Trumponomics 2.0

Posted on November 12, 2024 by thezman

The next few weeks will bring a flurry of news regarding various names for jobs in the next Trump White House. Some of it will be gaslighting from people who just make things up for regime media. Some of it will disappoint Trump supporters hoping to get something from their efforts this time. One area that has gotten no coverage, but will be one of the most important, is the economy. Trump appears determined to fundamentally change how Washington controls the economy.

That is the first thing to understand. The United States is not a free-market economy or even close to one. There are millions of lines of regulatory code covering every aspect of economic activity. It is not exactly a command economy and in no way a centrally planned one, but it is a tightly controlled economy. Washington has its tentacles in every nook and cranny, even the black markets. Therefore, a president’s view on how to control the economy matters a great deal.

When it comes to economic policy, the placed to start is former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Trump was a fan of Abenomics, in addition to be on very good personal terms with him. Trump has often spoke highly of what has come to be known as Abenomics. Reportedly, Trump has talked to Scott Bessent about a position in the administration, maybe even Treasury Secretary. Bessent is also a proponent of the “three arrows” approach to the economy.

The “three arrows” term is how Shinzo Abe described his approach. One arrow or prong was loose money. Get as much money into the economy as quickly as possible, even if it creates inflation. The second arrow is to direct that new money into areas of the economy that either need revitalization or startup capital. If this means growing the budget, then so be it. The third arrow is to encourage (compel) private investment in the domestic economy over yield chasing.

Applied to the American economy, it probably means a blend of loose money, the slashing of regulation and tariffs to direct investment into the domestical economy, especially the supply chain and industrial base. One obvious lesson of the Covid panic, one entirely ignored by Washington, is complex supply chains, especially those flowing through Asia, are highly fragile. The growing rift with China makes untangling those supply chains even more important going forward.

Trump has made it clear that he wants to use tariffs to redirect investment into the domestic economy. Another name turning up as a possible addition to the Trump team is Robert Lighthizer, who is both a China hawk and the architect of Trump’s trade policy in his first term. It is important to note that the changes Trump ushered in were not rolled back under Biden. Taken together, it is a clear sign that Trump 2.0 will be much more hawkish on the trade front.

Those familiar with the regulatory world remember the wild ride it was in Trump’s first term as they went on a deregulation spree. Expect Trump 2.0 to be even more aggressive, especially on the environmental front. His nominee for the EPA is Lee Zeldin, who the Gaia worshipers detest. Trump made it clear with the announcement that his job will be to clear the dense thicket of environmental regulations that make it hard to put a shovel in the ground for any reason.

Trump 2.0 will be helped by the courts in this regard. This year the Supreme Court ended what had been termed the Chevron deference. This was the rule that said the courts should defer to the regulatory agencies whenever there was ambiguity in the laws passed by Congress. Of course, this meant that everything passed by Congress was as vague as possible, to give total control to the agencies. This has been turned on its head by the courts.

What we are likely to see is a three-pronged assault on the administrative state in Trump’s second term. One prong will be the aggressive slashing of regulations that we saw in Trump’s first term. The second prong will be a flood of litigation aimed at the vagaries of the enabling legislation. There are many cases in the system. The final prong is an effort by Congress to clean up the language to both limit the agencies, but also reassert oversight.

Where things get interesting is fiscal policy. Inflation remains an issue, despite claims to the contrary, but the Fed is signaling cuts in interest rates. Will Trump demand big new spending on infrastructure? This would be one way to soak up some of the extra money being generated by lower interest rates. Anyone who goes outside knows there is a desperate need to rebuild the infrastructure. Go to an airport and you are suddenly embarrassed to be an American.

All this stuff is boring and does not get the same attention you see with some of the other stuff allegedly on Trump’s agenda. Catapulting left-wing crazies into the sea provides a much bigger dopamine rush than deregulation. On the other hand, Trumponomics is the most radical part of his agenda. Those old enough to remember Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan see the point. Trump is repudiating half a century of conservative economic dogma.

The Trump economic agenda is not without its problems. In Washington, every mortgage payment, college tuition bill, access to elite schools and universities depends on nothing changing in Washington. Trump 1.0 was largely undone by his own party, who is as invested in the status quo as the Democrats. The lawfare industrial complex is also gearing up for round two against Trump. Maybe his team is ready this time, but even if they are prepared, it will be a long slog.

The bigger question is if it will work. What Trump is proposing sounds a lot like old fashioned liberal economics from the last century. Instead of tax and spend it will be print and spend. The difference is the deregulation and tariffs. The point of this approach is to redirect investment back into the American economy and direct it to tangible things like supply chains and manufacturing. It is the approach we saw with growth economies last century.

Another thing he has on his side is the economic elites have come around to this approach to the economy. Investors love cheap money and deregulation, but Wall Street also sees it needs a replacement for Asia. The days of getting rich from the China trade are gone. If the United States replaces China as an investment option, they will get onboard with it. As we saw with the election, it is always good when the rich people are backing your play.

If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!

Promotions: Good Svffer is an online retailer partnering with several prolific content creators on the Dissident Right, both designing and producing a variety of merchandise including shirts, posters, and books. If you are looking for a way to let the world know you are one of us without letting the world know you are one one is us, then you should but a shirt with the Lagos Trading Company logo.

Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link. If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb. Just email them directly to book at

sa***@mi*********************.com

.

The Restoration

Posted on November 11, 2024 by thezman

Note: Behind the green door I have a post about the weird noises coming from the regime after the election, a post about the odd quiet that we are seeing after Trump swept the field and the Sunday podcast. Subscribe here or here.

Legend has it that at the start of the trial of English King Charles I, Oliver Cromwell saw the king approaching Westminster Hall and realized he had a problem. He quickly warned his fellow parliamentarians that the king would ask a very straightforward question at the opening of the trial. He would demand to know upon what authority was he being brought to a trial. This is, in fact, what happened. Charles refused to enter a plea on the grounds the court had no authority over him.

