Who Profits?
When speaking of the root causes any disastrous occurrence - such as those of a
war, or an economic meltdown - analysts on the left are fond of asking: "who
profits most from the situation?" This is intended as a "show-stopper." It is
taken for granted that - the answer to that question is the same as the answer
to the question "who is most responsible for the current crisis."
In theory, this way of looking at things could - if taken far enough - lead to
conclusions that are patently idiotic - e.g. that the economic boom in the US
during WW II "proves" that, that conflict was caused by American businessmen.
But, let's take them - the leftists - at their word, and see what might turn up.
Just who may be the "big winners" from the current economic crisis?
The first that come to mind are Islamist factions such as al-Qa'ida
- i.e. the gentlemen who want to kill all Jews, force Christians to convert to
Islam, implement Shiria law, confine women to the veil, and execute
homosexuals, etc. A prolonged financial crisis for the west in general - and
America - in particular - opens up the potential for broad and significant
benefits and opportunities for them. In America and elsewhere, those elected
officials who actually want to maintain a level of military and security
readiness sufficient to counter Islamist threats and sustain active operations
against them, will have a significantly harder time doing so. Economic resources
will be scarce and public will lacking - as people strive to deal with their own
troubles and seek government aid to do so. And, those who desire to follow
polices of appeasement will have plenty of excuses for doing so. It will be much
harder to justify military and security measures and expenditures to a public
suffering privations at home. As a result, in western-style democracies
generally, there could well be the opening of a "window of vulnerability" in
regards to false offers of conciliation and "co-existence" coming from the
Jihadists. In an atmosphere of the kind, the pace of Islamitization - in America
and Europe - can be expected to quicken. With violent factions hovering in the
background, the "quieter" segments of the Islamist movement can make themselves
felt more strongly - i.e. by deploying all the legal and quasi-legal techniques
employed by militant activist groups such as ACORN, ANSWER and the
anti-globalization movement generally.
It should be noted that - already at this point in the financial crisis -
Islamists are using it's occurrence as part of their propaganda efforts. They are
claiming that is the result of divine wrath directed against the west for
allowing loans to be made at interest, as well as for their "attack against
Islam" generally. And, that - in secular terms - it is also a by-product of the
economic cost of the military campaigns being waged by America and its allies in
Afghanistan and Iraq.
Al-Qaida: US economic crisis equals Muslim victory
Anti-Semites could also be "big winners" from the financial crisis. If is it's
going to be hard to convince the public to pay for there own defence needs, how
much harder will it be to get them to support funding for the Israeli Defence
Force, as well as other aid traditionally given to the Jewish state? How much
easier then will it become to advance alternative policies - ones that don't
seem to require such expenditures - e.g. a more "balanced and even-handed
approach" to the conflict between Israel and other states and factions in that
region? Even the idea of the reformulation of Israel into an entirely secular
and multicultural state might then become something which American policy makers
might consider supporting. Which measure - coupled with insistence on a "right
of return" for all Palestinian refugees and their descendants - will basically
guarantee the erosion of any lingering Jewish Identity a state of that kind
might retain. And, while it is certainly fair to say that "not all who oppose or
are simply critical of Zionism are also anti-Semites," it is equally accurate to
assert that "all [but perhaps some miniscule and hidden handful] of anti-Semites
do oppose [and] are...critical of Zionism." So that one can be sure that
"benefits" affecting the first group - anti-Zionists - will also accrue to the
second - anti-Semites. And,
It is also plausible to include anti-Jewish radicals of Jewish descent - such as Noam Chomsky , Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky and many of
their living disciples within the definition of both of these groups
In any case, it may be expected that a renewed wave of "traditional" anti-Semitism
- aimed directly at Jews in general - will emerge as a result of this crisis -
as it always has under similar conditions in the past. And in fact, the
beginnings of that trend are already evident.
