Killing the Sovereign, Democratic, Nation State

What is a sovereign nation state?

It is a human community that asserts its exclusive right to the occupation of  a territory — the assertion of exclusive occupational right meaning the beating off of interlopers, whether they be armed invaders or economic immigrants. A sovereign nation state thus reserves the benefits of territorial occupation, however those benefits may be distributed within the community, to the indigenous population.

However, in today's politically correct Western world, such territoriality is treated as hateful xenophobia, bigotry and racism. Yet the defense of territory is normal and adaptive behavior not only in mankind, but throughout the animal kingdom. It is the means whereby individuals either alone, or in concert with their kith and kin, act to secure  resources for survival and reproduction and thereby maximize their chance of being represented in succeeding generations.

Because the sovereign nation state excludes settlement by outsiders, its people exist in a state of reproductive and cultural isolation from the rest of humanity. Such isolation is never total, but is sufficient to result in genetic differentiation among nations resulting from founder effects, genetic drift, and local selective pressures. Isolation leads also to linguistic and cultural differentiation. A sovereign nation is a thus a population with a unique racial and cultural profile. It is, in other words, the basis of the beautiful racial diversity of the human species.

A democratic, sovereign, nation state is a sovereign nation state where the government depends in some measure upon the approval of the populace at large, which is to say a government that is perceived to rule in the interests of the people. Democracy in its ideal form, which is to say a government serving solely the interests of the people as a whole, is a fiction, since those who rule will invariably grant privileges upon themselves, and moreover, those most advantaged in society will seek to secure their advantage by using their advantaged position to skew the political process in their favor by means of bribery, blackmail or murder. Nevertheless, since the emergence of mass democracy in the 19th Century, more or less popularly elected governments throughout the West have established a vast range of public services designed to bring the benefits of education, healthcare, police protection, and the higher culture to the masses.

Today, however, the advantage of the most advantaged over the mass of humanity has never been greater, this being so not only because wealth has never before been concentrated in such vast amounts, but also because technology, not only in the physical sciences but also in the social sciences, makes elite control of the masses easier than ever before. Naturally, therefore, the most advantaged, which is to say the plutocratic elite or Money Power, seeks to wrest control entirely from the hands of the people and establish absolute ownership of the resources of the World. To this end, the sovereign, democratic, nation state, as an impediment to profit maximization (and mass impoverishment), must be eliminated, this objective being approached in two ways. First, the nation state as a racial and cultural entity is to be destroyed. Second, powers of government are to be transferred from national goverments to global institutions such as the UN, the World Bank, the WTO, NATO, etc., all of which will be controlled by the Money Power via its existing hold over national governments and more directly by bribery, blackmail or murder.

The destruction of the nation state is a work in progress, the chief instrument of which is mass migration, particularly from the essentially undemocratic Third World to the most powerful democratic nation states, which are those of the West. In this way, the solidarity of the people is destroyed. In addition, reproductive failure of the indigenous population is induced through sex "education" and mass entertainment that serves to promote the vice and perversion that Thomas Malthus recognized as an alternative to starvation as a way of limiting population. As a consequence of such methods, the fertility of all Western nations has already been reduced far below the replacement rate, which means that, as a consequence of immigration, the people of the Western nations will soon be replaced as the majority in their own homeland by people from elsewhere. In London, and other major urban centers, the English are already a minority in their own home. This is a high-tech, stealth genocide, conducted in the name of liberal anti-racist values: no blood, no gas chambers, just psychological manipulation leading to self-hatred, reproductive failure, and ultimate self-annihilation.

By destroying the homogeneity of the nation state through mass immigration, the notion that the government of, say, France or Germany or the United States should operate in the interests only of the French, or the Germans, or the Americans is undermined. People from outside the territorial limits of the nation state, it is asserted, have as much right to enjoy the accumulated cultural and physical capital of a country such as Britain, as the descendants of those by whose sweat and ingenuity the wealth of the nation was created. This globalizing tendency gains further momentum from the immigrant communities, which, loyal to the nationalist sentiments of their ancestors, lobby for their own cultural and racial interests, including those of their co-nationalists abroad, thereby further destroying the sovereignty of the invaded community.

To combat the resentment of the indigenous community so disrupted, the elite impose a system of speech regulation or political correctness, first imposed in Russia by V.I. Lenin, and culminating there in the Stalin terror that killed millions, for nothing worse than a muttered word of dissent.

In the West, political correctness serves chiefly as a shield for the Treason Party and their agents, the Blair's, the Clinton's the JEB's and Rubio's, the latter intent on vast personal enrichment through service to the Money Power. Thus, to speak in opposition to mass immigration is defined as racism, and racism is defined as a crime. The process of thought control through political correctness has infinite ramifications, as illustrated by the deployment of police to intimidate a school pupil who used a school computer to check the immigration policy of a legal, democratic political party supported by a millions of citizens. And here's a quote on the subject of immigration from that party's election manifesto:

Britain is a compassionate, caring nation. In the course of our island’s history we have welcomed millions of people to these shores and we are proud of that record. UKIP does not have a problem with migration. What we do have a problem with is the uncontrolled, politically-driven immigration that has been promoted and sustained by Labour and the Conservatives.  

Wow! Is that racist or what?

Britain is clearly finished as a Sovereign, democratic, nation state. Well done Tony Blair and the Tory Party.

Related: 

Patrick Buchanan: Will the Oligarchs Kill Trump?

Philip Giraldi: Hating on Trump

CanSpeccy: Will Donald Trump Trump the New World Order?

CanSpeccy: Universal Genocide and the New World Order

CanSpeccy: The Financial Times: The Ethnic Cleansing of the English From Their Own Capital City "Deserves Attention" LOL

Crap Art: Prices Go Plop

 Picasso: off £10 million since previous sale

Sale prices for modern art are in the crapper, so the Daily Mail reports. Picasso's Tete de Femme oil painting (right) was sold in January for just £18.9 million, almost 10 million less than was paid by the seller in 2013.

And it's the same, apparently, for much other modern "art," including Matisse, whose "Piano Lesson", which was expected to realize from £12 million to £18 million, was just knocked down by Sotheby's for a measly £10.8 million.

CanSpeccy: 20-Second Full Frontal Nude. Is this
not worth as much as a Picasso? Who can really say?

For which reason, I'm getting outa the market while I can, and invite offers over $10 million (Canadian) for my 20-Second Full-Frontal Nude (left).

Some may say that ten millies is too much for 20 seconds' work — if you can call it work. But, as Picasso would have said, you are paying, not for 20 seconds' work, but for a life-time's experience.