The drama about Cromwell seeing the king’s approach and then suddenly seeing his problem is apocryphal, as the parliamentarians had been debating this issue since the end of the Second English Civil War. According to English law, the king could not be tried for breaking the law. Logically, the king was the law. The king was the sovereign and therefore the embodiment of the nation and its laws. Putting the king on trial was putting the system itself on trial.

Cromwell and his pals got around this problem by simply wielding the power they had, which was the force of arms, to override objections from members of parliament, the House of Lords and the king himself. When Charles asked “I would know by what power I am called hither. I would know by what authority, I mean lawful authority”, the parliamentarians decided that “the King of England was not a person, but an office whose every occupant was entrusted with a limited power to govern.”

In other words, the long-held principles both sides claimed to support, over which they fought two bloody wars to that point, gave way to political expediency. Cromwell and the New Model Army had power, and they were determined to keep it, which meant killing the king and what he represented. If it meant trampling a thousand years of tradition and the law itself, they were prepared to do it. The trial proceeded as if the Charles confessed his guilt, and he was soon executed.

The French Revolution gets all the attention when it comes the crisis of liberalism, but it is the English Civil War that presents the problem plainly. By what authority can a parliament rule over a people? The answer always given is the people, but by what authority do the people have to pick their rulers? Where is it written that the people are the moral arbiter of society? Modern people think the answer is obvious, but for most of human history people thought the opposite.

The reason we have that story about Cromwell looking out of the window of Westminster Hall and suddenly realizing his dilemma is because people at the time understood the power of authority. The king was just a man, but what he represented was earthly dominion over man. No one looked at the king as just a man because he was the final authority, the one man who was an exception to the law, while being the embodiment of the law. He was the sovereign.

It is why after Cromwell’s death, the monarchy was restored. Despite it all, Cromwell was never able to answer the question posed by Charles at his trial. The authority of Parliament is in the law, but the authority of the law is in the king. Without a king, those in control of Parliament were left with force as their authority. It is easy to see why Mao famously said that political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The question of authority has haunted the world since that famous trial.

We are getting a glimpse of this with the election of Trump. Fifty years ago, the managerial class staged a coup against Nixon. Like the Rump Parliament that deposed Charles I, they acted extrajudicially but claimed to be doing so in defense of the law, which is a contradiction that cannot be resolved. They rid themselves of the imperial presidency, reducing the office and the rest of the political structures to committees controlled by the managerial class.

Then as now, the central question in the crisis is who says? Much of what constitutes the crisis of the American empire is people shouting from screens, demanding you must do this or must stop doing that. Everywhere you turn is a digital preacher, waging her bony finger at you and lecturing about your sins. The Roundhead ascendency that began with Watergate climaxed with men in dresses calling normal people sinners, but always the question remained. Who says?

The restoration of Donald Trump is an answer of sorts. Whatever his faults, Trump is a man who commands attention and respect. When he enters a room, the room changes because he is larger than life. He persevered over the last four years of official persecution through force of will. He returns to Washington as the leader of the victorious side in the cold civil war that has gripped the country. He also returns with an agenda and a mandate to execute it.

None of this is to say that Trump is the monarch or our moral authority. The point of the comparison is that the executive exists to replicate that role in a democratic system that lacks a moral authority. Without energy in the executive, the president cannot play the role the system requires to function. The last fifty years has seen the rise of rule by committee, and no one builds monuments to committees. Just as Parliament needed the king, Washington needs Trump.

It still leaves open that question. Monarchy solved the problem by making the king the sovereign and the answer to who says? In America, Christianity was assumed to be the answer most of the time. The exceptions required a strong executive to make the hard decisions and force the legislature to act. First the melting away of Christianity then the toppling of the strong executive left us with rule by committee and the fanciful chants about democracy to answer the question of authority.

Trump will not reign forever, so the question will return. Perhaps the managerial elite sees the problem and supports the return of the imperial presidency as a solution to the internal contradictions of managerialism. Maybe the economic elite supports the strong executive as a proxy for their supremacy over the managerial class, much in the way the king was the leader of the aristocracy. Maybe Washington falls into chaos again, as managerialism reaches its end.

In the end, political systems rise and fall on the question of authority. The moral questions in every society are either answered by the gods or by the people though their traditions and customs. Centuries of experience in self-government says we simply cannot accept “because we say so” as an answer. You either have a strong executive with the power to impress or you have a shared religion that answers all the important moral questions. Managerialism has neither.

The Signs Of The Next Times

Posted on November 7, 2024 by thezman

One of the weird things about how the American empire operates is that there is a long waiting period between the presidential election and the installation of the winner, if the winner is not the incumbent. In most countries with elections, the transition happens within a week or two of the election. In America, the new president has months to wait for his turn at the wheel and the outgoing administration has months to do their worst, often with the goal of hobbling the next president.

The latter was on full display after the 2016 election. The last months of the Obama administration were used to set up the Russian collusion hoax, along with other schemes to prevent a smooth transition. The Trump administration was crippled right out of the gate, forced to go through the absurd theater of a special counsel to investigate what everyone knew was a political dirty trick. Between November and January, the fate of the Trump administration was sealed.

That is something to keep in mind this time. Like 2016, the political class was sure they had fended off the invisible army of orange Hitlers, only to find that their blue wall had crumbled once again. Unlike 2016 there was no way for them to claim it was fraudulent or illegitimate, since the results were conclusive. This may explain the relative quiet this time compared to 2016. By the standards of presidential elections, this was a trouncing in both the electoral college and popular vote.

It is possible that the energy has run out of crazy land. People want to think the madness set in during the 2016 election, but it started way back in 2000 when the people we call the left went nuts over the Florida recount. It has been a steady decline into madness for over two decades. That is a long time to sit in the pumpkin patch waiting for the conspiracy theories to be proven true. Perhaps they got tired of waiting and are making their way back to the fringes of sanity.

It is impossible to know, primarily because it is impossible for the non-ideological to understand the mind of an ideologue. The former group tends to the practical, while the latter tends to the fanciful. Most people think half a loaf is better than no loaf, while the ideologues look at such a compromise as a conspiracy against the tides of history and a justification for violence. It is why normal people are always surprised by how the ideologues react to events.

