"...Meanwhile we have backed away slightly from our long alliance with Seoul, canceling joint military exercises and hanging them out to dry the way President Nixon did the Japanese over China in 1971...." DK
Terms seaarch: pivot
BOOMERBUSTER
OLD CELLO
Sunday, July 8, 2018
RE BBC WE AFRICANS SHOULD GET OVER COLONIALISM
They need to be, and are being, recolonialized, but by China.
Bad luck, Africa....
Bad luck, Africa....
ABRAHAM LINCOLN EARL OF DUNMORE REVOLUTIONARY COUNTERREVOLUTIONARY BOTH EMANCIPATORS
Dylan Matthews...slavery and revolution...
"...The revolutionaries understood this. Indeed, a desire to preserve slavery helped fuel Southern support for the war. In 1775, after the war had begun in Massachusetts, the Earl of Dunmore, then governor of Virginia, offered the slaves of rebels freedom if they came and fought for the British cause. Eric Herschthal, a PhD student in history at Columbia, notes that the proclamation united white Virginians behind the rebel effort. He quotes Philip Fithian, who was traveling through Virginia when the proclamation was made, saying, "The Inhabitants of this Colony are deeply alarmed at this infernal Scheme. It seems to quicken all in Revolution to overpower him at any Risk." Anger at Dunmore's emancipation ran so deep that Thomas Jefferson included it as a grievance in a draft of the Declaration of Independence. That's right: the declaration could've included "they're conscripting our slaves" as a reason for independence." DM
The very last thing the colonial rebel founding fathers, especially Jefferson, wanted was for their slaves to be queered by the British....
There has been a lot of bullshit about the Declaration etc holding these truths to be self evident, originalist, sola scriptura.
Don't believe a word of it.
Lincoln didn't, either. Look at the debates with Douglas....
He ran on eliminating negroes as a threat, bottom line. He didn't want or need em as a labor force, either....
The language in The Declaration made it a lot easier to sell to liberal, civil libertarian, but terrified northern whites, men women and children (scared shitless of the idea of negroes).
Radical Republicans then jammed them up only Southern whites' asses.
They would never have dreamed of doing that to Northern whites, say sanction wholesale negro immigration to Northern states, (Dylan Matthews type counterfactual) or they would have been not only out of office, but also lynched en masse, that night, baby.
"...The revolutionaries understood this. Indeed, a desire to preserve slavery helped fuel Southern support for the war. In 1775, after the war had begun in Massachusetts, the Earl of Dunmore, then governor of Virginia, offered the slaves of rebels freedom if they came and fought for the British cause. Eric Herschthal, a PhD student in history at Columbia, notes that the proclamation united white Virginians behind the rebel effort. He quotes Philip Fithian, who was traveling through Virginia when the proclamation was made, saying, "The Inhabitants of this Colony are deeply alarmed at this infernal Scheme. It seems to quicken all in Revolution to overpower him at any Risk." Anger at Dunmore's emancipation ran so deep that Thomas Jefferson included it as a grievance in a draft of the Declaration of Independence. That's right: the declaration could've included "they're conscripting our slaves" as a reason for independence." DM
The very last thing the colonial rebel founding fathers, especially Jefferson, wanted was for their slaves to be queered by the British....
There has been a lot of bullshit about the Declaration etc holding these truths to be self evident, originalist, sola scriptura.
Don't believe a word of it.
Lincoln didn't, either. Look at the debates with Douglas....
Thursday, March 30, 2017
ABRAHAM LINCOLN FROM THE LINCOLN DOUGLAS 4th DEBATE
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,-- that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifyling them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." AL. See also 1st Debate, Unexpurgated, p 63.
1864, Lincoln's Law:
Lincoln’s law was then moved forward by Senator John Sherman of Ohio, chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. The committee shared Lincoln’s belief that the encouragement of immigration was of the highest importance and in their report stated that “labor has special wants in every department of industry; vacancies caused by recruiting calls for a large increase in foreign immigration to make up the deficiency at home. Furthermore, the South, after the war is over, will present a wide field for voluntary white labor and it must look to the immigrant for its supply.”
1864, Lincoln's Law:
Lincoln’s law was then moved forward by Senator John Sherman of Ohio, chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. The committee shared Lincoln’s belief that the encouragement of immigration was of the highest importance and in their report stated that “labor has special wants in every department of industry; vacancies caused by recruiting calls for a large increase in foreign immigration to make up the deficiency at home. Furthermore, the South, after the war is over, will present a wide field for voluntary white labor and it must look to the immigrant for its supply.”