All of which suggests the prescience of my December 2013 piece over at Wordpress, entitled: "Crap Art":

Crap Art:

Canspeccy.wordpress.com, December 16, 2013: What’s with the art market? Van Gogh was surely a genius. Still, why pay over $100 million for a painting of a bunch of irises when you can buy a bunch of real ones for a coupla bucks. Same with sunflowers. Just buy seeds and grow your own.

Three Studies for a Portrait of Lucian Freud. Source

As for the nudes, surely they come cheaper in real life and may be cuter than a Modliani (last sale $73 million).

But now this: Francis Bacon’s portrait of Lucian Freud (at right). I don’t know if it’s a true likeness, but it makes Freud’s face look like a pile of dog shit. I mean, would you want that to adorn your dining room wall? And if so, why pay $142 million? Why not just scoop a poop and pop it on a silver tray as a dining-table center-piece?

Rubens: Massacre of the Innocents

But is that the point? Is that the intended message? I’m so goddamn rich I can piss away $142 million on a load of crap? Perhaps, but that theory would surely make the late Kenneth Thomson, second Baron Thomson of Fleet, turn in his grave. He paid 49.5 million quid for the delicious throat-cutting, belly slitting, Massacre of the Innocents (snuff porn for the plutocracy), which was a lotta dough at the time. But the work is not crap. It’s by Rubens, who could certainly paint. Still, you gotta think it was the price that was intended to inspire awe, not the art.

Perhaps, though, there is something else going on here. Are we seeing the monetization of art? Like BitCoin for the hyper rich? A sort of invisible money beyond the purview of the taxman or Homeland Security, and lighter by far than gold — just roll it up, tuck it under your arm and take it with you wherever you want. And as a display of conspicuous consumption it’s better than stacking 100-ounce gold bars about the house, which would be crass — speaking comparatively, that is.

Does the canvas money theory explain the extraordinary price paid for the Freud portrait? It’s a triptych (or should that be tripshit?) Think how handy that could be: need some cash but not all $142 million or billion or whatever the thing’s worth today? No prob. Just clip off a panel (leaving you with a dipshit) and redeem one-third the value.

Related:

Crazy: Bacon's portrait of shit-faced Lucien Freud stolen

The Real Donald Trump

Donald Trump is a con man and failed businessman. He flies a Boeing 757 with his name on it solely to fool simple-minded persons into thinking that he is rich and successful.

At church, Trump habitually talks during the sermon, and steals from the collection plate.

Trump uses English at a Grade 4 level and his spelling is even worse.

He calls all women "fat pigs," "dogs," "slobs" and "disgusting animals," yet only marries actresses or high class models who for some reason seem to like him, even, or perhaps especially, when he's no longer married to them.

Trump calls  all Mexicans, male and female alike, rapists, criminals and drug dealers, etc., and wants to have them completely walled off from America, but somehow he's managed to con the Hispanics of Nevada to make him their first choice in the Republican primary.

He calls all Muslims radical terrorists, rapists, bombers, etc., etc., yet he has somehow managed to become the most popular Republican presidential candidate among Muslim Americans.

Trump is a racist and white supremacist who has managed to gain more support among American blacks than any Republican presidential contender in living memory.

Trump's a fake Christian (Pope Francis, verified) yet he gets more support among Republican fundamentalist Christians than the supposedly genuine article, Ted Cruz.

 Trump wants to be best friends with the richest man in the World, Vlad the Impaler Putin. And in a crass insult to past American statecraft, he claims that, by getting along with the Russkies, he will reduce the risk of nuclear war and stabilize the Middle-East. As if.

Then, to cap his fantastic foreign policy vision, he proposes to hand off responsibility for dealing with that Axis of Evil monster, Kim Jong-un, the madman of PyongGoneBonkers, to the world's other miniature regional power and nest of Commie bastards, China, as if those slitty-eyed folk could do anything.

Trump Claims that, as a business man, he bribed every politician alive, even Hillary, which is obviously a lie, since why, if it were true, would he have a bunch of politicians, including Hillary, running against him for the Presidency?

Trump thinks that Americans should make shoes and shirts, and computers and car parts for one another (and here), rather than buying them from American-financed sweatshops in Mexico and China. That way, he says, tens of millions of out-of-work Americans will get a decent job again. What he omits to say is that making Americans buy stuff from other Americans would raise the price of sneakers and jeans to the point where those with six-figure incomes would feel that buying stuff cost real money, which is preposterous.

Trump is a closet dipsomaniac and pot smoker, who pulls wings off flies and eats cookies in bed, and much more, as will be revealed in the next public statement by Mitt Romney.

Meantime, since Trump has so thoroughly wrecked their plans for a politically correct Union of Soviet Socialist American States, that William Kristol and the rest of the Neocons are threatening to emigrate to Russia and restart the Soviet Union.*

———
* This last claim may sound far-fetched, but it should be noted that at a meeting for GOP bigwigs and their tech-sector billionaire backers, remarks by William Kristol included repeated quotes from Karl Marks's Communist Manifesto:

William Kristol:

A specter was haunting the World Forum–the specter of Donald Trump. ...
The key task now, to once again paraphrase Karl Marx, is less to understand Trump than to stop him.

Karl Marx:

A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism. ... 

Related: 

Assassinate Donald Trump Page Does Not Violate Face-Book's Community Standards

If someone does shoot Trump, Melania should sue Mark Zuckerberg for a  billion or two.

Who does Mitt Romney's criticism of Donald Trump help? Seventy-four percent say Trump

Widespread reports of vote fraud to stop Trump

Neocon Warhawks Panic Over Trump Foreign Policy

Humanity Is Not Wise, But Dangerously Inventive

Man is the Reasoning Animal. Such is the claim. I think it is open to dispute. Indeed, my experiments have proven to me that he is the Unreasoning Animal... In truth, man is incurably foolish. Simple things which other animals easily learn, he is incapable of learning. Among my experiments was this. In an hour I taught a cat and a dog to be friends. I put them in a cage. In another hour I taught them to be friends with a rabbit. In the course of two days I was able to add a fox, a goose, a squirrel and some doves. Finally a monkey. They lived together in peace; even affectionately.

Next, in another cage I confined an Irish Catholic from Tipperary, and as soon as he seemed tame I added a Scotch Presbyterian from Aberdeen. Next a Turk from Constantinople; a Greek Christian from Crete; an Armenian; a Methodist from the wilds of Arkansas; a Buddhist from China; a Brahman from Benares. Finally, a Salvation Army Colonel from Wapping. Then I stayed away for two whole days. When I came back to note results, the cage of Higher Animals was all right, but in the other there was but a chaos of gory odds and ends of turbans and fezzes and plaids and bones and flesh — not a specimen left alive. These Reasoning Animals had disagreed on a theological detail and carried the matter to a Higher Court.

