Friday, April 21, 2017

Bibliography of Nicholas Kaldor’s Work

Nicholas Kaldor (12 May 1908–30 September 1986) was one of the most important Post Keynesian economists of the 20th century.

Studies of Kaldor’s work and biographies of Kaldor can be found in these works:
Books and Biographies on Kaldor
Thirlwall, A. P. 1987. Nicholas Kaldor. Wheatsheaf, Brighton.

Targetti, Ferdinando. 1992. Nicholas Kaldor: The Economics and Politics of Capitalism as a Dynamic System. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Nell, Edward J. and Willi Semmler (eds.). 1991. Nicholas Kaldor and Mainstream Economics: Confrontation or Convergence?. St. Martin’s Press, New York.

Turner, Marjorie S. 1993. Nicholas Kaldor and the Real World. M. E. Sharpe, Armonk, N.Y.

Targetti F. and A. P. Thirlwall. 1989. The Essential Kaldor. Duckworth, London.

King, J. E. 2009. Nicholas Kaldor. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke and New York.
A complete bibliography of Kaldor’s writings can be found in Targetti, Ferdinando. 1992. Nicholas Kaldor: The Economics and Politics of Capitalism as a Dynamic System (Clarendon Press, Oxford).

Here is also a bibliography of Kaldor’s work, by no means complete, but listing many of his books and articles:
Books by Nicholas Kaldor
Kaldor, N. 1960. Essays on Economic Stability and Growth. Duckworth, London.

Kaldor, N. 1964. Essays on Economic Policy (vol. 1). Duckworth, London.

Kaldor, N. 1964. Essays on Economic Policy (vol. 2). Duckworth, London.

Kaldor, N. 1966. The Causes of the Slow Rate of Economic Growth of the United Kingdom: An Inaugural Lecture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1967. Strategic Factors in Economic Development. Ithaca, New York.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1978. Further Essays on Economic Theory. Duckworth, London.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1980. Essays on Value and Distribution (2nd edn.). Duckworth, London.

Kaldor, N. 1982. The Scourge of Monetarism. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.

Kaldor, Nicolas. 1983. The Economic Consequences of Mrs. Thatcher. Duckworth, London.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1985. Economics Without Equilibrium. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, N.Y.

Kaldor, N. 1989. Further Essays on Economic Theory and Policy (ed. by F. Targetti and Α. P. Thirlwall). Holmes & Meier, New York.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1996. Causes of Growth and Stagnation in the World Economy (ed. by Carlo Filippini, Ferdinando Targetti, A. P. Thirlwall). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Collected Works of Nicholas Kaldor
There are 9 volumes of collected works of Nicholas Kaldor: volumes 1 and 2 both have first and second editions. There is a PDF of the contents pages of these collected works here.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1960. Essays on Value and Distribution (1st edn.; Collected Economic Essays volume 1). G. Duckworth, London.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1980. Essays on Value and Distribution (2nd edn.; Collected Economic Essays volume 1). Duckworth, London.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1960. Essays on Economic Stability and Growth (1st edn.; Collected Economic Essays volume 2). G. Duckworth, London.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1980. Essays on Economic Stability and Growth (2nd edn.; Collected Economic Essays volume 2). Duckworth, London.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1964. Essays on Economic Policy – Volume One (Collected Economic Essays volume 3). Duckworth, London.
I. Policies for Full Employment; II. The Control of Inflation; III. The Problem of Tax Reform

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1964. Essays on Economic Policy – Volume Two (Collected Economic Essays volume 4). Duckworth, London.
IV. Policies for International Stability; V. Country Studies

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1978. Further Essays on Economic Theory (Collected Economic Essays volume 5). Duckworth, London.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1978. Further Essays on Applied Economics (Collected Economic Essays volume 6). Duckworth, London.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1980. Reports on Taxation 1 (Collected Economic Essays volume 7). Duckworth, London.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1980. Reports on Taxation II (Collected Economic Essays volume 8). Duckworth, London.

Kaldor, N. 1989. Further Essays on Economic Theory and Policy (ed. by F. Targetti and Α. P. Thirlwall; Collected Economic Essays volume 9). Duckworth, London.

Articles by Nicholas Kaldor
Kaldor, Nicholas. 1934. “A Classificatory Note on the Determinateness of Equilibrium,” The Review of Economic Studies 1.2: 122–136.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1934. “Mrs. Robinson’s ‘Economics of Imperfect Competition,’” Economica n.s. 1.3: 335–341.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1934. “The Equilibrium of the Firm,” Economic Journal 44: 60–76.

Kaldor, N. 1935. “Market Imperfection and Excess Capacity,” Economica n.s 2.5: 33–50.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1937. “Annual Survey of Economic Theory: The Recent Controversy on the Theory of Capital,” Econometrica 5.3: 201–233.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1938. “Stability and Full Employment,” The Economic Journal 48. 192: 642–657.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1939. “Welfare Propositions of Economics and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility,” The Economic Journal 49.195: 549–552.

Kaldor, Ν. 1939. “Capital Intensity and the Trade Cycle,” Economica 6: 40–66. [reprinted Kaldor 1960: 120–147]

Kaldor, N. 1939. “Speculation and Economic Stability,” Review of Economic Studies 7: 1–27. [reprinted in Kaldor 1960: 17–58]

Kaldor, N. 1939. “Money Wage Cuts in Relation to Unemployment: A Reply to Mr. Somers,” Review of Economic Studies 6: 232–235.

Kaldor, N. 1939. “Principles of Emergency Finance,” The Banker 51: 149–156.

Kaldor, N. 1940. “The Trade Cycle and Capital Intensity: A Reply,” Economica n.s. 7.25: 16–22.

