The Great Thing About Britain’s Labour Party Is… Nothing

Just a note or 2 in reply for greater context, Ian. Few people hate and despise the Brits more than me, my Irish blood made me wary of them from a young age. So the brilliant (despite his transphobia) George Galloway on a recent MOATS covered that point about Burnham’s pledge to go to Israel 1st years back (as well as the one now), he was running against Jeremy Corbyn and lost, Corbyn inaugurated, then (like Bernie) surrender-monkeyed all the “Anti-Semitism” bullshit, fired and ousted his own loyal, principled Labour members, set himself up to be betrayed by his “good friend” Starmer, no less!!

The Imperial viciousness of the Brits with their rigid class system, Private School beatings and forced sodomy, and curdled self-hatred that their Great Empire which ruled over half the world for centuries is gone, is Epic!! Epstein Fury Epic.

I had to enlarge that chart, but yes, it fully shows the Far Right preference of the suffering Brits. “Please sir, give me another!” (lash).

When Nigel Farage got his giant Brexit victory, 2016 if memory serves, he was a full-on, Nazi, Oswald Mosley-type, I think he moderated that a bit in recent years but confess I haven’t followed him closely, I think “conservative” is far too kind a word for him and Fascist fits better. (But could be wrong.)

Another thing that Galloway covered in the same episode was that the other Right-Wing parties, and they are clearly the majority, threw the election to Burnham, he listed 4 or 5 that could’ve claimed a victory and just stood down. I mean it’s a system there as here, the “Big Club” all have each others’ backs. At this point the “respectable” British public are a Death Cult, like the Zionist AshkeNazis they love so much. Yeah, drink filthy water and get sick, your children might die, like in the early Industrial Revolution when the Thames was full of shit!! But hey, Social Darwinism rules, Kill off the Weak or put them in Poorhouses!! Dickens a dissenter, very sentimental, they don’t have too many of those selling books now, I’d guess.

“Un-development”!! What a concept! Gotta hand it to them, poor Klaus Schwab had to step down from the WEF a couple years ago because his “You will own nothing, eat bugs and be happy” nostrum for the plebs was too evil for even the WEF Princes and Princesses to publicly trumpet.

Galloway covered that during most of his 53 year career until he was threatened with “Terrorism” charges and had to flee the country, their were NOT majorities of elected public servants in the “Friends of Israel” camp, that only really ramped up with Bush’s Poodle, Tony B.Liar, currently profiting prettily off the Gaza Genocide, killed 10s or hundreds of thousands of Arabs ever since winning acclaim with Bush Jr.

” . . .almost nothing to loot,” what a great way to end a society. It’s like the story about the ancient Spartans, someone went to see how they were doing and there were 2 old, sick men who were all that remained of the Warriors who defeated Athens and the Delian League. Infant-exposure to only raise sufficiently strong warriors (& don’t let your Slaves get too fat, they might revolt, and they way outnumber you). The Greeks exceeded as we know in Astronomy (Eratosthenes down in the dry well, measuring the Sun and Moon’s distance from Earth with impressive accuracy), Gymnastics, Rhetoric, Comedy and Tragedy, Philosophy, conquest (they, like the Romans, have a greater legitimate claim to Palestine than the beyond the Pale settlers of Khazar Turkic descent, copies of the Torah in Greek during Yeshua’s lifetime), etc. Gotta give them credit, the Spartans at least believed in Social Darwinism centuries before Charles’ birth.

The Cruelty is the Point.

The stupidity and the ignorance and the damage done continues to astound.

North Korea is going to sweep in, is it?

That X post implying that Andy Burnham’s first visit as PM will be to visit Israel is a complete fabrication from a source which has no credibility. Andy Burnham did say this while running for Labour leader in 2015, but has not said it in the last decade, to the best of my knowledge.