Mark Twain

Our species, Homo sapiens, which is to say the wise ape, is as Twain observed, not only not wise but is in fact incurably foolish. But it is also terrifyingly inventive. That is the secret of humanity's domination of the planet. We engage in continuous innovation.

At the outset, the process was more intermittent than continuous. Someone found that a pointed stick could be hardened in a fire, making a better weapon to spear a boar or pierce a threatening stranger.

Later, perhaps ten thousand years later, someone invented the bow and arrow. The first step, perhaps, was to tie a piece of buffalo gut to both ends of a slightly bowed stick and twang it to produced a novel sound with which to entertain the girls. Then, someone fooling around with a twang stick, found that the gut string, when stretched really tight could propel a stick or a stone. Then we were really on the ladder of progress. Next step: point the arrow and you've got a cool way of nailing a pigeon.

Somewhere along the line came various kinds of chipped stone tools, axes, knives and arrow heads. Then someone came up with the idea of catching fish with a worm tied to a length of twisted gut. Often, the fish would slip the line before it was hauled in. But after a few thousand years some genius came up with a small hook carved from a stag's antler or a piece of whale bone, which, when attached to a fishing line and swallowed with the bait, kept the fish on line as it was drawn out of the water. Yeah!

None of these innovations, individually, may have been beyond the intellectual capacity of a chimp, or an orangutan. But what made humans unique and gave them the capacity for continuous innovation was the gift of speech. The power of speech meant that what was conceived once could become common knowledge of the tribe and then the species.

In the early stages of human evolution, innovation affected life only marginally. People with fire hardened spears killed more game than people armed only with rocks, and so their numbers increased, but not by a lot. Likewise, those who developed fish hooks increased the quantity and quality of their food supply, and thus prospered. But it took nine-tenths of human history before people got the idea of settling down to cultivate the land and grow crops instead of relying solely on what they could hunt or gather, and by that time the world's entire human population probably still numbered less than a million.

But by increasing the carrying capacity of the land, farming increased the density of population. Urbanization became possible, and with urbanization the process of continuous innovation was greatly accelerated. Higher population density meant more ideas and faster transmission of ideas. Moreover, urbanization created greater opportunities for trade and for the division and specialization of labor, which led to competition, which concentrated minds on innovation for competitive advantage. Thus began the human population's exponential rise, doubling over shorter and shorter intervals, first ten thousand years, then a thousand, then a hundred, and today, just thirty to forty years.

With each leap in population, the intellectual effort devoted to the process of innovation leapt also, thus causing the human carrying capacity of the planet to rise exponentially. Among the more important innovations were writing (which facilitated the spread of ideas both contemporaneously and across the generations), calculating, and organized learning. What started out as a bit of fun with a stick and a piece of gut turned increasingly to nightmare. Incurably foolish men acquired toxic gases, lethal microorganisms and nuclear weapons capable of destroying virtually all life on the planet. What's more they went about replicating these weapons on a massive scale and devising means of delivering them to any point on earth at hypersonic speed.

That is where the mind of man has brought us: to the brink of extinction. Or rather one should say, that is where the mind, not of man, but of mankind has brought us, for the minds of individual human creatures are as feeble as they ever were, but linked in a vast network with other feeble minds, they achieve prodigious results leading us ever more rapidly to the point of extinction.

Related:

CanSpeccy: Why Are We So Smart? Or Perhaps We're Not

Trump Offers Americans a Deal. But Would He Deliver?

Candidate Trump is a salesman who  offers Americans a deal. The deal, essentially, is the "alt. media" agenda, which makes sense, since the alt. media have virtually destroyed the newspaper industry and have seriously eroded the credibility of the corporate online media, Fox News, CNN, the BBC, etc., etc. The triumph of the alt. media over the mouthpieces of the Money Power represents a radical transformation in public opinion, and, as the current US Presidential nomination contests prove, politicians ignore the change at their peril.

What specifically is the deal Trump offers?

On 9/11:

The World Trade Center went down during the reign of George Bush. He kept us safe? That is not safe.

and George Bush had the chance [to kill bin Laden before 9/11] and he didn't listen to the advice of his CIA.

Nine-eleven truth? Not exactly, but close enough for most people.

On George Bush's Iraq war:

They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.

On the destruction of Libya during Hilary Clinton's term as secretary of state:

We would be so much better off if Gaddafi were in charge right now. If ... we had Saddam Hussein and we had Gaddafi in charge, instead of having terrorism all over the place ... You look at Libya right now, ISIS, as we speak, is taking over their oil.

On Russia:

Wouldn't it be nice if we actually got along with Russia?”

On Political Correctness:

Political correctnes being V.I. Lenin's term for restraint on free speech, a restraint that, in Russia, culminated in Stalin's terror when a word of complaint about the bread ration during the siege of Leningrad meant summary execution by the NKVD.

I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct... I don't frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn't have time either.

On illegal immigration:

America's prisons house 351,000 criminal aliens who committed a crime after having already broken the law by entering American illegally. Making taxpayers pay for 351,000 criminals who should never have been here in the first place is ridiculous. ... And get this: criminal aliens have an average of seven arrests. That's at least seven crimes committed against American citizens by each of these criminals who should never have been allowed to cross our borders.

The largest suppliers of heroin, cocaine and other illicit drugs are Mexican cartels that arrange to have Mexican immigrants trying to cross the borders and smuggle in the drugs.

Trump seems not to have spoken of the role of  at least 11 million illegal immigrants in maintaining a roaring underground economy, where minimum wages laws are ignored and taxes are not paid. But this negative impact on American citizens is well understood by those at the bottom of the employment ladder, many of them poor blacks and Hispanics. Trump most likely avoids mention of that issue to avoid being misrepresented as stigmatizing American citizens and legal immigrants of Hispanic origin.

But Trump has spoken often and clearly about Mexico, China and other Third-world nations taking the off-shored jobs of tens of millions of Americans who are unemployed, underemployed, or who have abandoned the workforce due to total discouragement.

We need smart negotiators who will serve the interests of American workers – not Wall Street insiders that want to move U.S. manufacturing and investment offshore.

Plus as Trump proposes, a sane corporate tax policy that encourages investment in America versus the Third World.

And that, beside promises to veterans, some bluster about Chinese currency manipulation, and warnings about the danger of Muslim extremism in America, is about it. In summary: no more stupid wars, make deals not war with Russia, end the PC race war against European Americans, stop undercutting American workers by mass illegal immigration plus H1b visa immigrants who take jobs from American-trained tech-sector workers, and combat the offshoring of capital and technology — and the American jobs that go with them — to the sweat shops of the Third World.

But could he deliver? And would he?

