[Majorityrights News] KP interview with James Gilmore, former diplomat and insider from first Trump administration Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, 05 January 2025 00:35.
[Majorityrights News] Trump will ‘arm Ukraine to the teeth’ if Putin won’t negotiate ceasefire Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 12 November 2024 16:20.
[Majorityrights News] Alex Navalny, born 4th June, 1976; died at Yamalo-Nenets penitentiary 16th February, 2024 Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 16 February 2024 23:43.
[Majorityrights Central] A couple of exchanges on the nature and meaning of Christianity’s origin Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 25 July 2023 22:19.
[Majorityrights News] Is the Ukrainian counter-offensive for Bakhmut the counter-offensive for Ukraine? Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 18 May 2023 18:55.
“If we are to survive earth systems breakdown, then we must begin by transforming the Treasury and by removing the politicians that threaten the futures of today’s younger generations.” Ann Pettifor writes on the British Chancellor’s recent attack on ‘net zero’.
It took a child, Greta Thunberg, to alert much of the adult world to the catastrophic threat posed not just by climate breakdown, but earth systems breakdown. Sadly her voice did not reach one of the politicians responsible for defending the nation’s security: Philip Hammond. Watching the Chancellor attack the Prime Minister for wanting to invest a smidgeon of Britain’s annual income in the future survival of the nation, it’s hard to believe that it is now eighty three years since John Maynard Keynes invented the field of macroeconomics. We have had eighty three years in which to train Treasury economists to think in terms of the aggregate economy, and we still have a Chancellor that views the economy through the wrong end of a telescope – as if it were a household.
From Keynes’s macroeconomic perspective, the public sector finances are not analogous to household finances. Keynes turned Say’s Law on its head (CW XXIX, p. 81):
“For the proposition that supply creates its own demand, I shall substitute the proposition that expenditure creates its own income”
Given spare capacity, public expenditures not only are productive in their own right but also foster additional activity in the private sector, according to the multiplier. Increased employment means increased incomes, which, from the point of view of government, means higher tax revenues and lower welfare (and, later, debt interest) expenditures.
Now one can just imagine how intellectually challenging it would be for #spreadsheetPhil to accept that “expenditure creates its own income”. It does not do that for individuals, or even households, he will argue. Quite so. But the collective sum that is government expenditure, if invested in the creation of a skilled, well-paid ‘green carbon army’ would generate considerable income for government – and would help ensure the survival of life on earth.
White liberals are leading a ‘woke’ revolution that is transforming American politics and making Democrats increasingly uneasy with Jewish political power
A sea change has taken place in American political life. The force driving this change is the digital era style of moral politics known as “wokeness,” a phenomenon that has become pervasive in recent years and yet remains elusive as even experts struggle to give it a clear definition and accurately measure its impact. Where did it come from? What do its adherents believe? Is it just something happening inside the Twitter bubble and on college campuses or is it really spreading across the social and cultural landscape and transforming the country as sometimes appears to be the case? In reality, “wokeness”—a term that originated in black popular culture—is a broad euphemism for a more narrow phenomenon: the rapidly changing political ideology of white liberals that is remaking American politics.
Over the past decade, the baseline attitudes expressed by white liberals on racial and social justice questions have become radically more liberal. In one especially telling example of the broader trend, white liberals recently became the only demographic group in America to display a pro-outgroup bias—meaning that among all the different groups surveyed white liberals were the only one that expressed a preference for other racial and ethnic communities above their own. As woke ideology has accelerated, a growing faction of white liberals have pulled away from the average opinions held by the rest of the coalition of Democratic voters—including minority groups in the party. The revolution in moral sentiment among this one segment of American voters has led to a cascade of consequences ranging from changes in the norms and attitudes expressed in media and popular culture, to the adoption of new political rhetoric and electoral strategies of the Democratic Party. Nor has this occurred in a vacuum on the left as the initiatives set in motion by white liberals have, in turn, provoked responses and countermeasures from conservatives and Republicans.
In a recent Vox article based partly on the dissertation research I’ve been doing as a Ph.D. candidate in political science at Georgia State University, Matthew Yglesias described this ongoing transformation as “The Great Awokening.” In Yglesias’ account: “In the past five years, white liberals have moved so far to the left on questions of race and racism that they are now, on these issues, to the left of even the typical black voter. This change amounts to a ‘Great Awokening.’” There is no simple or single explanation for how this process got started. It appears to be driven by an interplay of factors: preexisting tendencies among white liberals; a series of polarizing events like the police shooting of Michael Brown and subsequent riots in Ferguson, and the migrant crisis; the rise of millenials as a political force, and the explosion of social media and “woke” clickbait journalism. The years between 2012 and 2016 were a watershed for white liberal racial consciousness. But the seismic attitudinal shifts of those years have implications that go beyond race: They are also tied to a significant decrease in support for Israel and—perhaps more surprisingly—a rise in the number of white liberals who express negative attitudes about the perceived political power of American Jews.
As white liberals have come to place far greater emphasis on racial injustice, they have also endorsed reparative race-related social policies in greater numbers. This is evident across a range of issues: the rapid growth in white liberals who favor affirmative action for blacks in the labor force; in the increase in white liberals who feel that we spend too little on helping blacks, and that the government should afford them special treatment; in the increase in white Democrats who think it’s the government’s job to ensure “equal income across all races”; and in the increase in white liberals and Democrats who think that white people have ‘too much’ political influence.
At the same time, there are growing levels of support for policies without such obvious connections to race. For instance, between 1965 and 2000, the percentage of white liberals preferring increased immigration levels never deviated far from 10%. From the mid-2000s to roughly the end of President Obama’s term in office, this figure gradually ascended into the 20-30% range. As of 2018, it sits at over 50%. Then, there is the marked shift in attitudes toward Israel. Between 1978 and 2014, white liberals consistently reported sympathizing more with Israel than the Palestinians. Since March of 2016, this trend has turned on its face: Significantly more white liberals now report greater sympathy for the Palestinians than for Israel.
[...]
For the woke and their allies, these rapid changes are heralded as signs of progress, leading at times to harsh criticism of anyone who would stand in their way. This ideological stridency and triumphalist attitude can be powerful weapons against political opponents but are alienating—perhaps deliberately so—to moderates and conservatives. But, in a sense, no one is put in a more strained and problematic position by the politics of white liberals than the white liberals themselves. The woke elite act like white saviors who must lead the rest of the country, including the racial minorities whose interests they claim to represent, to a vision of justice the less enlightened groups would not choose for themselves.
Consider, for instance, that black and Asian Democrats and liberals are significantly more supportive of restrictive immigration policies and less positive toward racial/ethnic diversity than their white counterparts. Black and Hispanic Democrats and liberals are more sympathetic toward Israel than the Palestinians (likely due in part to the fact that they tend to be more religious). They are also more likely to part ways when it comes to contemporary social and gender-identity issues, including views of the #MeToo movement. In all, though they do converge on some issues, the attitudes and policy preferences of the woke white left are unrepresentative of the “marginalized communities” with whom they are supposed to be allies. And as woke liberals play a leading role in party politics, the Democrats, who are increasingly defined by their embrace of diversity and progressive stances on issues of racial justice, appear to do so, at least partly at the direction of a small white elite.
The Moral Foundations of the Modern White Liberal
To understand the motivations behind the “great awokening” we must first review some of the basics of political psychology. Social scientists use a model called “The Big Five personality traits” or “five-factor model” to describe how the relative prevalence of key character traits—extroversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism—shapes an individual’s political orientation. A large body of work in this field consistently finds that liberals score significantly higher than conservatives on the personality trait “agreeableness” and more specifically on its sub-dimension of “compassion.” In social science studies like these, agreeableness represents the tendency to be altruistic, tender-minded, cooperative, trusting, forgiving, warm, helpful, and sympathetic. The trait is closely linked with empathy and compassion toward the suffering of others. However, the relative lack of agreeableness in conservatives doesn’t meant they don’t care about the suffering of others. Rather, it suggests that liberals have a broader scope of empathy. Compared to conservatives who prioritize the well-being of the in-group—family, local community, or nation—liberals show relatively greater concern for the plight of out-groups, if not the world as a whole.
Closely related to agreeableness are the moral foundations of “harm/care” (e.g., “whether or not someone suffered emotionally”) and “fairness” (e.g., “whether or not some people were treated differently than others”). Moral Foundations Theory argues that ideological differences derive from the weight people ascribe to a core group of moral considerations: harm/care, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation, and liberty/oppression. A substantial line of research reveals that, out of these moral considerations, liberals generally attach the most importance to the foundations of harm/care and fairness. While conservatives also tend to rate these foundations as important, their moral compass is broader and includes a greater concern for violations of purity (e.g., “whether or not someone was able to control his or her desires”), loyalty (e.g., “whether or not someone did something to betray his or her group”), and authority (e.g., “whether or not someone respected the traditions of society”). As with empathy, the liberal concern for harm/care and fairness relates to a larger set of targets (e.g., animals, the needy in other countries) than it does for conservatives, who are generally more concerned with threats to the in-group. The liberal conception of ‘harm’ is also far broader, which lowers the threshold at which their moral alarms are triggered.
An example of how these psychological characteristics and moral foundations can be manifested in politics and policy can be seen in the graph below, which shows white responses to measures of empathy toward racial and ethnic minorities.
As the graph above shows, white liberals—especially the self-identified “very liberal”—are significantly more likely to report intense or extremely frequent feelings of tenderheartedness, protectiveness, and sensitivity when considering the circumstances of racial and ethnic out-group members. A related graph below displays the average differences in feelings of warmth (measured along a 0-100 scale) toward whites vs. nonwhites (i.e., Asians, Hispanics, and blacks) across different subgroups.
Remarkably, white liberals were the only subgroup exhibiting a pro-outgroup bias—meaning white liberals were more favorable toward nonwhites and are the only group to show this preference for group other than their own. Indeed, on average, white liberals rated ethnic and racial minority groups 13 points (or half a standard deviation) warmer than whites. As is depicted in the graph below, this disparity in feelings of warmth toward ingroup vs. outgroup is even more pronounced among whites who consider themselves “very liberal” where it widens to just under 20 points. Notably, while white liberals have consistently evinced weaker pro-ingroup biases than conservatives across time, the emergence and growth of a pro-outgroup bias is actually a very recent, and unprecedented, phenomenon.
They didn’t have quite the excuse to go after Regina as they did Reginald, but if they did ...well, they just lack education, has nothing to do with distinctive black hyper assertiveness…
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 06 June 2019 08:04.
Ignore Lana’s idiotic use of the YKW supplied “enemy term”, i.e., “Leftists”, and replace it with the correct term, “Liberals” and it is otherwise a good critique of Lauren Southern’s ((())) “Borderless.”
Lana’s inclination to get suckered into a right wing position is probably a significant reason why Red Ice has been spared the recent Youtube purge so far.
(((Lauren Southern))) equipped with gas mask, helmet and protective eye goggles, ready for the “surprise attack” from anti-fa.
And as far as Lauren Southern (Simonsen) goes, Majorityrights has long seen her game as kosher.
Excellent discussion between Dennis and a German lady friend, Tanya, who acquits herself and the boomer predicament quite well, while discussing the disaster of post war liberalism on Germany (culminating in the cataclysm of Merkel) and its impact on Whites generally…
The United States ended the Second World War as a global superpower, but Europe, Asia and the Soviet Union were devastated. There have been many changes since then, such as the collapse of the European empires, the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of China, but the United States is still the dominant power. President Donald Trump rules an empire bequeathed by history.
Britain, on the other hand, lost her empire, her naval superiority and access to cheap raw materials. We were reduced to living on American loans and when we tried to flex our muscles by joining France and Israel in the invasion of Egypt in 1956, we were ordered to withdraw by a furious American government..
Countries are measured by their military capacity, standard of living, level of education, economic performance, and many other factors. By any standard Britain is a great nation with a seat on the United Nations Security Council, a modern army, navy and air force equipped with nuclear weapons, a thriving financial services industry, world-class health and education.
We are doing well but we could do so much better. It’s a national disgrace that people are sleeping in doorways. Philip Alston, the internationally respected UN expert on poverty, has issued a damning report on homelessness in the UK. The government has denied his report but rough-sleepers with sleeping bags and makeshift cardboard bedding can be seen in most city centres. We have started building more houses but, young people are finding it difficult to get mortgages because of tighter banking regulations. And all the while, the gap between rich an poor grows wider.
The Brexit fiasco has forced us to consider Britain’s place in the World, The Brexiteers are living in the past, but most people realise that we are a European power, like France and Germany. We are Europeans by history, geography, blood and culture.
The latest date for Brexit is 31st October, but the Euro election results show that the country is equally divided between Leavers and Remainers. The Brexit Party won the most seats but the combined votes of the Green Party and the Liberal Democrats were greater.
Theresa May has finally given up trying to appease the head bangers of the Tory Right. The lunatics have taken over the asylum and Boris Johnson is waiting in the wings. He is a Brexiteer but he would serve as prime minister of Britain in or out of the EU, he just jumped on the Brexit bandwagon to further his ambition.
John Bean
The article on my old friend John Bean in last month’s Nation Revisited prompted several enquiries about his health. I am pleased to report that he is in good shape both mentally and physically. The last time that he had his intelligence measured was in 1991 by Mensa. At that time he scored an impressive 138. His Mensa certificate is attached.
John Bean writes: “Thanks for that. I will appreciate a mention in June NR. This is not just my touch of vanity but rather to show that followers of the Radical Right amongst your readership are not just a collection of non-thinking prejudiced idiots.”
NR writes: According to the journal ‘Intelligence’, the smartest voters in the 2001 election were supporters of the Green Party and the least intelligent were BNP voters. You will not be surprised to find that this survey appeared in ‘The Guardian’.
Saving the NHS
We are torn between staying in the European Union or breaking away, but many of us fear that an ‘independent’ Britain would be swallowed up by the United States. We are linked to America by language and history and many of us have friends and family across the Atlantic, but we are different countries. Their health care system is based on insurance and leaves millions of people without cover, but we conform to the European Social Model which provides universal health care. We do not let people die because they are poor.
Our National Health Service employs over a million people and tums over £120 billion. The giant American medical corporations will gain access to the NHS if the far-Right Tories get their way. They have long advocated closer ties between the UK and America,
The shadowy Atlantic Bridge movement was founded by Liam Fox in 1999 to promote trade between Britain and America. Margaret Thatcher was appointed president and the membership included, Michael Gove, George Osborne, William Hague and Chris Grayling. The movement was shut down by the Charities Commission in 2011.
The real choice is between being an equal member of the European Union or an American dependency like Puerto Rico. We must not allow our NHS to be taken over by businessmen who are more interested in profit than people.
The Reverse of the Truth
Members of the Brexit Party and UKIP are wrong about Europe. They fear that membership of the EU will rob us of our identity, and they think that pro-Europeans are ‘traitors’. They even question the sincerity of Theresa May, a decent patriotic woman who loves her country.
The same accusations were aimed at Oswald Mosley and his supporters who opposed the war. Most of them had fought in the First World War, but that didn’t stop the warmongers from calling them traitors. Mosley wrote in ‘The Alternative’:
“What then, was the truth concerning the National Socialist or Fascist movements before the war? Our fault was exactly the opposite of that suggested against us. How often in politics is that the fact? How rarely are the people permitted to know anything except the reverse of truth. It was suggested that we might set the interests of other countries before our own: that was an absurd lie. In reality we were all too National - too narrowly concentrated upon securing the interests of our own nations. That was the true fault of all real National Socialist or Fascist Movements; whether in Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Italy.
So far from being willing to serve each other as “Fifth Columnists” in the event of a clash between States, our political ideology and propaganda were far too Nationalistic even to mould the minds of men in a new sense of European kinship and solidarity which might have avoided disaster by universal consent. So far from fighting for other countries in a war, we none of us argued with sufficient force in favour of that new sense of European Union which modern fact must now make an integral part of the new creed.”
An article by Martin Webster is circulating which argues that Oswald Mosley adopted European unity to ingratiate himself with the Establishment. In fact, he abandoned imperialism after the war because the Empire was no longer viable. Instead, he developed the idea of ‘Europe a Nation’, Mosley moved on but nationalists are still clinging to obsolete pre-war policies.
Oswald Mosley and his followers were not traitors and nor are the 48% that voted to remain in the EU. People are entitled to their opinions and they should not be threatened and insulted because of them. We seek to change men’s minds by reason and debate and we deplore the modern practice of shouting down the opposition.
Ken Clarke
Last month I proposed Ken Clarke to lead a Government of National Unity. He has been annoying the right wing of his party for many years, but I still think that he is the man for the job. He upset the powerful Zionist faction when he invited Oswald Mosley to address the Cambridge Tories in 1961.
The Daily Telegraph reported:
“While still a student at Cambridge, Clarke joined the Conservative Party and was chairman of the Cambridge University Conservative Association.
Controversially, he invited Sir Oswald Mosley, The former British fascist leader, to speak, leading some Jewish students, including a young Michael Howard, his future successor at the Home Office - to resign from the association in protest.”
Ken Clarke is currently under fire from the far-Right. They have tried to unseat him as an MP but he is too popular with his constituents. In an age when politicians change their minds to suit the prevailing mood, they are lucky to have a reliable figure to represent them. Compare him and his achievements as a Cabinet Minister with the miserable gang of second-raters that are scrambling to lead the Tory Party.
(((Lauren Southern))) equipped with gas mask, helmet and protective eye goggles, ready for the “surprise attack” from anti-fa.
The right is infamous for getting people swept-up and lured into mistakes.
.jpg?r=1559356301)