Kaldor, N. 1940. “A Model of the Trade Cycle,” Economic Journal 50: 78–95. [reprinted in Kaldor 1960: 177–192]

Kaldor, N. 1941. “Employment and Equilibrium. A Theoretical Discussion,” Economic Journal 51: 458–473. [reprinted in Kaldor 1960: 83–100]

Kaldor, N. 1941. “The White Paper on National Income and Expenditure,” Economic Journal 51: 181–191.

Kaldor, N. 1942. “Professor Hayek and the Concertina-Effect,” Economica n.s. 9.36: 359–382.

Kaldor, N. 1942. “Models of Short-Period Equilibrium,” Economic Journal 52: 250–258.

Kaldor, N. and T. Barna. 1943. “The 1943 White Paper on National Income and Expenditure,” Economic Journal 53: 259–274.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1945–1946. “The German War Economy,” The Review of Economic Studies 13.1: 33–52.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1949. “The Economic Aspects of Advertising,” The Review of Economic Studies 18.1: 1–27.

Kaldor, N. 1955. An Expenditure Tax. George Allen & Unwin, London.

Kaldor, N. 1956. “Report of a Survey on Indian Tax Reform,” Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Delhi.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1957. “Capitalist Evolution in the Light of Keynesian Economics,” Sankhyā: The Indian Journal of Statistics 18.1–2: 173–182.

Kaldor, Nicolas. 1957. “A Model of Economic Growth,” Economic Journal 67: 591–624.

Kaldor, Ν. 1960. “A Rejoinder to Mr. Pindlay,” Review of Economic Studies 27.3: 179–181.

Kaldor, N. 1960. Suggestions for a Comprehensive Reform of Direct Taxation. Government Publications Bureau, Colombo.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1960. “The Radcliffe Report,” The Review of Economics and Statistics 42.1: 14–19.

Kaldor, N. 1961. “Increasing Returns and Technical Progress: A Comment on Professor Hicks’s Article,” Oxford Economic Papers 13.1: 1–4.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1961. “Capital Accumulation and Economic Growth,” in F. A. Lutz and D. C. Hague (eds.), The Theory of Capital. Macmillan, London.

Kaldor, N. 1962. “Comment,” Review of Economic Studies 29.3: 246–250.

Kaldor, Nicholas and James A. Mirrlees. 1962. “A New Model of Economic Growth,” The Review of Economic Studies 29.3: 174–192.

Kaldor, N. 1963. “Will underdeveloped Countries learn to Tax?,” Foreign Affairs 41.2: 410–419. K

Kaldor, N. 1964. “The Role of Taxation in Economic Development,” in N. Kaldor, Essays on Economic Policy. Volume 1. Duckworth, London. 225–254.

Kaldor, N. 1964. “International Trade and Economic Development,” Journal of Modern African Studies 2.4: 491–511.

Hart, A. G., Nicholas Kaldor, and Jan Tinbergen. 1964. “The Case for an International Commodity Reserve Currency,” in Nicholas Kaldor (ed.), Essays on Economic Policy (vol. 2). Norton, New York. 131–177.

Kaldor, N. 1964. “Panel Discussion,” in W. Baer and I. Kerstenetsky (eds.), Inflation and Growth in Latin America, Irwin, Homewood, Il. 465–469, 485–487, 499–500.

Kaldor, N. 1964. “A Positive Policy for Wages and Dividends,” in N. Kaldor, Essays on Economic Policy. Volume 1. Duckworth, London. 111–127.

Kaldor, N. 1964. “Prospects of a Wages Policy for Australia,” Economic Record 40.90: 145–155.

Kaldor, N. 1964. “A Memorandum on the Value-Added Tax,” in N. Kaldor, Essays on Economic Policy. Volume I. Duckworth, London. 266–293.

Kaldor, Ν. 1964. “Economic Problems of Chile,” in N. Kaldor, Essays on Economic Policy. Volume II. Duckworth, London. 233–287.

Kaldor, N. 1964. “Dual Exchange Rates and Economic Development,” Economic Bulletin for Latin America 9.2: 214–223. [reprinted in Kaldor 1964]

Kaldor, N. 1966. “Distribution, theory of,” Chambers’s Encyclopaedia (rev. edn.). Pergamon Press, Oxford. 557–561.

Kaldor, Ν. 1966. “Marginal Productivity and Macroeconomic Theories of Distribution: Comment on Samuelson and Modigliani,” Review of Economic Studies 33.4: 309–319. [reprinted in G. C. Harcourt and N. F. Laing. Capital and Growth. Penguin, Harmondsworth]

Kaldor, N. 1967. “Taxation in Developing States,” in D. Krivine (ed.), Fiscal and Monetary Problems in Developing States. Praeger, New York. 209–219.

Kaldor, Nicholas, 1968. “Productivity and Growth in Manufacturing Industry: A Reply,” Economica 35.140: 385–391.

Kaldor, N. 1969. “The Choice of Technology in Less Developed Countries,” Monthly Labor Review 92.8: 50–53.

Kaldor, N. 1970. “The New Monetarism,” Lloyds Bank Review 97: 1–18. [reprinted in Kaldor 1978: 1–21]

Kaldor, N. 1970. “The Case for Regional Policies,” Scottish Journal of Political Economy 17.3: 337–348.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1972. “The Irrelevance of Equilibrium Economics,” Economic Journal 82: 1237–1252.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1975. “What is Wrong with Economic Theory,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 89.3: 347–357. [reprinted in Kaldor 1978: 202–213].

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1975. “Economic Growth and the Verdoorn Law: A Comment on Mr Rowthorn’s Article,” Economic Journal 85.340: 891–896.

Kaldor, N. 1976. “Inflation and Recession in the World Economy,” Economic Journal 86: 703–714.

Kaldor, N. 1977. “Capitalism and Industrial Development: Some Lessons from Britain’s Experience,” Cambridge Journal of Economics 1.2: 193–204.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1978. “The Nemesis of Free Trade,” in N. Kaldor, Further Essays on Applied Economics. Duckworth, London. 234–241.