In the matter of will: Trump has a huge ego, and to go down in history as the president who conned the people on a gigantic scale is something Trump would surely struggle mightily to avoid. What's more, as a vendor of American real estate and recreational facilities, Trump's wealth depends on the wealth of ordinary Americans, so raising American prosperity is in Trump's interest, unlike that of most American billionaires who are invested in multi-national ventures that profit from exporting American jobs to the cheap labor, low regulation countries of the world (something Trump has not been averse to doing where it serves his interest.)

As to his ability to deliver, a President Trump would begin his term in office with a gigantic moral advantage over the Money Power bankers, hedge funds, and global corporations. He'd have just beaten their propaganda machine, avoided assassination, and grabbed among the most potent levers of political power. The only serious challenge he would face would be from the bought agents of the Money Power sitting in Congress. But those bastards would have realized by then that the Money Power propaganda machine that failed to defeat Trump would likely fail to shield them too if they defied the clearly expressed will of a majority of Americans.

A Trump presidency could well prove to be a carnival of bluster, braggadocio, and useful, if vastly overstated, achievements. But could it turn into a nightmare of nationalistic right-wingism and Hitlerite imperialism?

Anything is possible. But America in 2016 bears no relation to Germany in 1939. Germany, then, was a small and crowded country recently humiliated in war, and surrounded by territories formerly part of Germany that had been taken from Germany under the terms of what was perceived, even by many of Germany's enemies, as an unjust Versailles Treaty. Hitler thus had multiple reasons for war, whereas America has no reason for war other than the lunatic Neo-Con ambition for global empire.

It would not be without precedent if Trump, having won the election, were to entirely reverse his foreign policy position and put America on the path to war. But he would immediately confront the "alt. media" forces that enabled his own rise to power. The push-back would be furious and the outcome further American foreign policy failure and humiliation. In foreing policy, a Trump presidency would, therefore, much more likely be marked by a Reaganite policy of speaking softly while carrying a big stick. And if truly successful, a Donald Trump presidency might well pave the way to an eventual Ivanka Trump Presidential run. If a Bush and a Clinton dynasty, why not a Trump dynasty too?

Related:

Ilana Mercer: Trump Called Bush A Liar & He Won South Carolina (Nevada, Too)

CanSpeccy: A Post From the Past: Will Donald Trump Trump the New World Order?

Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME): Will Google Win the Presidency for Hillary?

A world of unseen dictatorship is conceivable, still using the forms of democratic government.

Kenneth Boulding

I read a good deal. Occasionally I provide a link to what I think is really interesting or important — confirmation by a billion-dollar experiment of Einstein's prediction about gravity waves, for example, or how to access publicly funded scientific research findings without paying ridiculous fees to commercial publishers. But here is a link to something orders of magnitude more significant.

The article, by Robert Epstein, provides an overview of a peer-reviewed study that represents perhaps the most important discovery in social science since the term "social science" was invented. What it tells you is how the Borg empire will be established here on earth without even the necessity of fitting everyone up with one of those snorkel thingies. What it reveals is how Google and other big data owners and manipulators can most likely determine what you think and, hence, how you behave. The result? The perfect democracy: a society in which the elite unfailingly persuade a psychologically enslaved mass to vote for the elite and to support whatever it is that the elite want to do to the psychologically enslaved mass (Think US public support for George Bush's Patriot Act and Homeland Security with six hollow point bullets for every citizen, and FEMA detention camps), or think Farenheit 451.

There is, of course, nothing tremendously new about this. For more than a century, the mass media, owned by the very rich, have been telling people what to think and how to behave, the people for the most part submitting without complaint to such control. But at least there was the appearance of choice. You could read the NY Times, the yellow press, or even some small circulation Communist paper. Likewise, the broadcast media seemed to provide some choice, CNN versus National Public Radio, for example. But in the search engine business, power is much more heavily concentrated. Moreover, the evidence of bias, if bias there be, is not, as this research shows, readily evident, or indeed evident at all. And it is precisely the lack of visibility that makes such bias deadly to a free society.

But does Google really skew search results to sway the opinion of voters to favor certain electoral candidates or to persuade consumers to purchase certain products? Well, as Robert Epstein points out, here's a clue: if they don't, then they are probably in breach of their legal responsibility to maximize shareholder value.

Related:

CanSpeccy: Why Freedom Was Greater Under the Absolute Monarchy of Elizabeth I, Than Under the Democracy of Barak Obama

Plutonomy: Lexical Camouflage for the Crimes of the Rich

Plutonomy is a neologism coined by a Citigroup global strategy group in 2005 to describe a country characterized by massive income and wealth inequality. According to these people, the U.S. is a plutonomy, along with the U.K., Canada and Australia.

But this is an absurd mis-coinage. Plutonomy has two Greek roots: Plutos, wealth, and nomos, rule, so the only logical meaning of the term plutonomy is rule by the rich, analogous to autonomy, meaning self-rule or independence.

But we already have the word plutocracy to describe rule by the rich. So what are these Citigroup bozos up to? If they’d wanted a word that honestly referred to the increasingly gross income inequality of the Western world they would have come up with a Greekified term describing an industrialized nation on track for economic convergence with the Third-World.

Instead they come up with a bogus word and then define it in terms that makes them look like benevolent improvers of the human condition.

Thus, according to Citigroup’s word-bending geniuses, plutonomy arises through technology-driven productivity gains, creative financial innovation, the rule of law, particularly patent law, globalization and mass immigration.

All good stuff, obviously, with an ever-increasing share of national income justly accumulating in the hands of the virtuous innovators and creators.

But here’s another way of describing what Citigroup’s global strategy group inanely refer to as a plutonomy:

Plutonomy, n.

A bum neologism denoting a plutocracy in which the means by which the plutocrats have enriched themselves at the expense of the vast majority are acknowledged only selectively. Most importantly, reference to plutonomy must exclude mention of global wage arbitrage involving the export of jobs and the import of cheap labor, the saving in wages thus achieved accruing to the owners of capital, i.e., the plutocracy.

Factory collapses are a recurring problem in
Bangladesh, the latest claiming 1,127 lives. Image source.

Today, the plutonomocrats at Citigroup, the WSJ, the boring old Globe and Mail, Rupert the pornographerMurdoch’s, London Timesey, etc. have such sway that the deliberate impoverishment of your own compatriots by exporting their jobs to a collapsible garment factory in Bangladesh or an electronics assembly plant with nets to catch suicidal workers seems a completely natural and inevitable process that only a Luddite or a moron would question.

Yet it was only a generation ago that the states designated by the plutonomocrats as the prototypical plutonomies; namely, the US, Britain, Canada and Australia, were quite self-consciously democratic, and in such democratic states, the fact that something enriches the owners of capital is no justification for trashing the income or welfare of 99.99% of the population.

Foxconn factory with nets to catch suicidal workers.Image source.

