BOOMERBUSTER

BOOMERBUSTER
OLD CELLO

Monday, April 2, 2018

SHAKE DOWN BOP BOTH PARTY LEADERSHIP BEEN DOING IT

You select the music you like for this.
You have degenerate tastes....
I thought of variations on 
'Pottydonstartiliwokin'. Kesha?
You could also make it Gaga, Talking Heads, Dire Straits:

GRAB YOUR ___
GRAB YOUR ____
THROW AN ELBOW
FLIP A ____

MAKES NO DIFFERENCE
ITS A HOLD UP
WE DON’T CARE
GIVE IT UP

GRAB YOUR WALLET
PUT YOUR HANDS UP
GRAB YOUR ____
SUCK IT UP

WALLET EMPTY
IT'S A SHAKE DOWN
CUPBOARD BARE
STICK EM UP

IT’S A SHAKE DOWN
IT’S A HOLD UP
GRAB YOUR ANKLES
PUT EM UP

IT’S A SHAKE DOWN
PUT YOUR HANDS UP
WE DON’T CARE SO
GIVE IT UP

GRAB YOUR IPAD
CHARGE IT UP 
IT’S NOT SO BAD
SUCK IT UP

GRAB THE ITOUCH
HOLD IT UP
NO MORE MONEY
SO WHAT

GRAB THE IPHONE
GRAB YOUR ____
HOLD YOUR HANDS UP
GIVE IT UP

IT’S A SHAKE DOWN
ITS A HOLD UP 
GRAB YOUR ____
SO WHAT 

RE NO WAY OUT

Terms search: tariffs, Hoot Smalley

RE CAN EUROPE LEAD ON PRIVACY?

What kind of bad joke journalism is this.

Europe couldn't manage a 2 car funeral.

NYT, take a look in the mirror.

Next NYT mea culpa:

"We never knew the internet and the WWW were going to be this bad."

Bullshit!

RE HOW THE PARTY OF LINCOLN BECAME THE PARTY OF RACIAL BACKLASH

1. Lincoln's betrayal of Northern Republican white citizens from 1860 forward. 

2. Later, Southern white Democrat flight, to join Northern Republican white descendants of Republicans Lincoln had betrayed.

THE SIMON SAYS ECONOMY

Re Leonhardt's Confession.

Most people are going around dazed and confused.......

Here' are some prior posts re why:

Monday, October 23, 2017


Thursday, December 7, 2017

TRUMP ORTHODOX JEWS HAVE QUEERED NYT LIBERAL JEWS

 

Tuesday, February 6, 2018

As Professor Kaiser says, "It is extremely difficult, in such times, to keep a clear head and a long-term perspective on events,..."

LEONHARDT'S CONFESSION TWO WORDS MEA CULPA YOU FOOLS

For the rest, he is now telling you that business is finally, now, really, really, too big.

Given that he now admits he, and all others here, both inside think tanks and out, have long failed to call this problem out, can you believe him now, when he says they are too big?

Put another way: Why would you begin to believe him right now (even if true)? 

Remember the other day, Thomas Friedman's article on Trump on unfair trade, etc? See my post below on that one:

Wednesday, March 14, 2018


re THOMAS FRIEDMAN SOME THINGS ARE TRUE EVEN IF TRUMP BELIEVES THEM


What if Leonhardt later says, 5 or 10 years from now, I was wrong after all, about businesses being too big?

Why did you believe, for decades now, NYT liberal pundits, and others, about the virtues, the economies of scale, the global competitiveness, and the harmlessness, of bigger businesses, until now?

You long trusted the media, you fools. Liberal stooges.

But whom does Leonhardt actually blame, besides a disingenuous mea culpa?

The one they always blame, both parties' pundits, Washington.

Surprise, Washington has been too lenient!

Guess what? It's your government, in Washington, baby.

Leonhardt really, at bottom, is blaming all you poor bastards for having so fucked up a government. It's not his government, it's yours.

When the Republicans or Trump blames Washington, from the right, take a look in the mirror. Ditto head.

Think about it.

Sunday, April 1, 2018

AS PILLSBURY NOTED IT ALSO WENT FROM THE US TO CHINA

Sunday, December 29, 2013

See DK's current post another significant aspect of the errors of policy from mid century

"Billions of dollars worth of jet aircraft, tanks, artillery and much more went from the US, the Soviets and other nations to India and Pakistan, Egypt and Israel, Iran and Saudi Arabia, North and South Korea, North and South Vietnam, and elsewhere.  Occassionally this weaponry was used in local wars."