Kaldor, N. 1978. “The Role of Industrialisation in Latin American Inflations,” in N. Kaldor (ed.), Further Essays on Applied Economics (Collected Economic Essays volume 6). Duckworth, London. 119–137.

Kaldor, N. 1978. “The Effect of Devaluations on Trade in Manufactures,” in N. Kaldor (ed.), Further Essays on Applied Economics (Collected Economic Essays volume 6). Duckworth, London. 99–118.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1978. “The Causes of the Slow Rate of Economic Growth of the United Kingdom,” in N. Kaldor, Further Essays on Economic Theory (Collected Economic Essays volume 5). Duckworth, London. 100–138.

Kaldor, N. 1980. “General Introduction,” in Collected Economic Essays (vol. 1). Duckworth, London.

Kaldor, Ν. 1980. “Public or Private Enterprise: The Issues to be Considered,” in W. J. Baumol (ed.), Public and Private Enterprise in a Mixed Economy: Proceedings of a Conference Held by the International Economic Association in Mexico City, Macmillan, London. 1–14.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1980. “The Foundations of Free Trade Theory and their Implications for the Current World Recession,” in E. Malinvaud and J. P. Fitoussi (eds.), Unemployment in Western Countries. MacMillan Press, London. 85–100.

Kaldor, Ν. 1980. “Alternative Theories of Value and Distribution,” in N. Kaldor, Essays on Value and Distribution (2nd edn). Duckworth, London. 209–236.

Kaldor, Ν. 1980. “The Controversy on the Theory of Capital,” in N. Kaldor, Essays on Value and Distribution (2nd edn). Duckworth, London. 153–205.

Kaldor, N. 1981. Origins of the New Monetarism. University College Cardiff Press, Cardiff. [reprinted in Kaldor 1989: 160–177]

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1981. “The Role of Increasing Returns, Technical Progress and Cumulative Causation in the Theory of International Trade and Economic Growth,” Économie Appliquée 34.4: 593–617. [reprinted in Targetti and Thirlwall 1989]

Kaldor, N. 1981. “Fallacies on Monetarism,” Kredit and Kapital 4: 451–462.

Kaldor, N. and J. Trevithick. 1981. “A Keynesian Perspective on Money,” Lloyds Bank Review 139: 1–19.

Kaldor, N. 1982. “Limitations of the ‘General Theory,’” Proceedings of the British Academy 68: 259–273. [reprinted in Kaldor 1989: 74–89]

Kaldor, N. 1982. “Keynes as an Economic Adviser,” in A. P. Thirlwall (ed.), Keynes as a Policy Adviser. Macmillan, London. 2–33.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1982. “The Radcliffe Report and Monetary Policy,” in N. Kaldor, The Scourge of Monetarism. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York. 2–36.

Kaldor, N. 1983. “Keynesian Economics after Fifty Years,” in D. Worswick and J. Trevithick (eds.), Keynes and the Modern World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1–28.

Kaldor, N. 1983. “The Role of Commodity Prices in Economic Recovery,” Lloyds Bank Review 149: 21–33.

Kaldor, N. 1985. “How Monetarism Failed,” Challenge 28.2: 4–13.

Kaldor, N. 1985. “Piero Sraffa 1898–1983,” Proceedings of the British Academy 71: 615–640.

Kaldor, Ν. 1986. “Recollections of an Economist,” Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review 156: 3–26 [reprinted in Kaldor 1989: 13–37]

Kaldor, N. 1986. “The Role of Effective Demand in the Short and in the Long Run,” in A. Barrere (ed.), Keynes Today: Theories and Policies. Macmillan, London. [reprinted in Kaldor 1989: 90–99]

Kaldor, N. 1986. “Limits on Growth,” Oxford Economic Papers 38.2: 187–198.

Kaldor, N. 1989. “The Role of Commodity Prices in Economic Recovery,” in N. Kaldor, Further Essays on Economic Theory and Policy (ed. by F. Targetti and Α. P. Thirlwall). Duckworth, London. 235–250.
Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Saturday, April 15, 2017

Tony Thirlwall’s Lecture on Nicholas Kaldor

Tony Thirlwall gives a lecture on the life and work of Nicholas Kaldor:



Some good books and biographies on Kaldor:
Thirlwall, A. P. 1987. Nicholas Kaldor. Wheatsheaf, Brighton.

Targetti, Ferdinando. 1992. Nicholas Kaldor: The Economics and Politics of Capitalism as a Dynamic System. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Targetti F. and A. P. Thirlwall. 1989. The Essential Kaldor. Duckworth, London.

King, J. E. 2009. Nicholas Kaldor. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke and New York.
My posts on Kaldor’s work are below:
“Kaldor’s Growth Laws and Verdoorn’s Law: An Overview and Bibliography,” October 8, 2016.

“Kaldor on Economics without Equilibrium,” March 9, 2013.

“Kaldor on the Irrelevance of Equilibrium Economics,” May 15, 2013.

“King’s Nicholas Kaldor: Chapters 1–3,” October 18, 2013.

“Boylan and O’Gorman’s ‘Kaldor on Debreu: The Critique of General Equilibrium Reconsidered,’” June 12, 2016.
Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Thursday, April 13, 2017

Stephen Cohen on US–Russia Relations

Stephen Cohen is interviewed by Tucker Carlson after Trump’s Syria strikes and the calls for regime change in Syria:



You know we live in a bizarre, upside-down world when Ann Coulter starts talking sense on Syria and appears to have become a peacenik:



Update
Stephen Cohen’s interview on Democracy Now:



See here if there are problems with the embedded video.

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Why do we need Mass Immigration when our Future is this?

