Pragmatically Distributed

Ryan is the perfect symbol of the establishment Republican because he always has to make matters unnecessarily difficult for everyone.

Everything would go so much easier for every member of the GOP hierarchy, from the most indifferent Republican voter up to the most plugged in donor, if the establishment would simply cooperate occasionally with Conservatives.

And yet they always take the hard route by insisting on fighting their rightwing with many times more tenacity than they do, if they do, against Democrats. We see this wrongheaded mindset of theirs emerge again in the repeal process.

For his sake only, Ryan has a compelling enough self-interest in appeasing Conservatives to get something respectable passed:  If Ryan fails he isn’t nearly feared enough by his Caucus compared to how, for example, they once feared Tom Delay to survive a setback on repeal.  But Ryan continues on, smiling obliviously like the idiot he is, jeopardizing his legislation by refusing to compromise with Conservatives.

Continue reading “Paul Ryan, Oblivious Idiot”

Since the Presidency of Reagan the official platform of the Republican Party towards reigning in Federal social engineering programs has been the elimination of Progressive dominated agencies. This well intended dream has gone without realization.  Regretting his inability to cancel them, Reagan commented FedGov agencies are harder to kill than a vampire.

In the Hamiltonian view, Reagan found them difficult to overcome because his actions were built on incorrect assumptions about the basis of their power.

The political strength of Technocracy lies not, per se, in how much money is allocated to Bureaucracy in the Federal budget.  Instead, the power of Bureaucracy to resist political attacks lies in the lack of executive control over FedGov Bureaucracy.

As originally intended by the founders, the mission of the Civil Service was nothing more than to implement, without question, the orders of the Executive so long as those orders were legal and/or not contested by either the Legislative or Judicial branches.

Continue reading “Neutralizing the Social Engineering State – Budget Cuts or Restore the Spoils System?”

Evidently knitted together with weak yarn, a grab was not necessary for this hat to disintegrate.  A gentle pull on one of its many loose strands was enough to have it fall apart and reveal the heads of the many loose screws who wore it.

Although the controversy that sparked this unraveling – a suggested investigation into the wiretapping of the Trump campaign – is still unfolding, there is already more than enough damage done to Progressive objectives that we feel obligated to take stock of what the Left did wrong.

There are two lessons to take from this fiasco.  One lesson is particular to its immediate circumstances, the other general.

First, the Progressive story about a Trump-Russia connection has backfired and is now checked.

Second, Progressive FedGov machinery has devolved into an incompetent Shallow State less and less able to defend Liberal interests.

The flimsy allegations Russia somehow coordinated with the Trump campaign have trapped the accusers in a catch-22 they have no obvious way to escape from:

• If the Obama administration did have the Trump campaign wiretapped, numerous Obama officials are at risk of becoming targets of criminal investigations.
• If the Obama administration did not have the Trump campaign wiretapped, no actual evidence of collusion with Russia was found because if it was it would have surely been leaked during the campaign.

In either case the Progressives can do little more with their allegations.  If they insist on their investigation going forward the Left risks Trump retaliating with his own investigation into the legality of the wiretaps.  Based on the non-denial denials coming from Obama officials it is doubtful they believe they will come out of an investigation looking better than Trump.

If the Progressives back off their story they are admitting they knew their reported accusations were based on little to no evidence.

Trump, for his part, is in an envious position.

Continue reading “Shallow State – The Progressive Pussyhat Unravels”

The real story is not what connection Sessions might have to Russia but that the Civil Service is actively obstructing a Presidential administration; regardless of the fact their maneuvers against Trump have been weak on facts and, as political hatchet jobs, badly implemented.

This should come as  no surprise.  The Progressive dominated Bureaucracy has been acting as an independent, unaccountable, agent ever since Woodrow Wilson.

That the Bureaucracy is functioning independently of the other three branches of government at all goes against the vision of the Founding Fathers.