Astonishingly, to anyone with the slightest historical perspective, trashing the nation to enrich the 0.01% is seen today not only as entirely natural, but even virtuous. And the proof of its virtue is the fact that it makes the rich richer. Oh, and supposedly it’s brings prosperity to the Third World, as if the people of the US, Britain, Canada and Australia elect governments to serve the interests of (a) the hyper-rich and (b) foreigners. (That is, in fact, what they do, but inadvertently.)

So in the transition to plutonomy, the Western states are experiencing not only a profound shift in the conditions of life of the vast majority of the people, but a shift in morality. Christianity is the work of the Devil. The new code is plutonomianism, the basic tenet of which is that whatever adds to the wealth and power of the already rich and powerful is good, whereas democracy, like Christianity, is the work of the Devil, driven by the greed of working people, their anti-immigrant racism, and their vile religious prejudice manifest by adherence to the faith of their fathers

First posted on CanSpeccy.wordpress.com December 27, 2013. 

Aangirfan, aka Aanirfan, Is a Fraudster

Aangirfan makes a big thing about exposing paedophiles. Here, in a recent post, are a couple of pictures with Aangirfan's original caption, or absence of caption:

Aangirfan's caption: Trump, the friend of Jeffrey Epstein.

Note: Since this was posted, Aangirfan has changed his caption
to the above image. It is now says: "Trump and daughter" But there's
 no acknowledgement for the correction!

Jeffrey Epstein is a New York billionaire and convicted paedophile. The implication of Aangirfan's caption to the above image is, therefore, clear: Trump is into molesting little girls.

But what the picture actually shows is Ivanka Trump: my dad and me.

Here's another image from the same post:

Aangirfan provides no caption to this image (now deleted from Aangirfan's post, with no acknowledgement to Canspeccy! Oops! No. The image has been re positioned at the bottom of Aangirfan's post and a caption added: "Trump and son," which seems to rob the image of all point.), but from the caption to the picture of Donald Trump with his daughter, the implication is clear: here's Trump the kiddie fiddler with another potential victim.

 In fact, the image has been cropped by Aangirfan, presumably to support the false implication of an inappropriate relationship, from a family photo in the Daily Mail showing Trump, his wife, and youngest child, Barron.

Trump family photo as published by the Daily Mail, January 7, 2013.

You don't have to be a Trump supporter to despise this kind of garbage.

Whether Aangirfan was always a lying scumbag is not quite clear. A few months ago, Aangirfan changed his domain from aangirfan.blogspot.com to aanirfan.blogspot.com. The change corresponded with a switch from mostly rather short posts, which however far-fetched, seemed to have some basis in fact and reason, to tediously long and incoherent posts that seem to serve no purpose except to smear someone or to spin fantastic and ridiculous conspiracy theories about almost everything, with the object, perhaps, of inculcating the idea that all conspiracy theories must be nonsense.

The case of Aangirfan, alias Aanirfan, provides a useful warning that the Internet is a source not of information, but of images and verbiage, which may or may not convey real information, and which have been placed at your disposal for reasons you know nothing about, but which may be intended greatly to your detriment.

Related: 

CanSpeccy: Aangirfan, aka Aanirfan, Is STILL a Fraudster Faking News About Donald Trump

CanSpeccy: Fundamentalist atheists: Aangirfan/Aaanirfan derides Christians, posts fake Trump family photo

Getting Round Science Journal Paywalls: It's Not Illegal, It's a Human Right!

SCI-HUB.IO : Removing barriers in the way of science
In 2011, Alexandra Elbakyan, a neuroscientist in Kazakhstan, launched Sci-Hub, a website that circumvents journal paywalls, providing free access to virtually all of the scientific literature.

Publishers claim the service provided is illegal, and Elsevier Science, the World's largest science publisher, who normally charges thirty dollars or more for access to a single article from one of its thousands of scholarly journals, is taking legal action to shut SCI-HUB down, while seeking from SCI-Hub's creator tens of hundreds, if not billions, of dollars in compensation.

Alexandra Elbakyan argues, however, that Elsevier's business model is itself illegal, a claim she bases on Article 27 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which states:

everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits

If the publishers of paid-access journals are unable to shut SCI-HUB down, they appear to have no option but to switch to an author-pay—free-distribution business model, which was how science publishing worked before the commercial publishers elbowed their way to a dominant position in the business — a position formerly occupied by the learned societies. Then, society journals were distributed at minimal cost to society members, and publication costs were largely covered by page charges imposed on authors, typically between $40 and $100 per page, equivalent, today, to several thousand dollars per article (normally paid out of research grants, not the authors' own pockets). 

The commercial publishers were able to take over much of the science publishing business from the learned societies, first, by offering free publication to authors, and second by inducing the leading lights in many academic fields to serve as journal editors in exchange for various perks and privileges. Once a significant share of science papers had been captured in this way by the commercially published journals, universities and research institutions had little choice but to pay the often exorbitant subscription rates the commercial publishers demanded. 

So long as SCI-HUB or similar services exist, however, nobody has to pay journal subscriptions in order to access the scientific literature. The result, if the situation is long sustained, will be that most commercial journals will fold unless they resort to an author-pay—free-access model. However, the author-pay model works much better for a non-profit publisher such as a learned society because, well, they are non-profit, so no profit need be built into the charge levied on authors. Moreover, learned societies, by bundling their journal with society membership fees, can achieve a huge circulations compared with that of most commercial journals, thereby permitting a low break-even charge per subscription. 

Paradoxically, the commercial journals that will be hardest hit are those with the highest impact, since, having the largest circulation, they generate the greatest revenue per article published, which in turn, means that the charges that authors might conceivably be induced to pay will fall much further short of current subscription revenue than in the case of lower impact and smaller circulation publications. The result would be the demise of most commercial science journals and the revival in status of the society journals.

The return to not-for-profit science publishing will restore editorial excellence rather than profit, as the prime objective of science publishers, which will be of huge benefit to the science community. Once again, editors will be willing to truly edit, knowing that in so doing, they are not working to raise the publisher's dividend, but to assist a colleague in effectively presenting their findings, a more congenial task to those in academia. 

Ross Perot: How Globalization Destroys Western Prosperity, or the Great Sucking Sound — in 2 Minutes and 34 Seconds

Richard Feynman on QED, or Understanding the Un-Understandable

Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8.

Richard Feynman QED Lecture 2, Reflection and Transmission : 1/7

Richard Feynman QED Lecture 3: Electron Interactions

Richard Feynman Lecture 4 Part 1/7: Problems in QED and The Standard Model of Particle Physics

Classic Cartoons: No. 37

By Robert Leighton: New Yorker, February 14, 2013, Image source.