A viral video of an army of robots sorting packages in a Chinese delivery warehouse (more here):



And here:



The notion we need unending Third World mass immigration because of supposed labour shortages in the future has to be the single biggest absurdity pushed by advocates of multiculturalism and Neoliberals.

Instead, we are going to import millions of immigrants only to find there is no work for them, not to mention the millions of native-born citizens.

And then there is the terrible issue: what do you do with the low-skilled people who have been replaced by machines and automation? The notion that all or most people can be easily retrained to be IT professionals, middle class professionals or workers capable of doing highly-skilled labour is a cruel lie. Most people who have spent their lives doing low-skilled or semi-skilled labour obviously did so because they were not capable of doing something better. Their educational ability is likely to be limited.

Under Neoliberalism and in Neoclassical economics, there is a clear tendency to see human beings as fungible and homogeneous. This is an outrageous lie. The average person who is an unskilled or low-skilled labourer cannot magically become a surgeon or computer programmer, no matter how much money or education you throw at them. This is going to be yet another serious problem for the 21st century.

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Sunday, April 9, 2017

Ray McGovern on the Syrian Chemical Attack Accusations

The veteran ex-CIA officer Ray McGovern, of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity and who chaired the US National Intelligence Estimates and prepared the President’s Daily Brief in the 1980s, citing actual well-placed sources in the US government, gives us what sounds to me like the truth about this chemical attack in Syria:



This confirms the same intelligence reported to Philip Giraldi by intelligence and military personnel on the ground in the Middle East as discussed here.

So there seems to be mounting evidence that the Russian and Syrian governments’ explanation of what happened on 4 April 2017 in Khan Shaykhun in the Idlib province was the truth: the Syrian government carried out a conventional attack on the Islamist rebels and hit a chemical storage warehouse, which caused these fatalities. We don’t know precisely what chemicals were involved without an independent investigation, but it is unlikely that will happen.

And yet our media is filled with these unconfirmed hysterical cries that Assad gassed his own people. And there are calls left, right and centre from the usual suspects for a massive new war against Syria.

See also Ray McGovern’s comments here on the 2013 Ghouta chemical attack accusations here:



Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Trump’s Syria Strike Explained?

See this analysis at Zerohedge:
Tyler Durden, “Former CIA Officer: ‘The Intelligence confirms the Russian Account on Syria,’” Zerohedge.com, 8 April, 2017.
In essence, even though there aren’t any big-name Neocons in high-level positions in the Trump administration, it is the National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster who is supporting a return to Neoconservative-style policies in Syria:
“Just two days after news broke of an alleged poison-gas attack in northern Syria, President Trump brushed aside advice from some U.S. intelligence analysts doubting the Syrian regime’s guilt and launched a lethal retaliatory missile strike against a Syrian airfield.

Trump immediately won plaudits from Official Washington, especially from neoconservatives who have been trying to wrestle control of his foreign policy away from his nationalist and personal advisers since the days after his surprise victory on Nov. 8.

There is also an internal dispute over the intelligence. On Thursday night, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the U.S. intelligence community assessed with a “high degree of confidence” that the Syrian government had dropped a poison gas bomb on civilians in Idlib province.

But a number of intelligence sources have made contradictory assessments, saying the preponderance of evidence suggests that Al Qaeda-affiliated rebels were at fault, either by orchestrating an intentional release of a chemical agent as a provocation or by possessing containers of poison gas that ruptured during a conventional bombing raid.

One intelligence source told me that the most likely scenario was a staged event by the rebels intended to force Trump to reverse a policy, announced only days earlier, that the U.S. government would no longer seek “regime change” in Syria and would focus on attacking the common enemy, Islamic terror groups that represent the core of the rebel forces.

The source said the Trump national security team split between the President’s close personal advisers, such as nationalist firebrand Steve Bannon and son-in-law Jared Kushner, on one side and old-line neocons who have regrouped under National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, an Army general who was a protégé of neocon favorite Gen. David Petraeus. ….

Though Bannon and Kushner are often presented as rivals, the source said, they shared the belief that Trump should tell the truth about Syria, revealing the Obama administration’s CIA analysis that a fatal sarin gas attack in 2013 was a “false-flag” operation intended to sucker President Obama into fully joining the Syrian war on the side of the rebels — and the intelligence analysts’ similar beliefs about Tuesday’s incident.

Instead, Trump went along with the idea of embracing the initial rush to judgment blaming Assad for the Idlib poison-gas event. The source added that Trump saw Thursday night’s missile assault as a way to change the conversation in Washington, where his administration has been under fierce attack from Democrats claiming that his election resulted from a Russian covert operation.

If changing the narrative was Trump’s goal, it achieved some initial success with several of Trump’s fiercest neocon critics, such as neocon Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, praising the missile strike, as did Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The neocons and Israel have long sought “regime change” in Damascus even if the ouster of Assad might lead to a victory by Islamic extremists associated with Al Qaeda and/or the Islamic State.”

Tyler Durden, “Former CIA Officer: ‘The Intelligence confirms the Russian Account on Syria,’” Zerohedge.com, 8 April, 2017.
So the question now is: will the Trump administration push for a full-scale aerial and ground offensive to oust Assad?

Or was this just a symbolic strike that will not change the previous policy of defeating ISIS and accepting Assad’s regime as the only viable solution to the Syria mess?

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Friday, April 7, 2017

Trump to Adopt Neocon-Style Regime Change Policy in Syria?

If the Trump administration moves to support the failed Neocon and Liberal interventionist polices of overthrowing the Assad regime in Syria, it will be another bloody disaster for the Middle East.

In brief, the US launched an attack of 50–60 Tomahawk missiles against the Syrian Shayrat airbase near Homs, in retaliation for the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime near Idlib, in an area held by Islamist rebels. The Russians were warned in advance, and “U.S. military planners took precautions to minimize risk to Russian or Syrian personnel located at the airfield, ” according to Pentagon spokesman Jeff Davis.