To the Founders the Civil Service was never supposed to provide any kind of check on the actions of the Executive.  The Executive branch was supposed to be reined in by the Legislative and Judicial branches, and, ultimately, the Electoral College.  The role of the Civil Service was restricted only to implementing the wishes of the President provided those wishes were lawful and were not overruled by the Congress or Judiciary.

As a feature of the Federal Government, the Founders never enshrined the existence of the Civil Service or what particular form it should take (except the Post Office) in the Constitution.  Its absence in the Constitution means the specific structuring of FedGov bureaucracy was originally intended to be a matter entirely up to the discretion of the Congress and President.

It was not until the lunatic idea of an aristocracy of bureaucrats was proposed almost 200 years ago by the founder of Progressivism, Auguste Comte (who used the complexities arising from science and technology in the early 19th century to justify a need for unaccountable social scientists to run government and reengineer society) did Bureaucrats begin to ascend to power as a new Western nobility.

A century after Wilson and FDR warped the country by following Comte’s Progressive script, their beloved Progressive FedGov agencies have been revealed to be what they were always meant to be: a corrupt Fourth branch of government with tyrannical ambitions to become the only branch of government.

This arrangement is unprecedented not only from the perspective of America’s founders but also every type of government in history before Wilson and the New Deal.  Prior to then, civil servants of governments of all kinds were never considered to be part of national leadership.

It is long past time for serious Civil Service reform that will finally break the independence of FedGov, and President Trump is perhaps the ideal Executive to finally deliver well-deserved defeats against these misbehaving bureaucratic employees.

As to the particular investigation into links between Trump and Russia, I recommend Trump not appoint any investigator at all for these reasons:

First, even if Russia did hack the emails of Democratic officials to aid Trump the information retrieved was not classified and therefore no worse than a rogue domestic hacker breaking into a Republican politician’s email system. And a hack of Republican emails that benefited Democrats on election day would surely not come under scrutiny by the Left.

Secondly, the Democrats have no problem suppressing investigations into their own much worse activities; activities such as Hillary Clinton’s felony handling of classified information, the Clinton Foundation, or Benghazi.

Third, even an investigation that concludes no wrongdoing will be nothing but a leak-plagued distraction to the administration until it is complete.

Lastly, there are a number of open questions about the nature of the Obama administration’s affinity for Islamic terrorism that deserve a criminal investigation.

Unless the Democrats are prepared to also have Obama’s potential criminal support of Muslim terrorism investigated, there is no reason Trump’s relationship to Russia should be held to a higher standard than Obama’s much closer relationship with ISIS, Iran, anti-Assad Islamic rebels, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Al-Qaeda in Libya.

Unfortunately, advancing legislation is not as easy a task as sending the media on another mindless wild goose chase after a Trump tweet.  At this game, Trump is the grandmaster.  But legislation requires fundamentals and a mentality dedicated to playing the long-game.

Two time-tested legislative fundamentals Trump would be wise to embrace in support of his Congressional maneuvers are outreach to business lobbyists and Conservative activists.  Both have infrastructure already in existence within the Republican Party that could be put to his advantage when it comes time to march legislation down the field.  He can convert their Party machinery into his machinery by coordinating with their officials in pursuit of their common objectives.

Continue reading “Legislation – The Hard Slog”

Let me begin by saying I am strongly inclined to like Milo.  I remain strongly inclined to like Milo.

I also do not intend to dwell further about this matter beyond this entry.  But political error must be objectively studied so that we may learn from it.

There are things in the process of political persuasion that one simply does not do.  Not even when fortunate enough to be facing somewhat respectable political opponents.  And certainly not against utterly disreputable Technocrat opponents who happen to be his opponents as well as those of Hamiltonian Conservatives.

There are minimal standards in every kind of enterprise that desires success.

These minimal standards might be called the ‘duh‘ standards.

Part of the reason for having them is that those are the standards that must be adhered to so that someone exceptionally reputable (such as myself, and who is still favorably disposed towards Milo) is not placed in an impossible situation trying to defend him from violating the duhs.