The best we can do is look for clues around the issues of the day. Project Ukraine, for example, has been central to the usual suspects for a decade. Trump is no fan of this project, and he is no fan of Ukraine. People tend to forget that Ukraine was central to his first impeachment. The people responsible for Project Ukraine are the main players in the anti-Trump stuff going back to 2016. They are also something like a drug-resistant virus that never stops trying to kill the host.

At the moment, what we are getting is the usual stuff from the usual suspects laundered in regime media as news and analysis. This Wall Street Journal story tries to frame the Trump plan as a choice between Russia surrendering or Russia giving Ukraine time to regroup and restart the war after Trump. This is the same narrative they have been shopping in one form or another for a year. In other words, the usual suspects may not have a scheme ready for Trump 2.0.

Another place to look for clues is in the antiwhite subculture. They have been weirdly muted for the past year. One reason is the backlash to DEI that took down a few prominent people. These were financed by members of the economic elite, which might mean money is drying up for the antiwhite bigots. This tweet from New York Times rage head Ida Bae Wells reads like a resignation letter. In 2016 these bigots were enraged by Trump winning, but this time they are despondent.

The antiwhite race rackets are worth billions, so there is no reason to think their relative quiet this time is a sign that they are about to fold up their tents and get jobs down at the local Home Depot. It is worth noting that crying “white nationalism” has lost all its punch over the last few years. In other words, their muted response could be part of a longer downward trend or simply part of a regrouping. Like the neocons, how these people respond over the next months will provide some clues.

Another area to watch to get a sense of what is happening is the media. Crazies like Rachel Maddow were slightly less nutty this time, but other nodes on the media rage machine were strangely sober. Again, the decisive victory this time might be the issue as there is no easy bogeyman for them to blame. On the other hand, the Biden debate performance and the aftermath may have broken whatever spell had kept these people within the narrative.

It feels like a lifetime ago, but the night of the Trump – Biden debate, it was clear that the chattering skulls were stunned to see that desiccated husk of Joe Biden drooling on himself and staring into the nothingness. It is possible that there was some sort of awakening among some parts of the media. These people are sociopaths, so no one should be optimistic, but how they react over the next months will provide some clues as to what is happening behind the scenes.

There are plenty of other places to look, but the reason it feels like there is an eerie calm over the battlefield is everyone expected the orcs to keep fighting, despite the results of the election. Instead, they have retreated over the hill and are murmuring amongst themselves. The thing to accept is they never quit. They will be back, so the question is in what form will they return? What path back to perfidy will they take in the coming months to continue the fight?

An Amazing Time

Posted on November 6, 2024 by thezman

One of the funny things about history is we have the benefit of hindsight and a good idea of how we want to shape it to fit our current needs, so we can choose who we like to be the great men of history. We also get to choose clever labels for certain periods that elevate them over other periods. The Age of Enlightenment sounds better than the Dark Ages and it flatters us to think we are the product of people who struggled from the muck of latter to create the former.

Of course, the people who lived in these times had a different view. The most famous example is the life of Jesus. Few people at the time cared at all about this man or even knew he existed. His followers, if anyone bothered to notice them, were just a number of such troublemakers kicking around at the time. Even after Christianity started catching on, most people saw it as another cult in an age of cults. Men of the first century would be shocked to learn they lived in the first century.

This is why we get our own age wrong. We want to think it is important, so we look for people and events to elevate, often not noticing men and events that will one day be considered the important bits of our age. Those old enough to remember the 1980’s marvel a bit at the changing fortunes of Ronald Reagan. At the time, it certainly seemed like he was a seminal figure. Now, he is looking like part of a transitional period from the Cold War to the ultimate decline of the American empire.

Probably the best example of this form of recency bias is Barak Obama. His fans at the time thought he was black Jesus. He was not just the first black president, but all the three letter heroes rolled into one swarthy savior. He was FDR, JFK, RFK and MLK with a dash of Lincoln thrown in due to having lived in Illinois. Less than a decade since he left office, he is a fading memory. His stumping for Kamala Harris in the election drew little media attention and had zero impact.

The truth is the great men of history are usually the epitome of some inflection point in the affairs of man. The communists are wrong to say that there are no great men, just great times that produce the necessary men. If someone bought one of Adolph’s paintings our past and present is very different. If Alfred the Great did not exist this post is written in runes rather than the English language. On the other hand, momentous times call forth the great man. Cometh the hour, cometh the man.

It is hard to know if we are living in a momentous time. It certainly feels like it, but these are relative things. Again, the 1980’s felt like the hinge of history. The Cold War and thus the fate of the world would be decided. It is now looking like the Cold War will not be viewed as all that important in the grand scheme of things. Maybe the convulsions of this age will similarly be viewed as a ripple in the timeline. On the other hand, last night could be a date people recall generations from now.

On the surface, it certainly looks like Trump is an important figure. Only one other president came back after a defeat to regain the White House. Grover Cleveland lost in 1888 and came back to win in 1892. Only a few former presidents have bothered to run again for anything, and their luck was all bad. This means Trump is now a “one of two” which is the second rarest of things in history. He is also the one of one in other things like impeachments and getting shot in the ear.

The Grover Cleveland example is a good reminder that being the first at something or even the only of something does not make for a great man. If Trump’s next term is quiet, then he could just as easily be forgotten. Given the circumstances around his political career, that seems unlikely. That is where the other part of the great man versus great times debate comes into the picture. This is a changing age. The world is changing, and the American civilization is changing with it.

That means future historians will no doubt pick some date or presidency to mark as the beginning of the change and then one as the end. Somewhere in that range will be Donald Trump or possibly, he is both ends of that range. We may look back at the Trump Era as the great transition from the post-Cold War America to whatever we call the period that comes next. Maybe it is called the multipolar age. It could also be the break from old America to the new, majority-minority America.