But exactly why the US did so and what is happening behind the scenes is not clear, but here is some good analysis I have seen:
“Philip Giraldi says IC-Military Doubt Assad Gas Narrative,” The Scott Horton Show, 6 April, 2017.

Justin Raimondo, “Trump Betrays Trumpism: Syria in the Crosshairs,” Antiwar.com, 7 April, 2017.
Philip Giraldi in the first link reports that intelligence and military personnel he has contact with report that the Russians’ explanation of the chemical attack is true: that a Syrian military attack using conventional bombs on the rebels in Idlib hit a chemical or chemical weapons storage facility that *belonged to the Islamist rebels themselves*. If true, this was all a tragic accident in wartime.

Turning to Trump’s attack on the Syrian Shayrat airbase, unless we see a major escalation of US efforts to remove Assad from now on, this military strike seems more symbolic than anything else. Could it be that the Trump administration did this in desperation to quash the hysterical media lies that Russia hacked the election and that Trump is Putin’s puppet?

At the moment, the Chinese President Xi Jinping is holding a summit with Trump, and when the military strikes happened Trump was hosting a dinner with Xi Jinping in Florida. One wonders whether it was also intended, as Breitbart reports, as some kind of attempt to intimidate the Chinese and warn them over the North Korea issue.

But, if Trump does move to ramp up the previous schizophrenic policy of both trying defeat ISIS in Syria and overthrowing the Assad regime, it will result in an utter catastrophe for Syria. It will be a major betrayal of his campaign promises and a Neocon-style foreign policy – a policy which he promised to repudiate last year.

The only real beneficiaries will be the increasingly authoritarian Islamist regime in Turkey, the fundamentalist Arab gulf states like Saudi Arabia, and Israel, who all want Assad gone for their own reasons.

Millions more migrants will swamp Europe. The only credible “opposition” in Syria are Islamist lunatics, who might gain power and then cause a bloodbath in that country.

And as for the media narrative and the line taken by the Trump administration and other Western governments that the Assad regime was responsible for a chemical weapons attack in Idlib province, we should all revisit Seymour Hersh’s brilliant investigative journalism from 2013–2014 on the Ghouta chemical attack of 21 August 2013, and the subsequent facts that came to light:
Seymour M. Hersh, “Whose Sarin?,” London Review of Books 35.24 (19 December 2013): 9–12.

Seymour M. Hersh, “The Red Line and the Rat Line: Seymour M. Hersh on Obama, Erdoğan and the Syrian Rebels,” London Review of Books 36.8 (17 April 2014): 21–24.

Peter Lee, “Hersh Vindicated? Turkish Whistleblowers Corroborate Story on False Flag Sarin Attack in Syria,” Counterpunch, 23 October, 2015.
There is much evidence that the sarin attack at Ghouta in 2013 was perpetuated by the Islamist rebels, but orchestrated by Turkish intelligence in order to draw America into a major war in Syria to overthrow Assad.

Already in May 2013, a United Nations inquiry led by Carla Del Ponte concluded that chemical weapons had been used in Syria by the Islamist rebels, but that appears to have gone down the memory hole.

So – at the very least – what is needed now is an independent investigation of what happened and who did it, not some hysterical drumbeat for war fuelled by the media, and where the truth is clouded by propaganda from all sides.

As Peter Hitchens says here, this war hysteria and the demands for regime change over WMD are like 2003 all over again.

Update 1
Former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer discusses the Syria situation here:



Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

Henry Sidgwick on Open Borders and the Free Movement of People

Henry Sidgwick (31 May 1838–28 August 1900) was an English philosopher and economist of the late 19th century.

On economics, Henry Sidgwick was a something of a hybrid figure: he was not quite an orthodox neoclassical, but at the same time he had moved on from Classical Political Economy too. In politics, he was not quite a conservative, but not an orthodox Classical Liberal either.

At any rate, in his book The Elements of Politics (2nd rev. edn., 1897), we have this discussion of immigration:
“The question of free immigration has occupied a much smaller place in modern political discussion than the question of free trade: still, freedom of immigration is a recognised feature of the ideal which orthodox political economists have commonly formed of international relations. And it seems to be often implicitly assumed in the economic arguments for free trade; since, as I have pointed out, in order that the advantages of complete freedom of exchange among nations may be fully realised, it is necessary that labour should move with perfect ease from country to country to meet the changes that are continually likely to occur in the industrial demand for it. On the other hand, we have seen that the system of international rights, framed in the earlier period of modern European history on the principle of mutual non-interference, allows each State , complete freedom in determining the positive relations into which it will enter with States and individuals outside it; and though theoretically I cannot concede to a State possessing large tracts of unoccupied land an absolute right of excluding alien elements, I have not proposed any limitation of this right in the case of civilised countries generally. The truth is, that when we consider how far the exercise of this right of exclusion is conducive to the real interest of the State exercising it, or of humanity at large, we come upon the most striking phase of the general conflict between the cosmopolitan and the national ideals of political organisation, which has more than once attracted our notice. According to the national ideal, the right and duty of each government is to promote the interests of a determinate group of human beings, bound together by the tie of a common nationality with due regard to the rules restraining it from attacking or encroaching on other States and to consider the expediency of admitting foreigners and their products solely from this point of view. According to the cosmopolitan ideal, its business is to maintain order over the particular territory that historical causes have appropriated to it, but not in any way to determine who is to inhabit this territory, or to restrict the enjoyment of its natural advantages to any particular portion of the human race.