Hamas: 'Jewish Lobby' in U.S. to blame for global financial crisis
Finally, the biggest "winners" of this sad "lottery" may well be the hard left
generally, the "progressive movement" in America, and the left wing of the
Democratic party. And, depending on the results of the coming election, this
condition may remain in effect until
their Islamist "allies"
begin to stone them
to death - for adultery, throw them off roof-tops - for homosexuality, force the
women amongst them into burqas, and cut their heads off - for blasphemy, as well
as for the amusement it seems to provide them and in order to stay "in practice"
for more strenuous efforts.
The reasons for that are fairly clear. For one thing, with some notable
exceptions, the fear and privations generated by economic hard times make the
kinds of socialist, welfare-states and anti free-market attitudes and solutions
preferred by "Progressives" and left-wing Democrats seem more attractive - and
plausible - than they would otherwise. The models for that response being - as
always - the New Deal during the Great Depression, those found in "revolutionary
utopias" such as Cuba, and the social-welfare systems long general in Europe.
And in America now, before it became clear that a real crash was not going to be
avoided, Sen McCain had pulled into a fair lead over Sen Obama. But, though it
is anyone's guess as to what a final outcome would have or will look like had
that crisis not occurred - or not occurred at this time - it has been clear that -
in spite of solid evidence to the contrary - the public now holds Republicans,
rather than Democrats, primarily responsible for these current troubles. And,
that perception has been reflected in the current opinion polls on the election
so far. If that trend continues up till November 4th, the Democrats may be in an
unassailable position from which to enact the most sweeping and radical leftist
agenda since those implemented during the period of the New Deal and the of the
"Great Society" periods combined. And, it appears that they are fully
posed of
the intention of doing just that.
So, if we were to think of this crisis the way commentators on the left usually
do of such things, it would be hard to escape the conclusion that - they
themselves, along with Islamists and anti-Semites, were foremost among those to
whom "credit" is due for the economic meltdown affecting America and the rest of
the world.
"Follow the money [or power]."
Indeed.
II. Too improbable to be "just an accident?"
Some sober commentators believe that there may well be more to this story than
can be explained by either a failure of good intentions or - even - by an
assessment of who wins and loses in any particular case, like that outlined
above.
In a concise, clear and well-reasoned, though speculative, essay:
Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis
James Simpson in the American Thinker makes the strongest case I've yet
encountered for the conclusion that - the
record of failed social programs
created and implemented largely by the Democratic Party - such as those which
blighted the mortgage sector and were, by doing so, instrumental in
precipitating
the current crisis - were not just products of "good intentions gone awry." But
that, to a significant extend - at least on the part of some of the proponents
of such programs - they were part of a deliberate strategy. One intended to
create the conditions required for the introduction of radical changes to our
society - and for the acceptance of that agenda by most Americans. And, to do so
through the intentional creation of the kinds of disasters we are now facing.
He argues that --
for the last 50 years of so the record of the Democratic Party
on social legislation has one of producing one failed program after another,
and that
Before the 1994 Republican takeover, Democrats had sixty years of virtually
unbroken power in Congress - with substantial majorities most of the time. Can a
group of smart people, studying issue after issue for years on end, with
virtually unlimited resources at their command, not come up with a single policy
that works? W
Therefore:
One of two things must be true. Either the Democrats are unfathomable idiots,
who ignorantly pursue ever more destructive policies despite decades of contrary
evidence, or they understand the consequences of their actions and relentlessly
carry on anyway because they somehow benefit....
and, as a result he
...submit[s] to you they understand the consequences. For many it is simply a
practical matter... But for others, the goal is more malevolent - the failure is
deliberate. Don't laugh. This method not only has its proponents, it has a name:
the Cloward-Piven Strategy. It describes their agenda, tactics, and long-term
strategy.
Further:
that this strategy was formulate by radical academics in the late 1960s; that
they were undertaken with the intent of creating conditions that would make the
implementation of Marxist-style changes - to the fundamental nature of our
society - possible; that, as a result, these measures - such as the changes made
to the mortgage industry and housing market that produced this crisis - were
done with full knowledge and expectation that they would fail and produce the
kinds of anxiety and privations Americans are now facing; and, that prime
amongst the adherents and practitioners of this method were many - like Saul
Alinsky - who have been key in facilitating the career of Senator Obama and many
of his past and current associates. In short, that what we are experiencing now
- right before the election - is no accident at all.
