Money In Politics; Politics in Money: Two Sides of the Same Coin

NY Times “Dark Money” on the Midterms

The NY Times “explains” the Midterm results. “The next Senate was just elected on the greatest wave of secret, special-interest money ever raised in a congressional election. What are the chances that it will take action to reduce the influence of money in politics?”

In the manner of all “clever” rhetoricians they are expert at asserting their conclusion as a “given” in formulating their “question”.  But wait a minute Mr. Trendy Times man, hold your horses.

Why is it presumed that the influence of money in politics is something we ought work towards reducing?

Federalist # 10 addresses this. *…[T]he most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors and those who are debtors fall

under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government. . . .

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. *

YET the NY Times presumes that a “Common Good” is thwarted by the influence of INTERESTS. How is The Common Good established? IS IT IN VAIN to await the ENLIGHTENED Statesman? YES!

So without a recognized Enlightened Statesman to weigh the various interests what are we to do? The various “special interests” are… VARIOUS. (Duh!)

To use an idea from Physics: each interest can be considered a VECTOR. (A Vector is a direction and a magnitude.)   Each special interest seeks government to help them in specific ways. In Representative Republics the various myriad vectors are summated. How? By forming alliances with those interests that share some of the same legislative goals and which do not have any strongly opposing goals. IT IS THE FINAGLING among interested representatives that succeeds in producing the best approximation of the common good.

 

In addition, MONEY is necessary for the magnitude component of the vectors.

In other words, all the legislative ends desired by an interest group are not held in equal strength. Money signals the importance that is given each particular interest.

If interests are symbolized by ABC… and abc indicating interests of major importance and minor importance and + and – equals pro or con the interest then one interest group whose vector contains A++ b- C— might be amenable to compromising with a different interest whose vector contains A+, b+, c+. Both share a strong desire for pro-A, they disagree on b and c but these are not as strong as the shared desire for A.

Campaign contributions precisely reflect the perceived magnitude of the vectors of each interest.

“Oh but what about the unconnected citizen?” asks the Glib Lib. To the degree that a particular citizen is concerned about AB or C then he will support the candidate closest to his perceived interests. AND DESPITE ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD the Politician MUST still get a majority of votes!  Indeed people are easily manipulated by cynical marketers. But only to the degree that a person is not interested in the issues might he be swayed.  But one need not be a rocket scientist to perceive one’s immediate interests and vote accordingly.

Finally there is the Constitution. The less the Government has power to impose or forbid activities the less it offers to lobbyists. Lobbyists and Money are directly related to Government Power. IF ONE WISHES LESS MONEY IN POLITICS, WEAKEN AND CONTAIN THE GOVERNMENT!

Back to Federalist #10: “There are . . . two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests. “
Here the author has remarkably foreseen Fascism, Communism and Totalitarianism. The choice is between true representational republicanism and one of the flavors of Totalitarianism.

Money in Politics is merely the obverse of Politics in Money.  “Politics in money” is the intrusion of majoritarian government into the private economic affairs of otherwise free people.

NY Times Runs Pre-Election Day Ad For Obamacare!!! Extra Read All About It!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/27/us/is-the-affordable-care-act-working.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-middle-span-region&region=c-column-middle-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-middle-span-region – /
The NY Times is out shilling for the Democrat party this weekend before Election Day.  Smug elitists will read the bullet points and pretend to know the data.

FOR INSTANCE this, the first bullet point: “HAS THE NUMBER OF UNINSURED PEOPLE BEEN REDUCED?”

The NY Snides will pompously rebut Conservative critics of Obamacare by glibly asserting, “The number of Americans Without Health Insurance is Down by About 25 Percent”.

I doubt more than 25% of NYT readers will read beyond the first paragraph. And I bet they, the Times, know that. So the vast majority of the intilektchuals will not have read the third paragraph. “Of that total, it appears that more than half of people who are newly insured signed up for Medicaid…”
AND even IF the percentage of uninsured is decreased by 6-8% the question ought be AT WHAT COST?
The Second Bullet Point to listen for is “HAS INSURANCE UNDER THE LAW BEEN AFFORDABLE?”

