How Trump Won Part 9F: Quack-Crack-Cracks-in-the-Circus.

Napoleon was always keen to know the price of bread in France because if the people had no bread they would have barricades instead. Here was a leader who kept his finger on the pulse of the people.

This is what France looks like today, and they are not rioting over bread alas.

We hear a lot about inequality today; we also hear a lot about populism -from France to England to America.


Why should all these countries – all at the same time are –  show the same symptoms?

Why did France have a revolution?

What did that silly bitch say about cakes?

Look at what this silly bitch says about coal.

Occam’s razor would suggest that the same effects are produced by the same cause.

Alas, from crime and terrorism to economics, America and Europe is a crack addict:

“If there is one overriding economic myth that plagues us today it is the notion that society can do collectively what we cannot do individually: get rich by living today at the expense of tomorrow. It is the doctrine of the political class, professional economists, and central bankers. It is monetary and fiscal hedonism masquerading as technical analysis. And, it leads to fiscal default. It is arguably the biggest untold story of our time, but you won’t hear about it from Hillary or Bernie or Donald.”

The Authors of the Present Misfortunes.

Who, Whom? Progressives or Capitalists?

Progressives will complain, however, that the current economic woes are actually a result of capitalism run amok. This is, at best, a half-truth. Naturally, one would expect this from progressives, since they believe that it’s their enemies who run the government and not them.

Trump’s election is a moment of black irony, now the Government is really in the hands of the capitalists. And what a reaction it has provoked!

Let’s clarify the terms then. This follows, from Undiscovered Jew’s helpful distinction:

Capitalism – In capitalism government actors establish the business rules, conditions and environment common to all private actors, individual private actors are free to make successful or unsuccessful business decisions of any kind within this system so long as they do not violate its rules.

Libertarianism – Private actors establish the business rules, conditions and environment common to all private actors, individual private actors are free to make successful or unsuccessful business decisions of any kind within this system so long as they do not violate its rules.

Liberalism – Government actors establish the business rules, conditions and environment common to all economic entities, government actors make all individual economic decisions within this system for all economic entities.

For liberalism read Communism, Socialism and Progressivism. In short, any and all cases of production, distribution, supply, demand and consumption – and all the rules in between – can be, and very often are, decided by the government.

Take some simple examples. I cannot legally produce, supply or possesses LSD. Who makes this decision? Well, the government of course. Why have they made this decision? For my own health of course.

If I have shop, a bakery let’s suppose, and if some person wishes for me to make a cake that says Support Faggot  Gay Marriage, and I am a Muslim, who does not support such a thing, but Polygamous marriage instead, and if I refuse, which under capitalism or libertarianism would be be my right, then I will be taken to court – and I will be punished. Why? Because I have committed a sin crime of discrimination.

If I have a business, or a bank (is a bank a business?) and if that business or bank goes bust, then, under capitalism or libertarianism, I’m broke. However, under progressivism, If I’m very big, or very well connected, maybe I can get a bailout – by the government bank.

If an economy suffers a depression under capitalism, then the government does….nothing.

But under Progressivism…………

USG became an unlimited government, and progressively abandoned sound economic doctrine with the introduction of the New Deal.

Progressives are not socialists or even, yes, Communists, however. In fact, their economic doctrines are closer to, but not quite, fascist.

Progressives allow private ownership of the means of production and capital investment; however, progressives control the banks and bank lending policies, the fiat currency (which was once gold), interest rates, tax rates, employment and labour laws – which include affirmative action policies, minimum wage requirements and health and safety regulations.

The problem with progressive economics, which is the core epistemological problem with progressivism itself is presumption.

They presume to know things that they don’t know and cannot know:

Specifically, the first problem is that they have a fiat (paper) currency – this creates the conditions for all sorts of fiscal indiscipline;which, of course, is exactly what has happened, as we will soon see.