And, though I tend to have greater faith in the powers of human rationalization
than Mr. Simpson expresses in his essay - there seems to be little limit to
number of times many people can pull the same lever, have the same result, and
continue to hope for a different - better - outcome, the next time. And - as a
result, I also tend to believe that "good intentions gone awry," along with an
ongoing - and often otherwise uncharacteristic - failure of critical judgment
and imagination, are at the core of the reasons for why most of the persons who
continue to advocate failed social polices do so. But, at the same time, the
idea that there is a core of activists, commentators and academics for whom the
vision of a socialist utopia is - in their secular terms, equivalent to the 72
virgins of the suicide-bombers dream of paradise - is entirely plausible to me.
And, equally plausible is the idea that such persons - having a vision of that
intensity and of that kind - and having little of no conception of ethical
behaviour besides that which aids or impairs their utopian project - would stop
at nothing to make that vision a reality; have developed systematic methods for
doing so; and connive with other believers to put those ideas into play. It would
be the "sensible" thing for persons - who saw the world in those terms - to do.
It also matches my sense of just who these people are - as I have known them
personally, encountered them in their own writings and read of their workings in
history. They are, after all, the people who worshiped Mao while 20 million
Chinese were starving to death; Stalin while he was slaughtering peasants,
intellectuals and soldiers, and making the lives of Russian workers into a
living hell; cheered on the NVA as it crushed the life out of any possibility for
basic freedom and dignity in South Vietnam and Laos - and set the stage for the
killing fields of Cambodia; and supported the PLO in attacks against Jewish
school children in Israel. And they have no remorse for any of these things.
They also sought to criminalize -through "speech codes" and anti-harassment laws
- the expression of all and any ideas and attitudes that they deem to run
counter to their project. And now they are seeking to use similar methods to
close down the normal political rhetoric expressed by their Republican
opponents. I could go on for days but there is hardly a point to it. In essence
all-too-many of those in this core group of radicals are self-righteous thugs. And
many of those who are more kindly inclined are simply deeply, and perhaps
unredeemable, mistaken or - even - delusional about vital matters of history
and life as others live it.
Please read the article though - and send it to everyone you know as well.
Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis
Notes:
Islamists and the Left
[The Islamist-Leftist] Allied Menace --
by Daniel Pipes
How US Anti-War Activists Can Help Topple the Empire:
by Virginia Rodino
In the U.S. anti-war movement, we must therefore create a jihad, a �struggle� and �effort against oppression and evil.� This jihad must be against Islamophobia. This jihad must be against Zionism. This jihad must be against imperialism. What this jihad must be for is a true democracy, created by the ordinary working people around the globe, a participating and engaged people who are empowered to carry out the decisions won through debates in a democratized public sphere...
Throughout these two particular campaigns, deliberate and consistent outreach must be made to the Muslim community.
(emphasis added)
Failure of Social Policies
The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy
by Thomas Sowell
My own evaluation:
...the trouble affecting Afro-America
ns and other minorities during the last 60 years or so has had little or nothing to do with the effects of thoughtless, or even clearly racist, speech, but is instead - to a significant extent - the product of factors such as the following:
- The failure of liberal policy-maker
s during the 1960s and 70s to take into account - or even acknowledge - the pertinence of findings - such as those obtained by Daniel Patrick Moynihan to the effect that, the problems then affecting Afro-America ns in urban America had at least as much to do with family structure - the legacy of slavery - and cultural attitudes towards the role of fatherhood - as they did with the direct effects of racism in contemporary society. And, to take such insights into account in the development of social policy. - The consequent creation of welfare assistance programs that went out of their way to exclude traditional families - those with a father in the household - from receiving aid.