Liberal international trade expansionism, in weapons and strategic and commercial patronage; and communist influence commercial expansionism patronage, correspondingly.

Call it the cold war boom of The Rest that served the long term interests of neither the US nor USSR. 

In fact, it has killed off remaining hegemonic opportunities of each, to some extent, and will lead to their disadvantage, in any conflicts, economic and military, going forward.

THE TAKE AWAY

Saturday, July 26, 2014

RE EU AH RE BREAKUPS

The 'take away' (take aways, by the way, are for dumbed down, informationally and culturally held back citizens, some might call them retards, the nyt, npr, news hour left liberal, Fox, Rush, right wing, crowds, both more or less similar, culturally):

Austria Hungary, Russia, broke up over WWI, why not also EU, over WWIV?

Breakup of AH, RE, bad things, break up EU, good thing.

Why, you will ask?

One question is, and was, who lost his buffer in WWII?

The other question is, what is a civilization really?
At its best, it is a civil society of sovereign nations.

RE COLONIAL ROYALISTS DRIVEN OUT RE DK POST THE VERDICT

Professor Kaiser thinks that, although 200,000 or so Tories (royalists) were driven out, quite a few returned:


"The crisis of 1774-1794 (latter date approximate) overthrew British rule, drove perhaps 200,000 Tories out of the new nation (although quite a few eventually returned)..." DK


Below is a 2016 post of mine. 

My information below regarding royalists driven out, never to return,  and the consequences, was based on passages in R R Palmer's wonderful work, in 2 volumes, The Age of the Democratic Revolution. Volume I, as I recall. 

As Palmer pointed out, these exiles became the English speaking population of Canada. They did not return to the United States, at least according to Palmer. 

Barbara Tuchman, The Proud Tower, said that colonial 'elites', (faux) lower gentry, and the town brahmins (smugglers), originally intended, under the Constitution, to govern, had already abandoned direct personal involvement in government as politicians by 1830, around the time of the accession of Jackson.

I would just add that these colonial elite folks Tuchman referred to, were not the most elite or royalist element (such as it was) in colonial society, but rather the contrary, were jacobins, religious radicals, traitors, and opportunists, and were not at all the royalist elites whom Palmer pointed out were expelled, never to return, or the so called Tories referred to by Professor Kaiser as having returned. 


Thursday, July 28, 2016


CONSERVATISM HERE MEANS THE HOBBESIAN STATE OF NATURE ANARCHISM

"...solitary, cruel, nasty, brutish, and short."

There are well founded grounds for this interpretation, going back to before the founding.


You may say that that is not constitutional conservatism, which after all was representative, and required minimal property qualifications. 


Our constitutional conservatism, in that sense, is really what liberalism has always meant elsewhere.


So, what happened to actual conservatives, conservatives in the sense of conservative at the time of the founding and the American Rebellion?


They were usually called royalists, Whigs or Tories, whether they favored an aristocracy, a monarchy, or both. 


They emigrated and never came back.


There was no successful counterrevolution here, as there was in the rest of Western Civilization, including France, the second pariah state I previously had mentioned.

VERDICT OF HISTORY JUDGMENT OF HISTORY WHIG HISTORY WHAT IS TRUTHFUL HISTORY?

Saturday, July 26, 2014


SEE DK CURRENT POST

This especially interesting observation re history, and history departments:

"Saddest of all, from my point of view, one of the ideas that Orwell cited as fashionable--that truthful history cannot be written--is now orthodoxy in most history departments." DK

This connects with comments I have made re the evils of disciplinary compartmentalization and specialization, and the notions of expertise and of experts, notions almost everyone has come more or less to accept, more or less blindly, in their everyday lives, partly from a kind of necessity generally, but also from gullibility, and from the many vulnerabilities of life in modern society. 

Race, gender, and orientation history are just several obvious examples, some of which he cites, of this specialization, within the discipline of history. 

One could list similar tendencies in many different disciplines of the social sciences. Sociology and psychology are classic examples. I think we even have things like gender and feminist economics now. And of course there is generational sociological history, or however one calls what S & H did.