He ran on eliminating negroes as a threat, bottom line. He didn't want or need em as a labor force, either....
The language in The Declaration made it a lot easier to sell to liberal, civil libertarian, but terrified northern whites, men women and children (scared shitless of the idea of negroes).
Radical Republicans then jammed them up only Southern whites' asses.
They would never have dreamed of doing that to Northern whites, say sanction wholesale negro immigration to Northern states, (Dylan Matthews type counterfactual) or they would have been not only out of office, but also lynched en masse, that night, baby.
DYLAN MATTHEWS QUOTES
"Abolition would have come faster without independence" DM
Matthews wants, retrospectively, to see slavery ended early, historically. That is one of his biggies. That is one big goal of his liberal Whig analysis.
My view is that the anti slavery movements, were only one part of dumb and dumber Western liberalism, the kind of liberalism that ultimately is now destroying the West as a civilization, and has long since destroyed the British Empire as its strongest power.
The British rammed the anti slavery issue up their Great Power adversaries' asses, when it suited them, either domestically or in foreign policy. Their merchant marine could always quietly continue to run slaves on the side, while liberal members wrung their hands in Parliament for the benefit of their liberal mostly women abolitionist advocates.
Britain had inherited dominance of the trade from France after the Seven Years War. And of course, Britain's and America's enormous cotton industries were completely dependent on American cotton plantation slavery, so anti slavery initiatives were shooting each of them in the foot.
The colonial allies were some of the same European adversaries who had piled on against Britain when the colonies had rebelled. The Colonies had been defended by Britain in the Seven Years War, just a few years before they then rebelled!
The very last thing these Great Power colonial had wanted was equality or liberty either in America or back in Europe: what they had wanted was to gain an advantage against their old enemy, the enemy which had just defeated them in the Seven Years War and had taken over the world (including the slave trade).
Whether slavery was ended fast, slow, or never, anywhere, is not the important point. Matthews started out missing the more important issues leading to his true statement about the American Rebellion.
RE SKRIPAL EXECUTION LENIN
My own view is that traitors should be executed.
If they are harbored on foreign soil, they should then be executed there, as fugitives from justice.
Skripal's execution was botched, unfortunately.
A bullet would have made so much more sense.
Causing collateral damage is a big tactical mistake.
On the other hand, no apologies are owed to the British government, apparently, because they harbored Skripal.
Harboring foreign traitors is bad public policy.
For example, Lenin should have been killed in Switzerland, or wherever he was found, long before he was then sent back into Russia.
It is a big mistake to weaponize traitors.
Weaponizing revolutionary traitors is rather worse.
If they are harbored on foreign soil, they should then be executed there, as fugitives from justice.
Skripal's execution was botched, unfortunately.
A bullet would have made so much more sense.
Causing collateral damage is a big tactical mistake.
On the other hand, no apologies are owed to the British government, apparently, because they harbored Skripal.
Harboring foreign traitors is bad public policy.
For example, Lenin should have been killed in Switzerland, or wherever he was found, long before he was then sent back into Russia.
It is a big mistake to weaponize traitors.
Weaponizing revolutionary traitors is rather worse.
Saturday, July 7, 2018
TIPPING POINT
Saturday, October 22, 2016
I AM JUST GOING TO TRY TO PUT SOMETHING INTO PERSPECTIVE FOR YOU
A lot of people think of Clinton as a ' safe ' choice, safer, at least than Trump.
Unfortunately, we, and the West, no longer have a safe versus unsafe Presidential choice.
Because Clinton merely represents more of the drifting decline that we put in place early in the 20th Century, and have kept to ever since, her candidacy is itself assuredly very unsafe, going forward, because decline of this kind has already reached what one might call a tipping point. And I am not here talking mainly about domestic politics.
Re tipping point, see prior post: HOMAGE TO RANDALL COLLINS
Unfortunately, we, and the West, no longer have a safe versus unsafe Presidential choice.
Because Clinton merely represents more of the drifting decline that we put in place early in the 20th Century, and have kept to ever since, her candidacy is itself assuredly very unsafe, going forward, because decline of this kind has already reached what one might call a tipping point. And I am not here talking mainly about domestic politics.
Re tipping point, see prior post: HOMAGE TO RANDALL COLLINS
I am not suggesting that Trump's decisions in office would solve the international situation, not at all, but staying with a post Milner Group liberal international economic order policy, which she represents in spades, will no longer work, and not just for economic reasons, but rather for cultural and spiritual ones.
