|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 30 2018 03:56 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 03:26 TheDwf wrote:Tusk, Juncker slap down Oettinger after Italy remarks spark stormBudget commissioner said economic effects of political instability would give Italians signal not to vote for populists. A suggestion by European Budget Commissioner Günther Oettinger that financial markets would show Italians how to vote sparked outrage in Rome on Tuesday and frantic backtracking in Brussels. Oettinger told broadcaster Deutsche Welle in an interview conducted in German that the reaction of financial markets would give Italian voters a signal not to vote for populists. “My concern and expectation is that the coming weeks will show that the development of the markets, government bonds and the economy of Italy will be so far-reaching that this will be a possible signal to voters not to vote for populists on the right or left,” Oettinger said. “Already the developments of the government bonds, the market value of banks, the general course of the Italian economy is clearly overcast, is negative. This has to do with the possible government formation.” Oettinger’s remarks prompted an immediate backlash from Italy’s populist 5Star Movement and League, as well as from other EU leaders including European Council President Donald Tusk, who tweeted an “appeal” to EU institutions, saying “please respect the voters. We are there to serve them, not to lecture them.” The Commission issued a statement on behalf of President Jean-Claude Juncker, saying that “Italy’s fate does not lie in the hands of the financial markets.” “Regardless of which political party may be in power, Italy is a founding member of the European Union that has contributed immensely to European integration. President Juncker is convinced that Italy will continue on its European path. The Commission is ready to work with Italy with responsibility and mutual respect. Italy deserves respect,” Juncker said. Much of the criticism appears to have been sparked by a tweet in English from the journalist who conducted the interview. He quoted Oettinger using a more blunt formulation: “The markets will teach the Italians to vote for the right thing.” The reporter later deleted and apologized for the tweet, admitting he had misquoted Oettinger. (...) Source + Show Spoiler +"Don't say the truth too brutally!" (Also funny to see that this racist bureaucrat, who had called Chinese "slant eyes," is still in charge of anything...) Several statements, they must be really stressed... Oettinger really needs to go. His incompetence is infuriating.
Well that is why he is in Brussels. As long as our countries keep sending the biggest retards to Brussels what good do you believe will come from it?
You know the Austrian commissary Johannes Hahn (ÖVP)? Was a catastrophical minster for universities and research, we occupied the lecture halls for like a half year and he had to step down. His reward? Get a high paying job at Brussels.
That's what happens if you have an incest society in which oligarchic conservative parties give posts and power to their inbred, brainless sons just for being born from the right family.
|
On May 30 2018 04:04 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 03:51 Gorsameth wrote:
There are 101 treaties and regulations a government has to follow that they themselves did not make. Why is this any different? Because this set of rules determines growth, revenues and their distribution, the degree of social protection & workers' rights, public expenditure, in short the material means of existence of dozens of millions of people, unlike a treaty on chemical arms or something of that kind Also democracy implies the possibility to change institutions and/or the socio-economic framework in which you were previously operating And democratic means exists to change the framework. EU elections. Not the Italian one.
And if you think countries should be able to individually decide if and how they want to follow international guidelines designed to maintain a stable currency then I can only laugh at that.
|
On May 30 2018 04:04 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 03:51 Gorsameth wrote:
There are 101 treaties and regulations a government has to follow that they themselves did not make. Why is this any different? Because this set of rules determines growth, revenues and their distribution, the degree of social protection & workers' rights, public expenditure, in short the material means of existence of dozens of millions of people, unlike a treaty on chemical arms or something of that kind Also democracy implies the possibility to change institutions and/or the socio-economic framework in which you were previously operating
And Italy has that. They can leave the Eurozone and EU *before* breaking the treaties that staying a part of those implies.
And while Salvini is quite rabidly anti-EU it remains to be seen whether an election framed in Ixit terms rather than "fuck Renzi" terms will show Italians, overall, to be anti-EU.
