Democracy, the “Donald” and the “Deep State.”

Imagine that the Augustan era Romans had universities, textbooks and responsible teachers.

Your textbooks and teachers tell you that Rome is a republic, it does not have a king, and power is shared among senators, and plebeians.

So who is this guy Augustus?

Today, in 2017, Chinese students are that the Communist Party is, well, Communist. The Party exists to advance the principles of Marx-Lennism (though with Chinese characteristics).

So who is this guy Jack Ma? And why is he so rich?

We, today, understand that Augustus was a Monarch, yet he “restored the Republic.”

We know that, whatever else, China is not a Communist country.

The point here is that the political formula (the regime’s brand) contradicts the political reality — who, whom?

And America?

Who rules in America?

What is the structure of power in America? What is its composition?

I want to bring three articles to your attention. But first, let’s look at how Moldbug sees power in America:

I think the US is best interpreted as one country with two governments. We can call these the “red government” and the “blue government.” Basically, as a very rough approximation, the red government is the military and the blue government is everything else.

(Each house of Congress also has parallel red and blue committee systems. And there are also some departments, such as the White House, that can switch colors as the result of elections. But mainly when I talk about “government” I mean the permanent government. It is very difficult for political officials to exercise much direction over career civil servants.)

I don’t know that any such polls have been taken – it would probably be considered some sort of high-tech blasphemy – but I kind of suspect that these colors correspond to the political affiliation of the employees. That is, the military probably employs more Republicans than Democrats, and the other agencies more Democrats than Republicans – just a guess.

As a formalist, I define power as the ability to change the rules, or to clarify them when no rules exist. In a mature, sclerotic megastate like the US, it can be very hard to see where the power is, because (by historical standards) there is almost no change in the US.

But this does not indicate an absence of power. It indicates a balance of power. It means the various forces exerting pressure in various directions cancel each other, at least mostly. One of the best features of the current US regime, and one of the worst, is that it’s much easier to prevent change than to create change. The compromise is generally the status quo. But if some deus ex machina could remove one of the opposing power centers, or point one in a new and unopposed direction, we’d see instant and explosive change. The whole city of Washington is in the power business, and they don’t screw around.


The closest well-known equivalent to the way I see the Fourth Republic’s power structure is a concept that dates to the ’60s, the iron triangle. The iron triangle is certainly real, but for some reason – no doubt related to the agenda of the official intellectuals who created it – it’s missing most of its vertices. In fact, what we’re looking at here is an iron polygon.

The key to power in the Fourth Republic is that no one who has power wants anyone to think of them as having power. For example, in the traditional iron triangle, legislators do not have power. They are just expressing the will of the people. Civil servants do not have power. They are just making public policy. Lobbyists do not have power. They are just communicating their concerns.

Let’s say that to be a “major vertex” of the Polygon, you need two attributes. One, a vertex must have power – that is, responsibility. Two, it must be protected from public opinion – that is, insulated from “politics,” that is, democracy. If you have one of these but not the other, you are at best a “minor vertex.”

The press (aka “MSM”) is a major vertex because, as we’ve seen, it has power. And it is doubly protected. First, no one elects the press. And second, if journalists were elected, they’d simply elect themselves, since they pick the “credible” candidates. These would all be journalists – by definition. See how nice this system is?

The White House (customarily referred to as the “President”) is only a minor vertex. Its legal power is considerable, but its protection is lousy. It was national news a few years ago when an open mike caught the President insulting a New York Times reporter. How often do you think that one goes the other way? The White House can challenge the Polygon’s program on a few issues, which necessarily thus become high-profile. But the Fourth Republic, at any one time, is doing thousands and thousands of things. Almost all of them are done the Polygon’s way, and when they are not it is deeply shocked and offended. So in general are the voters, for obvious reasons, so there is a strong reason to minimize these deviations.

The Polygon might be defined as the “extended civil service.” It consists not of those who hold actual formal GS rank, but those whose position demands a sense of civic responsibility – real or fake. The major vertices of the Polygon, by my count, are the press, the universities, the judiciary, the Fed and the banks, the “Hill” (congressional staff), the civil service proper, the NGOs and transnationals, the military, the Beltway bandits (defense and other contractors), and corporate holders of official monopolies (such as “intellectual property”).

So, to make it simple. We have two governments, one staffed with Brahmins, and one staffed with…. Non-Brahmins.

Now, I want to present three articles, they make for an interesting contrast with Moldbug. I have little idea of how accurate, in whole, or in part they are; they do, however, appear plausible (which does not make them true.)

For many years, I have read the “news” or essays, articles and op-eds the way a General reads “reports”. I refer to my reading as a “report.”