Trump: Trade Center Towers Came Down because Bush Ignored CIA's Warning; Iraq War Based on WMD Lies

February 13, 2016: The following is a transcript of exchanges between Donald Trump, JEB Bush and Marko Rubio during last night's Republican presidential candidates' debate in Greenville, S. Carolina. It may explain why Trump says he always carries a gun.

Founders of the New World Order, or the Banality of Evil

G.H.W. Bush (left) declared the New World Order. John Ellis 

Bush (right) signed the Statement of Principles of the Project

for a New American Century (PNAC) , which declared the 
necessity of a "new Pearl Harbor." G.W. Bush (center) ignored
CIA warning of Bin Laden's determination to strike the US and
used the 9/11 attacks, which he described as the Pearl Harbor
of the 21st Century, to justify the wars for American global 
empire that PNAC called for. Image source. 

Trump:

The war in Iraq was a big fat mistake. It took JEB Bush .... five days before his people told him what to say, and he ultimately said "It was a mistake."

The war in Iraq, we spent two trillion dollars, lost thousands of lives, we don't even have it, Iran is taking over Iraq with the second largest oil reserves in the World. Obviously it was a mistake. George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes, but that one is a beauty. We should never have been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle-East.

Moderator:

So yo still think he [George W. Bush] should be impeached?

Trump:

You do whatever you want. You call it whatever you want. I want to tell you, they lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction, but there were none and they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.

John Ellis Bush (JEB):

... I could care less about the insults that Donald Trump gives to me ... but I'm sick and tired of him going after my family. My dad is the greatest man alive, in my mind. While Donald Trump was building a reality TV show, my brother was building a security apparatus to keep us safe, and I'm proud of what he did. And he's had the gall to go after ...

Trump:

The World Trade Center came down during his brother's reign.

Bush:

He's had the gall to go after my mother.

Trump:

That's not keeping us safe.

Bush:

I won the lottery when I was born 63 years ago, looked up and saw my Mom. My Mom is the strongest woman I know.

Trump:

She should be running.

Rubio:

I thank God, all the time, that it was George W. Bush who was in the White House on 9/11 ... He kept us safe. No matter what you say about weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was in violation of UN resolutions, in open violation, and the World wouldn't do anything about it. And George W. Bush ... kept us safe, and I am forever grateful ...

Trump:

How did he keep us safe, when the World Trade Center ... [interruption by crowd]. The World, excuse me, I lost hundreds of friends, the World Trade Center came down during the reign of George Bush.

He kept us safe?

That's not safe. That is not safe.

Rubio:

The World Trade Center came down because Bill Clinton didn't kill Osama bin Laden when he had the chance to kill him.

Trump:

...  George Bush had the chance also, and he didn't listen to the advice of his CIA.

Related: 

Pat Buchanan: Donald Trump’s Rise Is Rejection of a Quarter Century of Bush Republicanism

In an exclusive statement to Breitbart News, Pat Buchanan declared that Trump’s rise represents a rejection of 25 years of Bush Republicanism— an ideology which Buchanan says has destroyed America’s once-great manufacturing core, flooded the country with low-skilled workers, and drained the treasury with ill-advised foreign adventures in the Middle East.

Trump is Right About Iraq, and That Should Stick to Clinton

Liberal Humbug On Human Racial Differentiation

Previously, I explained the liberal position on the question of race, thus:

First nation Canadian. Image source 

Liberals and other agents of the New World Order, like hard-line Communists, are revolutionaries who seek to establish a system of global governance. The difference between the two is that the globalization aimed at by liberals will subordinate all humanity to the moneyed elite, the bankers, the billionaires and the chiefs of the giant corporations, whereas Communist revolution aims to serve the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which is to say the Nomenclatura* for whom tyranny means thousands of comfy bureaucratic jobs with lots of power and privilege.

Innuit girl and pup. Image source.

To both classes of revolutionary, the great obstacle to their dream is the nation state that declares the right of the people in any geographic area with the means to defend themselves to rule themselves as they see fit, which means maintaining control of the borders to prevent occupation of the territory by invaders or an uncontrolled flow of immigrants, and the preservation of the religious and cultural tradition of the people.

To the revolutionaries, there is a simple solution to the problem of the nation state and the desire of the vast majority of the people of the world to live among their own kind in accordance with their traditional manners, morals and forms of governance. It is to insist that there is no such thing as the nation, that all humanity is one race, and that it is simply bunk to claim that the English, say, have a privileged status in England,

Chinese. Image source

or that the Amerindians of Canada have legal and moral rights to control over their traditional lands and the freedom to live on those lands according to their own beliefs and traditions.

Since the racial differentiation of humanity is obvious for all to see, and its denial is as idiotic as the denial of the naked emperor's nakedness by the sycophantic courtiers, the issue of race is a cause of embarrassment to every liberal. This is evident over at the Unz Review where the Saker tells us:

I don’t even believe that the concept of “race” has been properly defined and, hence, that it has any objective meaning. I therefore don’t differentiate between human beings on the basis of an undefined criterion.

Mbuti forest dwellers of the Congo. Image source

Suuuure. And the Saker cannot tell the difference between a Chinese and a Australian aboriginal, or between an Eskimo and a Sephardic Jew, or between a San bushman and a pigmy.

But then Steve Sailer, who also appears over at the Unz Review, opened a recent post thus:

One of the weirder contradictions of contemporary dogma is the belief that race does not exist combined with the government’s obsession with counting everybody by self-identified race. If race doesn’t exist, you’d think that, say, the Obama Administration would be under a lot of pressure from its supporters to dump the racial/ethnic classification system. Strangely enough, it never seems to occur to all the True Believers to ask their friends running the federal government to change the system.

San boy and girl. Image source

The reason for the weirdness Sailer does not explicitly address, although his article provides conclusive government-supplied genetic evidence, if that were needed, to confirm the reality of human racial diversity.

What is obvious, however, is that the US Government uses information on the racial composition of the population in ways that serve to destroy the dominant position of the European population of America. This it does by means of affirmative action, forced integration, political correctness, Roe versus Wade, immigration law enforcement, or rather non-enforcement, criminalization of acts of conscence in accordance with Christian belief, white shaming, black history, and other measures to disadvantage certain races, particularly the Europeans, relative to others. 

Thus, we have the answer to the conundrum Sailer raised. The US and its European subordinate states need information on the racial diversity of their populations in order to destroy it. The goal is full racial mongrelization. Or as former French President and future Presidential candidate Nicolas Sarkozy has already instructed the fast dying European population of France. "Métissage: it is an obligation," 

Indigenous Australian. Image source

So that's why liberals continue to deny the reality of race, for otherwise, as I stated in an apparently censored comment on Sailer's Unz Review post:

... mass immigration of philoprogenitive non-Europeans to European countries with indigenous populations with a far-below replacement fertility would have to be acknowledged for what it is: genocide.