I JUST DON'T HAVE ENOUGH GERMAN VIEWERS! SOFTWHERE
How bout say Steingart:
The War For Wealth
I call the war he refers to The War For Survival
It's my little inside joke.
Soft Power....Bill Gates Foundation stuff.
When you've got a laptop, at a Starbucks, and you are blowing thousands of them the fuck up, thousands of miles away, I don't call that soft power...Softwhere?
But maybe this is too colorful, unprogressive, and unrealistic, for our future.
The War For Wealth
I call the war he refers to The War For Survival
It's my little inside joke.
Soft Power....Bill Gates Foundation stuff.
When you've got a laptop, at a Starbucks, and you are blowing thousands of them the fuck up, thousands of miles away, I don't call that soft power...Softwhere?
But maybe this is too colorful, unprogressive, and unrealistic, for our future.
SOME THINGS ARE TRUE EVEN IF DYLAN MATTHEWS BELIEVES THEM
This is a paraphrase of Thomas Friedman, re Trump.
Re Dylan Matthews:
If the American rebellion had never happened, we would be better off, Matthews believes.
While this conclusion happens to be true, it is true not for Dylan Matthews' reasons.
Wednesday, March 14, 2018
re THOMAS FRIEDMAN SOME THINGS ARE TRUE EVEN IF TRUMP BELIEVES THEM
Re Dylan Matthews:
If the American rebellion had never happened, we would be better off, Matthews believes.
While this conclusion happens to be true, it is true not for Dylan Matthews' reasons.
THE VERDICT OF HISTORY
"..but arguing that the American Revolution was a mistake is itself 'ahistorical'."
pbrower2a1 back to DK...re: an article by Dylan Matthews, entitled, "Three Reasons Why the American Revolution was a Mistake."
pbrower2a1 back to DK...re: an article by Dylan Matthews, entitled, "Three Reasons Why the American Revolution was a Mistake."
Are outcomes, then, throughout history, such as the American Rebellion, or the French or Russian Revolutions, the progressive (Whig) results of determined and benevolent forces and causes (dialectical materialism, progress, providence) impossible, or at least futile, to try to gainsay in retrospect?
Should one even consider swimming against 'the tide of history', as DK puts it, either before, during, or after, the events in question?
Why not, after all, survey the past, and calmly and soberly contemplate the future, through rose colored glasses?
Should one even consider swimming against 'the tide of history', as DK puts it, either before, during, or after, the events in question?
Why not, after all, survey the past, and calmly and soberly contemplate the future, through rose colored glasses?
Saturday, July 1, 2017
THE SOFT LANDING
Jude H has one post, apparently:
"Wednesday, October 5, 2011
The soft landing is a better way to do something everyone needs to do at one time or another in their lives."
That's fine. Blogging is ltself a sort of sickness......
I, also, had referred to a so called soft landing, back then in 2010:
"Thursday, August 19, 2010
That's fine. Blogging is ltself a sort of sickness......
I, also, had referred to a so called soft landing, back then in 2010:
"Thursday, August 19, 2010
INFLATION AND DEFLATION BOTH ECONOMIST RED HERRINGS
I should point out,
that, when you are gradually, inch by monthly inch, slowly, annually, becoming a third world economy, trading down, down, to cheaper and cheaper produced goods, to the bottom;
reducing prices, down, down, to cheaper and cheaper priced goods,
to the bottom, you tend,
almost by inertia,
to steer a path, because you have to,
between little blips of inflation, or deflation,
sort of looking for a daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, perpetual 'soft landing',
at the 'greatest good for the greatest numbers' airfield (let's not call it an airport).
That is what the US 'economy' if one can speak about such a thing, has been doing.
That is why we haven't had much 'overt' inflation, because we have been buying, and producing offshore more cheaply, goods made offshore.
That also is why we haven't had deflation, because their offshore costs were less, for a little while, and printing fiat money to buy them, so long as the money is accepted, wards off symptoms of deflation.
Keeping prices, and wages, gradually 'trickling down' (a different idiom: UNPROSPERITY TRICKLING DOWN) more or less together,
WHERE'S THE BEEF?
Krugman has put his finger on it, domestic jobs, that is the 'sticky wicket' in the whole sordid process, inasmuch as more and more work, of whatever kind, goes offshore, there remain fewer jobs, of any kind, to fund purchase of those cheaper offshore goods.
The other aspect of the situation, re currencies, aside from inflation/deflation, is that these producing countries have begun to realize that US currency is really backed by nothing anymore, no productivity, no specie, nothing.