E: I expect it probably will, by the smallest of margins. In a similar way to Brexit or the recent Catalán elections show a return to localism by a small majority of the voting people, as a reaction to the shit economy and local politicians shoving the blame upwards. Imho they are all symptoms of the same problem.
|
On May 30 2018 04:04 a_flayer wrote:What? It's got nothing to do with his religion or ethnicity. What the fuck man. He's a financial investor, and him -- like the others who work independently from each other but all exist in that bubble, or " rootless elitist international neoliberal clique", if you will -- collectively decide upon what Oettinger is saying here: Show nested quote + B) “Already the developments of the government bonds, the market value of banks, the general course of the Italian economy is clearly overcast, is negative. A) This has to do with the possible government formation.” See? A causes B, is what he is effectively saying. He's admitting that the neoliberals are the ones that control the market forces and collectively decide when a country's economy must tank as a result of people not voting for the neoliberals that live in that same bubble and are aligned with the neoliberal investors. So when Soros predicts an economic crisis, he's thinking -- just like thousands of his peers -- "I might not want to invest there", which will then effectively result in the crisis. What the fuck is anti-semitic about any of that?
Interesting choice of words there
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootless_cosmopolitan
Just because you've internalised the anti-semitism to the point where you're oblivious to it doesn't mean it's not real. market forces are not *controlled* by any clique of any sort, that's conspiracy nonsense. Markets are not only not controllable, but rarely even predictable, they're emergent systems that are the result of interactions of countless of actors.
|
On May 30 2018 04:04 a_flayer wrote:What? It's got nothing to do with his religion or ethnicity. What the fuck man. He's a financial investor, and him -- like the others who work independently from each other but all exist in that bubble, or "rootless elitist international neoliberal clique", if you will -- collectively decide upon what Oettinger is saying here: Show nested quote + B) “Already the developments of the government bonds, the market value of banks, the general course of the Italian economy is clearly overcast, is negative. A) This has to do with the possible government formation.” See? A causes B, is what he is effectively saying. He's admitting that the neoliberals are the ones that control the market forces and collectively decide when a country's economy must tank as a result of people not voting for the neoliberals that live in that same bubble and are aligned with the neoliberal investors. So when Soros predicts an economic crisis, he's thinking -- just like thousands of his peers -- "I might not want to invest there", which will then effectively result in the crisis. What the fuck is anti-semitic about any of that?
Neo-liberals don't control shit in this scenario. Market forces dictate interest rates on a free market (like that of government bonds). If you want to change how government bonds work you are not anti-neo-liberal, you are probably an anarcho-communist. Which I guess you have the right to be, but at least blame the right thing in your rant.
I mean, I do believe there is plenty wrong with free markets, but interest rates rising on bonds ofcountries that have increasingly unstable governments isn't one of them.
|
On May 30 2018 04:07 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 03:56 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:On May 30 2018 03:26 TheDwf wrote:https://twitter.com/RiegertBernd/status/1001438844707835904Tusk, Juncker slap down Oettinger after Italy remarks spark stormBudget commissioner said economic effects of political instability would give Italians signal not to vote for populists. A suggestion by European Budget Commissioner Günther Oettinger that financial markets would show Italians how to vote sparked outrage in Rome on Tuesday and frantic backtracking in Brussels. Oettinger told broadcaster Deutsche Welle in an interview conducted in German that the reaction of financial markets would give Italian voters a signal not to vote for populists. “My concern and expectation is that the coming weeks will show that the development of the markets, government bonds and the economy of Italy will be so far-reaching that this will be a possible signal to voters not to vote for populists on the right or left,” Oettinger said. “Already the developments of the government bonds, the market value of banks, the general course of the Italian economy is clearly overcast, is negative. This has to do with the possible government formation.” Oettinger’s remarks prompted an immediate backlash from Italy’s populist 5Star Movement and League, as well as from other EU leaders including European Council President Donald Tusk, who tweeted an “appeal” to EU