Secondly, the entire banking system is a house of cards with the practice of fractional reserve banking which is ethically, pragmatically and economically dubious. Essentially, it is this which creates bank runs.

Thirdly, the outsourcing of industry has – while enriching China say (a military, political and economic competitor of America) –  badly hurt the American middle-class factory worker.

Free trade polices justified this, as did, no doubt, many generous campaign contributions.

Nevertheless, the policy of economic nationalism would offend the post-national, Globalist, progressive class.

Fourthly, the importation of foreign, low-wage workers, which in the short term, may benefit the employer and consumer actually benefit over the long-term the progressives (or so they assume).


By providing a vote bank: a permanent stock of voters – as well as a potential demo-army should the need ever arise to start a riot, or a civil war.

Of course, this is not to say a government controlled by the corporate rich would not do the same thing as well; after all, the Marxists did often talk about selling capitalists the rope…..

So how do we actually know who rules whom?

Is USG controlled by the Capitalists or the Progressives?

The answer lies in looking at USG as a system.

Systems have structure.

Political structure is the source of political behaviour. The consequences of such behaviour may take time to manifest, but the feedback loops created, and their effects on the system as a whole, will eventually manifest themselves – but perhaps only years later.

The consequences of fiat money, welfare socialism, outsourcing, immigration and massive levels of state and consumer debt are only now beginning to manifest themselves – yet these policies were formulated and implemented many decades ago.

Progressive structures are:

A: the universities which recruit, train and allow for social networking among progressives.

B: The civil service (the permanent government) who fine-tune the rules by which everyone else must play by.

C: The Federal Bank who set the monetary and fiscal policies.

E: The judiciary who upholds and enforces the laws. (Consider how many current Supreme Court Justices went to Harvard, never-mind the past, to understand how progressive USG is. Harvard is the State Church of America.

F: The Mainstream Press, who are staffed by university trained, middle to upper class progressive Brahmin/BoBo types. The patron saint of journalism is Walter Lippmann – one of the 20th century’s most influential people, and he was progressive to the core.

The capitalists have money, of course. They can contribute to campaigns, they can lobby, and they can give “advice” on the various laws and regulations. Who, however, are they contributing, lobbying and giving advice to?

The politicians. Politicians may, individually, be weak and transient – they are, however, strong in numbers. Political parties are basically cartels; needless to say, since 1945, they have all been, well, progressive and socialist of one kind or another.

The other thing is that, unlike the progressives who are a political movement, the capitalists are not a single, unified block. Indeed, they compete against each other. If one Corporation went up against the progressive state, who would win? Again, consider the resources that could be marshalled against a Corporation say that offered genetic engineering services, whose CEO was in favour of eugenics, and who believed that Jews were the master race and that Negroes – while often strong – are not very smart.

The Cathedral (the universities and the press), the judiciary, the politicians, the civil service  (the key parts of the Polygon) could all, easily, be turned into a laser against this man and his company. Again, who would win?

This is not just hypothetical concerning capitalists, but also countries as well (see this telling article).

Finally, the laws and culture of America have been drifting more and more to the left for nearly a century now. This is not an accident – it is a result of progressive control over all the major institutions, with the exception of the military, and some of the Corporations.

In 1917, with the First World War raging, who would ever think that men – who look like men – who claim, however, to be women, would be able to use a woman’s toilet legally and without outrage (at least from progressive quarters)?

Or, to take another example, consider that among the white underclass in England, teenage pregnancies lack any kind of social stigma, and the mothers are fully supported by the government with housing, healthcare and benefits. Unthinkable fifty years ago, never-mind a century.

Other examples include gay marriage, mass atheism, short skirts, female leaders and on and on and on.

The truth is the political system radically (but peacefully) changed in America with the New Deal, and with England’s 1945 welfare state.

These changes, which were revolutionary, occurred via the ballot box – not with bats, bullets or bombs. The means are different, but the changes were no less profound.