The NYT says, “When President Obama signed the measure in 2010, he pledged that it would protect Americans from ruinously high medical bills by guaranteeing them access to comprehensive — and affordable — coverage.” WAIT A MINUTE Mr. New York Snide; there is a BAIT AND SWITCH in the very sentence! NOTICE THE DELIBERATE CONFLATION of “Medical Bills” and “affordable coverage”.

You might (but I know no one who has) pay less of a premium BUT you will PAY MORE for Co-pay, and Prescriptions.

IN addition the Slimes are comparing apples and lemons. Most Obamacare Plans do NOT cover elite hospitals and medical centers: not Sloan-Kettering for instance in NYC. THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH. Those who promise it are scamming you!
On this Second Bullet Point The Times conveniently provides a summary “WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW”. (Yes, what you need to now to confound conservative critics of Obamacare is my guess.

Here is “what you need to know”: *Of the 7.3 million people who signed up for private insurance through online exchanges during the first enrollment period, 85 percent qualified for federal subsidies that decreased the cost of their premiums.

Though many people have found policies with affordable premiums, high deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs have discouraged some people from using their insurance.

Early rate filings by insurers in 21 states suggest that rates will vary widely, but the median premium increases for 2015 for silver plans will be around 4 percent and there will be more insurers in the market. But consumers will need to shop around to keep their costs down.

Insurers are expected to continue trying to control costs by restricting consumers from using doctors out of their network. *

These points are meant to be positive comments about 0’care. Silver Plans will herd their plebeian buyers into smaller and smaller pools of doctors and make seeing a specialist very difficult. If you like your doctor maybe you will see him in the supermarket and you can say Howdy, but you will not see him in his office.

The Intilektchual posers will read the “WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW” to pretend to be knowledgeable and will not read the body of the article. In this slimy way the NY Snide editors can signal the talking points, but protect their own shrinking credibility.

3rd Bullet: “Did the Affordable Care Act improve health outcomes?” Notice in lighter gray beneath the question a subtitle “To Gauge Impact on Nation’s Health, More Time Will Be Needed”. Oh. In other words it is unknown. Their first paragraph “Of all the pledges made for the Affordable Care Act — that it would reduce the number of uninsured or make insurance more affordable, for instance — perhaps the loftiest and hardest to demonstrate was that it would make the nation healthier” is plagued by the fundamental flaw of leftist philosophy. That flaw is considering “the nation” to have the same qualities as individuals. If we were to take the nation’s temperature, so to speak, with an old-fashioned thermometer would we place it in DC, or Newark, or Gary, IN? The “nation” is an abstraction; it is a term that is handy for considering a collective. But it is only INDIVIDUALS that might be healthier or not!

The Times gives us again “WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW” (again with my “in order to appear to be knowledgeable” refrain.

*Most experts say there is not enough data yet on the entire population to determine whether the law is improving the nation’s health.

The best early data is on young people, and it suggests that the law is benefiting that group by allowing them to stay on their parents’ insurance. The share of 19- to 25-year-olds without health insurance declined to 21 percent in the first quarter of this year, from 34 percent in 2010, a reduction of about four million people.

Young college graduates were far more likely to report excellent health, to have a primary care doctor and to go to the doctor regularly than before the law.

Indicators for how well the law is working for older people are few, but one – screenings for colon cancer – shows marked growth, as screening rates for people with private insurance rose to 56 percent in 2012, from 48 percent in 2010.*

Studies are cited in the body of the article (probably unread by 75%) and at least the one I looked at does NOT…NOT support the claim “young college graduates were far more likely to report excellent health, to have a primary care doctor and to go to the doctor regularly than before the law.” Below is the link to the study on which this claim is made.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w20148 “Impacts of the Affordable Care Act Dependent Coverage Provision on Health-Related Outcomes of Young Adults