Again, it is hard to know about these things, but one thing we can be sure about is that we will not see another Donald Trump. Like the civilization that produced him, he has his faults, but those faults do not lie in anything sinister. No one has seen or will ever see a force of nature like this man. He is a Nietzschean figure in that he has fully embraced his destiny and lived it. He probably started his political career for superficial reasons, but in the end, he is the great man of his age.

As is always the case there will be plenty of people rending their garments and gnashing their teeth today. The “fascists” have won they will tell us, as they enjoy their luxurious lives of comfort. Others will seek to immiserate you by pulling forward their expected unhappiness so they can be miserable today. The rest will soak in the moment of having seen something no one will see again. It has been a dark and dangerous time but, well, e quindi uscimmo a riveder le stelle.

Time On The Cross

Posted on November 4, 2024 by thezman

Note: Behind the green door I have a post about the proliferation of rage heads who can only communicate in emotions, a post about how we have become a nation of liars and the Sunday podcast. Subscribe here or here.

The British conservative party, known as the Tories, finally settled on a new leader after they were nearly zeroed out in the last election. The pick to lead the party is a Nigerian woman calling herself Kemi Badenoch. Her official name is Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke Badenoch, but that is far too British these days, so she has shortened it to a single word “Kemi” like pop stars do. She is now the face of the party that is supposedly the face of traditional English people.

The absurdity of this is obvious to most people, but not to everyone. The people running the Tory party are over the moon with this. Many of them are snickering into their sleeves about how the Labour party is “pale, stale and male.” Other are sure that it will take a Nigerian princess to restore British honor and finally confront the multicultural forces that have turned Britain into a zoo. This is their version of “Mexicans are natural conservatives”, popular with American conservatives.

The ridiculousness of this does not stop there. Look at the career of Kemi Badenoch through a traditional lens and her resume is a baffling mix of things that have no connection to one another or fit into a clear theme. She bounced from one thing to another, never accomplishing much but then suddenly she became a hot property among the consultancy class. That is where she was discovered by the political class and turned into a Yoruba version of Barak Obama.

The parsimonious explanation for Kemi Badenoch’s shambolic rise to the top of the Tory party is something John Derbyshire observed about Barak Obama when he suddenly burst on the scene. What appears to be a random walk preceding the meteoric rise is the result of the warm thermals created by white guilt over race and the desires and projects to seek forgiveness. The idealized black flits about until finally catching the sharp upward gust into the clouds.

Upper and middle-class whites in the Anglosphere seem to be driven to do these things, in part, by a desire to be ruled by Africans, who just happen to agree with them or “hold their values”, as they prefer to state it. There is also the desire to be punished by Africans, but not so much as to cause them real harm. They prefer the harm to fall on the bad whites. Then there is the strong undertow of salvation. These whites believe that this process will lead to their salvation.

This explains the weird exultation we see from these whites when a chosen one turns up to confirm the prophesies. The mania over Barak Obama was so bizarre people compared it to the cult of personality seen in places like North Korea. The Obama fans could tell you almost nothing about him, but that did not matter as simply being in the mobs worshipping him provided the religious experience they desired. You see the same look among the Tory members regarding Kemi Badenoch.

It is easy to mock this, but this behavior is driven by strong cultural and spiritual forces, and it is having a real impact. This phenomenon is mostly a product of the United States, exported around the West. The desire to build a city on a hill evolved into a sense of shame coupled with a desire to heal the world. The result is something approaching idolatry, with the well-behaved black person being treated like an emissary of God, who must be allowed to perform his miracles.

It is not an accident that the script writers for Barak Obama had him say things like “we are the ones we have been waiting for.” Many people dismissed it as emotive nonsense, but the line has African origins. For the intended audience, white, educated and upper-middle-class, the line struck like a thunderclap. They were the elect and the proof of this was their presence in the cult of Obama. Not only was the promised land near, but salvation was also at hand.

Salvation never came and the result was a decade of madness. It is not an accident that the street violence and other engineered destruction of the basics of society started in the middle of Obama’s last term. At that point, it was clear to all that salvation was not coming, so they had no choice but to search for a villain. This sort of cult like behavior never turns to self-reflection in the face of disconfirmation. Instead, the energy in search of salvation channels into the search for the devil.

It remains to be seen if this is the process in Old Blighty. The Tories are in the political wilderness for a few more years. Labour, which won the last election, is as popular as rectal cancer and faces nothing but bad options. Britain is much closer to economic and social collapse than anyone in power appreciates. Throw in the fact that Black Jesus is not supposed to come from what passes for the right and it seems unlikely that Kemi Badenoch will follow the Obama arc.

Instead, what this looks like is what we see all over the West these days and that is a reboot of an old classic but done by ham and eggers. The Tories, like their American counterparts, have reached the logical end of what has passed for conservatism since the middle of the last century. The only remaining constituency for conservatism is the economic elites who seek to keep the old dialectic going. In the end, this gambit will fail to change their political fortunes.

There is more to it though. This unsatisfied desire for forgiveness that lies at the heart of this worship of Africans in the Anglosphere is not going away, because there is no mechanism to achieve it. Christianity, from which this desire was inherited, had mechanisms for forgiveness of sin. It also had a logic to address those things for which forgiveness in this life was not possible. The secular ideologies that rose up to replace Christianity have no such mechanisms.

Each turn of the wheel has led to a more reckless pursuit of salvation, because “more of the same” is the only possible answer to the inevitable failure. It is why we have gone from the reasonable extension of legal protections to former slaves to a world of unlimited non-white immigration and the erasure of white people from the cultural spaces, like movies, television and advertising. The burning desire to cleanse their souls of this sin has led to the desire to burn it all down.

What this suggests is that the antidote to what is killing the West is something that will lead the people to come down from their cross of ebony and embrace a new moral framing which gives them a purpose that elevates their people, rather than sacrificing them in search of forgiveness. That is unlikely to be found in the past. Instead, it will be found in the rubble of decline. At some point, even the fanatic must submit to reality or at least be overcome by it and those who rise from it.