Long ago, we started having things like ' area studies ', focusing on one particular culture, civilization, or group of countries.
The above observations were partly why I have found works which combine older and modern disciplines, histories of academic disciplines, and things like sociology of knowledge, philosophy of social and exact sciences, history of knowledge, history of ideas, anthropology of ideas, cultural history, social philosophy, economic history, political economy, ethics, moral philosophy, moral sciences, and which cut against the tendencies toward specialization, of particular interest.

RIDENOUR PRIZES

https://www.facebook.com/rfertel

NO WAY OUT BUT WHY NOT GO DOWN SWINGING?

Wednesday, July 30, 2014


RE BITING THE APPEASING AND GREEDY HANDS THAT FEED THEM

http://bozonbloggon.blogspot.com/2011/08/re-biting-hand-that-feeds-them-european.html

Saturday, March 31, 2018

OF COURSE LINCOLN A GREATER THREAT TO DEMOCRACY THAN SOUTHERN PLANTERS

DAVID MARTIN
"I think you are being over-optimistic if you think authoritarianism isn't a major concern for the USA. One of our two major parties has de facto abandoned any real belief in liberal democracy. One wonders how long they'll even give lip service to it. Poland and Hungary--or even Russia--is our future, unless something on the scale of 1775, 1861, or 1941 intervenes. And since that would involve mass violence, how can anyone wish for it? But do we give up democracy without a fight? I have no answers. I certainly do not think I'm being over-dramatic. In some ways, our democracy is under worse attack than it was from the Southern Planters or the Axis powers. I might also add, I think you give this "generational" theory way too much importance. I find its empirical basis problematical, to say the least. There's some truth to it--but there's some truth to almost everything."

Lincoln proved that, baby. He was a disaster for his Northern white electorate. It wasn't just Southern planters he ruined. 

He armed freed negroes, queered the meaning of the Second Amendment. This was designed to protect rebellious and anarchic colonists of each state not only against its own denizens, but also against Britain, against Indians and the French and Spanish, and most importantly, against the militias of their so called brother states, if called upon by their own state or local government to do so. 


Most importantly, it guaranteed the safety of colonists who often were almost outnumbered by negro slaves in the Southern states.

The white North is still trying to get used to the idea of integrating blacks....

MY VIEW THEN AND NOW AND IN 1776

Sunday, August 3, 2014

RE KERRY POPPINS INDIA

Why not, much better, have left the British Empire in place there, and actually have helped them, there, going forward, when you come to think of it?

OLD POST RE DK KENNAN GERMANY RUSSIA

Friday, July 18, 2014

RE DK CURRENT POST

"...The Germans might well have felt the same way about the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, which they made possible by defeating the Russian Army so thoroughly during the First World War.  Not until Hitler, however, did they make an all-out effort to undo that result, and the consequences turned out to be disastrous for Germany....."


Having read Kennan's (onto whom you put me several years ago) two volume account of 19th century diplomacy tending toward WW I, I am less persuaded, that it was mainly, or even primarily, only a German responsibility matter, in either war, than appears above. 

The rivalry between the Austrians and the Russians, as well as the British, for example, over the receding Ottoman Balkan lands was very much in play, and taken into account in all powers' machinations. 

There was, of course, the so called Fateful Alliance itself, also, gradually developing, as the German and Russian empires, erstwhile allies,  gradually parted ways.


Great passage at the end:

"I would suggest that the time has come for the United States to look inward before we are too critical of the Iraqis.  Our own government is just as divided between Republicans and Democrats as theirs is between religious factions. Indeed, religion plays an important part in our divide, too.  We, like the Iraqis, cannot agree on solutions to some truly fundamental problems, such as the status of millions of non-citizens within our nation and the control of our borders.  I strongly suspect that if a Democrat wins in 2016 we may be threatened with the break-up of the nation.  The image of a diverse nation in which the inhabitants regard themselves as citizens first, allowing them to rise above religious, regional and other differences, remains in inspiring one.  It is no longer, sadly, the kind of nation in which we now live."

RE DK POST NO WAY OUT?

I would just note that the 800 pound Asian gorilla in the room is not a democratic gorilla.