Silvia Barbaresco, Charles J. Courtemanche, Yanling Qi

NBER Working Paper No. 20148

Issued in May 2014

NBER Program(s): HC HE

The first major insurance expansion of the Affordable Care Act – a provision requiring insurers to allow dependents to remain on parents’ health insurance until turning 26 – took effect in September 2010. We estimate this mandate’s impacts on numerous health-related outcomes using a difference-in-differences approach with 23-25 year olds as the treatment group and 27-29 year olds as the control group. For the full sample, the dependent coverage provision increased the probabilities of having insurance, a primary care doctor, and excellent self-assessed health, while decreasing unmet medical needs because of cost. However, we find no evidence of improvements in preventive care utilization or health behaviors. Subsample analyses reveal particularly striking gains for college graduates, including reduced obesity. Finally, we show that the mandate’s impacts on 19-22 year olds were generally weaker than those on 23-25 year olds, although we observe a reduction in pregnancies for unmarried 19-22 year old women.”

Nowhere in this paper cited by the Times is there justification for their “young college graduates were far more likely to report excellent health…. than before the law.”
Bullet 4

Will the online exchanges work better this year than last? “WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW” (in order to parrot the party line):

Federal and state officials say that the online health care marketplaces that performed so badly last fall have been upgraded to ensure smoother service when they reopen Nov. 15.

But both new and old customers are expected to flood onto the exchanges, testing their capacities, and the “back end” of the federal system, where insurers receive applications and bill the government for subsidy payments, is not completed.

Though many of the 14 state-run exchanges are fine, several remain question marks, including those in Maryland, Massachusetts, Hawaii and Vermont.

NOT MUCH HERE EXCEPT THE “COINCIDENCE” that the test of functionality occurs AFTER Election Day!

It is here we should recall how it was that the Canadian company CGI got the NO-BID contract to create the 0’Website.  Michelle Obama and the Failed Website To summarize, the company with a terrible record on similar projects in Canada received a NO-BID contract. It is happenstance that Michelle Obama’s classmate and fellow member of Black Princeton Alumni, Toni Townes-Whitley is Executive Vice President of CGI-Federal.

Bullet 5: Has the health care industry been helped or hurt by the law? “WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW” to rebut conservatives:

Wall Street analysts and health care experts say the law helped the industry financially by providing new customers to insurers and new paying patients to hospitals.

The most direct beneficiary of the law is the insurance industry, which is now experiencing growth in the demand for private insurance.

The number of insurers participating in the online health exchanges is projected to grow in 2015, an indication of the anticipated profitability of the marketplace.

So, who cares how well “the industry” is doing? Only Crony Corporatists benefit. Not patients, not doctors. Only bureaucrats and corporate tools win.

The NY Slimes first sentence in this bullet ‘From the beginning, opponents of the Affordable Care Act have warned that it represented a “government takeover”…’ WHY THE QUOTES? Air quotes are pathognomonic for the presence of an underlying Statist, Collectivist, Fellow Traveler or Trendy Tool. If the “Affordable Care Act” were not a government takeover of 20% of the US economy what would an actual takeover look like?

And as to the Crony Corporatists: Alinsky boasted “I have on occasion remarked that I felt confident that I could persuade a millionaire on a Friday to subsidize a revolution for Saturday out of which he would make a huge profit on Sunday even though he was certain to be executed on Monday. — P.150 Rules For Radicals. From the Times article: For the insurers, the health care exchanges are now “really the only game in town in terms of growth” for private insurance, said John F. Holahan, a policy expert from the Urban Institute.
IS THIS THE PLAN: lure in the Crony Corporatists then destrpy them? Not necessarily a bad thing. But it will be used as an example that “Capitalism failed… and failed fairly… spectacularly” per Hillary Clinton.

Bullet the 6th is:
“HOW HAS THE EXPANSION OF MEDICAID FAIRED?” with the subtitle “Some States Balked at What They Believed Would Be Hidden Costs”. The NY Times presumes to be smarter than entire states!!!

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW (to sound like you’ve been watching MSLSD):

The Affordable Care Act allows states to expand Medicaid to people not previously eligible, including some people above the poverty level – but the United States Supreme Court in 2012 ruled that expansion was optional for states.