You want multiple sources, from multiple backgrounds. You need to interrogate the sources, and sift through the reports. You are aiming at building a comprehensive  picture of the subject. Consistency is good, but far, far from definitive. Vested interests and bias need to be taken into account. Simplicity is good, but it is hard to know how to apply it in each case. You want a picture that explains what needs to be explained, but again, sometimes that isn’t enough.

Perhaps, the best thing is if someone or a theory tells you that something will happen, and it does. And if they have a consistent pattern, then this is the most reliable criterion.

So, with caveats on these “reports” duly noted, let’s proceed.

First of all, read this:

The seven books sound fascinating, and I am going to read them shortly. However, what is missing? What is not given enough emphasis? How accurate is it?

Next, from the same author.

Here is the author’s main claim:

The 2016 US election, like all other US elections, featured a gallery of pre-selected candidates that represented the three factions and their interests within the power elite. The 2016 US election, however, was vastly different from previous elections. As the election dragged on the power elite became bitterly divided, with the majority supporting Hilary Clinton, the candidate pre-selected by the political and corporate factions, while the military faction rallied around their choice of Donald Trump.

During the election campaign the power elite’s military faction under Trump confounded all political pundits by outflanking and decisively defeating the power elite’s political faction. In fact by capturing the Republican nomination and overwhelmingly defeating the Democratic establishment, Trump and the military faction not just shattered the power elites’ political faction, within both the Democratic and Republican parties, but simultaneously ended both the Clinton and Bush dynasties.

During the election campaign the power elite’s corporate faction realised, far too late, that Trump was a direct threat to their power base, and turned the full force of their corporate media against Trump’s military faction, while Trump using social media bypassed and eviscerated the corporate media causing them to lose all remaining credibility.

As the election reached a crescendo this battle between the power elite’s factions became visible within the US establishment’s entities. A schism developed between the Defense Department and the highly politicized CIA. This schism, which can be attributed to the corporate-deep-state’s covert foreign policy, traces back to the CIA orchestrated “color revolutions” that had swept the Middle East and North Africa.

How accurate is this? Is there any inconsistencies? Is there anything factually wrong? What’s missing?

Read the rest of the article where the author provides evidence, sources and analysis.

Personally, there is some claims in the that I think are directly false, some interpretations that are misconceived, and some that are doubtful.

Report 3:



For the past few years, I have been suggesting there is a profound split in the Deep State that is not just about power or ideology, but about the nature and future of National Security: in other words, what policies and priorities are actually weakening or threatening the long-term security of the United States?

I have proposed that there are progressive elements within the sprawling Deep State that view the dominant neocon-neoliberal agenda of the past 24 years as a disaster for the long-term security of the U.S. and its global interests (a.k.a. the Imperial Project).

There are also elements within the Deep State that view Wall Street’s dominance as a threat to America’s security and global interests. (This is not to say that American-based banks and corporations aren’t essential parts of the Imperial Project; it’s more about the question of who is controlling whom.)

So let’s dig in by noting that the warmongers in the Deep State are civilians, not military. It’s popular among so-called Liberals (the vast majority of whom did not serve nor do they have offspring in uniform–that’s fallen to the disenfranchised and the working class) to see the military as a permanent source of warmongering.

(It’s remarkably easy to send other people’s children off to war, while your own little darlings have cush jobs in Wall Street, foundations, think tanks, academia, government agencies, etc.)

These misguided souls are ignoring that it’s civilians who order the military to go into harm’s way, not the other way around. The neocons who have waged permanent war as policy are virtually all civilians, few of whom served in the U.S. armed forces and none of whom (to my knowledge) have actual combat experience.

These civilian neocons were busily sacking and/or discrediting critics of their warmongering within the U.S. military all through the Iraqi debacle. now that we got that straightened out–active-duty service personnel have borne the brunt of civilian planned, ordered and executed warmongering–let’s move on to the split between the civilian Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the DoD (Department of Defense) intelligence and special ops agencies: DIA, Army Intelligence, Navy Intelligence, etc.


If you doubt this analysis, please consider the unprecedentedly politicized (and pathetically childish) comments by outgoing CIA director Brennan against an incoming president. Even if you can’t stand Trump, please document another instance in which the CIA director went off on an incoming president– and this after the CIA spewed a blatant misinformation campaign claiming a hacked Democratic Party email account constituted a successful Russian effort to influence the U.S. election–a surreal absurdity.

Let me translate for you: our chosen Insider lost the election; how dare you!


Given my thesis of a profound disunity in the Deep State, and the emergence of a progressive element hostile to neocons and neoliberalism (including Wall Street), then it’s not much of a stretch to speculate that this rogue Deep State opposed to neocon-neoliberalism has Trump’s back, as a new administration is pretty much the only hope to rid the nation’s top echelons of the neocon-neoliberal policies that have driven the U.S. into the ground.