I’m really surprised that anyone here believes anything that they read on X. The articles and comments on this site are obviously written by well-informed and intelligent people, so it’s a mystery to me why any of you would be interested in any American tech platform, let alone one which is owned by a trillionaire who has encouraged the far right to rise up and overthrow the democratically elected British government. (Though I would agree that democracy and the Labour party have their flaws, and the Labour Party’s stance on Palestine Action is unforgivable; but my point here is about American tech.)

Any good that Starmer’s government has done, and there is some of that amongst the bad which is well described in the article, goes unnoticed due to the hatred stirred up by the algorithms of the American tech platforms, and that will now be seamlessly transferred to Andy Burnham, whatever policies he puts in place to try and slow the pace of the UK decline which was set in motion during the Thatcher years of looting.

Reform will do fine to keep the masses ignorant of the real cause of decline.

The problem is no one can turn this ship around after decades of mismanagement and City of London financialisation. . . The decline of US hegemony exposes the lack of any other competence the UK has. Exacerbated by having one of the highest energy costs in the world.

Frankly, that is why UK / Europe had to launch colonialism 500 years ago – they had little in the way of weather or resources or civilisation to draw on.

So, Britain initiated the Industrial Revolution, founded political liberalism and socialism, founded universities, created one of the world’s greatest literatures out a language that was barely a creole in 1200 and formed the largest Empire the world has ever seen, but cannot find or organize a progressive reform party that can actually argue and mobilize the reform of anything?

Back in the USA, the shell of the Democratic Party is still standing, though it is a vampire hotel inhabited by Boomer zombies, and organizing something else is barely imagined on dying Reddit threads. Imagine trying to make a progressive electorate out of a mob of MSNOW loonies who voted for Kamala!

But, the Brits have a multiplicity of new Parties and Old and the various flavors of center and left still cannot tell fashion a narrative or an electoral coalition. A Party can seize near-absolute power under the British “constitution” with little more than a third of the total vote. The overwhelming majority of Labour in the current Parliament rests on 34% of the national vote!

The Brits have as their unfathomably corrupt vampire zombie, the incomparable Blair. Even Michelle doing an Altoids commercial with Dubya in the Temple of Chicago Cthulhu cannot compete for ridiculousness.

Come on, Brits! Get off the mat, Lords and Ladies! You’ve got this! Lead us past neoliberalism!

@Bruce Wilder:

“Burnham is a more appealing personality than Starmer — scarcely a contest, but I didn’t hear any indication that the Parliamentary Labour Party, as they term the elected Party caucus, sees a need for a different course of policy.”

Burnham will enjoy a honeymoon for a little while, Starmerism but without that lumpy Starmer, and that is all he needs.

the U.K. is cooked. the real debt, the one that’s eating the country alive is their trade deficit, thanks thatcher/blair for all of your free trade!

yet during the depression, the U.K. dropped the crank theory of free trade, and did better than many others during the great depression.

the west cannot recover due to the fact that the rich will always fund quackery from milton friedman etc. types. that are paid to turn out reams and reams, endless reams of quackery that takes time to debunk.
———–

Is free trade the best way to beat recession?
This article is more than 17 years old
Larry Elliott

“The argument in favour of free trade is that it allows countries to specialise in what they are good at. This leads to greater efficiency, lower prices, higher levels of growth and more jobs. Countries that shut themselves off from the global economy – North Korea, for example – are much poorer than those, such as South Korea, that open their markets. As a result, it is universally accepted in the world of economics that the worst thing that could befall the global economy in its current parlous state would be the sort of tit-for-tat trade war that marked the 1930s. The historical evidence is conclusive: free trade is good, protectionism is bad.

Except that isn’t what the evidence actually shows. The Cambridge economist Ha-Joon Chang has demonstrated that no country since the dawning of the modern age has managed to industrialise successfully without protectionism. During the first century of the industrial revolution, Britain was one of the world’s most protectionist countries and only converted to free trade in the middle of the 19th century. The US had a 40% manufacturing tariff in its period of rapid expansion at the end of the 19th century. All the postwar Asian tigers – Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and China – have deployed protectionist measures to defend their fledgling industries.