- The - related - propagation of other attitudes current amongst the elites at that time in regards to marriage and parenthood. Attitudes to the effect that - traditional institutions
and assumptions related to families and the rearing of children were merely "social constructs" and oppressive ones at that - Which factors - along with a veritable celebration of out-of-wedlo
ck birth, single-paren t families and sexual license generally - did much to further erode the strength and viability of Afro-America n families - just as those same factors did to many families amongst other ethnic groups as well - resulting in greater levels of poverty amongst women and children generally. - The creation of a welfare system that did little to encourage and assist recipients in preparation and search for viable employment.
- A blue-print for "urban renewal" based on bulldozing economically
distressed communities. And, in so doing, destroying as well the residents own social institutions - often very vibrant, creative and successful - in the process. During which destruction and dislocation, the former residents of targeted communities were placed - largely - in high-rise ghettos. One result of which process - in its entirety - being that the former residents were now dependent on bureaucratic structures, rather than those of their own creation - and under their own control - for the purposed of meeting their communal needs in regards to charity and political expression. - Encouragemen
t - from the same elites then involved in promoting radical changes in family structure and sexual mores - for under-employ ed young minority men in particular - to adopt the notions that: members of the "dominant culture" in general - and businessmen in particular - along with the capitalist system as a whole - were to blame for all the real or imagined wrongs and personal disappointme nts that they, 'other member of their group, or their ancestors, had suffered in the last few centuries or so. And that - rather than attempting to use the instruments of education, entrepreneur ship, and traditional work ethic to better their positions in life - it was both their duty and in their highest self-interes t for them to actively engage in a relentless struggle against those persons and that economic system. And to do so "by any means necessary." Which attitudes and assumptions worked against full participatio n of young minority men in the nations economy and did so at the very moment that unprecedente d opportunitie s had opened up for them. - Promulgation
by the same elites of the related notion that - members of minority groups who adhered to beliefs, perspectives , methods and practices commonly thought of as being fundamental to western civilization - e.g. in regards to: science and scholarship, work ethic, delayed gratificatio n, organization of time, language/voc abulary, the role of music and visual art in culture, etc, were "inauthentic " and - in some sense - guilty of betraying their "real" heritage - in regards to crime, focus by social scientists and liberal elites on the disproportio
nate incarceratio n rates amongst minorities - particularly Afro-America ns - rather than on the equally disproportio nate role they play as crime victims. And, in so doing, helping to create a perspective that could only have had the effect of: undermining efforts to protect the vast majority of blacks - honest and hard-working folk - from the thugs in their midst; strengthenin g the identificati on of minority members with thugs in the minds of the rest of the public; undermining the basis for the natural sympathy that would have otherwise been likely to have emerged as both blacks and non-blacks struggled against a common threat; and, the creation - by default - of an image of the Thug - rather than those who worked to suppress him - as a primary role model for black kids. - The poisoning - through insistence by liberal elites on "curative" measures, such as affirmative action and forced bussing - of the well of good-will that had accumulated during the civil-rights
era. Measures which made a mockery of the ideals - such as equality under the law, and the stipulation that persons should be judged through the content of their own characters, rather than in terms of the population and ethnic groups into which they happened to have been born. And which, in so doing, placed the burden of three centuries of oppression squarely on the shoulders of white working and middle-class families - who were subsequently stereotyped as - at best - stupid children, or vile racists, if they so much as questioned the wisdom or justice of such measures. And, which policies could be said to have - ultimately - had much more to do with the redemptive fantasies of guilt-ridden liberal elites than with any actual advancements to be had in regards to justice or reconciliati on among Americans. - All of which measures, policies and attitudes, having helped to foster an image of minorities - amongst themselves as well as the population as a whole - as hapless victims requiring pervasive and persistent paternalisti
c aid in order to function - at best - or of incorrigible thugs - at worst. An image that could not have been more damaging to the cause of justice and reconciliati on then one that had been the product of a cooperative effort between neo-Nazis and the KKK.
(C) David Aronin 2008