As a result, only 27 states and the District of Columbia have expanded, while Republican opposition in other states has blocked expansion.

In states without expanded Medicaid, a coverage gap exists for people who earn too much to receive Medicaid, but too little to receive federal subsidies to reduce insurance premiums. About half of the people who fall in that gap nationally live in Texas, Florida or Georgia.

Under pressure from hospitals that stand to gain federal funds from Medicaid expansion, Republican governors in several states are now moving toward expansion, some through so-called private option plans.

This one begins “Architects of the Affordable Care Act saw the expansion of Medicaid, the government health care program for low-income people, as a crucial step toward President Obama’s goal of reducing the number of uninsured. And in states that have expanded eligibility — to include people with incomes up to 138 percent of the poverty level (up to $16,105 for an individual) — Medicaid appears to be achieving that goal.” BUT as pointed out above try to find doctors that take Medicaid!!! Since most uninsured poor people have no assets like houses to place liens upon their hospital bills are probably laughed at as they are tossed in the trash. So this law merely pays hospitals a token of their admission and care.  It does not provide care to any one but hospital financial officers. It is all but wealth redistribution. In this weekend before Election Day the NY Times donates free advertising to the Democrat Party.

Not all states have expanded Medicaid, because the Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that the expansion was optional. So governments in 23 states, most of them Republican-controlled (BOO HISS), have blocked expansion, asserting that the cost could eventually become a state responsibility.”

The Times implies the Republican Governors are stupid. Don’t they know “that will not be the case: Under the Affordable Care Act, the federal government pays all costs for newly eligible Medicaid beneficiaries through 2016, and after that the federal share never goes below 90 percent. Under traditional Medicaid, states pay a higher share — 26 percent to 50 percent.”

IS IT NOT POSSIBLE OR EVEN LIKELY THAT AFTER 2016 the far larger pool of Medicaid-insured would generate costs such that 10% would cost more than the 26-50% reimbursement states currently get?

And further, like Alinsky’s “I have on occasion remarked that I felt confident that I could persuade a millionaire on a Friday to subsidize a revolution for Saturday out of which he would make a huge profit on Sunday even though he was certain to be executed on Monday”, the Crony Governors and their states will be exactly in the same position.

The final bullet, #7 is “HAS THE LAW CONTRIBUTED TO A SLOWDOWN IN HEALTH CARE SPENDING?” with the somewhat hemming and hawing subtitle ” Trajectory of Costs Levels Off, but There Are Many Reasons”.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW (to sound glib and lib).

Health care spending had begun slowing even before the Affordable Care Act was signed into law.

The reasons included recession, higher-deductible policies that discourage people from seeking health care services, and a decline in the development of new, costly prescription drugs.

But reductions in wasteful or unneeded care may also be factors in the slowdown, and experts say the Affordable Care Act may help reinforce those changes.

In the short term, the law could actually drive up health care spending by bringing more insured people into the system.

The kick off to this last essay is “For decades, health care costs have been rising much faster than the rest of the American economy...” This is an important factoid that must NOT be taken at its face value. Again, it is comparing apples and oranges. In the 1950’s there were no Cat Scans, MRI’s, Interventional Radiology, drugs to treat all the things we now take for granted. People live longer, because of pharmacologic and technologic interventions in Atherosclerosis, Hypertension, Congestive Heart failure, Diabetes, Asthma COPD, Kidney Failure just to name a few of the major killers of the past. They are all now managed longer and allow for a longer life with good quality.

What is the percent increase in the cost of Television watching. Remember when it FREE! As long as you had a decent and well-placed antenna it was free. Oh but there were only seven channels and nothing between 2AM and 6AM! Now we have cable or dish or telephone line input with 1000 channels of perfect picture! But it is not free. Why is there no hubbub over the television-viewing costs rising much faster than the rest of the economy?