The Dunning-Kruger Crisis

Posted on October 31, 2024 by thezman

Much has been written in these parts about the crisis of competence that is creepy up on all aspects of life like the fog. Every day, competent people are aging out and being replaced by people who lack the competence. A complimentary problem, one also driven by demographics, is the Dunning-Kruger crisis. This the problem of incompetent, but highly confidence people, getting elevated into positions for which they are unqualified, simply due to the new ethics of the elites.

The difference here is that the crisis of competence is somewhat correctable, as the unqualified millennial replacing the retiring boomer, has some hope of learning what he needs to learn to do the job. He and his organization will have to suffer through the learning curve, but there is hope he will become competent. Alternatively, the race to supplement or even replace the incompetent millennial with technology offers the alternative of a robot competently doing the job.

The Dunning-Kruger, in contrast, offers no such hope. The person elevated into the position to satisfy the needs of the new morality has no chance to ever become competent at the task. Replacing them with technology is impossible, because it would undermine the whole point of the process. Instead, the system is simply expected to adapt to these new islands of confident incompetence. Every organization is being loaded up with crosses to bear as a form of contrition.

You see how this works with the Kamala Harris campaign. Regardless of the result, it will be remembered as one of the most inept operations in modern history, perhaps rivaling the 2004 Howard Dean campaign in Iowa or even the 1988 Mike Dukakis presidential campaign. After the initial media gaslighting, it has been one unforced error after another, all stemming from the fact the people running the campaign are sure they know everything, but in fact know nothing.

One small example is the Joe Rogan flap. Rogan is the biggest carnival act in so-called new media, so doing his show would be like doing Johnny Carson back in the 1970’s or the Rush Limbaugh show in the 1990’s. It offers a unique setting in front of a huge audience, which itself will attract an even bigger audience. It is the sort of platform a candidate needing attention craves. You take the gig, hope for the best and prepare for the explosion of post-show media coverage.

The Harris campaign never understood this. Instead, they tried to strong arm Rogan into rolling over for them, even leaving his comfy studio to meet them at a hotel somewhere to record a one-hour interview. They should have known he had no reason to take that deal, but stupid people lack second order thinking. Their unearned confidence in themselves compounded the error by carrying on as if they were doing him a favor by entertaining the request.

Rogan, who never liked Trump, did the shrewd thing and invited Trump on his show and Trump happily accepted the millions in free media. The resulting program broke the internet and further humanized Trump. The theme of his campaign this time is that he has dropped the sharp edges, having learned from the past. Hamming it up with Rogan, who was a smitten kitten the whole time, underscored this theme. Team Dunning-Kruger handed Trump a huge win as a result.

This one incident among many is a microcosm of the growing Dunning-Kruger crisis we see unfolding everywhere. It is not just that these people lack the required talents or experience for the task. It is that they lack the innate ability for the roles and the self-awareness to recognize it. Stupid people who realize they are outmatched can be managed, but stupid people who think they are geniuses are a danger to everyone and everything they touch. Invisible stupidity is lethal.

Look at who is running the Harris campaign, and the problem is obvious. The campaign boss is named Julie Chávez Rodriguez. She has three names because her only reason to exist in politics is she is the granddaughter of Cesario Chavez. Her qualifications for politics are that she is female, brownish and related to a famous brown guy. She has parlayed that into a career doing busy work, so that the nice white ladies could put her face on the organization brochure.

Julie Chávez Rodriguez no doubt looks in the mirror each morning and sees a world bestriding figure, when in reality she is a hapless simpleton. She is in this role because of her long relationship with Kamala Harris, another strong diverse female who is brimming with confidence despite having done nothing on her own worth noting, other than being a concubine of Willie Brown. The Harris campaign operates like the marketing pitch for the Christopher Rufo project.

There have been terrible national campaigns in the past, but the cause was always a candidate with little to sell running against a favored incumbent. Mike Dukakis never had a chance in 1988, so his people had few good choices. Bob Dole in 1996 was simply running to pad his obituary. He had no chance against Clinton, and he certainly knew it, but played the role anyway. Harris has the full support of official Washington and the political regime but is still losing.

Given the reality of our politics, this sort of ineptitude may seem trivial, but the Dunning-Kruger crisis is rolling out everywhere. It is why certain members of the economic elite are panicking about DEI at elite universities. They suddenly realized that their good deed installing someone like Claudine Gay as president of Harvard could come at a price to them beyond embarrassment. Handing power to entitled stupid people brimming with unearned confidence is playing with fire.

It is comforting to think that maybe the outbreak of incompetence among the elites due to the cult of diversity will cause them to pull back, but that is not the way to bet because of the religious fanaticism around the cult of diversity. If Harris loses next week, expect to hear endless cries of racism. If she wins, the resulting catastrophe will be blamed on the bogeyman. The Dunning-Kruger crisis ends only when the forces and people behind it come to an end.

Trump’s Foreign Policy Problem

Posted on October 30, 2024 by thezman

One of the problems the world faces is that the dominant power on the planet has entered a period of incoherence. Joe Biden has come to symbolize the country he allegedly leads in that he is old, frail and not always understandable. This is how much of the world now sees the United States. What they see from Washington are people either trapped in a bygone era or divorced from present reality. It is as if the last several decades never happened.

You see this in this Financial Times post about what foreign policy could be like under a second Trump presidency. Keep in mind that the Financial Times is often used by the intelligence community to plant stories it wants to launder. The audience is not just the English-speaking world, but also Europe. The people quoted are all said to be associates of the Trump team. Their views may or may not reflect the thinking of Trump’s inner circle.

That aside, the first thing to note is that there is no acknowledgement of present reality in the story. For example, Congressman Michael Waltz is quoted often about how to resolve the Ukraine war. He says, “Trump could threaten to crash Russia’s economy by lowering the price of oil and gas.” According to Waltz, this will force the Russians to beg for peace negotiations. This policy makes sense if it is 1985 and Russia is still the Soviet Union with a brittle command economy.

For starters, the president cannot willy-nilly change oil prices. No amount of American production can drive down prices to a level where it would have an impact on the Russian economy. The “break even” point of Russian crude is well below that of the cheapest American production. Then you have the fact that it will take a decade to bring American crude production to the levels needed to crash prices. There is also the fact that Biden emptied the strategic oil reserve.