The latter is perhaps the ideal of the future; but it allows too little for the national and patriotic sentiments which have in any case to be reckoned with as an actually powerful political force, and which appear to be at present indispensable to social wellbeing. We cannot yet hope to substitute for these sentiments, in sufficient diffusion and intensity, the wider sentiment connected with the conception of our common humanity; so that the casual aggregates that might result from perfectly unrestrained immigration would lack internal cohesion. Again, the governmental function of promoting moral and intellectual culture might be rendered hopelessly difficult by the continual inflowing streams of alien immigrants, with diverse moral habits and religious traditions. Similarly, the efficient working of the political institutions of different States presupposes certain characteristics in the human beings to whom they are applied; and a large intermixture of immigrants brought up under different institutions might inevitably introduce corruption and disorder into a previously well-ordered State.

I think, therefore, that it would not be really in the interest of humanity at large, to impose upon civilised States generally, as an absolute international duty, the free admission of immigrants; and that it would be a proper policy for any such State to place restrictions on immigration, if ever it should threaten to take such dimensions as to interfere materially with the internal cohesion of a nation, or with the efforts of its government to maintain an adequately high quality of civilised life among the members of the community generally.”
(Sidgwick 1897: 307–309).
This is a very important passage, for the following reasons:
(1) Sidgwick puts his finger on the fact that free movement of people is a natural corollary of free trade under laissez faire capitalism;

(2) Sidgwick also notes that the “cosmopolitan ideal” of the free market ideologues severely conflicts with the more interventionist and protectionist “national ideals of political organisation”;

(3) Sidgwick himself sympathises with the “cosmopolitan ideal,” but has the intelligence to recognise it is too utopian and unrealistic for the developed Western world, and he concedes that open borders would not work, given the “national and patriotic sentiments” amongst human beings; he also notes that free immigration would destroy the “internal cohesion of a nation” and present a dangerous threat to the “high quality of civilised life.”
Sidgwick was right on these points.

Notably, Sidgwick did not even appeal to – nor even mention – the type of biological theories of racial differences that were held by virtually every intellectual by the late 19th century: Sidgwick’s argument against open borders is a pragmatic one based on economic, political, social and cultural factors.

And yet for all this Sidgwick still shows how wedded he was to the utopian fantasies of the cosmopolitans in a passage that immediately follows his discussion above:
“Apart from these mischievous consequences, the free admission of aliens will generally be advantageous to the country admitting them; partly for reasons similar to those that render free trade generally expedient, as the recipient State is thus enabled to share the advantage of the special faculties and empirical arts in which other countries excel; partly as tending to the diffusion of mutual knowledge and sympathy among nations. Further, as I shall presently point out, over a large part of the earth’s surface the union of diverse races under a common government seems to be an almost indispensable condition of economic progress and the spread of civilisation; in spite of the political and social difficulties and draw backs that this combination entails.” (Sidgwick 1897: 309).
Despite his good sense earlier, here Sidgwick was wrong.

Multiculturalism hasn’t really worked in the Third World either, and we need only think of the history of South Africa, the resentment that native Africans have against white European elites in Africa today, the massive genocidal violence during the partition of India, the Israel–Palestine conflict, the break-up of Yugoslavia, the civil war in Lebanon, the inter-ethnic conflicts within the Soviet Union which helped to cause the collapse of that state, and a myriad of other conflicts caused by sectarian ethnic and religious differences.

In the end, it is the cosmopolitan, open borders fanatics – who think that open borders would bring about some kind of utopia on earth – who have been proven wrong.

The people who were right all along were the realists and economic nationalists, who recognise that strict immigration control is necessary for preserving the standard of living in a developed nation, and that open borders are incompatible with what Sidgwick called the “national and patriotic sentiments” amongst human beings.

This is a pragmatic, rational, humane and morally correct view – and it does not require us to be racists or “haters” or “xenophobes,” or any of the filthy slanders usually invoked by the vicious Cultural Left and multiculturalists.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sidgwick, Henry. 1897. The Elements of Politics (2nd rev. edn.). Macmillan, London.

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Saturday, April 1, 2017

Keynes’ Early Views on Population and Immigration

Keynes views on population growth and immigration can be easily found from a reading of John Toye’s book Keynes on Population (Oxford, 2000; reviews of the book include Dimand 2003 and Harcourt 2002).

The purpose of this post is not to evaluate whether Keynes was right on every detail, but to just state what he thought on this subject in the years before the First World War.

On 2 May 1914, Keynes gave a paper called “Is the Problem of Population a Pressing and Important one Now?” at New College, Oxford, at a meeting of the Political Philosophy and Science Club (Toye 2000: 44–45; Toye 1997: 2). That paper is an interesting record of his early views on population and immigration.

The text of Keynes’ short unpublished draft manuscript from 1914 that was the basis for his paper on population can be found in Toye (2000: 53–72).

In essence, Keynes noted that high birth rates existed in much of the Third World and so very serious overpopulation too, e.g., in India and China (Toye 2000: 62–63, 65). He noted that birth rates in the West had shown a tendency to decrease from the late 19th century (Toye 2000: 62, 67).

Keynes also thought that overpopulation in the Third World inhibited economic development there, and that many such nations had not yet escaped from the Malthusian curse of overpopulation and the limitations of food supply (Toye 2000: 61–63). But Keynes thought that, at some point, both the Third World and the West must face limits to the productivity of agriculture and increased food production in the face of population growth, even if there had been a remarkable increase in the latter in the 19th century that had overcome Malthus’ predictions (Toye 2000: 65).

Keynes therefore favoured birth control to limit population growth to avoid shortages of food and to assist economic development and more rapid improvement in the standard of living (Toye 2000: 70–71).

Keynes thought that the West should eventually achieve a population “equilibrium” (Toye 2000: 70, 71), or what would now be called a fertility rate at replacement level to maintain the population. (On this, we now know Keynes’ musings in 1914 were wrong, since fertility rates in most Western nations have fallen below the replacement rate of 2.1. However, by 1937, Keynes had realised that low birth rates in the West might eventually cause a falling population.)

