariff war,  caused the Great Depression. 


One point about this is that, if it were true, then Bernanke's ostensible cause, the gold standard, would automatically be false. It cannot be both because he said it was the gold standard, and not another thing.


WHAT PREVENTED MY SCENARIO FOR WWII FROM HAPPENING

You will hear a lot of excuses, and ostensible reasons for how things came out.  All that is really mostly bull.

BERNANKE'S STORY

... [T]he proximate cause of the world depression was a structurally flawed and poorly managed international gold standard. ... For a variety of reasons, including a desire of the Federal Reserve to curb the US stock market boom, monetary policy in several major countries turned contractionary in the late 1920s—a contraction that was transmitted worldwide by the gold standard. What was initially a mild deflationary process began to snowball when the banking and currency crises of 1931 instigated an international "scramble for gold." Sterilization of gold inflows by surplus countries [the USA and France], substitution of gold for foreign exchange reserves, and runs on commercial banks all led to increases in the gold backing of money, and consequently to sharp unintended declines in national money supplies. Monetary contractions in turn were strongly associated with falling prices, output and employment. Effective international cooperation could in principle have permitted a worldwide monetary expansion despite gold standard constraints, but disputes over World War I reparations and war debts, and the insularity and inexperience of the Federal Reserve, among other factors, prevented this outcome. As a result, individual countries were able to escape the deflationary vortex only by unilaterally abandoning the gold standard and re-establishing domestic monetary stability, a process that dragged on in a halting and uncoordinated manner until France and the other Gold Bloc countries finally left gold in 1936. —Great Depression, B. Bernanke

MY SCENARIO FOR HOW WWII COULD AND SHOULD HAVE GONE

It's rather simple and straightforward really.

We let Germany crush Stalin, which could easily have happened, anyway, but for the Western Front, and the Russo Japanese non aggression pact in Asia.

We then pound Hitler almost immediately afterward. We were preparing to do that already.

We then return Germany to an enforced constitutional monarchy, all in one piece (no East Germany bugbear).

We break up the enormous Soviet (former Mongol) Empire into several, at least, constitutional monarchy despotisms, each still enormous, west, south, and east, at least.

No nuclear weapons development for either Germany or the new Russias. Enforced by the West.

Marshall Plan type temporary recovery benefits for Germany and West Russia. Middle Russia and East Russia are on their own! No post Marshall Plan booming of the non communist world. 

No NATO. Kennan too thought NATO a mistake, even given the situation back then.

No World Bank, no Atlantic Charter, no Cordell Hull trade regime, no IMF, no UN, no IBDR, etc., etc. No dollar diplomacy.  

No Cold War. No booming the Third World. 

We pound Mao in and after 1949, because there is then no one there, in Asia, to stop us from doing so, and return the Chinese Emperor, or whoever, to the throne in The Forbidden City.

No support for a continued Jewish homeland in Palestine, Israel.

No more Wilsonianism.

No tears.