Nor is the lesson of the 1930s quite as clear cut as the free trade camp argues. The US Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 is blamed for turning the Wall Street crash of 1929 into capitalism’s worst-ever depression – up until now, at least – but the American Paul Krugman has shown that this was a statistical impossibility, and that the immense contraction in the economy between 1929 and 1932 could not have been the result of higher tariffs. Instead, it was the result of a contraction in credit associated with policy errors by the Federal Reserve and the collapse of thousands of banks.

The real lesson of the 1930s is that if you think protectionism is in the offing, it makes sense to raise your barriers first. Lord Skidelsky, the biographer of Keynes, says that Britain’s economic recovery from the Great Depression was based on three policies – devaluation, cheap money and protectionism. London created a system of “imperial preference” – free trade within the empire but barriers to trade with the rest of the world. Other countries followed suit, abandoning the gold standard so they could devalue and increasing tariffs, and this contributed to the collapse in trade and the prolongation of the slump.

Yet the data shows that Britain had one of the shallowest downturns of all the major industrial nations in the 1930s – a 5% fall in GDP. By contrast, Brown’s devotion to free trade and open markets sits uneasily with Britain’s massive – and growing – trade deficit. Policymakers today say that the problem with free trade is that the winners often fail to recognise the benefits they are getting from lower prices, while the losers are all too aware when the job they were doing is lost to a textile mill on the other side of the world. The downturn has made not just the actual losers – but millions of potential losers – painfully aware of their vulnerability.”

———–
The U.K. trade deficit for 2024 was $32.14 billion, which represents a decline from the previous year. This indicates that the U.K. imported more goods and services than it exported.
Macrotrends CNBC

The trade deficit is a key economic indicator that reflects the difference between a country’s imports and exports. For the U.K., this figure has shown significant changes in recent years.

2024 Trade Deficit: $32.14 billion
Change from 2023: This represents a decline from the previous year’s deficit of $39.95 billion.

A trade deficit occurs when a country imports more goods and services than it exports.
This situation can indicate various economic conditions, including consumer demand and currency strength.

The U.K. has experienced fluctuations in its trade balance over the years, with the trade deficit reflecting broader economic trends and policies. Understanding these trends is crucial for analyzing the U.K.’s economic health and its position in global trade.
Wikipedia Macrotrends

The long-term effects of the U.K. trade deficit can include increased borrowing from abroad to fund consumption and investment, which may lead to economic instability if capital flows diminish. Additionally, a persistent trade deficit can signal a lack of competitiveness in domestic industries, potentially hindering economic growth.
business.hsbc.uk UK Parliament
————–

the american revolution was not about “no taxation without representation”, that’s a scam that the rich and the free market quacks have peddled for decades. the main reason was no free trade and no corporate rule.

in reality, bill clinton over turned the america revolution, giving us one outrage after another, till the inevitable results we see today.
————
The Boston Tea Party was a protest against British trade policies, specifically the tax on tea imposed without colonial representation, which led to significant tensions and ultimately contributed to the American Revolution. This event highlighted the colonists’ demand for fair trade practices and opposition to monopolistic control by the British East India Company.
The National Archives Wikipedia

The Boston Tea Party, which occurred on December 16, 1773, was a pivotal protest against British trade policies. It was primarily a reaction to the tax on tea imposed by the British Parliament without colonial representation. This event marked a significant moment in the lead-up to the American Revolution.

The colonists were frustrated by taxes levied by the British government, particularly the tea tax.
They believed it was unjust to be taxed without having representatives in Parliament to voice their concerns.

The British East India Company held a monopoly on tea trade, which limited competition and fair trade practices.
The Tea Act of 1773 aimed to assist the struggling East India Company by allowing it to sell tea directly to the colonies, undercutting local merchants.

The Boston Tea Party was not just a protest against a specific tax; it symbolized a broader demand for fair trade practices and resistance to monopolistic control. The destruction of 340 chests of tea in Boston Harbor was a direct challenge to British authority and trade regulations.