In other words, the big idea from the foreign policy experts is something they read about from the Reagan years that has no chance of working now. It is as if they are unaware of the sanctions war they launched two years ago that not only failed to crater the Russian economy but boomeranged back on them. The German economy is in in free fall because they no longer have access to cheap Russian gas. Meanwhile, the Russian economy is booming.

Of course, there is the fact that these people can only think in terms of threats when it comes to dealing with the rest of the world. Congressman Michael Waltz is a neocon sock puppet who was an early cheerleader for Project Ukraine. He was also wrong about every aspect of it. In any other profession, being as wrong as Mike Waltz would be disqualifying, but here he is being quoted as an authority on Russia. This is what happens when there are no consequences to failure.

Elsewhere in the article, they quote Fred Fleitz, a former John Bolton staffer and current foreign policy adviser at the America First Policy Institute, which promotes itself as helping shape Trump policy. With regards to Iran, Fleitz argues “The objective should be to bankrupt Iran again and to reinstitute maximum pressure.” Again? Has he not noticed that Iran survived sanctions for three decades? Is he not aware that Iran now has the support of China and Russia?

With regards to settling the war in the Ukraine, Fleitz says, “We freeze the conflict, Ukraine does not cede any territory, they don’t give up their territorial claims, and we have negotiations with the understanding there probably won’t be a final agreement until Putin leaves the stage.” Unlike Waltz, Fleitz has no clue as to why the Russians would entertain such a silly offer. Note that this idea was first floated by the neocons when the Ukrainian counter-offensive failed.

The jaw droppingly ignorant part of that post is the use of the term “Minsk-3” to describe the Trump strategy. The Russians correctly view the Minsk agreements as a Western ploy to buy time to arm Ukraine. The reason they think this is Angela Merkel said this in an interview last year. Naming the Trump strategy after two prior efforts to trick the Russians is just a way to make sure there can be no negotiations between the Trump people and the Russians.

This is probably why this story was planted in the Financial Times. The hope is to poison the well, so to speak, for the next administration with regards to negotiating with the Russians. They may not be able to control what Trump does, but they can give the Russians many reasons to not trust any overtures. After all, Trump will be gone in four years, so if they can freeze the Russia situation, they have a chance to get back in power and resume their efforts to start a war with Russia.

What becomes clear in that Financial Times story is that the American foreign policy establishment does not have a clue as to how to address the many problems the next president will face. The main reason for their incoherence is they seem to be unaware that these problems were caused by them. Compounding it is the toxic ideology of neoconservatism that has poisoned the foreign policy community. It is a cancer in the bowels of America’s most important institution.

It is what makes prospects for a sober minded and realistic approach to foreign policy under Trump unlikely. Trump’s instincts are good, as are those with many of the people around him, including JD Vance, but he will inherit a foreign policy establishment that is both stuck in the past and corrupted by a worldview that is inconsistent with the world as it is today and with the needs of the country. Fixing this problem without the use of extrajudicial means may not be possible.

A New American Identity

Posted on October 29, 2024 by thezman

Note: If you are interested in an hour of precise predictions about the upcoming election, then you are in luck. I was on the Coffee and a Mike show and you can listen to the recording of it here.

The American civil war created an intellectual problem for both sides that was far more important than the issue of slavery. The 19th century was the age of nationalism and national liberation in Europe. These ideas made their way to America and fit in neatly with the American sense of self. After all, the United States was the result of a revolt against an empire in the name of national liberation. The war between the North and South, therefore, was also a war over nationalism.

By default, the South had the better claim. It was the South, after all, seeking to secede from the Union to create a new nation that would better serve the interests of the people of the South. The North was trying to prevent this from happening and willing to conquer the people of the South to do it. From a nationalist perspective, the South was the sympathetic side, even though they were also fighting for the right to maintain the institution of slavery.

A solution to this problem that evolved in the North was the argument that true nationalism was comprehensive. That is the nationalist loved all of his country and all of his people, so a nationalist government must serve and protect everyone. Since the South was not a different people and the Union was not abandoning them in the way the crown had abandoned the colonies in the runup to the Revolution, it was the South that was in violation of the nationalist ideal

Further, the evolving sense of Northern nationalism claimed that the national purpose of America from the start was to spread liberty around the world. America was the city on the hill, so to speak, that stood as an example of freedom craving nationalists around the world, so what the South was doing was a threat to that project and therefore a threat to the national purpose. American nationalism, unlike that of Europe, was a revolutionary nationalism to free all of mankind.

In fairness, these debates about the nature of American nationalism were not at the center of the dispute, but they played a role in shaping how the new intellectual class would define American identity after the war. Those arguing in favor of the war being a new founding are not entirely wrong. The country that emerged after the war was completely different from what existed prior to the war. It was not just free of slaves, but full of a sense of national purpose.

In his book After Nationalism, Samuel Goldman describes the three forms of national identity that have prevailed in America. Goldman comes up with three national identities he calls the Covenant, the Crucible, and the Creed. The Covenant is the sense of national purpose. The Crucible is the old melting pot story popular in the 20th century after the war. The Creed is the idea of America being a set of ideas, rather than a physical place or people.

It is a good book that offers a useful way of framing the main ways in which Americans have tried to create a unitary identity. Goldman does observe that it is the covenantal aspect of American identity that has been the most powerful, but he does not get into how this Puritan sensibility evolved in the 19th century during the Civil War to become a civic religion for the ruling elite. He does not mention how the Jewish concept of Tikkun Olam blended into this as Jews took up posts in the elite.

This understanding of American identity, or the best effort at forging one, is essential to understanding the current crisis. For over a century, since Woodrow Wilson, America has been on a mission to heal the world. The ruling class has asked, often demanded, that the people put aside their regional and local concerns for the good of one great cause after another. It has become so ingrained in ruling class thinking that they seem incapable to thinking about the state of the country.