So what did Keynes think about the kind of immigration policy that Western nations should adopt?

Keynes understood that differential birth rates had emerged between the West and the non-Western world (Toye 2000: 66, 71).

At the end of his lecture notes, Keynes pointed out that mass Third World immigration into the West would be a threat to the standard of living in the Western world:
“Almost any measures seem to me to be justified in order to protect our Standard of life from injury at the hands of more prolific races. Some definite parcelling out of the world may well become necessary; … Countries in the position of British Columbia are entirely justified in protecting themselves from the fecundity of the East by very rigorous Immigration laws and other restrictive measures. I can imagine a time when it may be the right policy even to regulate the international trade in food supplies, though there are economic reasons, which I cannot go into now, for thinking this improbable.” (Toye 2000: 71).
In modern language, we would say that such large-scale mass Third World immigration would tend to lower per capita GDP, lower real wages and decrease living standards through overpopulation.

Keynes also thought that, as the West reached a replacement fertility rate, immigration restriction would be needed to stop mass immigration of people with higher birth rates from the non-Western world:
“If custom and practice [sc. regarding use of contraception in the West] are encouraged to develop along their present lines, it is just possible that western nations may reach of their own accord a position of more or less of equilibrium. They may protect themselves from the fecundity of the East by very rigorous immigration laws and other restrictive measures. And eventually they may be in a position to mould law and custom deliberately to bring about that density of population which there ought to be.” (Toye 2000: 69–70).
So we know what Keynes’ opinions were, at least at this stage of his life.

To put it bluntly, (1) Keynes was clearly not in favour of the demographic replacement of Europeans with people from the Third World, given differential birth rates and mass immigration into the West, and (2) he thought that population control worldwide and immigration restriction in the West would be necessary for economic reasons to increase and maintain living standards and quality of life.

What would Keynes think of Britain in 2017, where the effects of open borders and mass immigration are undoubtedly lowering the quality of life, and native British people are well on their way to being a minority in their own country by the late 21st century?

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Dimand, Robert W. 2003. Review of Keynes on Population by John Toye, History of Political Economy 35.4: 784–785.

Harcourt, G. C. 2002. Review of Keynes on Population by John Toye, The Economic Journal 112.480: F391–F394.

Toye, John. 1997. “Keynes on Population and Economic Growth,” Cambridge Journal of Economics 21.1: 1–26.

Toye, John. 2000. Keynes on Population. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Steve Bannon versus Austrian Economics

In the midst of a story about the recent failure of Ryancare, there is a gem of an anecdote about Steve Bannon:
Robert Draper, “Trump vs. Congress: Now What?,” The New York Times Magazine, 26 March, 2017.
In a conversation with Robert Draper, Bannon mused:
“I think the Democrats are fundamentally afflicted with the inability to discuss and have an adult conversation about economics and jobs, because they’re too consumed by identity politics. And then the Republicans, it’s all this theoretical Cato Institute, Austrian economics, limited government — which just doesn’t have any depth to it. They’re not living in the real world.”
Robert Draper, “Trump vs. Congress: Now What?,” The New York Times Magazine, 26 March, 2017.
Steve Bannon ain’t so bad in my book!

And Bannon’s economic nationalism is on the right side of history.

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Saturday, March 25, 2017

Rudyard Kipling’s “The Stranger” and the Multicultural Society

A poem by Rudyard Kipling:
“The Stranger within my gate,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk—
I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
But not the soul behind.

The men of my own stock,
They may do ill or well,
But they tell the lies I am wanted to,
They are used to the lies I tell;
And we do not need interpreters
When we go to buy or sell.

The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control—
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.

The men of my own stock,
Bitter bad they may be,
But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
And see the things I see;
And whatever I think of them and their likes
They think of the likes of me.

This was my father’s belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf—
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children’s teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.”
That is an apt poem for our times.

We have forgotten what our ancestors understood: people are generally tribal by nature, whether it’s their own tribe, ethnic group, religion, or nation; and they tend to seek, and be happier with, their own people.

Multiculturalism is a colossal experiment against human nature.

If we look at the past, we can see that the truly multicultural states tended to be authoritarian empires: e.g., the Roman empire, the Byzantine empire, the Arab empire, the Mongol Khanate, the Ottoman empire, the Austro-Hungarian empire, the Russian empire, etc.

The evidence suggests that multicultural societies have required harsh and even brutal authoritarian governments to keep people in line and to prevent ethnic and cultural conflict. And even in these empires and states, different groups tended to self-segregate anyway.

Even in Europe, multicultural states like Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia proved unworkable. A major reason why the Soviet Union – which, territorially speaking, was just a continuation of the old Russian empire – fell apart was that non-Russian nationalist ethnic groups wanted their own cultural and national independence.

And even in the West our experiment with increasing diversity has resulted in a massive surveillance state, quasi-authoritarianism, and increasingly draconian attacks on free speech: largely because one particular imported culture (and we all know which one) breeds a violent extremism.

Finally, there is also another important point to mull over: the kind of class-based politics so beloved by the Left is only really possible in a homogenous society. When everyone or most people are the same it is easy to focus people’s attention on class issues and issues of economic injustice.

But a multicultural society destroys that kind of politics and instead focuses people’s attention on different issues: issues of (alleged) discrimination, racism, ethnic and cultural conflict, and increasingly a tribal concern for your own ethnic/cultural group as opposed to other competing ethnic/cultural groups.

In the end, politics in the truly multicultural society will just transform the West into a fragmented, dysfunctional, corrupt version of much of the Third World, where politics is essentially all about ethno-tribal conflict to seize control of government and push the interests of one ethnic/cultural group at the expense of others.

There was a time – in the early 20th century – when even Liberals would have understood this. This is why towards the end of the First World War and afterwards Liberals supported national self-determination and independence: e.g., this is why the American Liberal left under Woodrow Wilson supported the break-up of the failed multi-cultural, multi-ethnic Austro-Hungarian empire, and separate nations for different ethnic groups.