Friday, March 30, 2018

RE TRADE NOT A JOB KILLER SEE STEINGART ATTACKER STATES MY FAVORITE TERM

Friday, October 6, 2017

CLASSIC RE STEINGART BOBBITT NYT FRIEDMAN

Sunday, August 14, 2011

RE BOBBITT STEINGART WAR OF THE WORLD VIEWS MARKET STATES OR ATTACKER STATES OR RISING LIBERAL MIDDLE CLASSES

Recall from 'Shield' the Market State concepts? 
There were three or so so-called paradigms there,
for those little pups. 

He has not been at the level of delusion as was Fukuyama with The End of History and the Last Man; 

that was a tour de force of delusion.

I rather like Steingart's notion of Attacker States better than the notion of market states of one stripe or another; 

that, to me, gives a truer flavor for things to come.

How about also 'Defender States', or 'Victim States', or perhaps 'Slave States' for those ranged in helpless opposition or  submission?

Steingart calls his book The War For Wealth.

I would call the future struggle based on what he discusses more a War For Survival.

That is really what is on the cards.

Re Thomas Friedman,  NYT editorial today, re why so called rising middle masses everywhere are 'mad', 'A Theory of Everything (sort of)', higher education, higher skills, import high skills workers, higher entrepreneurialism,  are still the answer for national  bourgeoisie, and wannabourgeoisie everywhere, etc., etc., :

Steingart's book is a sort of antidote.

"What matters this or that reason":

THE FAILURE TO SMOTHER BOLSHEVISM IN ITS CRADLE CHURCHILL 1949

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2jyQ58TJt4

HUNTINGTON OR NYT BOZO?

Thursday, March 29, 2018


RE NYT TRADE IS NOT A JOB KILLER






Monday, February 8, 2016

THE CLASH STAKE IN THE HEART OF GLOBALIST COBDENISM

"The evidence simply does not support the liberal internationalist assumption that commerce promotes peace." Huntington, p. 67


CHURCHILL ZIONISM VERSUS BOLSHEVISM SPEECH 1917 1920

ZIONISM versus BOLSHEVISM.
A STRUGGLE FOR THE SOUL OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE.