Strip away the panic, the hysteria and the outlandish claims and the coming election is about whether we care more about the fate of Mongolian transgender lesbians or the fentanyl epidemic in Appalachia. Do we care more about the abstract concept of climate change or addressing the slow collapse of our infrastructure? What counts for more as an American? The health of your neighbors or the plight of migrants? Will we sacrifice everything in a vain attempt to save the world?

All these questions stem from a growing doubt in this sense of American identity that has been with us since Gettysburg. Americans are increasingly wondering not only if the cost of saving the world is worth the effort, but if it makes any sense at all for us to stand astride the world, balances in our hand. Maybe the people who demand we do this do not have the right to judge the world. Maybe these people lack the moral standing to stand in judgement over us as well.

Fundamentally, the current crisis is about the covenant. If our national purpose is to be the city on the hill, then we must ensure that the city is not full of vagrants and racked with crime and corruption. If our national purpose is to heal the world, then we must first heal ourselves. On the other hand, maybe our national purpose was to avoid falling for these claims and instead focusing on creating a society in the wilderness, away from the entanglements of the old world.

No matter how one seeks to frame it, the struggle today is over our national purpose, a struggle between those who stubbornly cling to the last century and those looking ahead to the next century. The question is whether America will collapse in a heap, exhausted from trying to save the world or will we pull up, realize our folly and return to a sense of purpose rooted in simply being an example to the world? Will we attempt to heal ourselves with the same zeal with tried to heal the world?

It could also be that all these efforts at national identity have failed and what comes next is the great disaggregation. Perhaps it was always impossible to forge an American identity that could permanently hold the people together. Maybe in the end, we learn that the true American identity is no identity at all. We are simply a diverse collection of people who agree to cooperate, when necessary, but otherwise we prefer to leave the world alone and be left alone.

Interesting Times

Posted on October 28, 2024 by thezman

Note: Behind the green door I have a post about the latest drama in the latest version of the new right, a post about how the Battle of Agincourt helps explain why politician die in office and the Sunday podcast. Subscribe here or here.

We are eight days from the most important election ever, which is what they say about every presidential election. This one could actually turnout to be pivotal as part of the collection of presidential elections that define the Trump era. The results next week, or the following week if we get more shenanigans, will determine which way the political process goes the next decade. Like him or hate him, Trump is the most consequential political figure of this century so far.

The next week could be wild, if the past week is an indication. Trump is scheduled to do a rally in New Mexico and in Virginia, two states no one thought would be in play a month ago, but now may be up for grabs. Harris is coming off one of the worst weeks in politics, but her campaign keeps finding new ways to stumble, so this week could bring fresh idiocy to the race. Over the weekend she was booed at an event in Philadelphia, a thing that is becoming a thing for her.

The handicappers, even those who want Harris to win, are slowly lining up behind the idea of a Trump victory. Everything seems to be breaking his way right now, while everything is going wrong for Harris. Poll after poll in key states move in Trump’s direction and now, we have three new states in the toss-up column. New Hampshire, New Mexico and Virginia are now in the gray zone. Whether Trump wins any of them is still in doubt, but it is the movement that matters.

Of course, all of this is against the backdrop of 2020, where a tidal wave of fraud made it the least trusted result since 1960. Even if you reject the fraud claims, it was an election that featured many never-before-seen anomalies. For example, Arizona, another swing state, saw a 38% increase in voter turnout. In 2016, Trump won 1,252,401 votes and in 2020 he got 1,661,686 but still lost. Overall, the 2020 election saw the biggest spike in turnout ever and no one asks why.

We are already seeing signs of shenanigans aimed at adding enough new ballots to the Harris pile to overcome the Trump increase. Authorities in Lancaster County Pennsylvania unearthed a vote fraud scheme. Ballot harvesting is a form of fraud in which runners are given pre-filled out ballots and walking around money to then get signatures by registered voters in ghetto areas. It starts with first getting a voter registered, whether the voter exists or not.

What we saw in 2020 is not just about that election and the claims surrounding it, but about understanding subsequent elections. Polling, for example, depends on models of the electorate, which are created using past election data. If the 2020 data is riddled with unexplained and potentially unexplainable anomalies, how can a polling company build a reliable model of the electorate? The answer is you cannot, and they have no way to poll the fraud shops producing fake ballots either.

That means there are two angles to the polling. The one angle is figuring the margin of fraud in each of these states, then adjusting the polls accordingly. In Pennsylvania, Trump needs a two- or three-point margin to cover the fraud. In Wisconsin, the margin of fraud is about one point. The other angle is the polls themselves may have to be adjusted to account for the fraud they are including in their models. Trump consistently outperforms the polling. How much will he outperform this time?

This is the high cost of official corruption. When it is people trying to undermine the rules and the authorities working to stop them, the general public can trust the results, even accepting some problems. When it is the authorities subverting the rules for their own gain, then no one can trust anything. This is because you have no basis of comparison, as the base condition is assumed to be corrupt. We may never trust our elections again due to the 2020 shenanigans.

All of that aside, you would want to be Donald Trump right now, as far as the election, rather than Kamala Harris. An honest look at the polls, adjusting for shenanigans, puts Trump at 262 electoral college votes and Harris at 209. The states that are too close to call as of this writing are WI, MI, PA, VA and NV. If New Hampshire and New Mexico are in play, then it is worse for Harris. That means Trump needs one win to regain the presidency, and Harris needs to run the table.

Then there is the energy. The Trump campaign is resembling the 2016 election with Trump barnstorming the country drawing massive crowds. He was just in New York City doing an event at a sold-out Madison Square Garden. Harris is forced to announce fake concerts to trick people into showing up at her events. She got booed vigorously at that Houston event as a result. The energy around the Harris campaign is all negative energy, which is never a good thing.

There is a strong Howard Dean vibe to the Harris campaign. She has never won a competitive race. She was handed the senate seat by the Democratic Party machine in California because she was highly controllable. Of course, she famously flamed out in the 2020 presidential primary. She was handed the nomination this time when they pushed Biden over the edge. Her entire existence as a political figure rests on a mass media operation to conceal the reality of her support.