One takes it, as a medium of exchange, largely hoping to prop up temporarily (self interest) the stultifera navis, and/or to get something of real value from third parties (the old eurodollar situation now globalized).
The Bretton Woods system, flawed from the outset, gold standard even abandoned by US in '71-72(?), a prescription for market sloth, and manipulations of all kinds.
It is not that complicated, really.
that, when you are gradually, inch by monthly inch, slowly, annually, becoming a third world economy, trading down, down, to cheaper and cheaper produced goods, to the bottom;
reducing prices, down, down, to cheaper and cheaper priced goods,
to the bottom, you tend,
almost by inertia,
to steer a path, because you have to,
between little blips of inflation, or deflation,
sort of looking for a daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, perpetual 'soft landing',
at the 'greatest good for the greatest numbers' airfield (let's not call it an airport).
That is what the US 'economy' if one can speak about such a thing, has been doing.
That is why we haven't had much 'overt' inflation, because we have been buying, and producing offshore more cheaply, goods made offshore.
That also is why we haven't had deflation, because their offshore costs were less, for a little while, and printing fiat money to buy them, so long as the money is accepted, wards off symptoms of deflation.
Keeping prices, and wages, gradually 'trickling down' (a different idiom: UNPROSPERITY TRICKLING DOWN) more or less together,
WHERE'S THE BEEF?
Krugman has put his finger on it, domestic jobs, that is the 'sticky wicket' in the whole sordid process, inasmuch as more and more work, of whatever kind, goes offshore, there remain fewer jobs, of any kind, to fund purchase of those cheaper offshore goods.
The other aspect of the situation, re currencies, aside from inflation/deflation, is that these producing countries have begun to realize that US currency is really backed by nothing anymore, no productivity, no specie, nothing.
One takes it, as a medium of exchange, largely hoping to prop up temporarily (self interest) the stultifera navis, and/or to get something of real value from third parties (the old eurodollar situation now globalized).
The Bretton Woods system, flawed from the outset, gold standard even abandoned by US in '71-72(?), a prescription for market sloth, and manipulations of all kinds.
It is not that complicated, really.
pbrower2a1 II GREAT RANT II
pbrower2a1 said...
..but arguing that the American Revolution was a mistake is itself 'ahistorical'. It's basically alternative history, a pointless exercise unless strictly for literary reasons. It is ahistorical in the sense that one might speculate on how different European history would have been had Napoleon not invaded Russia or how different the history of Latin America would have been had the revolt of Tupac Amaru II succeeded.
Separation of the American colonies from Britain was a near certainty, as the Colonies already were already capable of self-government and often had to act before the Crown did. By 1770 the questions were when and by what means. George III bungled the situation badly; before him the British Crown largely allowed the Colonies much discretion on day-to-day matters, much in contrast to how Spain did things. Note also that the Colonies were at time becoming different from Britain itself even in ethnic composition. New York was still a 'former Dutch colony', Pennsylvania had a large number of Germans, and of course there were far more African slaves. Add to this, colonial America got large settlements of people from northern England and southern Scotland unsympathetic to harsh treatment by the British Crown, who carried their attitudes with them and maintained them.
...The first attempt to bring Democracy to Europe, the French Revolution, successfully overthrew the Bourbon dynasty, only to end up as the Bonaparte empire... and after 1815, the real rulers of continental Europe turned completely reactionary. Not until 1848 would there be democratic revolutions in Europe, and most of those would fail. The only country to imitate the political structure of the USA was Switzerland, in 1815 the only significant republic in Europe.
The big influence of the American Revolution was on Latin America, and not on Europe. The French Revolution results from an economic implosion, arguably the result of a volcanic eruption in Iceland that messed up food production in western Europe. The Crowned Heads of Europe still wielded nearly-absolute power after their restoration, and to them the word republic was an anathema.
NORTH KOREA AND CHINA PLAYING US LIKE A JAPANESE SUZUKI VIOLIN BABY
Twinkle, twinkle, little star....
How I wonder what you are....
The Suzuki Method took over this country.
How I wonder what you are....
The Suzuki Method took over this country.
AMERICAN REBEL SO CALLED DEMOCRACY
Re: pbrower2a1 CHUNKY RANT AND DK REJOINDER GREAT STUFF
"...The Commonwealthmen did not, then, seek to destroy gentry hegemony; nor were they democrats...." Clark, p. 293
The spiritual progenitors of the founding fathers had other aspirations, and other targets.
One of them was not Parliamentary (i.e. wider voting franchise) reform.