In a number of articles coming soon I am going to show that Trump’s victory means profound change for the U.S and the world.


America Is A Communist Country (2).

Replace worker and peasant with Black and Hispanic — and Muslim.

We all know that the Soviet Union never had a “free press”, nor does modern day China. 

Does America have a free press? 

Does it report the news accurately? 

Does it report at all?

Inured to the Post’s p.c. coverage of racial issues, I was nevertheless shocked by some of the recent reporting on an incident in Chicago in which four teenagers videoed themselves and broadcast what they were doing live on Facebook as they beat a mentally impaired man. An early media account of the incident appeared on Reuters but is no longer available. It was written by Timothy McLaughlin and had, as its second paragraph, “At least one of the attackers on the video mentioned president elect Donald Trump as he taunted the man but police stopped short of calling the beating politically motivated and said they are still investigating.”

From that, I assumed that the journalist was implying that the attackers were Trump supporters since there has been so much reporting lately of incidents at schools where white bullies allegedly cite Trump as they torment their black or brown classmates. Many of those stories would themselves appear to be extremely improbable fake news since the schools in question frequently appear to have highly vulnerable white minorities in the student bodies, but white-on-black violence is not intrinsically unthinkable so the story appeared to be at least credible.

But reading on, the article seemingly reluctantly produced some additional information. The victim, who was tied, gagged and beaten, “appeared to be white” while one of the assailants “appeared to be African-American” and was heard making comments about “white people.” The story did not link to the Facebook video, but BBC, among other sites, showed the video and was unambiguous in its labelling the four assailants as black and the victim as white, which anyone viewing the recording would have clearly appreciated. Subsequent news stories made clear that the expressions that were being shouted by the attackers included “F**k Trump” and “F**k white people.” The victim was reportedly beaten for six hours, cursed at, cut and otherwise abused. The live broadcast of the beating went viral before Facebook deleted it.

In Europe, I read a while back that the EU does not want the names of Muslim terrorists to be named, just in case we think they are Muslims. 

Well, it’s not Jehovah’s Witnesses that are blowing up airports. 

What would journalists say? 

They would talk about their responsibility to be responsible.


What I am saying is that the United States mainstream media is the primary source of fake news due to its inbuilt biases on what is acceptable and what is not. It actually hurts black people by its attempts to be protective and its unwillingness to consider a news story through the eyes of the other party for chauvinistic reasons means that Americans are particularly uninformed about what is going on in the world. To suggest that all of this is particularly dangerous, both in terms of domestic tranquility and possible foreign threats, would be an understatement.


Will Trump Say No to NATO?

The key questions, this article poses is the following:

1: What is NATO’s Purpose?

2: How does NATO serve U.S interests?

3: Third, given the fact that the EU has almost as large a GDP and almost 200 million more people than the U.S., why isn’t Europe’s collective contribution to NATO’s military capability larger than the U.S.’?

 The Conclusion:

Trump’s approach to NATO has been forced on the U.S. by the Europeans and would be on the table with a different president. NATO doesn’t function as an alliance. It is a group of sovereign nations that will respond to American requests as they see fit. The U.S. understands this, and inevitably, the veil of good manners was going to be torn away. Someone was going to point out that NATO is obsolete. Trump happened to enjoy saying it.

But whether it is a tragedy or comedy, the matter can be summed up the following way. The Europeans are wondering if the U.S. will leave NATO. The U.S. is wondering if the Europeans will join NATO. Forgetting NATO, the question is this. What is the commitment of European countries to the United States, and what is the American commitment to Europe? It is not clear that there is a geopolitical basis for this commitment any longer. Interests have diverged, NATO is not suited to the realities of today, and the U.S.’ relations with European states differ from nation to nation, as do European nations’ relations to the United States. 

What would it mean for Europe to have to take greater responsibility for its security? 

Could the need to create a Euro army speed up the EU dissolution? 

Read the rest:


Dawkins And Human Dignity 

Dawkins is in trouble for bringing the idea of the “sacred” human nature into question:

The critic (a sociologist) says there are three ways of looking at human nature; this corresponds to the division I set out in DR Part 1: Meditations On First Reactionary Philosophy. 
1: Theological View.

2: Rational-Idealistic View.

3: Naturalistic View.
However, what’s comic is that the sociologist (Evans) wants us to view humans as sacred, while not using any kind of theological foundation. A noble lie in other words. What’s even more comical is that Evans points to “constitutions” and “secular” documents” as proof of no religious influence. 
Of course, in reality, human rights, dignity and sacredness evolved from Christian  concepts. 
All this is either forgotten, or suppressed, or ignored. 