So the very first premise is mistaken. The rest is therefore moot. To end this NY Times pre-election day review of Obamacare and ad for the Democrat Party: ““The experiment is on, and everyone knows they’re a lab rat,” said Douglas J. Holtz-Eakin, the president of the right-leaning American Action Forum and a former director of the Congressional Budget Office. “Now we’ll see if it sticks.” To the Times, “right-leaning” might mean anything! I suspect that this “right-leaning” think tanker is a Free-Trading Corporatist of the Crony Clan.

To the ELITES we are indeed lab rats! We will remind them that rats have teeth!

Hagel on Hegel or Visa Versa?

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/10/29/Hagel-I-think-we-are-seeing-a-new-world-order
http://launch.newsinc.com/share.html?trackingGroup=91074&siteSection=breitbartprivate&videoId=28068038

World Orders do not just shift like weather patterns or climate.  They are fundamentally affected by the rising and falling of relative power between the various regions of the world.

Europe and its Overseas Subsidiaries have ruled the planet for only ~500 + years. Its first truly global impetus was seen in the expansion of the Iberian states.  Portuguese ships, which were either traders, pirates or naval depending on the circumstances pushed around Africa and up into the Indian Ocean.  The Spanish stumbled into and conquered the Americas on their way to the Orient from the west.

For half a millennium the West ruled the Rest.  That is but a blink in historic time and a mere glitch in deep history.  The Indian Ocean had a highly evolved trading system mostly run by Arab and Malay sailors.  The Portuguese only needed to decapitate the system and place themselves at the apex.  This is also exactly what the Spanish did in Central and South America: decapitate and replace the native imperium with their own.

Much of the Iberian empires fell into the hands of the British and their descendant peoples and the French.  The British and French then spent the 18 and 19th centuries tearing at each other’s shares of the Iberians’ bequest.

The Great Civil Wars of Europe in the first half of the 20th Century exhausted the French and British and prevented the Germans from grabbing “their” fair share of the Rest.   The two great para-European nations were left glaring at each other across a weakened and dimming Europe. Russia and America formerly peripheral to “The Continent” replaced Europe throughout the World.
But a system can sustain only so much change before its basic qualities begin to decay. Europe’s 20th Century self-inflicted exsanguination and its sudden loss of confidence in its own Historic Inevitability together allowed the sudden collapse of its civilizational immunity. The Muslim menace had always loomed from below Europe, always awaiting its own “Inevitability”. The moral and physical weakness of Europe attracted the Muslim hordes. America and Russia remained indifferent to the European demographic decline so long as they prevented the other from absorbing the corpse into its rival’s hegemony.
So much death breeds disease and more death. Islam has re-emerged to reclaim the Indian Ocean littoral, and to expand far beyond the limits set at Tours and Vienna into the heart of the Continent.
The loss of Pride in the West has become mental illness.   The apparent masochistic desire to submit before The Rest has all of Greater Europe including North America clumsily committing suicide as if that would satisfy their “debt” for bringing on the Modern Age.
Even in the larger wave oscillations of history the West is reaching a nadir. Until the Persian Wars, Europe was a mere peninsula of Eurasia. Two and half millennia have elapsed since the Athenians and Spartans threw back the Persians. That expulsion only ended when Alexander, the heir of Greece conquered the Persian emperor. Though 2,500 years is a long run, it seems it too is but a passing wave. Persia rises again as “Graecia” ages ungracefully. And China restores her Pride or more accurately her sense of being the great and Middle Kingdom of the planet. China is poised to do that which it had never done historically until now.
Only briefly did China ever cast its eyes out over the world with anything but disdain. Never did China as a unitary state set about expansion. Always “barbarians” from the north or west were attracted by its wealth when it became powerful. And always the barbarians succeeded in replacing the previous stabilizing dynasty with a period of chaos.
Unless Islam clashes with China I believe we are witnessing the collapse of what was once The Modern World.  I.e. unless the followers of Mo’ fight the heirs of Mao.