Friday, August 5, 2016

WILSON'S 14 POINTS

We entered this war because violations of right had occurred which touched us to the quick and made the life of our own people impossible unless they were corrected and the world secure once for all against their recurrence. What we demand in this war, therefore, is nothing peculiar to ourselves. It is that the world be made fit and safe to live in; and particularly that it be made safe for every peace-loving nation which, like our own, wishes to live its own life, determine its own institutions, be assured of justice and fair dealing by the other peoples of the world as against force and selfish aggression. All the peoples of the world are in effect partners in this interest, and for our own part we see very clearly that unless justice be done to others it will not be done to us. The programme of the world's peace, therefore, is our programme; and that programme, the only possible programme, as we see it, is this:
I. Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.
II. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenants.
III. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.
IV. Adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety.
V. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.
VI. The evacuation of all Russian territory and such a settlement of all questions affecting Russia as will secure the best and freest cooperation of the other nations of the world in obtaining for her an unhampered and unembarrassed opportunity for the independent determination of her own political development and national policy and assure her of a sincere welcome into the society of free nations under institutions of her own choosing; and, more than a welcome, assistance also of every kind that she may need and may herself desire. The treatment accorded Russia by her sister nations in the months to come will be the acid test of their good will, of their comprehension of her needs as distinguished from their own interests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy.
VII. Belgium, the whole world will agree, must be evacuated and restored, without any attempt to limit the sovereignty which she enjoys in common with all other free nations. No other single act will serve as this will serve to restore confidence among the nations in the laws which they have themselves set and determined for the government of their relations with one another. Without this healing act the whole structure and validity of international law is forever impaired.
VIII. All French territory should be freed and the invaded portions restored, and the wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine, which has unsettled the peace of the world for nearly fifty years, should be righted, in order that peace may once more be made secure in the interest of all.
IX. A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognizable lines of nationality.
X. The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development.
XI. Rumania, Serbia, and Montenegro should be evacuated; occupied territories restored; Serbia accorded free and secure access to the sea; and the relations of the several Balkan states to one another determined by friendly counsel along historically established lines of allegiance and nationality; and international guarantees of the political and economic independence and territorial integrity of the several Balkan states should be entered into.
XII. The turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.
XIII. An independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea, and whose political and economic independence and territorial integrity should be guaranteed by international covenant.
XIV. A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.
In regard to these essential rectifications of wrong and assertions of right we feel ourselves to be intimate partners of all the governments and peoples associated together against the Imperialists. We cannot be separated in interest or divided in purpose. We stand together until the end.
For such arrangements and covenants we are willing to fight and to continue to fight until they are achieved; but only because we wish the right to prevail and desire a just and stable peace such as can be secured only by removing the chief provocations to war, which this programme does remove. We have no jealousy of German greatness, and there is nothing in this programme that impairs it. We grudge her no achievement or distinction of learning or of pacific enterprise such as have made her record very bright and very enviable. We do not wish to injure her or to block in any way her legitimate influence or power. We do not wish to fight her either with arms or with hostile arrangements of trade if she is willing to associate herself with us and the other peace- loving nations of the world in covenants of justice and law and fair dealing. We wish her only to accept a place of equality among the peoples of the world, -- the new world in which we now live, -- instead of a place of mastery.

FDR SET UP EXPORT-IMPORT BANK TO FINANCE TRADE WITH THE ROOSKIES

Smart shopping.

FDR TRADE POLICY I CANNOT IMPROVE ON THE VERACITY OF THE SOURCE

The Historian, State Department:

"New Deal Trade Policy: The Export-Import Bank & the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, 1934

Introduction
When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office in March 1933, he immediately focused his attention on the domestic economic situation created by the Great Depression. Believing that recovery would come from measures taken at home rather than abroad, he secured Congressional passage of a series of far-reaching domestic economic reforms that would come to be known as the first New Deal. His doubts about the ability of foreign economic policy to contribute to domestic recovery were reflected in his approach to the London Economic Conference. In June 1933, representatives from 66 countries gathered in London to try to find a way out of the Depression through cooperation in areas such as the reduction of trade barriers and the stabilization of exchange rates. Countries that remained on the gold standard, such as France, sought to convince countries that had left the gold standard, particularly the United Kingdom (in September 1931) and the United States (in April 1933), to agree to stabilize the par values of their currencies. The chances for success were already slim when, on July 3, Roosevelt rejected such an agreement as “a purely artificial and temporary experiment,” asserting that a “sound internal economic situation” was more important to a country’s prosperity than the external value of its currency. The conference ended less than a month later with little to show for its efforts.
Creation of Export-Import Bank
In 1934, the Roosevelt Administration undertook two initiatives that signaled a desire to reengage economically with the rest of the world. The first was the creation of the Export-Import Bank. In February 1934, Roosevelt established the bank as an institution designed to finance U.S. trade with the newly-recognized Soviet Union. He created a second Export-Import Bank the following month, this one intended to finance trade with Cuba; in July 1934, the second bank’s field of operations was expanded to include all countries save the Soviet Union. In 1935, the two banks were combined and Congress passed legislation granting the newly unified bank more powers and more capital. In the years before the start of the Second World War, while it did extend credits to countries outside the Western Hemisphere such as Italy and China, the Export-Import Bank concentrated its efforts in Latin America, where it proved an important component of the Good Neighbor policy.
The second major foreign economic policy initiative of 1934 was the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act (RTAA). In March 1934, proclaiming “that a full and permanent domestic recovery depends in part upon a revived and strengthened international trade,” Roosevelt asked Congress for authority to negotiate trade agreements based upon reciprocal tariff reductions with other countries. Signed into law on June 12, 1934, the RTAA represented a fundamental shift in U.S. trade policy. The Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate foreign commerce and establish tariff rates. Under the RTAA, Congress granted the president the right – on a temporary basis, subject to renewal after three years – to decrease or increase U.S. tariffs by up to 50% of the levels set by the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff in exchange for tariff concessions by other countries. Such tariff reductions would be brought into force through executive agreements, rather than treaties requiring Senate approval. U.S. tariff cuts negotiated under the RTAA would also be extended to all third countries to which the United States had accorded most favored nation status.
Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act
Between 1934 and 1939, the Roosevelt Administration concluded trade agreements with 19 countries under the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act: Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Finland, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. After 1945, the tariff negotiating procedure established under the RTAA program provided the model for that of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the agreement signed by 23 countries in 1947 that has provided the framework for multilateral trade liberalization in the post-WWII era."