Defending homosexual pederasty is one of those duhs.

Continue reading “The Milo Saga”

Report on the Work of the Central Committee to the Eighteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.), Delivered by Joseph Stalin –

“A country which is surrounded by a capitalist world, is subject to the menace of foreign military attack, cannot therefore abstract itself from the international situation, and must have at its disposal a well-trained army, well-organized punitive organs, and a strong intelligence service consequently, must have its own state.”

Yes North Koreanization of USG would be an improvement.

Assuming he bothered to humor a transgender rights activist for a few minutes instead of having ‘it’ dragged away to a reeducation center, Chairman Mao would interrupt and ask “… what the fuck do these perverts have to do with COMMUNISM!?“.

These transvestite perverts have nothing to do with Communism, Chairman.

These perverts have to do with Comte, the founder of Sociology, Bureaucracy and what turned into Technocratic Progressivism.

Comte did not create the pussyhat.

What Comte did create is our real problem: Government of the Bureaucrats.  Note that I include as members of the Bureaucratic/Technocratic class all of the institutions that are not directly part of the FedGov machinery, but which are always demanding FedGov (or Brussels for my European readers) be given more power to socially engineer the rest of us into oblivion –

It cannot be emphasized enough that history before 1932 is without precedent for an aristocracy of bureaucrats; Comte’s priesthood is a complete historical aberration.

The classes making up the Technocratic elite were more able than the proletariat, yet still only dull, gray, members of the bourgeois and upper classes. However numerous were the advantages Technocracy held over Communism thanks to drawing leadership from the bourgeois, these were overwhelmingly the mediocre or even failed portions of the bourgeoisie. They consist of sociologists, academics, scientists, pseudo-scientists, government bureaucrats, media hacks, ‘artists’, ‘experts’, celebrities, non-profit workers, quacks of every type, writers, philosophers, economists, environmentalists, feminists, public and private sector unions, and international organizations.

Little though they would agree about anything else, both Engels and conservatives of any type would agree that these elements of society were unfit to serve as a ruling class. Traditional conservative ruling classes were drawn from the aristocracy, military, priesthood, and merchant classes (the class that met Alexander Hamilton’s ideal of a ‘natural aristocracy’), and, to varying degrees of flexibility, with room made for admission into the elite of the occasional parvenu of great ability.

The leadership of Soviet Russia, as well, did not consist of Technocrats. Soviet rulers overwhelmingly came from the founding revolutionaries, the military high command, economic management, and intelligence agencies. As in Conservative systems, the Civil Service in Communist nations served a purely advisory role to the Communist elite.

In times past there have always been bureaucrats of some kind.  But not until Comte was there any concept of Bureaucracy as a form of government.

A dictatorship of Bureaucrats (which is what the governments of Western Civilization have become) is necessarily a dictatorship of unsupervised and unaccountable Bureaucrats.  Bureaucrats left unsupervised and unaccountable and who have had the mainstream crackpots of the Sociology departments indoctrinate them with the absurd notion started by Comte that Bureaucrats are royalty inevitably leads them to socially engineer every conceivable aspect of life, aspects that not even the Soviet Union thought for a moment should be regulated.

Almost two centuries after Comte, the professional Civil Service has now devolved to a point where it presumes a right to regulate gender; granting them legal jurisdiction over gender is as certain to be successful as their management of the Oroville dam.

Continue reading “The Response to Civil Service Resistance? North Koreanization of USG”

The resignation of General Flynn gives us the opportunity to further expand our point, previously made here, about how Trump can turn the hysterics of the Left over the most insignificant items against them by manipulating their 140 character attention span away from the more complex – but higher rewarding – long strategic game.

What apparently happened was that Flynn engaged Russian authorities about the possibility of lowering American sanctions without Flynn having authorization to delve into that topic.  When asked about the conversation by Vice President Pence he then lied about its contents; for that he was summarily fired by Trump.