Though there appear to be waves and cycles in history, as in the rise and fall of various powers and regions, they are NOT forces beyond human intervention. Much of the philosophic poison the West is imbibing is based upon this fallacy. It is partially the faith in Marxism that allows for the new fatalism in Western thinking about itself. The Post-Moderns, Marxists have “deconstructed” Western Civilization from an achievement of the highest order, to being considered a predatory net-evil. The pride of being the most ashamed of their own civilization is something New Under the Sun. Just as the Modern Age with its Middle Class was the only New Thing Under The Sun; so too is the spectacle of civilizational suicide.

Ten Years Wasted: Individual vs. Corporate Rights

Today, in “SundayReview” in the NY Times appears an article by Eric L. Lewis. He describes himself “As a corporate litigator who has also spent more than a decade defending Guantánamo detainees, I have been trying to figure out why corporations are worthy of court protection and Muslims held in indefinite detention without trial by the United States at a naval base in Cuba are not.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/opinion/sunday/who-are-we-the-people.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar,%7B”1″%3A”RI%3A11″%7D
An entire decade? He spent an entire decade pondering this? And after all those hours of contemplation this is the distilled wisdom he offers?

Is this what legal scholarship produces in the 21st Century? This is mental masturbation! Students of Law cannot differentiate between POW’s on the one hand and Corporations or Unions on the other in regard to personhood and their inherent rights.   Talk about straining at gnats and swallowing camels!
It may be possible to differentiate Hobby Lobby from that of Citizens United.  Does incorporation allow exemptions from legal obligations based upon the religious beliefs of the majority of stockholders? Maybe. Maybe not.

Does Freedom of Speech apply to corporate entities? Obviously it does. Clearly a publishing corporation would be immune from government restrictions as to what projects it elects to undertake, or we would lack any free press.  So would the Court have to define the amount of business activity a corporation invests in printing and publishing? Would freedom of speech be recognized only for “publishing corporations” with, say greater than 50% of its activity being devoted to printing and publishing?  Or 70%, or 80%?  Clearly corporations retain Free Speech.  Why?

The difference between Citizens United and Hobby Lobby is the difference between specific corporate privileges that would exist in the State of Nature and those that would not. The first and obvious point is that corporations do not exist in the State of Nature. Given that an accepted legitimate authority confers corporate status, the absence of such authority removes any fictional legal status that a group of individuals enjoys.
Thus, in the State of Nature there are only individuals and their voluntary associations, period. Only when society creates concrete government is there delegated authority to define and enforce contract and criminal law and undertake various projects that are presumed to benefit the members of society. Society can create government that lacks the authority to charter corporations, or has the authority to forbid it. In that case the Natural Right of Freedom of Association remains unhampered. Individuals may associate for any reasons and ends, including self-interest.

Here is the difference between Citizens United and Hobby Lobby. In societies whose legitimate governments do not allow the legal fiction of corporate selfhood the natural right of association remains unhindered. Individuals of any association by so joining do not lose any of their inherent rights. Speech is still a natural right. However the tax breaks and other benefits of incorporation are not natural rights that accrue to voluntary associations. In a society lacking legal incorporation (i.e. in the State of Nature) individuals who refuse to pay taxes (that have been legitimately placed upon all citizens) by virtue of their membership in a certain voluntary association are no more or less than tax-evaders.
How the Muslim prisoners in Gitmo figure into questions of individual liberty in the State of Nature vs. that under legitimate government is beyond me. The author is straining at gnats and swallowing camels. (Hmmm, if a pun fits wear it!!!)

 

The Last Gasp of WW1: The End of the Sykes-Picot Lines in Mesopotamia and the Middle East

The time of the Sykes-Picot borders is over. As we “celebrate” the centennial anniversary of the outbreak of the Great War (WW1) it is clear that the Franco-British dissection of the Ottoman Empire’s southeastern marches has run its course.

As a whole the lines drawn on maps in far off Paris and London were irrational and created colonies and mandates irrespective of actual nations and cultures. If the Treaty of Versailles sowed the seeds of WW2, The Treaty of Sèvres, (the Ottoman Empire’s treaty of capitulation) laid the seed for World War 3.  The State of Israel, Turkey and the Kingdom of Jordan are the only three states with national characters. (And Jordan is just barely so.)