France: The Fury.

Confined to bed in Paris for a few days by a case of flu, an economic jeremiad was just what I needed to pick me up. There is nothing quite like lamentation, I have found, to make one feel better in oneself. Tant pis! Nos enfants paieront (Too Bad! Our Children Will Pay), by François Lenglet, was just what I needed. How can one complain about a few minor symptoms such as headache, fever, and cough when the whole world is going to the dogs?

It is one of the theses of this lucid book that the generation of May 1968—or at any rate its leaders—has arranged things pretty well for itself, though disastrously for everyone else. If it has not been outright hypocritical, it has at least been superbly opportunist. First it bought property and accumulated other assets while inflation raged, paying back its debts at a fraction of their original value with depreciated money; then, having got its hands on the assets, it arranged for an economic policy of low inflation except in the value of its own assets. Moreover, it also arranged the best possible conditions for its retirement, in many cases unfunded by investment and paid for by those unfortunate enough to have come after them. They will have to work much longer, and if ever they reach the age of retirement, which might recede before them like a mirage in the desert, it will be under conditions much less generous than those enjoyed by current retirees.

“Sympathy is far from an inexhaustible quality in most people, while irritation is not.”

It matters little whether this was all part of a preconceived plan or things just fell out this way, for that is how things now are. The result is that what was always a class society is in the process of becoming a caste society, in which only children of the already well-off have a hope of owning their own house.

M. Lenglet sees several reasons why the situation is particularly catastrophic in France. There is nothing like having been born, grown up, and lived in a country for seeing its weaknesses. It is the same with close relatives: One perceives in them all the little faults and defects that strangers do not notice, and understands the little barbs in their innocent-sounding statements that strangers miss.

It is certainly true that France, a country that glorifies its own revolution, is peculiarly resistant to change. Such resistance can arise from fear of the new or attachment to the old, or some combination of the two; neither is in itself completely unreasonable, and that man must have lived a very miserable life who has nothing that he hopes will not change or does not wish to preserve. On the other hand, immobility in widespread disgruntlement is dangerous. It is often said that France does not change except by cataclysm, and M. Lenglet says near the end of his book:

France is very near the point of incandescence, which could lead to a kind of civil war in which different interest groups confront one another, completely forgetting the common national interest.

This is precisely what my French brother-in-law says, except that he does not put it in the conditional: The explosion is coming and cannot now be avoided.

France is still, remember, existing in a state of national emergency.


The Coming Collapse of Communism #2

The latest from Richard Fernandez, a superb pattern recogniser, and someone with interesting observations, questions and judgements. 


The causes of the bleak future are easy to understand but difficult for the liberal project to accept. The West has spent its past and borrowed on its future to buy votes in the present. Now the the millennials are stuck with the bill. Giant deficits, unfunded welfare systems, crushing student debts have come down on them just like anyone who spends more than he earns. It’s the betrayal that must hurt most. The were told it was OK. Socialism would square the circle on the volume. Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman assured the public there would be no problem. After all, “the Great Depression wasn’t ended by the intellectual victory of Keynesian economics … what put a decisive end to the slump was World War II … this story is what led me to facetiously suggest that we fake a threat from space aliens, to provide a politically acceptable cover for stimulus.”

It worked until it didn’t. Youth unemployment turned out to be just deferred unemployment, the can big governments kicked down the road until the road ran out. We may be living through an enormously important period: the collapse of Gramscianism in the West. If Eastern socialism died with the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, the Western version may at last be crumbling before a monumental wall of kicked cans. The Gramscian termites ate through the institutions and found with their last triumphant bite that they had eaten it all.

Its demise will leave an historic hole in Western civilization. For good or ill the Left was the West’s familiar: the wheedling family bum, what we defined ourselves through and in opposition to. Without the Left neither the 20th century, the EU or the American progressive project is even comprehensible. It was the future that never happened, the madness over which mankind walked the narrow path of nuclear destruction yet which framed the debate. Now it is passing from the scene with all the drama of an empty ramen wrapper on the sidewalk.

Fernandez is aware of the Cathedral:

The great locomotive of history is out of gas and we have to walk the remainder of the way wherever it is that the road leads. It’s demise marks the fall of a great civilizational cathedral. Once Lenin’s key invention the Bolshevik party stood ready at all times to seize the initiative on any issue and turn it into a vehicle to seize power. It told you what to think on every subject. Only the Jihadists had the same capability. “How did the Syrian uprising become dominated by jihadists?” asks one author. How? In the same way the Bolshevists once did: through quasi-religious commitment, a professional cadre, money and guns.

The link on the Cathedral is here: