Ann Pettifor – Why a Green New Deal is Sensible Economics

BRAVE NEW EUROPE, 11 June 2019:

“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.

READ MORE...

America’s White Saviors

White liberals are leading a ‘woke’ revolution that is transforming American politics and making Democrats increasingly uneasy with Jewish political power

AMERICA’S WHITE SAVIORS, By Zach Goldberg, Tablet, United States, 5 June 2019:

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.

READ MORE...

As one comes to expect of Dannis, this is an intelligent discussion centering largely on the recent Youtube purges.

However, despite my appeals, Dennis still does not make a distinction between our would-be left and their left, an international, anti-White, YKW directed left, which are social “unionionizations” of sorts, in “coalition”, so the rule structuring stories go, against a would-be White unionization, a White left ethnonationalism.

It is an important mistake; there are significant reasons why YKW want us to identify “the left” as the enemy and by reaction, for White identity to be right wing and liberal.

Whereas in the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s and 90’s blacks and women were the PC victim groups most flamboyantly promoted by YKW, now promotional advocacy of the third major PC victim union in coalition, gays, is being stepped-up. And they are succeeding to get the right to over react to this red cape (or rainbow cape, as it were).

It is not that the campaign and marketing of gay pride is a good thing for Whites, and there is a good argument aired by Dennis - an 8 minute video by Vertigo Politics Now, called, “the last White man” discussing how gays are ideal model consumers for the corporate agenda….and of course we don’t want homosexuality encouraged, especially not for those whose inborn nature could go either way…

Nevertheless, we must be careful, particularly regarding clever arguments like this, that would get us wrapped-up in reaction, chasing after the red caping, er rainbow caping, of YKW anti-White coalition building. ...like feminism and black advocacy as unions in YKW directed hands, it is important rather, for Whites to not react into right wing anti-social unionization altogether, against the compassion for our reasonable and accountable marginals and non ideal forms that it would allow for, and consider instead social organization to be a strictly non-White thing, as YKW has weaponized it against Whites and would have us believe is THE “left.”

A danger, of course, in being heavy handed in reaction to what is maybe about 2% of the population, is that as Whites react to the YKW rainbow caping, in right wing idealism of gender differentiation and into militant anti-queerism; try to imagine the pressure on teenage White boys to do utterly stupid and self destructive things in order to prove that they are not gay…

..and try to get the social point that the YKW have misrepresented and misdirected in their gross distortions, that most people are not ultra masculine or ultra feminine - they occupy a normal range which should not be made to feel queer, call it normal pride, if you will.

In service of reconstructing White social systemic homeostasis, it is important not to react, become overly fixated in chase after the red capes, black power, feminist capes, rainbow capes as the YKW wave them against us in great exaggeration and distortion of the concept of working-hypothesis of social unionization (which would include ethnonationalism); right wing reactions that seek warrant beyond the social realm, above nature or below human nature, become inherently unstable for their lack of social accountability and correction - as the social unionization would otherwise sustain.

The sum total of the “exoneration”: the word of a psycho. The SJW’s verdict: Award the criminals $41 million.”

Just as I cannot imagine fabricating confessions to convict innocent kids, I cannot imagine a media that would put out so dishonest a story that it led to four guilty kids being awarded 41 Million dollars. It is reminiscent of feudalism, but this time where different preferential rules, laws and “news” apply to blacks.

I’m referring to a PBS documentary about false conviction of The Central Park Five, which I reported at Majorityrights in an article originally titled “Coerced Confessions of The Central Park Five” and now titled, Confessions of The Central Park Five.

Not being a journalist by trade - in fact, looking upon the news section as a chore to be relegated to the background of theoretical concerns - the strategy enlisted here, rather, for getting at the truth of the matter on news stories, is to encourage comments to correct mistakes and oversights in postings (to be distinguished from ad hominem attacks aimed at destroying me and the platform because this platform doesn’t allow final say from those who promote Christianity, Jewish interests, Hitler/Nazism, race mixing, scientism, or bizarre conspiracy theories). Unfortunately, because those interests are not included in this platform, the site has become a no-mans land, even though it is an eminently reasonable platform, I am confident to argue, the most reasonable and best platform for the advocacy of European peoples.

Goodness knows our advocacy is necessary when the media can be this biased against Whites and in the promotion of black interests.

Apologies to the NYPD and the prosecutors. A social constructionist approach to getting at the truth does work but can be quite belated in its corrections if people don’t participate in getting at our truth but are rather motivated by the hope that I fail as I do not follow their A gods, Abraham, Adolf and sundry other Absurdity.

CENTRAL PARK RAPISTS: TRUMP WAS RIGHT, By Ann Coulter, 25 July 2018

The city of New York released thousands of documents from the 1989 Central Park rape case last week, provoking more weeping and gnashing of teeth over Donald Trump’s full-page ads in four New York newspapers taken out soon after that attack with the headline:

“BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY.

“BRING BACK OUR POLICE!”

His ad never mentioned the Central Park rape, but talked about New York families—“White, Black, Hispanic and Asian”—unable to enjoy walks through the park at dusk. Of muggers and murderers, he said, “I no longer want to understand their anger. I want them to understand our anger. ... They should be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes.”

According to the media, the five convicted boys were INNOCENT — and Trump would have executed the poor lads! This is nonsense. They wouldn’t have been executed because the rape victim miraculously survived. Also, they weren’t innocent.

Let’s look at the facts of the case.

On April 19, 1989, investment banker Trisha Meili went for a run through Central Park around 9 p.m., whereupon she was attacked by a wolf pack looking for a “white girl,” dragged 100 yards into the woods, stripped, beaten with a pipe and a brick, raped and left for dead.

By the time the police found Meili, she’d lost three-quarters of her blood. Her case was initially assigned to the homicide unit of the D.A.‘s office because none of her doctors thought she would make it through the night.

Of the 37 youths brought in for questioning about the multiple violent attacks in the park that night, only 10 were charged with a crime and only five for the rape of the jogger: Antron McCray, Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson and Korey Wise. All five confessed—four on videotape with adult relatives present and one with a parent present, but not on videotape.

Two unanimous, multicultural juries convicted them, despite aggressive defense lawyers putting on their best case.

But the media have a different method of judging guilt and innocence. They don’t look at irrelevant factors, such as evidence, but at relevant factors such as the race of the accused and the race of the victim.

Unfortunately for Meili, she was guilty of being white, while her attackers belonged to the Brahmin caste: “people of color.” So, after waiting an interminable 13 years, the media proclaimed that the five convicts had been “exonerated” by DNA evidence.

DNA evidence didn’t convict them, so it couldn’t “exonerate” them. This was a gang attack. It was always known that other rapists “got away,” as the prosecutor told the jury, and that none of the defendants’ DNA was found in the jogger’s cervix or on her sock—the only samples that were taken.

While it blows most people away to find out that none of the suspects’ DNA was found on Meili, this is a sleight of hand. The trick is that we’re looking at it through a modern lens. True, today, these kids’ DNA would have been found all over the crime scene. But in 1989, DNA was a primitive science. Cops wouldn’t have even bothered collecting samples for DNA tests back then.

The case was solved with other evidence—and there was a lot of it.

[...]

The “exoneration” comes down to Reyes’ unsubstantiated claim that he acted alone. Years of careful investigation, videotaped confessions, witness statements, assembling evidence, trial by jury and repeated appeals—all that is nothing compared to the word of an upstanding citizen like Reyes, a violent psychopath who sexually assaulted his own mother and raped and murdered a pregnant woman while her children heard the attack through the bedroom door.

That’s the sum total of the “exoneration”: the word of a psycho.

Note that Reyes faced absolutely no penalty for his confession—the statute of limitations had run out years earlier. Before he confessed, Reyes had been moved to Korey Wise’s cellblock. He requested a transfer on the grounds that he feared Wise’s gang. All he had to do was confess—with no penalty—and he got his prison transfer!

Not even this monster’s self-serving “confession” can explain away the five attackers’ other crimes that night—vicious beatings that left one parkgoer unconscious and another permanently injured. These attacks, the “Central Park Five” never disputed, and frequently admitted.

The SJW’s verdict: Award the criminals $41 million. Trump’s idea: Punish them.

And you still can’t figure out how he became president.

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…

READ MORE...

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.

Related at Majorityrights:

Hardly The Battle of Cable Street: What Berkeley Doesn’t Mean

The right is infamous for getting people swept-up and lured into mistakes.

(102:47) Richard Spencer: In terms of the Alt Lite, I can only imagine that a lot of them are waking up to this obvious reality

(102:59) Charles: I think they are. (((Lauren Southern))), I think, just made a video saying that it’s time to fight back.

(103:07) Richard Spencer: Yeah

The independent documentary movie by Tomasz and Marek Sekielski brothers. This is truth about the Catholic Church in Poland.