The ONLY solution can be the re-drawing of national borders. A region with a Kurdish majority should be carved out of Turkey, Iraq and Syria. As we recall the Ottomans picked the wrong horse. Thus Turkey ought to have lost its Kurdish region after WW1. Syria is an artificial entity. Its Kurdish majority region ought be amalgamated with the rest of a new nation-state of Kurdistan. Perhaps the rest of Syria and Lebanon could be unified and made into a Federal state. Thus a Federal District of Damascus would house a congress with representatives from regions and city-states: Aleppo, Hama-Homs, Euphrates, and Damascus-Dara’a, as well as Beirut.  The northern coastal region of Syria would be given to a Greater Kurdistan in exchange for gaining Lebanon.  Thus Kurdistan will have an outlet to the sea.  (See first map.) Or perhaps this region would be ceded to Turkey in exchange for its donation of Turkish Kurdistan.

58671,1300195370,kurdistan3Iraq is the most powerful and dysfunctional artificial state in the region. It is doomed. The solution is the erasure of the Sykes-Picot lines and the division of Iraq into its constituent nationalities.
A new nation-state of Kurdistan would encompass the areas with Kurdish majority in Iraq, Syria and Turkey, along with its Turkmen, Yazidi and Assyrian enclaves.  Its capital if it is to be solely Iraqi-Kurdistan would be Irbil.   If a greater Kurdistan incorporating Kurdish Syria and Turkey a more central capital would be picked.
Central Iraq would be an independent Sunni state, or perhaps combined with the “Euphrates State” of Federal Syria into a unitary state of بين الانهار. “Between The Rivers”, with Bagdad its capital.
Finally the new state of Shiite Basra would rule in the south.
These three new states: Kurdistan, Central Iraq and Basra would sign a treaty of Baghdad allowing for a free flow of commerce between them. The ex-Syrian State of Euphrates may also be made part of this Treaty.
By creating these new nation-states the hyper-nationalist and hyper-Islamic impulses would be channeled into constructive energy. Western Aid and investment can also be channeled more precisely into those new states that are becoming stable and humane. Each nation would be capable of self-defense, and as sovereign states would engage in alliance building with the other new states and with the wider world.
It is ludicrous that one of the products of the War to End All Wars contains the seeds of the War to End All Things! The Sykes-Picot lines are as anachronistic as the grass-covered trenches that still scar Belgium and France. These lines risk becoming new scars of destruction upon the landscape.
Historical forces are on the move in this region. The US as a content world superpower is reflexively invested in maintaining the status quo. We are unable to do so at a cost that anyone might justify. Therefore we must facilitate a new order in this region, or at least stand back and allow it.kurdistan Iraq_Ethnic_smMaps: Left Kurdistan, Right Iraq ethnicities.  

Syria/Iraq is dividing into natural nations.

Syria/Iraq is dividing into natural nations.

 