That was toyed with, briefly, 'populist enfranchisement', by out of power Tories, ironically enough, but neither by in nor out of power Whigs!
(Both Court, and ballot box, packing have a long and venerable history.)
One of them was not Parliamentary (i.e. wider voting franchise) reform.
That was toyed with, briefly, 'populist enfranchisement', by out of power Tories, ironically enough, but neither by in nor out of power Whigs!
(Both Court, and ballot box, packing have a long and venerable history.)
Friday, July 6, 2018
RE TANEY DRED SCOTT DECISION SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS ETC ETC
Having taken a close look at this thing, my conclusion is that seldom has a better, thorough, and well reasoned opinion ever been rendered by any court here.
This thing, in its time, was certainly solid as a rock, and still is, in proper context, and was generally so considered except by whackos like Lincoln, who actually claimed to believe the so called letter of the constitution (Jeffersonian flights of utopian Lockean verbiage) rather than its actual meaning to those of its contemporaries, including Jefferson himself, who mattered. Dred Scott was the long established law of the land before the Civil War.
Even Bobbitt admitted much the same thing.
So I am in rather good, but hardly perfect, intellectual company....
Even Bobbitt admitted much the same thing.
So I am in rather good, but hardly perfect, intellectual company....
Friday, June 2, 2017
RE DK POST RE DRED SCOTT DECISION
Looking back through Bobbitt, I find an interesting passage in Constitutional Fate, p 86, 87, discussing Bickel's The Morality of Consent, a chapter called Structural Argument, (although the decision has normally been seen, including by DK, as an historical one, or perhaps as he says a right wing originalist one).
Here it seems to be squibbed as an example of structuralist jurisprudence, and we see Bobbitt concluding that Justice Taney in Dred Scott was perhaps tragically, as he put it, not so far wrong.
I fail to see it as tragical. I think Taney was quite right, and very thorough, with a few caveats in some details. I still have to read the dissents. He seems not to have known that Indians were enslaved too.
It seems both originalist and structuralist at the same time, not so hard to grasp really.
Maybe more a structural than an originalist one, given its topics in detail, in my judgment.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
RE DAVID KAISERS CURRENT POST
He squibs a very important chunk of recent history very well:
"As anyone who has argued with pro-gun people on an internet forum now knows, their main argument is in effect that supposedly law-abiding citizens should replace the police as our first line of defense against violent crime. They want the maximum number of people walking around with concealed weapons, and they want few or no restrictions on where they can take those weapons--onto university campuses, for instance. They are, in short, totally opposed to the model of a largely unarmed, non-violent population, with a crime rate low enough for professional police forces to cope with. And they have managed steadily to increase the proliferation of firearms in this country over the last few decades, keeping our homicide rate much higher, as I pointed out here once before, than almost any other advanced nation. And, of course, they won a huge 5-4 victory in the Supreme Court quite recently, when the conservative majority created a new individual right to bear arms, throwing out precedents as well-established and venerable as the Dred Scott decision of 1857."
Friday, April 6, 2012
RE THE DEAD DIE HARD BOOK
Thumbing through this charming little number, I was surprised at how eager the French were to incorporate captured German soldiers into the French Foreign Legion, giving them commissions etc,
while our best combat general in the 20 C was called on the carpet for even thinking of using German prisoners to push the Soviets out of Eastern Europe and Germany.
while our best combat general in the 20 C was called on the carpet for even thinking of using German prisoners to push the Soviets out of Eastern Europe and Germany.
RE HISTORY AND POLITICS DK POST
My view is that the American Rebels of 1776 may well and truly be characterized, say, by the Muslims, as "dogs of Christian infidels to their own faith". Cf. Huntington,.....The Clash
The Chinese: "In their dominant Western Imperial position, only fools would have thrown it away for their childish dreams of equality with us, stupid inferior foolish bastards!" (Pillsbury, now, a byword on this.)
The Japanese: "Pathetic mediocre fools!" (You have to read something like Trading Places to get a real flavor for how pathetic they must, quite reasonably, think our so called upper eschelon has always been....Imagine what they think of the lower levels!)
The Russians: "Ha Ha Ha." (Try, say, The Haunted Wood, or Andrew's work.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
I think your argument is completely ahistorical. It was the victory of the colonists on a democratic platform that gave democracy a long-term push in Europe. Without that victory Britain certainly wouldn't have reformed Parliament any earlier than they did. Nor is it clear that Canada would have benefited from the Durham report or the British North America Act. in any case--great historians don't argue with hsitory.