Of course, there is the other shenanigans. States like Michigan and Pennsylvania rely on the party machine to “get out the vote” for the Democrat. Both states have Democrat governors with eyes on the 2028 nomination. If Harris wins the election, then the political career of Gretchen Whitmer and Josh Shapiro come to an end. They will be too old and too forgotten in 2032. There are also forces in Washington who would like to be rid of Harris and her people too.

That is why Trump is the bettering favorite right now. The betting markets have Trump with a 62% chance of winning. All the things people look at to determine the shape of the race favor Trump, other than the shenanigans. This may be why the billionaire owners of the LA Times and Washington Post told their editorial staff to cancel the Harris endorsements. Maybe the oligarchs are sending a message to the political class that they want to see Trump win.

The English-speaking world is sure the Chinese have a curse that says, “May you live in interesting times.” The Chinese have no such curse, but we assume they should, so we insist on it anyway. Regardless, we live in an interesting time and the next two weeks, assuming more election shenanigans, promises to be very interesting. In the fullness of time, we may look back and say this was the most consequential election in history or the last election in our history.

The Racial Binary Test

Posted on October 23, 2024 by thezman

There are issues that turn out to be litmus tests which tell us something about how certain people truly think about their politics. Covid, for example, revealed that many people who sounded like skeptics of the current regime were still willing to accept without question the claims of the regime. The war in Ukraine is another example where people who were media skeptics fell in line with the media narrative. Covid and Ukraine were tests of trust in the institutions.

These types of litmus test issues tell us where someone is mentally on that line that runs between those who trust the system and its institutions and those who no longer trust the system and its institutions. Those who wore masks and Ukraine lapel pins are at the pro-regime end of the scale, while those who rejected and criticized this stuff are on the other end of the scale. In both cases, we learned that some people were not that far along the path from the pro-regime pole.

There are other issues that are larger and more enduring that also work as a sorting mechanism in the churn of politics. In the mass media age, it is much easier for someone to pose as something, but not really be that something. Profilicity is not simply about creating a profile you present to parts of the world, but also the ability to quickly take down and respawn that profile with modifications. There are certain topics, however, that get to the nature of the person playing the character.

One of those issues is race, specifically racism. Unlike those prior litmus test issues, this is not one that exists on a scale. It is a binary issue. You either accept or reject the normative and positive claims baked into the word racism. There are those who think it is immoral to make decisions based on race and those who reject the idea that this behavior is immoral. There are those who reject the objective reality of race and those who accept what the human sciences tell us.

There is no middle ground on the race issue, even though lots of people seek to profit by occupying what they think is a middle ground. An example is this Compact Magazine post by Christopher Rufo. He is getting rich being a non-woke liberal or anti-woke civic nationalist, depending upon your label preference. The key to this character is the sort of triangulation Bill Clinton made famous. You see, he not only rejects left-wing racism, but he also rejects right-wing racism!

There is nothing new about this position. It was a popular in the 1980’s when it seemed like the culture was moving beyond race as a political weapon. The good people treated everyone as an individual. The bad people judged people on generalities. That meant the race hustlers like Jesse Jackson were just as bad as the old white racists from the civil rights narrative. They were judging people collectively. Like everything in this age, the new right and its new characters are just reboots of old material.

That aside, what you see with Rufo is that he does not understand the material and he embraces the morality of the people he claims to oppose. He opposes critical race theory not because it is nonsense, but because they acknowledge the centrality of race in American society. Rufo is an anti-racist, which means he thinks it is immoral to acknowledge the reality of race and especially immoral to act on it. In this regard, he agrees with Ibram X. Kendi, but only differs in presentation.

Further, Rufo does not seem to understand how we reached the point in American society where whites are under constant assault through these corporate and government diversity programs. He seems to think that the reason these programs exist is the people behind them are dumb or craven. Somehow, they tricked the leaders of the most powerful intuitions to embrace a form of racism. He may as well claim that these people are witches, who cast a spell over the institutions.

The fact is, these antiwhite pogroms, whatever you want to call them, are the logical outcome of generations of jurisprudence. The “Brown Test”, named for the famous Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka decision, implemented a set of racial and cultural standards that effectively eliminated free association and made openness the standard against which everything is measured. In effect, it made anything that results in racial inequality both illegal and immoral.

That means it is impossible to have a color-blind society under the Brown doctrine because it would lead to racial inequality. The underlying assumption of Brown and the entire moral edifice that sprang from it is that any racial inequality, not matter how trivial, must be the result of discrimination by whites. Therefore, a colorblind society that has racial inequality will mean that color blindness is the cause. It is why people like Ibram X. Kendi can reasonably say color blindness is racism.

This is what makes race a binary issue. You either understand the moral reasoning that lies behind the novelty of the word “racism” or you do not and simply accept it as part of your ethics. You either understand and accept the reality of race as a biological matter or you reject it and embrace the blank slate ideology. There is no middle position and no way to pick a few things from one column and a few from the other to create yourself a bespoke racial awareness.

In fairness, Rufo probably understands this, but the money in seeming to not understand it is too good to turn down. Even though the logic of the open society has led America down a dangerous moral and social cul-de-sac, the economic and managerial elites continue to cling to the moral framing of it. Cultural inertia is a real thing that drags along even the most powerful people and institutions. When there is no profit in opposition, there is no opposition.

The opposition we see among some elites to DEI and critical race theory rests in their own racial awareness. Jewish donors to elite colleges have grown concerned that they are now treated as white and therefore targets for the diversity rackets. Asians resent the racial spoils system that limits their access to elite institutions. The fact that whites may benefit from this opposition is incidental. Once again, we see that in politics, racial or otherwise, it is about who shall overcome whom.

Regardless of motivations, the people promoting the concept of a colorblind society are unwilling to address the root causes. Further, they fail to see that they are advocating a far more radical version of what Brown demands. To achieve the colorblind society, it means either eradicating those who see race or so terrorizing them that they pretend not to see race. The colorblind dogma makes anti-racism sound reasonable and its implementation would make the Khmer Rouge seem tame.

The Z Blog

Sports, Culture and Other Stuff

Category Archives: Politics