institutions, saying “please respect the voters. We are there to serve them, not to lecture them.” The Commission issued a statement on behalf of President Jean-Claude Juncker, saying that “Italy’s fate does not lie in the hands of the financial markets.” “Regardless of which political party may be in power, Italy is a founding member of the European Union that has contributed immensely to European integration. President Juncker is convinced that Italy will continue on its European path. The Commission is ready to work with Italy with responsibility and mutual respect. Italy deserves respect,” Juncker said. Much of the criticism appears to have been sparked by a tweet in English from the journalist who conducted the interview. He quoted Oettinger using a more blunt formulation: “The markets will teach the Italians to vote for the right thing.” The reporter later deleted and apologized for the tweet, admitting he had misquoted Oettinger. (...) Source + Show Spoiler +"Don't say the truth too brutally!" (Also funny to see that this racist bureaucrat, who had called Chinese "slant eyes," is still in charge of anything...) https://twitter.com/GOettingerEU/status/1001520040146063361Several statements, they must be really stressed... Oettinger really needs to go. His incompetence is infuriating. Well that is why he is in Brussels. As long as our countries keep sending the biggest retards to Brussels what good do you believe will come from it? You know the Austrian commissary Johannes Hahn (ÖVP)? Was a catastrophical minster for universities and research, we occupied the lecture halls for like a half year and he had to step down. His reward? Get a high paying job at Brussels. That's what happens if you have an incest society in which oligarchic conservative parties give posts and power to their inbred, brainless sons just for being born from the right family.
Well, I'm from Baden-Württemberg and old enough to remember his educational reforms. In fact, I just finished high school, when university fees were introduced. Then he wanted to sell state-owned antique documents for 70 Mio €. Then he suddenly quit office, introducing the biggest joke I've ever seen to grace the political stage: Stefan Mappus, who held office for about a year, being remembered mostly for authorizing an illegal police operation against people demonstrating the new Stuttgart trainstation which lead to children and old people being washed down the streets by water guns and some retiree losing one of his eyes.
Giving a guy who barely speaks any English a Brussels topjob sounds like a good idea, yeah. Never heard about Hahn, but I guess they're basically the same.
|
On May 30 2018 04:25 Acrofales wrote:
Market forces dictate interest rates on a free market.
I see effectively no difference between what you say there and what I said.
Market forces, aka rootless international neoliberal clique...
|
Flayer, I don’t think you mean to, but you are using language that can easily be mistaken for anti Semitism. The term “rootless” combined with a vague group of wealthy, global influencers is close to the vague accusations made against people of the Jewish faith.
I get your argument,, but you should drop the term rootless and maybe be a bit more specific about whom you are talking about.
|
The people working at financial centers, banks and media across the world at Wallstreet, London, Berlin, Amsterdam, and their lackeys in the respective governments of those countries. And their owners behind the scenes. Your Robert Mercers, George Soroses, Koch Brothers, Jeff Bezoses, etc.
They're all in the same neoliberal boat of wanting to keep extracting as much as they possibly can from society and Earth.
Any anti-semitism is imagined on your part.
And you, Nyxisto, you're doing the exactly the reverse of what you're accusing me to do. You've internalized anti-anti-semitism so much that whenever you see someone criticizing the banks and media you think they're complaining about the Jews.
|
I don’t understand why folks on this site double down on language like the term “rootless” in this context. When I find out a term is associated with dog whistle racism/anti-Semitism, I avoid using it because I don’t want to be associated with those things. There are so many other word to use, why use “rootless” in this specific context?
|
On May 30 2018 05:45 Plansix wrote:
I don’t understand why folks on this site double down on language like the term “rootless” in this context. When I find out a term is associated with dog whistle racism/anti-Semitism, I avoid using it because I don’t want to be associated with those things. There are so many other word to use, why use “rootless” in this specific context?
is it different on other sites you use?
Most people just dislike having to change what words they use to describe something. especially if the argument comes from someone they're disagreeing with, they'd rather just stick to the words they're used to.
|
Well, in my defense, I didn't purposefully start paraphrasing Hitler until AFTER the really tedious anti-semitic calls came out.