OF COURSE THE KAISER HAD SENT LENIN INTO RUSSIA IN THE FIRST PLACE FROM SWITZERLAND

As a war measure in WWI, rather like Lincoln freeing the slaves in the Civil War, or the British re the Indians or slaves during the American Rebellion, or like the French encouraging workers or serfs in enemy countries to rise up during The French Revolution.

HERE WAS WILSON WELCOMING THE BOLSHEVIKS 1917

Wilson:
"Does not every American feel that assurance has been added to our hope for the future peace of the world by the wonderful and heartening things that have been happening within the last few weeks in Russia?  Russia was known by those who knew it best to have been always in fact democratic at heart, in all the vital habits of her thought, in all the imtimate relationships of her people that spoke their natural instinct, their habitual attitude towards life.  The autocracy that crowned the summit of her political structure, long as it had stood and terrible as was the reality of its power, was not in fact Russian in origin, character, or purpose; and now it has been shaken off and the great, generous Russian people have been added in all their naive majesty and might to the forces that are fighting for freedom in the world, for justice, and for peace.  Here is a fit partner for a league of honor."

CLASSIC POST GOING BACK TO THE FOUNDING AND COMING FORWARD TO WILSON AND AFTER

http://bozonbloggon.blogspot.com/2014/07/although-2016-presidential-election-is.html

SOMEONE FOUND THIS WHY NOT REPRISE IT

http://bozonbloggon.blogspot.com/2014/06/rufus-middle-east-graveyard-of-empires.html

THE DIFFICULTY FOR THE WEST AND US THE MILNER FALLACY GLOBALIZATION

Having foisted the ideology of a liberal international economic order onto those in the West, and onto an unsympathetic, hostile, and unbelieving world, they now will be helpless against a Western demagogue who removes the mask and reveals the clash of civilizations which has always really been there, and reveals how much this ideological blunder has cost Western Civilization.

The demagogue will rightfully be able to capitalize on overturning The Milner Fallacy. 

There is overwhelming evidence since WWII, actually since WWI, that they will be right.

Trump seems to mainly be playing The Milner Fallacy card, and it plays very well.

If elected, Mrs Clinton will go down swinging in The Middle East as DK points out, waving the banner of Milner Group human rights to the end (She has no ideological choice: it's another species of lack of leverage seen in finance and industrialization.). 

Thursday, August 4, 2016

A THEME WHICH NO ONE OVER HERE IN THE WEST WANTS TO TOUCH EXCEPT WACKOS RACIAL DIFFERENCES

My comment on issues re Randall Collins' views:


"I should point out, parenthetically, that my inferences from some of Collins' views would not be shared by him, based on some of his views, eg that 'we are all one, under the skin', things like that.....


although this seems to me inconsistent with his theory of change as based on conflict, it is what it is apparently, for him."


Are we all really, and I mean globally 'all', not just Americans, as Collins and the founding fathers' founding principles of America assert, all one, under the skin? What even does under the skin really mean? 

If not, how not? 

Just for a start, the idea of races seems at first blush to cut against the enlightenment, and pre enlightenment, notion, going back to Hobbes, really, of a state of nature composed solely of individuals, without regard to race, each in a struggle with all others, a hypothetical world where for each of them life was solitary, cruel, nasty, brutish, and short. 