To understand the importance of the New Deal to the current American power structure and how it fundamentally altered the relationship between state and economics, I recommend the following four books:

1: Basic Economics. Thomas Sowell. Here is a  good overview of economics, but it also discusses the New Deal’s interference in the economy, which actually made the problems worse. When I first read about Roosevelt’s interference in prices and resource allocation I was shocked: this is what socialists and communists did. The results of such interference were shortages and waste – just like in communist countries.

2: As We Go Marching. John. T. Flynn. This book compares three “fascisms”: Italian; German; and American. The author claims, with some justification, though ultimately mistaken, that Roosevelt’s New Deal was “fascist.” (A further book to read on this topic is Three New Deals by Wolfgang Schivelbusch. You can read a review here.

3: The Power Elite. C. Wright Mills.This book was written in the fifties, and it remains a brilliant examination of the American elite and the nascent Modern Structure. The author’s central thesis is that, post New Deal and World War 2, America entered into a post-democratic state, held together by a triumvirate of three structures: the corporations; the political—bureaucratic machine and a permanent military and a military-industrial system.

Nevertheless, it is the political-progressive class who occupy the central position in this Dark Triangle. Again, they don’t just have a political party, but the press, the universities, the civil service and the judiciary – never-mind the support of the celebrities and other trend-setters.

4: The Managerial Revolution. James Burnham. The importance of James Burnham has been discussed earlier here, and here. You should also read the following two essays here and here (the first, is by Julius Klein, a “Harvard Whizz Kid” who has set up a new journal to lay out the “intellectual foundations” of the Trump Presidency; the second, meanwhile, is by “Dissident Right”, an excellent reactionary blogger.

Burnham, writing during WW2, claimed that something of fundamental importance had taken place in the American economy. In short, the old capitalist way which had unification of ownership and control of production changed to “managerialism.” The managers, who did not own the means of production, nevertheless, controlled it because of their technical or scientific competence.

According to Marxist theory, it is the capitalists who create the “superstructure” of politics, culture and religious expression because they control the “base” of production; however,  if control is now in the hand of the managers, then, following Marxist logic, the managers would create the new “superstructure.”

Klein does a fine job describing the consequences of manageralism for the American economy and political culture; however, we should see this change as part of the growing technocratic bureaucracy in politics and social engineering  described brilliantly  by Undiscovered Jew – an unaccountable bureaucracy that has brought so much dysfunction, decay and destruction to the Western world. See:

Here is how I summarised his thesis on his blog, using an Aristotelian analysis:

 Communism V Progressivism.

Formal Cause.

Communism’s form, or its decision structure, is either a dictatorship, or a small oligarchy (Politburo).

Communism, moreover, is a one party state.

The State, meanwhile, controls the means of production for (so it is claimed) the benefit of the proles.


The form or decision structure of Progressivism, or the EU is…..What exactly? The decision structure is an endless series or processes and procedures, committees and consultations. No one is in charge; sectors of responsibility and control are unclear.


Democracy, so far as it goes, exists, but the parties are largely meaningless; they exist to provide the illusion of people power.

Economically, Progressivism permits private enterprise but subjects commerce to stringent and constant interference to achieve aims such as “social justice”, “diversity”, “health and safety” “environmental safety”.

Material Cause.

Communism consists of proles.

Progressivism consists of Brahmins or bobos: the middle class.

Efficient cause.

Communism achieves power via revolution. Communism rules via top down command and control; its methods, beyond dictating, are force and fraud.

Progressivism achieves its aims firstly via electoral success; then, by constant bureaucratic expansion. Crucially, progressivism is able to reproduce and spread by *controlling* the universities and *infiltrating* the media which produces new “managers”. Progressivists rule by laws, regulations, and social-shaming and employment purges. However, it also jails thought and speech criminals, and uses (by tolerating) fascist (anti-fascist) gangs to break up dissenters.
Progressivism maintains power by subverting and destroying rival institutions and power centres, and by importing the third world. (*edited.)

Final Cause.


Communism is the final goal of Communism: the “withering” away of the state.

Progressivism’s goal is…… Formally it is peace, equality, liberty and wellbeing, justice, happiness, dignity. Really, its goal is to perpetuate the rule by bureaucrat.

After the French Revolution, the left divided and evolved along two different paths: Marxist and Comtiean. 

Comte Won, and the Circus was born. 

Take the Credit but Never Take the Blame.

Don’t believe me. Take a look at the following then.

The above article is from a pretty hip progressive online magazine called Aeon giving us a little economic history tour.

The article was written by Marc Levinson, economist, historian and journalist. Levinson has master’s degrees from Georgia State University and the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University. He has also earned a doctorate from the City University of New York.

I guess he knows what he is talking about then.

Here is how Levinson describes the shift from the post-war “golden age” to, well, let’s call it the gray age:

The shift came at the end of 1973. The quarter-century before then, starting around 1948, saw the most remarkable period of economic growth in human history. In the Golden Age between the end of the Second World War and 1973, people in what was then known as the ‘industrialised world’ – Western Europe, North America, and Japan – saw their living standards improve year after year. They looked forward to even greater prosperity for their children. Culturally, the first half of the Golden Age was a time of conformity, dominated by hard work to recover from the disaster of the war. The second half of the age was culturally very different, marked by protest and artistic and political experimentation. 

I cannot help but quote Moldbug who quotes Froude:

Perhaps Froude wrote the best epitaph for the system:

Democracies are the blossoming of the aloe, the sudden squandering of the vital force which has accumulated in the long years when it was contented to be healthy and did not aspire after a vain display. The aloe is glorious for a single season. It progresses as it never progressed before. It admires its own excellence, looks back with pity on its earlier and humbler condition, which it attributes only to the unjust restraints in which it was held. It conceives that it has discovered the true secret of being ‘beautiful for ever,’ and in the midst of the discovery it dies.

Moldbug then says:

In the arts of decadence – sex, drugs and rock ‘n roll – democracies excel. If only for these, the second half of the twentieth century will never be forgotten. We need not imagine the level of punitive austerity and reeducation that would need to be inflicted on Western society to make it forget the Rolling Stones and everything after. Possible, surely, but hard to recommend.

Another way to state Froude’s thesis is to describe democracies as obtaining their energy by breaking the strong molecular bonds of their authoritarian predecessors.

Nevertheless, you will still feel warm for a while after the contents of your house have been burned in a Potlatch ceremony.

But eventually the cold will begin to bite:

The good times rolled on so long that people took them for granted. Between 1948 and 1973, Australia, Japan, Sweden and Italy had not a single year of recession. West Germany and Canada did almost as well.

Who takes the credit for this? Government, and their economic advisers of course:

 Governments and the economists who advised them happily claimed the credit.

Careful economic management, they said, had put an end to cyclical ups and downs.

Governments possessed more information about citizens and business than ever before, and computers could crunch the data to help policymakers determine the best course of action.

 In a lecture at Harvard University in 1966, Walter Heller, formerly chief economic adviser to presidents John F Kennedy and Lyndon B Johnson, trumpeted the success of what he called the ‘new economics’.Conceptual advances and quantitative research in economics,’ he declared, ‘are replacing emotion with reason.’

Walter Heller’s reference to “new economics” is no doubt referring to Keynes and his General Theory. Did all economists at the time agree that “conceptual advances” had occurred, that with “quantitative research” the “cyclical ups and downs” had been put to an end?

Actually no. Here is a line by line refutation written all-the-way-back-in-1959.

The author of that refutation, Henry Hazlitt, was deploying, as a critical tool, the economic principles set forth by Ludwig Von Mises in his Human Action, which was written in 1949. They belong to the “libertarian” “school” of economics.

How did Walter Heller get to advise two American Presidents and lecture at Harvard, while Mises got to advise – got to advise who exactly?

Levinson, Hazlitt and Mises all concur that Heller is smoking crack; it is possible, of course, that Mises was also a gin soaked popinjay but that does explain why Heller “won” and Mises “lost.”

Is it possible that maybe Heller, like Keynes, simply got away it because he told the Presidents want they wanted to hear?

Let’s take one major example to see that when power and truth collide, power wins.

The Strange Case of Alan Greenspan.

John Rubino writes:

When the history of these times is written, former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan will be one of the major villains, but also one of the greatest mysteries. This is so because he has, in effect, been three different people.

He began public life brilliantly, as a libertarian thinker who said some compelling and accurate things about gold and its role in the world. An example from 1966:

An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense – perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire – that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other…

In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold [in 1934 under FDR].

(Ding! Ding! Ding! DR)

 If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.

This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard.

(See here for Greenspan’s complete essay.)

That was before he became Chairman of the Federal Reserve. What did he do though?

He didn’t practice what he preached:

Awesome, right? But when put in charge of the Federal Reserve in the late 1980s, instead of applying the above wisdom — by for instance limiting the bank’s interference in the private sector and letting market forces determine winners and losers — he did a full 180, intervening in every crisis, creating new currency with abandon, and generally behaving like his old ideological enemies, the Keynesians. Not surprisingly, debt soared during his long tenure.

Then, after his long tenure as Banker in Chief he had this to say:

“Today, going back on to the gold standard would be perceived as an act of desperation. But if the gold standard were in place today, we would not have reached the situation in which we now find ourselves,” he said.“[T]here is a widespread view that the 19th Century gold standard didn’t work. I think that’s like wearing the wrong size shoes and saying the shoes are uncomfortableIt wasn’t the gold standard that failed; it was politics.

Echoing his old libertarian self, this is what he said involving gold, debt and fiscal discipline:

We would never have reached this position of extreme indebtedness were we on the gold standard, because the gold standard is a way of ensuring that fiscal policy never gets out of line.”

Over in England, another Banker, Sir Mervin King, is saying the same thing; in the absence of gold, or some other stable foundation, fiscal indiscipline will occur. However, the following, from a review of King’s book, is a brilliant summary of the systematically flawed nature of progressive, Anglo-American economic systems:

King identifies a basic problem in the banking system that has again and again led to financial crisis. “The idea that paper money could replace intrinsically valuable gold and precious metals, and that banks could take secure short-term deposits and transform them into long-term risky investments came into its own with the Industrial Revolution in the eighteenth century. It was both revolutionary and immensely seductive. It was in fact financial alchemy — the creation of extraordinary financial powers that defy reality and common sense. Pursuit of this monetary elixir has brought a series of economic disasters — from hyperinflation to banking collapses.”

How exactly is this alchemy supposed to work? “People believed in alchemy because, so it was argued, depositors would never all choose to withdraw their money at the same time. If depositors’ requirements to make payments or obtain liquidity were, when averaged over a large number of depositors, a predictable flow, then deposits could provide a reliable source of long-term funding. But if a sizable group of depositors were to withdraw funds at the same time, the bank would be forced either to demand immediate repayment of the loans it had made, … or to default on the claims of depositors.”


Many have sought to salvage the alchemy of banking by resorting to a central bank. By acting as a lender of last resort, a central bank can bail out banks in need of funds to satisfy anxious depositors and thus avert the danger of a bank run. The alchemy of transforming deposits into investments can now proceed.

Though he was one of the world’s leading central bankers, King finds fault with this “solution.” A local bank can be rescued by getting money from the central bank, but the process generates new problems.

Like What?

[i]f banks came to rely on the Bank of England to bail them out when in difficulty, then they would take excessive risks and abandon “sound principles of banking.” They would run down their liquid assets, relying instead on cheap central bank insurance — and that is exactly what happened before the recent [2008] crisis. The provision of insurance without a proper charge is an incentive to take excessive risks — in modern jargon, it creates “moral hazard.”

Moldbug has said the same thing, though with more bombast and bravado:

The mainstream, however, is catching onto the cult that has collapsed:

The Schilling of Schiller.

Let’s return to our Aeon piece and Levinson’s take on Karl Schiller – a crack addict:

The most influential proponent of such ideas was Karl Schiller, who became economy minister of West Germany, Europe’s largest economy, in 1966. A former professor at the University of Hamburg, where his students included the future West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, Schiller was a centrist Social Democrat. He stood apart from those on the Left who favoured state ownership of industry, but also from extreme free-market conservatives.

His advice called for ‘a synthesis of planning and competition’. Schiller defined his philosophy thus: ‘As much competition as possible, as much planning as necessary.’

To me, in 2017, when I hear “collective rationality” “synthesis of planning and competition” “planning” and “economics” I think three things: Socialism; Communism and Fascism.

Most fundamentally, Schiller believed that government should commit itself to maintaining high employment, steady growth and stable prices. And it should do this all while keeping its international account in balance, within the framework of a free-market economy. These four commitments made the corners of what he called the ‘magic square’.

The crack (quack) square.

Official Government Policy:

In December 1966, when Schiller became economy minister in a new coalition government, the magic square became official policy.

Following Schiller’s version of Keynesian economics, his ministry’s experts advised federal and state governments how to adjust their budgets to achieve ‘equilibrium of the entire economy’.

The ministry’s advice was based on an elaborate planning exercise that churned out five-year projections.

Five year plans – sorry projections.

In the spring of 1967, the finance ministry was told to adjust taxes and spending plans to increase business investment while slowing the growth of consumer spending. These moves, Schiller’s economic models promised, would bring economic growth averaging 4 per cent through 1971, along with 0.8 per cent unemployment, 1 per cent annual inflation and a 1 per cent current account surplus.Of course, he would add, wages and investment were private decisions, but he hoped that the government’s guidelines would contribute to ‘collective rationality’. 

To promise something is very different than to hope for it.

Schiller insisted that his policies had brought West Germany to ‘a sunny plateau of prosperity’ where inflation and unemployment were permanently vanquished.

No doubt, this made him feel very, very important. But:

Year after year, however, the economy failed to perform as he instructed.

In July 1972, when Schiller was denied control over the exchange rate, he stormed out of the cabinet and left elected office forever.

Schiller left with the West German economy roaring. Within 18 months, his claim that the government could ensure stable prices, robust growth and jobs for all blew up.


At least millions of German didn’t starve, not like these poor chaps who did.


…. central banks and governments have a variety of tools they can use.

(Central banks are government banks. So what? How would you feel if you heard the phrase “Central Church”?)

 They can lower interest rates to make it cheaper to buy a car or build a factory.

(Just like Socialists, Communists and Fascists.)

They can lower taxes to give consumers more money to spend.

(Or they can raise them, or lower them for some people and not for others, in short they can do whatever they want.)

 They can increase government spending to pump more cash into the economy.

(This means the government uses its magic wand and manufactures new money, which allows the progressive welfare state to spend this “magic” money. Secondly, printing money is basically a tax on savers and spenders; thirdly, it is a source of malinvestment.)

They can change regulations to make it easier for banks to lend money.

(Yes. One possible and actual consequence of this is that banks are forced to loan to people they would, ordinarily, not loan to because they would be unlikely to pay back the loan. Connect this with fractional reserve banking and if you have banks that cannot get its return on loans and thus cannot pay back or give out the money it owes; then, as a result of people who fear losing getting locked out of their account you get a bank run.)


Does this sound like Laissez-faire to you?

Who, whom?

Greedy capitalists. or foolish, presumptuous progressives?

The “greedy capitalist” types – the Austrians – are horrified by what USG has done to the economy, however.

Has America, however, ever been a laissez-faire capitalist nation?