Flynn’s downfall is his own fault.  He should have referred the questions of the Russians to other cabinet officials instead of acting on his own initiative.

Flynn’s incompetence acknowledged, there is the separate matter of whether it is in the interests of the Left to play this latest media sensation for a news cycle or two in the short term, or latch onto it as a long term scandal.

The answer to this hinges on one question – is Flynn’s mishandling of the Russians isolated to himself or part of a broader administration plot?  If it was isolated, the Technocratic Progressives would be wasting much energy for little gain if they play it long term.

The odds favor the responsibility being isolated to Flynn.  The first reason to suspect this is that Pence was reportedly surprised that the conversation was held.   It follows that if Flynn were acting entirely within permissions given to him by the administration that Pence would not be surprised by actions approved by the White House.  For his part Flynn would not have had to deceive anyone about it because they would have already known about it.

In fact, if Flynn had permission to discuss sanctions the administration would not have fired him in the first place.  They would have responded to the very first questions about his call by simply saying Flynn discussed sanction relief and that he had proper authorization to do so.  There would be no reason for the administration to lie about this because improved relations with Moscow has been part of Trump’s platform for his entire presidential campaign.

Further, the administration, having been in power for only 4 weeks, most likely would not have had adequate time to organize a sinister plot with Russia even if it wanted to.

Flynn seems foolish enough to have gotten into a more serious scandal if he remained in his position.  By washing out early he has done a long term disservice to the Left.

Continue reading “General Flynn & the Temptation of the Lazy Left to Miscalculate”

The coinciding of the legal battle over Trump’s executive orders with his nomination to fill Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court provides this lesson to the administration, a lesson his advisors would do well to emphasize to him: whenever an opening appears on the High Court, Trump should always nominate a Conservative to occupy it.

With Ginsburg age 83 and in poor health, Anthony Kennedy 80, and Stephen Breyer 78 the odds are very good that Trump will have to make nominate at least one more Supreme Court Justice.  However many further opportunities emerge, Trump should select a Conservative judge every time because the more Conservative the Court is the more likely his agenda is to survive lawsuits against his program.  The pressure on him to select a moderate will be especially acute if the moderate Kennedy or one of the Liberal justices vacate their seats.  This pressure should be ignored by Trump; instead he should move decisively to make the Court Conservative leaning for a generation.

This leads us to discuss the issue of Liberal protesters.

Unlike the makeup of the Supreme Court – which is decisive because it is policy – protests are transient because they are hysteria.

In the Hamiltonian view this hysteria of the Progressive Left is a force that Trump’s persuasive powers can and should manipulate to his advantage.

Because the protesters are prepared to mobilize at a moment’s notice over the most trivial of issues Trump should invent trivial issues every week to send them running around in circles, exhausting themselves, dividing their resources and public attention.  With the media spotlight and the rest of the Left chasing decoys everywhere Trump will be free to pass his policy agenda (such as replacing Kennedy or a Liberal Justice with a Conservative) without the public having enough bandwidth to process that his main objectives are marching ahead.

The hope of the Left that there is somewhere a hidden media sensation that can defeat the Trump administration is a sign of how feeble and lazy they have become because of their degeneracy.  A proper political strategy is built around a slow game.  A winning case against the policies of a ruling party must be made gradually, carefully highlighting to the public its weakest points, and strategically coordinating political resources.

Continue reading “The Supreme Court, Using Protesters to the Advantage of Trump & Fun with the IRS”

Metternich, Volume I xiii

December, 1844. — The men who create History have not time to write it — I at least had none.

I have called the period between the years 1810 and 1815 the most important, because it includes the epoch in which Napoleon’s attempt to establish a new order of things was overthrown; through which overthrow Europe fell under the natural consequences of the French Revolution — consequences which are only now beginning to develop themselves.