And there is nothing surprising about liberals denying the reality of race while decrying those who oppose the genocide of the European peoples as racist, since nonsensical hate speech is the basic coin of liberal debate.

English. Image source

Europeans who oppose the destruction of their own race and culture need to realize that today’s liberal is either a self-hating European or a settler immigrant. In either case, they are, morally, the Nazis of the present era.

———

* The Nomenclatura of the Soviet Union was a class of bureaucrats that could be hired or fired only at the will of Communist Party. Positions held by members of the Nomenclatura were thus political appointments requiring not competence or integrity, but only grovelling subservience to the political elite. The Nomenclatura is thus an appropriate label for the top tier of Western bureaucrats such as university presidents (e.g., Michael Arthur, Provost of University College London), school principals, healthcare system managers, etc.

Related: 

Pope angered Merkel by calling Europe ‘barren’

European Genocide: The Final Phase

The Iris Savant wonders whether the flood of millions of Middle-Eastern and Asian Muslim refugees now pouring into Europe has not been instigated as a pretext for a radical reorganization of the European Union, involving creation of a unified military command and a European treasury to dictate a continent-wide monetary and fiscal policy.

This could well be true, but the refugee invasion serves not only to provide a pretext for radical political reorganization in Europe, but also to undermine the indigenous populations as the dominant groups within the Union, thereby creating a voting majority against a return to a Europe of nation states. Already the EU-wide immigrant population outnumbers the indigenous population of any single European nation, thereby giving a democratic edge to those of alien origin, race and religion.

Furthermore, a rapid upsurge in immigration seems a necessity if the program for the destruction of the European people's is to be assured of success. Already Britain verges on departure from the EU, an impetus driven by opposition to the EU's open borders policy. Evidently Europe's oppressed, indigenous lumpen proletariat is beginning to geddit.  They may not know the exact meaning of the word genocide, but they know they've being targeted for oppression and ultimate elimination.

So with the natives restless, what to do?

No prob. Bomb the shit out of whoever, to use the language of America's leading candidate to succeed President O'Bomber, and bring in the Muslim refugees. Then all that needs be done is plug the alien invaders into the welfare state and just watch as they multiply like maggots on a festering corpse.

Game over.

Democracy triumphs over whatever the "racist", "xenophobic," "far-right-wing extremist," Guardian-despised rump "nativist" population may think, say, or do.

The European peoples are soon be the oppressed minority, while Parliaments come to be dominated by representatives of the new European Islamic State. Perhaps those disaffected Brits, Krauts and Frogs who dislike this prospect should join forces with America's Red Indians and Australia's aborigines: a confederation of moribund, and a memorial to lost human diversity.

Related:

LIGO Detects Black Hole Merger

The near simultaneous signal detection at both LIGO installations almost certainly precludes the possibility of an artifact.

On September 14, 2015, the two LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory)* installations — one at Hanford Washington, the other at Livingston, Louisiana. recorded near simultaneous signals attributed to gravity waves generated by the merger of two black holes with masses estimated to be 29 and 36 times that of the sun.

The event, which occurred at a distance of 1.3 billion light years, i.e., 1.3 billion years ago, is estimated to have converted mass equivalent to three times that of the sun to gravitational wave energy within less than a second, resulting in a peak power output many times that of all other energy sources in the visible universe.

The signal received at Livingston, arrived 7 milliseconds before the signal received at Hanford, indicating that the source was located in the southern Hemisphere.

All reports attribute the observations reported by LIGO to ripples in the fabric of space-time caused by the rotation and merger of black holes. Implicit to this interpretation is the notion that space is not empty but filled with a medium, or ether, in which gravity waves propagate.

This seems remarkably in view of the rejection by the physics community of Newton's luminiferous ether following the Michelson Morley experiment conducted in 1887, which demonstrated that the velocity of light was independent of its direction of travel from a source in motion relative to the ether. If light waves can traverse the vacuum without a medium to wave in, why not gravity waves  too?

That argument, notwithstanding, Einstein held the existence of a medium in space in which gravity waves propagate to be necessary, a medium or ether now generally identified with the spacetime continuum implicit in Einstein's general theory of relativity. But not everyone agrees, and here. These ideas may seem slightly wacky, but they make me feel slightly better about proposing that space really is space, i.e., the absence of anything, and that any properties attributed to space are due to whatever happens to have been added thereto, dark energy, for example, or virtual particles. Not that I'd bet more than about 50 cents against Einstein. But then even Einstein had moments of doubt, remarking at one point:

Perhaps, ... we must also give up, by principle, the space-time continuum. It is not unimaginable that human ingenuity will some day find methods which will make it possible to proceed along such a path."

———
* The LIGO detectors measure the distance between mirrors located in an evacuated tube at a distance of 4 km from one another. They are able to detect variation in distance between the mirrors equal to less than one ten thousandth the diameter of a proton, which is why the project has cost hundreds of millions of dollars!

Related:

Quanta Magazine: From Einstein’s Theory to Gravity’s Chirp

Physical Review Letter:

B.P. Abbot, et al. 2016: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger

LIGO Caltech:

Gravitational Waves Detected 100 Years After Einstein's Prediction

Forget the Dollar, Say Good-Bye to Gold: Now Is the Time For the Numero

In response to my post: Is the US Fed Truly Evil? A Dialog Between a Goldbug and a Bank Apologist, a reader remarked that what is needed is form of money less easily manipulated than either gold or fiat currency.

In response, I described the perfect — and perfectly practicable — monetary unit, the Numero (pronounced with a long "e"), in a post entitled The Numero: Beyond Gold and Fractional Reserve Banking.

Now, as the World again teeters on the brink of a financial disruption that will enrich a handful of billionaire speculators, disrupt economies and hurt ordinary folk throughout the world, it is time to return to the need for an impartial, self-regulating monetary system such as existed when gold and silver were everywhere the monetary standard, and all paper instruments were convertible to precious metal. The Numero provides the perfect basis for such a system, but with many advantages over gold: it can neither be stolen nor can it be used for corrupt purposes, and it costs essentially nothing to create.

Instead, today, we have a infinitely manipulable monetary system under which countries strive to take advantage of trade partners by stealing their jobs with undervalued currencies or by getting stuff free by printing wads of worthless paper, while stealing from their own citizens by currency debasement.

China and other Asian nations have long been in the job-stealing business with undervalued currencies, the US and other Western nations have long been in the business of printing worthless paper to cover their expenses.

As a result, resentments build up. China is a currency manipulator. The US rips off the world for $trillions-worth of oil and manufactured goods by virtue of its exclusive right to print the world’s reserve currency. Smaller countries, do what they may, are constantly in danger of economic disruption due to the tidal forces created by currency market manipulation and intervention.