The progressives “fatal conceit”, their fundamental mistake, is the presumption that bureaucrats know best; that humans are nothing but guinea pigs to play with in their social engineering experiments.

Quack! Quack! Crack! Crack!

Shakedown Clowns:

The Circus:

Turn on the Faucet:

I’m Forever Blowing Bubbles:

Ignorance is Bliss:

Fuck No, You Can’t Keep Your Doctor:

Crash the Cash:

Better Stash That Cash:

We Woz Wong:

Democracy and Economics Cannot Co-Exist:

Smash the Ivory Towers:

You Can Bank on a Bubble:

The Ice Berg:

The Storm Gathers:

Deutschland Going Down:


The Dead End:

Do Not Resuscitate:

The End of Days:

The Clowns Gave Away the Circus:

No Hope:

The Lost Generation:

The American Betrayal:

France, A Failed State:


Death of the Dream:

The American Dream is Dead:

Hail! Hail! America, Chief of the Dead:

And this is what I mean by a “zombie nation.” It is not just the banks that need restructuring. It is the entire economy, because the entire economy is dependent on the continuous generation of new debt. This is the hallmark of the zombie. Beneath this soothing curtain of formaldehyde, it is not just Citibank that is insolvent and unprofitable; it is not even just GM; it may even be most American companies. Nobody’s profit margin is that wide.

America! Hail, chief of the dead. Alive you were the greatest, and death has barely touched you. You strode the world; you stride it still. Rule it, even – for of all dead things, you are the least dead. That furrowed brow is almost fresh. The frost upon it might well be sweat. That tan and bony fist still clasps its notchless sword.

But the scent is unmistakable. The beetles are already at work. Grosser fauna lurk. And what do we do? We do nothing. We serve a straw-packed corpse, nailed to a tall and ancient throne. Dead, festering, and nowhere near ready for the grave. And we smile as we go about our duties.

Mencius Moldbug. April, 2009.

October, 2016A Philosopher who Plumbs for Trump.

Here is philosopher, Daniel Bonevac, writing in the, yep, Washington Post why he is voting for Donald Trump:

Ask yourself: Are you better off than you were a decade ago? Is the United States better off? Is the world safer? Is this country on the right track? I am among the nearly two-thirds of Americans who answer no.

We’re in the seventh year of the slowest economic recovery since 1949. The proportion of working-age adults who are employed is the lowest in decades. Young African Americans face an unemployment rate of over 20 percent. The national debt has almost doubled; an American baby born today already owes more than $60,000. We’ve lost our Standard & Poor’s AAA credit rating. Cities and states face debt and pension crises of their own. Meanwhile, business profits and durable goods orders are down, productivity is sluggish and 2 percent growth is the new normal. Economic inequality has increased; incomes are down; prices are up.

The president’s signature “accomplishment,” Obamacare, is in a death spiral. Racial tensions are leading to riotsViolent crime is up sharply over the past 18 months. Life expectancy is falling for large segments of our population. The administration is conducting a war on fossil fuelsendangering our electric grid, while shoveling funds to green-energy boondoggles run by donors. The IRS, the FBI and the Justice Department are protecting political allies, punishing opponents and defying court orders. Title IX is used on campus to destroy due process and stifle speech. In the past 10 months, we’ve suffered terror attacks in San Bernardino, Calif., OrlandoSt. Cloud, Minn., and Burlington, Wash., leaving 68 dead. Europe’s experience shows that if we continue these policies, we will suffer many more.

The Middle East is in shambles. We gratuitously overthrew a stable government in Libya, creating a terrorist haven and getting our ambassador killed. We threw away victories in Iraq and AfghanistanSyria is a humanitarian disaster. We sabotaged Iran’s Green Revolution and halted sanctions, propping up and then funding with planeloads of cash a leading global sponsor of terrorism actively seeking nuclear weapons — all in a quest to reach an agreement so adverse to U.S. interests that it was not even submitted to the Senate. Iran is reportedly already violating it.