The British government responded with the Coercive Acts, which further escalated tensions between Britain and the colonies.
This event galvanized colonial unity and resistance, ultimately leading to the American Revolution.

The Boston Tea Party remains a significant historical event that illustrates the early American struggle for fair trade and representation in governance.
The National Archives Wikipedia
——————–
The World Trade Organization (WTO) is often criticized for establishing rules that primarily benefit transnational corporations, sometimes at the expense of local economies, workers, and the environment. Critics argue that its agreements can undermine democratic processes and public policies aimed at protecting health and safety.
citizen.org

The World Trade Organization (WTO) is an intergovernmental organization established on January 1, 1995. It regulates international trade and aims to reduce tariffs and other trade barriers. The WTO has 166 members, representing a significant portion of global trade and GDP.

The WTO is often criticized for creating rules that primarily benefit transnational corporations.
Critics argue that these rules can undermine local economies and prioritize corporate interests over public welfare.

The WTO’s agreements may challenge democratic processes and public policies designed to protect health, safety, and the environment.
Governments may be pressured to alter legitimate public policies to avoid trade sanctions, which can lead to weakened regulations.

The WTO has ruled against U.S. policies intended to protect public health and the environment, such as:
Country-of-origin labels on meat
Clean Air Act regulations
Fuel efficiency standards

The WTO’s framework and decisions have sparked significant debate regarding their impact on democracy, public health, and environmental protections. Critics argue that the organization often prioritizes corporate interests, raising concerns about its influence on global trade and local economies.
citizen.org Wikipedia

The World Trade Organization (WTO) has rules that allow transnational corporations (TNCs) to sue states in courts controlled by WTO dispute settlement, ensuring they can seek compensation for any laws that restrict their profit-making. Additionally, the WTO framework obliges countries to provide TNCs with effective remedies for any loss of competitiveness due to domestic regulations, which can lead to changes in national laws to favor TNC interests.
iatp.org Council on Foreign Relations

bruce wilder, great comment. Yes, that Obama building is a Cthulu Temple, I lived in Hyde Park, South Side, 1977-80, visited as recently as 2024, the only real Cosmopolitan City near Duluth, MN, Twin Cities don’t compare. I’m glad I won’t live there when the Portal is opened by the Elder Gods and the entire city’s human and animal populace gets crushed or eaten. I’m taking your cue and calling it the Obama Presidential Cthulu Temple from this day forward.

the data shows that Britain had one of the shallowest downturns of all the major industrial nations in the 1930s – a 5% fall in GDP.

“the data” show that, do they? pesky data.

i have come to truly despise the pretense of doing economic history by selecting or composing a statistic or two and using them as supposed factual support for a convenient but practically random narrative.

the short answer to Britain’s seemingly shallow economic trajectory in the 1930s was that they served themselves the Great Depression early, in 1925-6. Restored gold and declining and depleted coal held together by reduced wage rates — bad combo.

there is no recovering from this. its clearly shown by history, what free trade/free market(not smiths free market, he wanted markets free from rich parasites)economics does to its practitioners.

this is a complete historical over view on what bill clinton set up for america. at the end of the video, it states what is exactly happening to america today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wmSZntUWcE

The Satisfying Downfall Of The Confederate Army
————

the south relied on free trade to grow cash crops without tariffs. to do so meant they had to enslave others. because free trade cannot build value, value is built through the economic development of your people, infrastructure, and the manufacturing process.

today because of bill clintons disastrous polices, our armies are starved for modern manufactured weapons. they are starved of ammunition, which requires skilled labor and the manufacturing process. our infrastructure can no longer be supported, that takes skilled highly paid labor, and manufacturing to support making the necessary components for building and maintaining our infrastructure. 

its plainly laid out in the video.
——————–
The South’s plantation economy was heavily reliant on enslaved labor, particularly for the production of cash crops like cotton and sugar. This system of slavery was integral to the economic success of the region, as it provided the labor necessary to exploit the abundant land for agricultural production.
 whobuiltamerica.org National Geographic

The plantation economy in the Southern United States was fundamentally built on enslaved labor. This system was crucial for the production of cash crops, which were essential to the region’s economic success.

Key Components of the Plantation Economy

Enslaved Labor
• Enslaved Africans were the primary workforce on plantations.
• They were essential for cultivating and harvesting crops, particularly cotton and sugar.
• The reliance on enslaved labor allowed plantation owners to maximize profits from their agricultural output.
Cash Crops
The Southern economy focused on several key cash crops:

Cotton
Became the dominant crop, especially after the invention of the cotton gin, which increased production efficiency.

Sugar

Significant in the Caribbean and parts of the Southern U.S., with plantations relying heavily on enslaved labor for cultivation.

• The plantation system created a wealthy elite of plantation owners who benefited from the exploitation of enslaved labor.

• The profits generated from these crops fueled both local and international trade, contributing to the broader economy.

• The system of slavery was not only a labor source but also a means of generating capital for further investments in land and more slaves.
In summary, the Southern plantation economy was deeply intertwined with slavery, which provided the necessary labor force to exploit the land for agricultural production, particularly of cash crops like cotton and sugar.
 Wikipedia whobuiltamerica.org

Free trade policies significantly benefited the South’s plantation economy by allowing for the export of cash crops like cotton, which became the most valuable export in the United States. This reliance on free trade, however, also contributed to the South’s economic dependence on agriculture and slavery, hindering industrial development.
 National Park Service Sky HISTORY TV Channel
——————–
lincoln of tariffs and labor being the most important.

under free trade from 1850-1861, america went broke.

https://actnat.com/Modules/AbrahamLincoln.htm

“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”

“All that serves labor serves the nation. All that harms is treason. If a man tells you he trusts America, yet fears labor, he is a fool. There is no America without labor, and to fleece one is to rob the other.”
– ABRAHAM LINCOLN 
———-
Abraham Lincoln and the Tariff

https://www.abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/abraham-lincoln-in-depth/abraham-lincoln-and-the-tariff/index.html

“From the start, much of the South opposed tariffs because their main purpose was to protect domestic manufacturing, largely a Northern enterprise. At the same time, in the Southern view, tariffs threatened the Southern economy, which was critically dependent on trade with Great Britain. Great Britain was by far the United States’ largest trading partner in the antebellum era, and the most important export to Britain was Southern cotton.”5

“From the start, much of the South opposed tariffs because their main purpose was to protect domestic manufacturing, largely a Northern enterprise. At the same time, in the Southern view, tariffs threatened the Southern economy, which was critically dependent on trade with Great Britain. Great Britain was by far the United States’ largest trading partner in the antebellum era, and the most important export to Britain was Southern cotton.”5

“The tariff is the cheaper system, because the duties, being collected in large parcels at a few commercial points, will require comparatively few officers in their collection; while by the direct tax system, the land must be literally covered with assessors and collectors, going forth like swarms of Egyptian locusts, devouring every blade of grass and other green thing. And again, by the tariff system, the whole revenue is paid by the consumers of foreign goods, and those chiefly, the luxuries, and not the necessaries of life. 

By this system, the man who contents himself to live upon the products of his own country, pays nothing at all. And surely, that country is extensive enough, and its products abundant and varied enough, to answer all the real wants of its people. In short, by this system, the burthen of revenue falls almost entirely on the wealthy and luxurious few, while the substantial and laboring many who live at home, and upon home products, go entirely free.”44”

“The basic argument of the Whig-Republican protectionists was that the United States ought to produce its own iron, cloth, and most other manufactured commodities; that this could not be done while European wares came in unchecked floods; and that, when home manufactures once gained vigor, they would benefit American products of raw materials far more than any European markets could. 