I will just give one isolated example, among many, which we now know of from archaeology, where early humans confronted late Neanderthals. Although genetically they intermixed, there are sites where Neanderthals were slaughtered as a group, butchered, and eaten for food by modern humans, as opposing groups.

So then, the question arises, even in a pre civilized state, the closest thing human like creatures probably ever got to a state of nature, were there ever really isolated individuals not tribally and racially bound to eachother and against others? 

My guess is that such individuals, where and when they existed, were outcasts from such existing groups. 

Just for fun, let's call them The First Mavericks!

Another example of racial differences, for which we have extensive historical evidence, to which I have previously referred on this blog, is that of human labor under tropical conditions. Black laborers, against all other races, slave or not, were the gold standard for tropical labor, for clearly racial reasons:

http://bozonbloggon.blogspot.com/2016/06/re-equality-meritocracy-and-race.html

Professor Allison, Suffolk University, Teaching Company Course "Before 1776", has a very helpful passage on it.

Expressions of emotion seem to vary by races.  They are not just sociological variations. 

Some cats talk, some don't; do not tell me that the difference, among cats, is sociological.

If I were a military leader, and I wanted to assure a good force for jungle or even desert duty, I would be a fool to pick mostly white folks, yet America cannot use such a criterion in the military, and seldom is able to use it in private companies.

Wednesday, August 3, 2016

RE DK POST TRUMP AND IMPROVISATION

"Trump's success in any field depended on the increasing corruption of the world he lived in.  He would never have gotten very far in a business environment in which investors had a sound sense of the worth of a project, or in a publishing world dedicated to bringing out quality work--or in a political system that still served the needs of the American people."

These are ideals shared by many both in 1776 and now. Many people thought that the new American system would serve the needs of the American people, and frankly of all people, better than the one they were throwing off.

Trump, oddly enough, is throwing into high relief the bi partisan shortcomings of the new American system that everyone is now fully aware of. In so doing he is appealing to a strong thread that informed the original rebellion against Britain. Rebelling against his own party, while simultaneously fending off its Democratic opposition,  is emblematic of how revolution has sometimes gone forward.

If he does turn out to have a serious reform agenda, he will have fooled a lot of people who maintained that he did not, including myself.

I will say this: anyone who tried to seriously reform our system would have conduct it a good deal by improvisation.

The aspects that Trump and Hitler share are that they both played the ethnic race card, and that they both try to capitalize on existing unrest. That is the extent of the comparison; they differ in more ways than they are similar.

Postscript: I originally wrote this post with Randy Fertel's work very much in mind.

This post is therefore now dedicated to him.

audience snapshot

EntryPageviews
United States
42
Russia
21
Germany
13
China
1
Costa Rica
1
France
1
Mexico
1

RE THE DUSTY MAVERICK

http://bozonbloggon.blogspot.com/2016/08/a-propos-kay-wilson-re-mavericks-trump.html

DK said some things reminiscent of the lines of the post above, re Trump's individualism, shall we say:

"Donald Trump is, even by American standards, a unique individual--yet he would never have gone as far as he has in business, entertainment, and politics if he had not tapped into some profound problems in contemporary American life.  That indeed may be his secret:  one by one, he tapped into critical trends in business, publishing, the entertainment world, and now, politics, bringing him to the threshold of the White House.  His story is also a parable of the dark side of his, and my, Boom generation (Trump as it happens is one year older than I am.)  These subjects could fill a whole book, and some day I hope some one writes it.  This week I can only make a few broad points." DK

The interesting thing about Trump, the Maverick Executive, Dusty, etc., is that in some ways ideologically, there is nothing new about these types at all here. They are in important ways types of how the concept of an American began. In that sense, they are not in the least generational with boomers, with Trump, DK, or me.

RE PAX MONGOLICA ENLIGHTENED MONGOL DESPOTS ECONOMISTS' FANTASY PAX SINICA

If you read Power And Plenty, and other similar accounts of the so called Pax Mongolica, you get the impression of benevolent enlightened helpful friendly Mongol Khans, the kind of people that the Chinese now ostensibly are becoming, joining the commonwealth of enlightened nations in a spirit of hope and global unity. They want to make The South China Sea, and elsewhere in Asia, Eurasia, and Africa, safe for all of us to trade freely and openly. Call it The Pax Sinica.