But today European Neoliberal elites are working to create mini-multicultural empires within the borders of each West European state. How will this end?

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Thursday, March 23, 2017

Down with Ryancare!

Because as pointed out here, this will be branded Trumpcare and may ruin Trump’s presidency:



What is more, I wouldn’t be surprised if – perhaps privately even now – Trump may be a supporter of universal health care:



I hope this will not be the epitaph for the Trump presidency: that he was a man with good instincts ruined by free marketeers and GOP Cuckservative advisors.

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

The Issues of Culture and Demographics won’t Go Away

But finally people are starting to talk about it, even in the mainstream media:



Steve King is correct that multiculturalism and diversity are not strengths, as anyone can see from the evidence here.

As for the ethnic issue, even on this subject, conservative Republicans can’t even state the obvious: would it be acceptable for native Africans to be demographically replaced by white Europeans assimilated into African cultures and speaking native African languages?

Would it be acceptable for native Chinese, Japanese, South Asians, and Arabs to be demographically replaced by white Europeans assimilated into these respective cultures and speaking the native languages of China, Japan, South Asia and the Middle East? We would then have a world where ethnic Africans, Chinese, Japanese, South Asians, and Arabs have disappeared, and been replaced by white Europeans, even if they were assimilated Europeans. Diversity – which is supposedly so beloved by the Left – would have actually significantly decreased in the world.

The answer to these questions is: no, it’s not acceptable to just demographically replace native Africans, Chinese, Japanese, South Asians, etc. with assimilated Europeans.

It’s an outrageous – and even an evil – idea. E.g., native Africans have a right to their historic homelands in Africa, which should remain majority homelands for the African people and culture of those people. The same applies to Europe and any other region or people.

Monday, March 13, 2017

Zack Beauchamp on Why the Modern Left is Collapsing

See Zack Beauchamp’s analysis here:
Zack Beauchamp, “No Easy Answers: Why Left-Wing Economics is not the Answer to Right-wing Populism,” Vox.com, 13 March, 2017.
This is surprisingly astute, even if certain parts are unpleasant.

The issues that drive modern politics now are endless Third World mass immigration, open borders, and all the insanity spawned by the Cultural Left.

As I said here, it isn’t enough for the modern Left to simply support left heterodox economics while they continue to support Cultural Leftism and open borders, because the latter are growing so hated they are the kiss of death.

Endless multiculturalism and diversity are suicidal policies, as anyone familiar with the evidence here should be capable of seeing.

It’s precisely because Social Democracy and “Socialism” are associated with open borders and Regressive Left insanity that has led to the collapse of, say, the UK Labour Party.

The secret to reviving the modern Left is not ditching left heterodox economics, however: it is ditching Cultural Leftism and open borders, and returning to immigration restriction and some kind of sane social and cultural policies, and recognition that people in the Western world require some kind of national identity and policies to preserve that identity.

Only then will people be able to focus on economic issues again, and a left heterodox economic program can be used to win over electoral majorities.

But you have to solve the crisis of national identity first. That crisis of identity won’t go away and is illustrated perfectly by a recent Tweet by a Republican congressman called Steve King.

Commenting on Geert Wilders, Steve King Tweeted:


That Tweet, predictably, broke the internet.

It represents a new-found public expression of what is actually not well understood by the public: because of low fertility rates in the West that have fallen below the replacement level of 2.1, modern Neoliberal governments see mass Third World immigration as a way of maintaining population levels and (they think) a way of maintaining taxation.

But in, say, Europe that means mass *demographic replacement* of native Europeans by the year 2100 and the cultural collapse of Western civilisation in Europe.

Quite simply, you would have to be stark, raving mad to think such a policy will not provoke a furious, unprecedented backlash from the general population once enough people realise what mass Third World immigration actually entails. What we see now in the rise of the populist right is only the beginning of that backlash.

Steve Keen on the Myth of the Money Multiplier

Steve Keen debunks the money multiplier myth:



Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Thursday, March 9, 2017

Tucker Carlson’s Speech on Trump and the Republican Party

Here:



This is surprisingly astute. So are the comments by Carlson on how Trumponomics – at least in the rhetoric of the campaign – has rejected the free market theology of the Republicans on both free trade and immigration.

The Alt Right has an amusing term for the free market, pro-open borders conservatives: the “Cuckservatives” (from Cuckold + Conservative).

Cuckservative Republicanism is a death sentence for the GOP. Their only hope is to steal some major parts of the economic agenda of the Left (e.g., financial regulation, industrial policy, Keynesian full employment, and reducing the levels of private debt), as well as support immigration restriction, because that, more or less, is what their base supports. Otherwise their party is utterly doomed.

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Wednesday, March 8, 2017

Support Steve Keen’s Patreon Campaign

Here:



Support Steve Keen’s Patreon Campaign. Support him at https://www.patreon.com/ProfSteveKeen

Please share widely.

Sunday, March 5, 2017

Tim Pool’s Trip to Sweden

See this video interview of a Swedish psychologist by Tim Pool (who sounds like a typical SJW) on the culture of political correctness in Sweden related to the issues of migrant crime and integration:



Pool went to Sweden to investigate claims of severe problems with mass immigration.

The video was even posted by WikiLeaks in this Tweet here.

This is what happened when Tim Pool was shown around a migrant No Go Zone in Rinkeby:



But this is nothing new:



And still the deranged, idiotic Liberals and cultural leftists refuse to admit any problem of any kind with Third World mass immigration into Europe.

The Swedish government recently even reintroduced military conscription, supposedly against the evil Russians. Who are these people kidding? The only real threat to Sweden is an internal one as the country gradually plunges into lawless anarchy and civil war.

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2