But really, though, you see the rootlessness of this global oligarchical elite reflected very well in the "collusion" (aka pretty standard business relations) between Republicans and Russian oligarchs.
|
On May 30 2018 04:16 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 04:04 TheDwf wrote:On May 30 2018 03:51 Gorsameth wrote:
There are 101 treaties and regulations a government has to follow that they themselves did not make. Why is this any different? Because this set of rules determines growth, revenues and their distribution, the degree of social protection & workers' rights, public expenditure, in short the material means of existence of dozens of millions of people, unlike a treaty on chemical arms or something of that kind Also democracy implies the possibility to change institutions and/or the socio-economic framework in which you were previously operating And democratic means exists to change the framework. EU elections. Not the Italian one. And if you think countries should be able to individually decide if and how they want to follow international guidelines designed to maintain a stable currency then I can only laugh at that.
The system you're describing is called a dominion...
EU elections decide nothing, especially as there's no European people/nation, and it would be completely ridiculous for a sovereign people to wait the 18 or 26 others to reach the same position in order to move an inch away from the Holy Rules (which were violated numerous times anyway). Neither the previous agreement nor the agreement of other countries can bind you forever, and given Italy's disastrous situation it is perfectly justified for them to question institutions and rules which throttle them.
All of this happens because the eurozone is an institutional monstruosity. There can be no unique currency without the corresponding unified political space and fiscal transfers. For ignoring this basic rule and decreeing that "the euro is irreversible," even when its proclaimed goals (growth and convergence) clearly failed, people in power are paving the way for greater and greater disasters.
|
On May 30 2018 05:57 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 05:45 Plansix wrote:
I don’t understand why folks on this site double down on language like the term “rootless” in this context. When I find out a term is associated with dog whistle racism/anti-Semitism, I avoid using it because I don’t want to be associated with those things. There are so many other word to use, why use “rootless” in this specific context? is it different on other sites you use? Most people just dislike having to change what words they use to describe something. especially if the argument comes from someone they're disagreeing with, they'd rather just stick to the words they're used to.
that might be fine if we're talking about a brash insult but if you're at the point of paraphrasing stalinist racist campaigns you probably ought to rethink your position.
Also in this case it's not just about language. The entire mindset is pathological. Jeff Bezos or George Soros don't control anyone, elected politicians are not 'lackeys', it's paranoid and implies that 'men in the shadow' are somehow controlling the governance of democratic societies. Which is structurally anti-Semitic because it's the most important feature of anti-semitic attitudes.
As Bonefeld points out :
Modern antisemitism is ‘the rumor about the Jews’ as the incarnation of hated forms of capitalism
where finance, global capital and so forth are seen as ' rootless parasites', in contrast to glorified, domestic labour etc..
|
On May 30 2018 05:57 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 05:45 Plansix wrote:
I don’t understand why folks on this site double down on language like the term “rootless” in this context. When I find out a term is associated with dog whistle racism/anti-Semitism, I avoid using it because I don’t want to be associated with those things. There are so many other word to use, why use “rootless” in this specific context? is it different on other sites you use? Most people just dislike having to change what words they use to describe something. especially if the argument comes from someone they're disagreeing with, they'd rather just stick to the words they're used to.
It is different for me personally. I do want to be mistake for someone who supports anti-Semitism in any way. Or racism. Online or in person. And as a white dude from an all white community, sometimes I screw up. So if someone points out that a phrase or term can be mistaken for that, I just switch my language because it is easy to do.
|
On May 30 2018 06:08 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 05:57 zlefin wrote:On May 30 2018 05:45 Plansix wrote:
I don’t understand why folks on this site double down on language like the term “rootless” in this context. When I find out a term is associated with dog whistle racism/anti-Semitism, I avoid using it because I don’t want to be associated with those things. There are so many other word to use, why use “rootless” in this specific context? is it different on other sites you use? Most people just dislike having to change what words they use to describe something. especially if the argument comes from someone they're disagreeing with, they'd rather just stick to the words they're used to. that might be fine if we're talking about a brash insult but if you're at the point of paraphrasing stalinist racist campaigns you probably ought to rethink your position. Also in this case it's not just about language. The entire mindset is pathological. Jeff Bezos or George Soros don't control anyone, elected politicians are not 'lackeys', it's paranoid and implies that 'men in the shadow' are somehow controlling the governance of democratic societies. Which is structurally anti-Semitic because it's the most important feature of anti-semitic attitudes. As Bonefeld points out : Show nested quote +Modern antisemitism is ‘the rumor about the Jews’ as the incarnation of hated forms of capitalism where finance, global capital and so forth are seen as ' rootless parasites', in contrast to glorified, domestic labour etc..