But there is a simple solution, a return to a gold-exchange-standard-type system established under the Bretton-Woods Agreement, but without the absurd waste of energy and resources that a gold-based system entails as it drives the mining of a metal destined for permanent storage in a steel-and-concrete-lined vault.

As I have already explained, such a system can be based on an entirely cost-free resource: namely, the set of cardinal numbers. Named the Numero, each unit of currency would have a unique whole number. Existing currencies would be converted to the Numero at the current exchange rate with either gold, or the US dollar or, the price of a Big Mac, or a basket of commodities, manufactured goods and services.

If the US dollar is taken as the initial standard, then every US-dollar-account balance will be unchanged except in the designation of the currency, which will now be the Numero not the US dollar. Balances in other currencies would be exchanged at their rate of exchange with the US$ on the designated date of conversion.

Now we would have an electronic currency that cannot be counterfeited, costs nothing to create, and can be traced every moment through a global network of computers that record the ownership of every single uniquely numbered currency unit.

As with a gold-backed currency, the Numero cannot be printed unilaterally by the government of any country, since not only would that amount to fraud upon the trading partners of that country, but because such fraud would be immediately identified, since each new currency unit would have a unique unauthorized number.

The Numero, like gold, would automatically adjust international trade balances toward zero, since countries with an international trade deficit would run short of currency, which is to say, would experience a contraction in money supply that would depress prices and increase international competitiveness. Conversely countries with a trade surplus would experience an expansion in money supply that would increase prices and decrease international competitiveness.

Other benefits of the Numero include the prevention of financial theft, money laundering, bribery and corruption, since stolen, laundered, or illicitly gained funds would appear with their identifying numbers and their source, in the account of the receiving party where they could be immediately identified.

As the global economy expands, or contracts, the supply of Numeros could be modified automatically by adjusting every Numero bank balance by an appropriate factor. Thus if the world economy grows by 0.25% per month, every Numero bank balance would be credited each month with an addition of newly minted (i.e., authorized and uniquely numbered) Numeros equal to 0.25% of that account's balance, in accordance with the Biblical principle that "to those that have, more shall be given." Conversely, "from whom more shall be taken away" in the event of a global contraction.

As for lending, banks would have to make do with funds deposited with them, instead of creating booms and busts by printing money, as they are free to do now, without regard to prevailing economic conditions or the fundamental needs of the economy.

The above is based on a post of September 24, 2012.

Marko Rubio May be Robotic, But About Obama the Marxist Wrecker, He's Right

Marco Rubio has been widely ridiculed for his repetitive attack on Barack Obama during the February 8, Republican Presidential candidates' debate in Manchester, New Hampshire. Here's what he said — four times:

And let's dispel once and for all this fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing. Barack Obama is undertaking a systematic effort to change this country, to make America more like the rest of the world. That's why he passed Obamacare, and the stimulus, and Dodd Frank and the deal with Iran. It is a systematic attempt to change America.

Search the media and YouTube for comment and you will find almost universal derision and contempt for Rubio's robotic repetition. Which is odd if you think about it. I mean, if you have a revolutionary in the White House, isn't that worth pointing out, and pointing out over and over again until folks actually get it? Not according to the US media, evidently. But then the US media are controlled by the same people who control Obama: social Marxists or plutocrats employing the techniques of social Marxism, with the same objective as V.I. Lenin: a global system of control imposed by violence, intimidation, and brainwashing.

So, no, Rubio's error was not to repeat himself, but to state a truth that must not be told.

Not that Rubio's remarks were other than the proverbial wisdom from the mouths of babes and sucklings. His objective was to please a Republican audience with an attack on Barack Obama, a Democrat funded by the same interests that control him. And like Obama, Rubio wants to flood the US with Third-World immigrants and thus to "Make America more like the rest of the world."

The Money Power controls all parties and every candidate for election. That's there intention, anyhow. Quite where Donald Trump stands seems uncertain, though, one suspects that he would be wise to stand where his back is well covered.

Related:

The Frankfurt School and the War on the West

Is a College Education Worth Less Than Nothing?

Writing in the Wall St. Journal, Richard Vedder and Christopher Denhard discuss the value of a university degree.

A key measure of the benefits of a degree is the college graduate’s earning potential—and on this score, their advantage over high-school graduates is deteriorating. Since 2006, the gap between what the median college graduate earned compared with the median high-school graduate has narrowed by $1,387 for men over 25 working full time, a 5% fall. Women in the same category have fared worse, losing 7% of their income advantage ($1,496).

A college degree’s declining value is even more pronounced for younger Americans. According to data collected by the College Board, for those in the 25-34 age range the differential between college graduate and high school graduate earnings fell 11% for men, to $18,303 from $20,623. The decline for women was an extraordinary 19.7%, to $14,868 from $18,525.

But a moment’s reflection will confirm that the method these authors use to value a college degree is absurd. For a start, a college degree requires a certain, if rather low, scholastic aptitude. By definition, all college graduates meet this requirement, but many of those without a college degree do not. Which means that, intellectually, the college graduates are not directly comparable with non-graduates.

Specifically, notwithstanding a leavening by people such as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, the class of non-graduates will likely be less smart in ways both academic and otherwise than the class of graduates.

To put some crude if fairly meaningless numbers on that difference, graduates will mostly have an average or above average IQ, whereas the class of non-graduates will be intellectually more heterogeneous, but will include the majority of those of a less than average IQ.

And the effect of a college degree on earnings is confounded by factors other than the intellectual. University education is marker of social class, which is sought more keenly by those of middle and elite class than those of lower socio-economic rank. Moreover, socio-economic background is likely itself a powerful determinant of income, affecting aspiration, socialization, connections, and the quality of K to 12 education.

It seems, therefore, that we really have no useful information on the economic value of a college degree, although it seems that in the case of those well paid professions, medicine, the law, rocket science, etc., which require specific higher educational qualifications, college education pay dividends. But even this is not certain for at least a few of those individuals of high ability who are channeled through higher education into the professions might otherwise have ended up as billionaire real estate  developers or Silicon Valley entrepreneurs.

But in any case those with degrees leading to professional careers account for only a small proportion of all college graduates. Thus, exclusion of those with professional qualifications would greatly diminish the apparent effect of a college degree on earnings.

And, if anything, for the majority of students, the impact on life-time earnings of a college degree may be negative. Not only does it cost four to six or more years potential earnings, but it imposes a substantial cost for tuition. Net of these factors, many of America’s 18-year-olds of average ability will earn more in their lifetime by launching their career at Starbucks or MacDonalds immediately, rather than incurring the cost of a degree in linguistics or womens’ studies.

But economics are not everything. To the true lovers of knowledge, the rewards of learning are great.

First posted at Canspeccy.wordpress.com January 10, 2014.