Churchill article facsimile


By the Rt. Hon. Winston S. Churchill.
Caption of accompanying photograph: “Mr. Churchill inspecting his old regiment, the 4th Hussars, at Aldershot last week”
SOME people like Jews and some do not; but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world.
Disraeli, the Jew Prime Minister of England, and Leader of the Conservative Party, who was always true to his race and proud of his origin, said on a well-known occasion: “The Lord deals with the nations as the nations deal with the Jews.” Certainly when we look at the miserable state of Russia, where of all countries in the world the Jews were the most cruelly treated, and contrast it with the fortunes of our own country, which seems to have been so providentially preserved amid the awful perils of these times, we must admit that nothing that has since happened in the history of the world has falsified the truth of Disraeli’s confident assertion.
Good and Bad Jews.
The conflict between good and evil which proceeds unceasingly in the breast of man nowhere reaches such an intensity as in the Jewish race. The dual nature of mankind is nowhere more strongly or more terribly exemplified. We owe to the Jews in the Christian revelation a system of ethics which, even if it were entirely separated from the supernatural, would be incomparably the most precious possession of mankind, worth in fact the fruits of all other wisdom and learning put together. On that system and by that faith there has been built out of the wreck of the Roman Empire the whole of our existing civilisation.
And it may well be that this same astounding race may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested, would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible. It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical.
"National" Jews.
There can be no greater mistake than to attribute to each individual a recognisable share in the qualities which make up the national character. There are all sorts of men – good, bad and, for the most part, indifferent – in every country, and in every race. Nothing is more wrong than to deny to an individual, on account of race or origin, his right to be judged on his personal merits and conduct. In a people of peculiar genius like the Jews, contrasts are more vivid, the extremes are more widely separated, the resulting consequences are more decisive.
At the present fateful period there are three main lines of political conception among the Jews, two of which are helpful and hopeful in a very high degree to humanity, and the third absolutely destructive.
First there are the Jews who, dwelling in every country throughout the world, identify themselves with that country, enter into its national life, and, while adhering faithfully to their own religion, regard themselves as citizens in the fullest sense of the State which has received them. Such a Jew living in England would say, “I am an Englishman practising the Jewish faith.” This is a worthy conception, and useful in the highest degree. We in Great Britain well know that during the great struggle the influence of what may be called the “National Jews” in many lands was cast preponderatingly on the side of the Allies; and in our own Army Jewish soldiers have played a most distinguished part, some rising to the command of armies, others winning the Victoria Cross for valour.
The National Russian Jews, in spite of the disabilities under which they have suffered, have managed to play an honourable and useful part in the national life even of Russia. As bankers and industrialists they have strenuously promoted the development of Russia’s economic resources and they were foremost in the creation of those remarkable organisations, the Russian Co-operative Societies. In politics their support has been given, for the most part, to liberal and progressive movements, and they have been among the staunchest upholders of friendship with France and Great Britain.
International Jews.
In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.
Terrorist Jews.
There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek – all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.
"Protector of the Jews."
Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people. Wherever General Denikin’s authority could reach, protection was always accorded to the Jewish population, and strenuous efforts were made by his officers to prevent reprisals and to punish those guilty of them. So much was this the case that the Petlurist propaganda against General Denikin denounced him as the Protector of the Jews. The Misses Healy, nieces of Mr. Tim Healy, in relating their personal experiences in Kieff, have declared that to their knowledge on more than one occasion officers who committed offences against Jews were reduced to the ranks and sent out of the city to the front. But the hordes of brigands by whom the whole vast expanse of the Russian Empire is becoming infested do not hesitate to gratify their lust for blood and for revenge at the expense of the innocent Jewish population whenever an opportunity occurs. The brigand Makhno, the hordes of Petlura and of Gregorieff, who signalised their every success by the most brutal massacres, everywhere found among the half-stupefied, half-infuriated population an eager response to anti-Semitism in its worst and foulest forms.
The fact that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship are excepted by the Bolsheviks from their universal hostility has tended more and more to associate the Jewish race in Russia with the villainies which are now being perpetrated. This is an injustice on millions of helpless people, most of whom are themselves sufferers from the revolutionary regime. It becomes, therefore, specially important to foster and develop any strongly-marked Jewish movement which leads directly away from these fatal associations. And it is here that Zionism has such a deep significance for the whole world at the present time.
A Home for the Jews.
Zionism offers the third sphere to the political conceptions of the Jewish race. In violent contrast to international communism, it presents to the Jew a national idea of a commanding character. It has fallen to the British Government, as the result of the conquest of Palestine, to have the opportunity and the responsibility of securing for the Jewish race all over the world a home and a centre of national life. The statesmanship and historic sense of Mr. Balfour were prompt to seize this opportunity. Declarations have been made which have irrevocably decided the policy of Great Britain. The fiery energies of Dr. Weissmann, the leader, for practical purposes, of the Zionist project, backed by many of the most prominent British Jews, and supported by the full authority of Lord Allenby, are all directed to achieving the success of this inspiring movement.
Of course, Palestine is far too small to accommodate more than a fraction of the Jewish race, nor do the majority of national Jews wish to go there. But if, as may well happen, there should be created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under the protection of the British Crown, which might comprise three or four millions of Jews, an event would have occurred in the history of the world which would, from every point of view, be beneficial, and would be especially in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire.
Zionism has already become a factor in the political convulsions of Russia, as a powerful competing influence in Bolshevik circles with the international communistic system. Nothing could be more significant than the fury with which Trotsky has attacked the Zionists generally, and Dr. Weissmann in particular. The cruel penetration of his mind leaves him in no doubt that his schemes of a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination are directly thwarted and hindered by this new ideal, which directs the energies and the hopes of Jews in every land towards a simpler, a truer, and a far more attainable goal. The struggle which is now beginning between the Zionist and Bolshevik Jews is little less than a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people.
Duty of Loyal Jews.
It is particularly important in these circumstances that the national Jews in every country who are loyal to the land of their adoption should come forward on every occasion, as many of them in England have already done, and take a prominent part in every measure for combating the Bolshevik conspiracy. In this way they will be able to vindicate the honour of the Jewish name and make it clear to all the world that the Bolshevik movement is not a Jewish movement, but is repudiated vehemently by the great mass of the Jewish race.
But a negative resistance to Bolshevism in any field is not enough. Positive and practicable alternatives are needed in the moral as well as in the social sphere; and in building up with the utmost possible rapidity a Jewish national centre in Palestine which may become not only a refuge to the oppressed from the unhappy lands of Central Europe, but which will also be a symbol of Jewish unity and the temple of Jewish glory, a task is presented on which many blessings rest.