Realpolitik for the 21st Century

Time for Moscow and America to sit down behind closed doors and talk reality. The so-called national borders of the former Soviet Republics are purely fictional. There never were self-governing nation-states named
Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Kirghizistan, Uzbekistan etc and so on. These were constructions of the Russian Communist Party. The borders were designed to be unworkable outside of a Moscow- dominated USSR. For instance the: The Fergana Valley in Central Asia was divided with no regard to the ethnic populations and carved between Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
Throughout the course of the Czarist Empire and the USSR, Russians and Central Asians have spread and intermingled across the entire region. The post-USSR map with the newly sovereign nations was an aberration. For the USA to treat these entities as actual nation states is to attempt to freeze the region in the post-Communist nadir of Russian power. The assertion that Ukraine nationhood is as historically, geographically and culturally as real as that of Poland or the Baltic states is to weaken our moral (and Realpolitik) support for the latter two.
No longer is Russia seeking to be the center of a global Communist movement.  The ideologies of the 20th century are fading and by the end of the 21st century they will seem as remote as the motives of the religious wars are to us.  Putin is no liberal.  But neither is the King of Saudi Arabia, and we support him.
The American dominance of the Post-WW2 era was an aberration.  We had never been involved with the Indian Ocean until this period, now ending.  When the Portuguese penetrated that third ocean there had already been a complex trading system in place.  That five hundred year era of European rule over the entire Indian Ocean ended when the Japanese marched into Singapore, Bangkok, Batavia and Manila.  The rise of India, the Gulf States, Iran and even Kenya and other western African nations defines the new reality.  America inherited the Indian Ocean “problem” from the colonial powers.  But we did so only in the cause of containment of the USSR.  We must return to our interests.  The Indian Ocean does not wash upon any American beach.
The unquestioned power of America in the Atlantic and Pacific must supersede the Indian Ocean and it is simply ludicrous to maintain the fiction that the Black Sea can be navigated against Russian interests by the US Navy.  Reality is what is real.
We should recognize Moscow’s legitimate interests in its near abroad. And by the same token Russian meddling in the Caribbean and Central and South America must be ended. Russia should be an ally against Islam. And there will come a demographic tipping point very soon that will make Russia look to balance Chinese power with the West.

The Death of the West (whatever that was)

Today In London

Today In London

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/can-you-pass-a-uk-citizenship-test-most-young-people-cant–gJ0v-H6BQx
Migrants to Britain hoping to gain citizenship must get 75 per cent or more on the Life in the UK test, which was recently revamped to incorporate “British values” (whatever they are).”  Click link to take Britain’s citizenship test.  

IT IS THAT SNIDE “WHATEVER THEY ARE” addition that demonstrates the reason for the death of Great Britain, and for the emergence of a Little Englandistan, Scotlandistan & Walesabod, along with Eurabia as a whole. And the retreat of Anglo-America back to the Atlantic is another component.

The writer’s desire or need to use that phrase reveals a tome of truth.

Of course the Muslim immigrants in Britain, and the Hispanic in America will not assimilate! Why would they? They may have come for the economic benefits, and they may have been willing to assimilate. It was once a privilege to be allowed to become a prosperous Englishman (or is it now “Englishperson”?) or American. Who would voluntarily choose to assimilate into a culture that is proud to beat its chest in mea culpa? WHO WOULD CHOOSE TO ASSIMILATE INTO A CULTURE THAT IS PROUD OF ITS SHAME? Our societies are completely under the spell of of those who “deconstruct” our history.  We have been taught by our intilektchual elites that we have prospered only by looting the Third World of its wealth, by expropriation of the labor of “brown people”, through genocide and all in all just by being nasty-ass “white-devils”.

And apparently the writer of this little paragraph could not even allow to stand unanswered the assumption that there is any particular system of British Values.

illegalimmigrants

Today in America

This has been the aim of Progressives: the deracination of culture. Nothing goes without saying. There no longer exist norms that are just presumed. What once was a question of morality has become question of taste.  And what was mere taste is elevated into morals!  For example, homosexual marriage is taste; driving a Hummer immoral.  The amazing reversal of tobacco and marijuana is yet another example. Tobacco was one’s taste, marijuana (or being in a false estate of euphoria) a moral flaw.  Now, tobacco is immoral, and whether you smoke pot is a matter of taste!  
 When everything legal is of equal acceptance, one must tolerate everything that is legal. And by the same token only legal activities are required to be tolerated!  Thus legality is no longer the default status.  Nothing is legal except that which is codified.   The only arbiter in this kind of society must be The State. When there are no unwritten cultural norms and taboos, everything must be codified.  In a democratic republic lacking Constitutional limits either the mob, or those who claim to act for the mob’s interests make the codes.  Thus some of the great names in liberal nations are Democratic Republics.  See Wiki for list!    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic

This is TOTALITARIANISM. And the Marxist intilektchuals are aware that Totalitarianism is required for total societal transformation into the Socialist Paradise of Earth. (Imagine there’s no countries…it isn’t hard to do.)