You´re not laughing now, are you?

Och hur svårt var det här att räkna ut i förväg?

The Administration´s promises have been kept

Another Michael Lind extravaganza, this time in defense of US president William McKinley. Contains a lot of interesting side points I haven´t seen before, such as attempts by liberal US historians to paint Andrew Jackson (!) as a "progressive", or claims from the same quarters that Woodrow Wilson was very different from McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt.

Eh, come again? I noticed years ago that Americans have a weird view of their own history, but clearly I didn´t know half of it!

Lind also does a good job debunking the libertarian-conservative-isolationist idea that America was once a glorious non-interventionist republic...from sea to shining sea, on land grabbed from the Indians, with excellent ports and territorial designs of a distinctly geo-political nature on Mexico, Alaska and the Caribbean. 

Quite long article (the link goes to its first page) but well worth reading!

Bringing back McKinley

Ahem, why wasn´t this published in a far left magazine?

Old elitist goes populist, 
wants to avoid tar and feathers?

Why was this article by Michael Lind (see link below) published in Henry Kissinger´s and Irving Kristol´s magazine "The National Interest", rather than in some left-wing radical journal?

Oh, that´s right, the leftists support the old elites attacked in the article…

They clearly changed something in the matrix.

The Deep State is No Supervillain

Geo-economics in the age of Trump

The link below goes to an extremely interesting article by Michael Lind titled "The Return of Geoeconomics". It speaks for itself, but here is a short summary…

"Free trade" is a sham, or at the very least a temporary anomaly. Neither the British Empire nor the United States were for "free trade" when their industry was still weak. Only later did these imperial powers start to promote it - since by that time they could dominate the world market and turn any competitor into a producer of cheap raw material for their advanced economies.

The United States would never have become a great power if it had heeded Adam Smith´s advice and followed a free trade policy. Alexander Hamilton´s protectionist course was the right one. Friedrich List in Germany was also right.

When an empire becomes globally dominant, there is a temptation among the financial elites in particular to stop promoting de facto nationalism in favor of *actual* free trade. The financial elite is replenished by former manufacturers. This weakens the imperial superpower. The US has progressively weakened its position in this manner, in latter years by lucrative trade with China. In reality, this has mostly benefitted the Chinese.

Two strategies are possible for the United States in the present situation. One is to regroup and create a smaller Western-dominated free trade bloc by excluding China. This was Barack Obama´s strategy to some extent. The other is full nationalism. This is Donald Trump´s strategy. Trump is harking back to Richard Nixon.

The Obama strategy won´t work due to opposition from India. Why should India accept being a subordinate producer of cheap goods in a US-dominated global bloc? Therefore, the Nixon-Trump strategy is the best one.

"Realism" in foreign policy cannot be divorced from economic considerations. There is a direct connection between diplomacy, military security and the economy.

Empires which don´t see the above will fall. The British Empire is a case in point. The United States might be next.

The above was recently published in "The National Interest", previously a Neo-Con publication!

The Return of Geo-economics

What´s the accusation?

Jim Powell´s “Bully Boy: The Truth about Theodore Roosevelt´s Legacy” is a libertarian critique of President Theodore Roosevelt (governed 1901-1909) and his legacy. Most of it is libertarianism or even neo-liberalism 101. Powell doesn´t believe that government bureaucrats should run private businesses, while Teddy Roosevelt in his estimation believed exactly that. The author harks back to the Gilded Age and the presidency of conservative Democrat Grover Cleveland, when the economy was based on laissez faire and the federal administration was relatively speaking weaker than it became later. Powell claims that many of the problems “fought” by TR and the Progressives were really pseudo-problems. There was no “timber famine”, no crisis of unclean food, no problem with trusts and other monopolies (except maybe purely local monopolies). Roosevelt used these as excuses to strengthen the power of the federal administration over the previously free economy.

So far, no surprises. (I´m of course a great admirer of the progressive Bully Boy. Feels we could need one today!) What perhaps surprised me was how consistent Jim Powell is in his libertarianism. For starters, the author is so strongly anti-interventionist  that he opposes both the 1848 war with Mexico and the building of the Panama Canal. His opposition to federal subsidies is so hard that he is *against* attempts to settle the Southwest, since people can´t live there without the federal government paying for the irrigation. Thus, in Powell´s vision, Mexico would still control about half of US territory, and nobody would be able to live there anyway! And yes, that includes California. As for the Panama Canal, Powell must know that it´s good for trade (which he of course supports) but since it also has an obvious military-strategic use, he is opposed to its existence anyway. Somebody might argue that this ultra-libertarianism is inimical to progress, or even downright treasonous. Something tells me Britain, Germany or Japan would be more interventionist! Who knows, they might even bully a libertarian semi-America.

One difference between Powell and Murray Rothbard (who also wrote extensively on the Progressive Era from a libertarian perspective) is that the latter more explicitly attacks the Progressives for creating an alliance between Big Government and Big Business. Thus, in Rothbard´s scenario, TR was in close cahoots with the Morgan banking interest, while presidents Taft and Franklin Roosevelt were in league with the Rockefellers. Powell, by contrast, seems confused by the fact that the capitalists often supported TR´s administration or had proposed tighter regulations already before TR became top bully. It doesn´t seem to fit his anti-socialist worldview.

For the record, I´m not saying “Bully Boy” is a bad book. It´s written in a relatively accessible style and can be seen as a basic introduction to the libertarian critique of Theodore Roosevelt´s presidency (or even progressive politics at large). However, I readily admit that my own political preferences are somewhat more bullyish…

Why does the Alt Right support anti-Russian hero Charles XII?

Why does the Swedish far right express undying support for Karl XII or Charles XII? I mean, who exactly *was* Karl XII?

He may have been homosexual or asexual. By current standards, that makes him gay or queer.

He was allied with the Ottoman Empire. You know, the Turkish Muslims. 

He opposed collusion. By Allah, did he oppose collusion. 

(In case you didn´t get the joke, king Karl attacked Russia, the far right´s most favored nation, in alliance with the evil Mahometans.)

He recruited Travelers to his military, armed them and took them to Sweden. You know, Travelers. Gypsies!

He had the full support of Voltaire, the bête noire of the French enlightenment philosophes.

And yes, he actually...you know...lost the war...

So why, oh why, does the Swedish far right support Karl XII? Because of Karl XII´s Bible? Leave comments below.

Nummer 1

På förekommen anledning.

Mer bevis på Guds existens, och hör sen

Varje gång jag läser den här typen av artiklar blir jag *mer* (inte mindre) övertygad om att Gud (eller kanske Sat-Chit-Ananda) visst existerar. Om han bryr sig om Homo "sapiens" är en helt annan fråga!

Planeter kan formas vid svarta hål

Home Rule means Rome rule, or why the Irish don´t deserve freedom

A clip by Thomas Sheridan entitled "Why the Irish don´t deserve freedom", in which Sheridan (a pagan Irishman and hardly a leftist) offers some criticism of current Irish anti-immigration and anti-Muslim nationalism.

Hint: Catholicism, cough cough, Catholicism!

Could perhaps be controversial…

Glad första advent!

Dax att inleda ännu ett litet "war *for* Christmas" här på Ashtar Command Book Blog. Jag antar att ni vet hur det slutade förra året... 

Glad första advent, förresten!