No nation, they argued, had ever grown rapidly in wealth, power, intelligence, and arts while exporting raw materials and importing finished goods. On the contrary, such nations had always been impoverished.”97”

“Had the policy advocated by Mr Clay, as embodied in the tariff of 1842, been maintained, there could have been no secession, and for the reason that the southern mineral region would long since have obtained control of the planting one.

If now maintained – if measures be now adopted for enabling the people of the hill country to profit of our present tariff – and if capitalists can have such assurances of its permanence as is required for securing the creation of mills and furnaces, and the opening of mines — we may retrace our steps and thus secure the permanent maintenance of the Union.

If, on the contrary, our people left in doubt as to the purposes of the Administration, are compelled at each succeeding session of Congress to fight for life, and if, finally, the British free trade system be readopted – the Union must, before the lapse of may years, be rent into numerous fragments, mere instruments in the hands of foreign powers. From this, there can be no escape.

Three lines, in your forthcoming message Mr President, indicative of the principle of protection as the true Union policy, would be worth to the country more than the total cost of the war — great as that is likely to be.137”

“Later that year, Carey again wrote President Lincoln, but this time on a different subject that reflected another leg of Henry Clay’s American System: “With this you will receive a small pamphlet to which I desire to call your attention because of the bearing of some parts of it upon the question of the development of that great central region of the south which stands now so heartily by the Union, & which should now be the great center of southern power.- Had the policy of 1842 been maintained, it must be now that center, and the slave owners of the swamps & river bottoms would be so utterly powerless that you might do with them what you pleased.

Had it been maintained, the whole of the great tide region would now be intersected with roads by means of which the free people of north & south would be communicating with each other, freed from all intervention on the part of the slave proprietors of Virginia & Carolina.- As it is, they stand between us & the southern friends of the Union, who are being crushed out of existence, and all for want of a road by means of which we might give & receive assistance.” Carey continued: “British free trade is the policy of sectionalism. It has broken up the Union.

That we may become once again, & permanently, the United States, it is indispensable that we pursue that course of policy which looks to the development of the mineral resources of the country, North & South, and to the creation on the land of a market for all the products of the farm.138 Like Lincoln, Carey was anxious to pursue the nation’s economic development.

At that moment, however, the president had his hands full with the Civil War. Historian Reinhard H. Luthin wrote: “Just how far under normal conditions Lincoln would have gone along with Carey’s views cannot be said.

The necessity of financing the war against the Confederacy forced the President to favor a rise in import duties as a source of revenue. In a message to Congress shortly after the firing on Fort Sumter, he pointed to the reports of the Secretaries of the Treasury, War, and Navy as giving the information necessary for deliberation and action.”139”

““In the White House, wrote historian Gabor S. Boritt, “Lincoln followed his ‘political education’ to the point where he managed not to directly mention the tariff at all in official messages. He did not have to. Congress passed tariff increase after increase and he signed them into law. Rates reached unprecedented and previously unimaginable heights. They were made frankly protectionist.”141 One economic consequence was a dramatic increase in the manufacturing capacity of the North as the labored to meet military needs. About such an industrial expansion, President Lincoln cannot have been displeased.”
…
Cash crops can contribute to environmental and social challenges such as reduced agricultural diversity, soil depletion, and food security risks when land and resources are diverted from staple food production.
 Vaia Wikipedia

Cash crops, while economically beneficial, can lead to significant environmental and social challenges.
• Reduced Agricultural Diversity: Focusing on cash crops often leads to monoculture, which decreases biodiversity. This makes ecosystems more vulnerable to pests and diseases.
• Soil Depletion: Continuous cultivation of cash crops can deplete soil nutrients, leading to long-term degradation of land quality.
• Resource Allocation: Large areas of land and significant resources are often dedicated to cash crops, diverting them from staple food production. This can result in food shortages and increased prices for essential food items.
• Food Security Risks: When farmers prioritize cash crops over food crops, it can compromise local food availability. This creates dependency on external markets, making communities vulnerable to price fluctuations.
• Income Inequality: The focus on cash crops can widen the gap between large agribusinesses and small-scale farmers, leading to disparities in income and access to resources.
While cash crops can drive economic growth, their cultivation must be managed carefully to mitigate the associated environmental and social risks. Balancing cash crop production with food security and sustainability is crucial for long-term agricultural health.
 Vaia Wikipedia
—————
Free trade has negatively impacted farmers by flooding local markets with cheaper imports, leading to job losses and increased poverty. This has particularly devastated agricultural communities in regions like Africa and Mexico.
 panna.org Mongabay