The trumpet is patriarchy, it's old and fixed.
Here's my sophisticated counter-theory to all your meaningless mumbo jumbo: Hitler was right, except about the Jews, and some of that other genetic purity crap and so forth.
|
On May 30 2018 06:08 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 05:57 zlefin wrote:On May 30 2018 05:45 Plansix wrote:
I don’t understand why folks on this site double down on language like the term “rootless” in this context. When I find out a term is associated with dog whistle racism/anti-Semitism, I avoid using it because I don’t want to be associated with those things. There are so many other word to use, why use “rootless” in this specific context? is it different on other sites you use? Most people just dislike having to change what words they use to describe something. especially if the argument comes from someone they're disagreeing with, they'd rather just stick to the words they're used to. that might be fine if we're talking about a brash insult but if you're at the point of paraphrasing stalinist racist campaigns you probably ought to rethink your position. Also in this case it's not just about language. The entire mindset is pathological. Jeff Bezos or George Soros don't control anyone, elected politicians are not 'lackeys', it's paranoid and implies that 'men in the shadow' are somehow controlling the governance of democratic societies. Which is structurally anti-Semitic because it's the most important feature of anti-semitic attitudes. As Bonefeld points out : Show nested quote +Modern antisemitism is ‘the rumor about the Jews’ as the incarnation of hated forms of capitalism where finance, global capital and so forth are seen as ' rootless parasites', in contrast to glorified, domestic labour etc..
yeah, it does have a lot of flaws; it's also one of the standard cognitive biases found in humans, so it's hard to avoid.
and rethinking your position would require them to have thought it out in the first place  most people do not.
@plansix ok. Some people just don't care that the language overlaps I guess. and some people really do hate having to learn new names for things, and the question is whether they'll do it while grumbling or just refuse to change.
|
"Modern antisemitism is ‘the rumor about the Jews’ as the incarnation of hated forms of capitalism"
And this has been used very often to shield said forms of capitalism from criticism, which makes for a complicated picture doesn't it. Of course the opposite end of the spectrum runs the risk of being just as anti-semitic, cause it would be rooted in the assumption that those positions that are being criticized are for some reason inherently jewish, and well, they aren't.
And if you want to argue that the line is very clear and that we can easily tell when someone is criticizing capitalism and when someone is being antisemitic, I'd counter that Nyxisto came at a_flayer with the charge of antisemitism before he had indicated anything else than that he wasn't a fan of neoliberalism.
|
It's not just a knee-jerk response to a criticism of neoliberalism. Even Zizek, a Marxist has pointed out the flaw with this kind of reasoning.
Jacques Lacan claimed that, even if a jealous husband's claim about his wife – that she sleeps around with other men – is true, his jealousy is still pathological. Why? The true question is “not is his jealousy well-grounded?”, but “why does he need jealousy to maintain his self-identity?”. Along the same lines, one could say that even if most of the Nazi claims about the Jews were true – they exploit Germans; they seduce German girls – which they were not, of course, their anti-Semitism would still be (and was) pathological, since it represses the true reason why the Nazis needed anti-Semitism in order to sustain their ideological position.
[...]
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/02/slavoj-zizek-what-our-fear-refugees-says-about-europe
|
On May 30 2018 07:36 Nyxisto wrote:
It's not just a knee-jerk response to a criticism of neoliberalism. Even Zizek, a Marxist has pointed out the flaw with this kind of reasoning.
I don't get it. Is it the right article?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DeYKFwrW4AUKwqb.jpg)