Metternich, Volume III page 335

September 9, 1819. — I never come to Prague without thinking I hear midnight strike. Six years ago, at that hour, I dipped my pen to declare war with the man of the century — the Man of St. Helena — to kindle the beacon which was the signal for 100,000 men of the allied troops to cross the frontier.

Metternich, Volume IV page 14

August 29, 1823. — There was but one single man in France who understood how to master the Revolution, and that man was Bonaparte. The King’s Government inherited from him, not the Revolution, but the counter-Revolution, and they have not known how to make use of this inheritance.

Metternich, Volume I page 275

His heroes were Alexander, Caesar, and, above all, Charlemagne. He was singularly occupied with his claim to be the successor of Charlemagne by right and title.

Metternich, Volume V page 24

August 27, 1830. — ‘ It appears to me,’ said I to the General, ‘ that you have not grasped the nature and real meaning of my words : I will proceed to make them more clear.

‘ I have known you as one of the most zealous adherents of the man who was, beyond all question, the prototype of power. Of two alternatives I can only admit one ; either the character of Mgr. le Duc d’ Orleans comes up to that of Napoleon in strength, or else falls below it, for to exceed it seems to me beyond the bounds of nature. Now, intimately acquainted as you were with Napoleon, do you believe that, placed in the position of the present Government, he would have considered himself in possession of the requisite means for governing, or, what comes to the same thing, would have considered himself in a condition to assure his throne and the maintenance of internal tranquillity in France? Can that which Napoleon would not have recognised as sufficient be justly looked upon by the new Government as capable of affording it secure pledges of existence?’

To this question General Belliard made the only reply open to him. He was silent, and after a moment’s reflection said to me : ‘ Things are changed, Prince ; France is no longer the France of the past, and she, must be governed by new methods.’

Metternich, Volume I page 78

Beyond the confines of France, Governments had no other care than to withstand the political encroachments of the conqueror who had placed the Imperial crown on his head. The conflict between the different systems of government really existed only in France. Raised by the Revolution to the summit of power, Napoleon endeavoured to prop up by monarchical institutions the throne he had made for himself. The destructive parties, having to do with a man equally great as a statesman and as a general, who knew his country and the spirit of the nation better than any who ever guided the destinies of France, were above all anxious to save from the wreck of their works all they could secure from the encroachments of the Imperial power. These efforts were impotent ; but they were not the less worthy of observation.

Metternich, Volume IV page 436

February 11, 1828. — The crisis has arrived, and as I am an old practitioner in the maladies of the social body, I am not more alarmed than is necessary. What I cannot do is to know or predict how things will go: Certain it is that the crisis may turn against the folly of the age which has caused it; and the country that is most seriously ill is France, and France is also the country whose future is the least promising. A country where all the moral elements are extinct cannot help itself, and Providence alone knows what will become of this Babylon.

Metternich, Volume IV page 54

March 23, 1823 . — Now, to recognise a Government one must know first of all know what it is; and to enter into negotiations with it one must have recognised it. It is, therefore, necessary that we should know first of all what the Government will be.

The 20th century has been the century of scientific dictatorship. In that century three scientific ideologies contested each other for domination. On the extreme right scientific despotism was embodied by the Nazi Party of Adolf Hitler, Communism was embodied by Josef Stalin. But the third, which would emerge victorious after the Cold War and which is the only surviving ideology of the three, was Leftist, but not Communist. It goes by the name of Progressivism in America, Fabian Socialism in Britain, and Suprationalism in Continental Europe.

Between Nazism, Communism, and Progressivism, the bureaucratic dictatorship of the latter is the last remaining but least understood. The history and nature of Communism is very well documented however much this vast documentation is ignored or downplayed. Nazism could not be more infamous. But Progressivism is barely understood; we will remove the fog that surrounds it and expose it as a Liberal political entity very distinct from Communism.

To deal with Progressivism one must first of all know what it is.

Continue reading “How Comte Overthrew Marx – Part II: The Fall of Proletarian Socialism & the Rise of Dictatorial Bureaucracy in the Century of Scientific Dictatorship”