Impact of Free Trade on Cash Crops
Economic Consequences
Free trade has significantly harmed farmers, particularly in developing regions. The influx of cheaper imports has led to:
• Job Losses: Local farmers struggle to compete with lower-priced foreign goods.
• Increased Poverty: Agricultural communities face heightened economic challenges, leading to a rise in poverty levels.
Africa
• Market Flooding: Free trade agreements have inundated African markets with inexpensive agricultural products, undermining local farmers’ livelihoods.
• Decline of Traditional Farming: The shift towards cash crops for export has often come at the expense of food security and local agricultural practices.
Mexico
• NAFTA’s Impact: The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) resulted in a 15% increase in rural poverty within two years of its implementation, as U.S. agricultural products flooded the market, displacing local farmers.
The push for free trade has led to the destruction of local agricultural economies, particularly in regions reliant on cash crops. This has resulted in job losses and increased poverty, highlighting the need for policies that protect local farmers and promote sustainable agricultural practices.
 panna.org Cambridge University Press

—————————
No bruce wilder, it was not perfect for the u.k. during the depression but I bet most germans would have traded places with a citizen of the u.k.

http://fsmitha.com/h2/ch16.htm

In 1927, German manufacturing was at its postwar high: twenty-two
percent above what it had been in 1913. In September 1928 Germany had
650,000 unemployed. In the wake of the great fall of prices on the
U.S. stockmarket, lenders from the U.S. gave Germany ninety days to
start repayment.

By September 1930 Germany’s unemployment had risen to
3,000,000. By 1930 Germany’s manufacturing had fallen seventeen
percent from that 1927 level. [note]

Bankruptcies were increasing, Farmers were hurting. Some in the middleclass feared sliding into the lower class. And some in the middleclass blamed the economic decline on unemployed people being unwilling to work — while hunger was widespread.

Brüning attempted to restore economic equilibrium by a balanced
budget, high interest rates and remaining on the gold standard — no
emergency deficit spending. And the economy continued to slide……..

Regarding Putin/Russia:
I wouldn’t be surprised if Putin’s government is a “Globalist Slop”; an excellent case can be made it is.
There is however another way to view Russia’s decisions.
The USSR did not not get destroyed by an outside force. It was destroyed from within. Likewise, with the West. It is collapsing under the weight of it’s dead end culture. The USSR won ww2, but lost in the long run. The West won even more and is still collapsing. Russia’s primary goals may not be –they shouldn’t be– to end the Ukraine war and slap NATO down. History has shown that winning a war and making foreign belligerents understand they can’t attack you is not the route to long term prosperity.

If Russia’s goal is to create group solidarity and to install a new culture it’s “cowardly” actions make sense. What unites a people more than fighting off foreign invaders? An existential long term war aides the creation of a communal warrior culture.

Ask yourself these two questions:
in the long term what is more beneficial for the Russian nation: Quick victory in Ukraine or a populace that is united?
What is better long term: a communal warrior culture or the current Materialist western culture?

I don’t know if this explains Russia’s actions but I do know there are prominent intellectuals in Russia who have written extensively about this very concept.

This same concept can explains Iran’s dithering and timidness until recently. They weren’t ready to engage in an existential war with the West. First they had to convince their people and more importantly their ruling class that their only option was fight together or die. In 2024 Iran elected a President who campaigned on closer ties to the West. Image an election in Iran with a candidate trying that now.