This is not bad luck. It results directly from policies of the Obama administration that Clinton wants to continue. The problem is not implementation, but deep inadequacies in her progressive worldview. It’s a worldview I encounter up close on campus, a worldview that intrigues intellectuals with its promise of rationality and tempts them with the possibility of power. As Dostoevsky warned, however, in practice, it indulges the moral narcissism of an elite and encourages disrespect for everyone else.

Progressives try to counter corporate economic power by centralizing political power in executive-branch agencies. They try to cure centralization with more centralization. But this leads to elitism and regulatory capture. When corporations, well-funded nonprofits or well-connected donors team up with government agencies, the rest of us lose. The federal government is the ultimate monopoly. The administrative state is largely unaccountable; you can’t vote the regulators out of office. Under the Obama administration, federal regulations have strangled some industries outright and curtailed innovation in others. No one voted to destroy the coal industry or stop enforcing immigration law. Clinton promises more of the same. She promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will remove the Bill of Rights’s safeguards against excessive government power. She shows contempt for ordinary people, their rights and their concerns, treating any who oppose her as enemies. Only Trump promises to rein in the excesses of the administrative state and return us to constitutional governance. He pledges to issue a moratorium on new regulations and to reduce “the anchor dragging us down,” the regulatory burden whose growth since 1980 has cost us as much as one-fourth of our gross national product.

Progressivism sacrifices the future for the present, and the present for special interests and personal gain. That is why economies stall and birth rates collapse in countries where progressive policies hold sway. Our economy works by allowing the market to channel accumulated capital to investments that fuel productivity gains and innovation, leading to technological advances, more affordable products, higher wages and increased opportunities. Trump’s tax cuts would increase investment, boost productivity and wages and increase innovation and opportunities for all Americans.

Finally, progressivism rests on an implausible view of international relations. It seeks to diminish the nation-state and the reach of American power. The Obama-Clinton policy requires us to push traditional allies away and seek relationships with avowed enemiesProtecting Americans from harm and maintaining state secrets are evidently a low priority. Trump would bring a much-needed dose of realism to foreign policy, restoring damaged friendships with Britain and Israel, restoring the integrity of our borders and protecting U.S. interests in international agreements.

Trump has been giving serious speeches detailing his vision on the economyforeign policycrimeimmigration and other central issues facing the country. He has been explaining policies that would strengthen the United States, revive the economy, and restore our social capital, especially in inner cities. Clinton, meanwhile, has been doing her best to distract us from the issues. Admittedly, Trump offers her many such opportunities. But our country’s direction is too important to decide on the basis of who is more vulgar than whom. Clinton’s policies portend nothing but a weaker economy, a weaker society and a weaker America. I want a president who’s on our side. I plan to vote for someone who can change course and return us once again to the task of making America great.


The mismanagement of the economy, likes with everything, would eventually provoke a reaction – it always does.

As Greenspan himself said, populism is a cry of pain. But the Progressives don’t care.

Hence Trump.

Again, as I argued here, the system produced Trump. Trump is a monster of the progressives own making.

Modern Government is a monster.

A Minotaur.

Fight back

and it grow stronger.

Run away

and it runs after you.












How Trump Won Part 9E: Imperium in Imperio.

Has the Red Government had enough of the Blue Government? In the last part, we considered that maybe something historic has taken place. Here, we will look at the background context: USG’s grand strategy, the role of visions and how it is working in practice.

In C. Wright Mills’ The Power Elite he theorised that in the post-1945 American system there were three factions: the Political Directorate; the Corporates and the Military.

The Political directorate (which is a Brahmin run operation) is master of both the Corporates and the Military, or the Warlords, as Mills names them.

The basic problem of imperium in imperio (state within a state) is the incoherence, confusion and conflict that results from divided, competing power structures. Having separate wings, such as an unaccountable bureaucratic wing, or an intelligence agency, is one thing; democracy, however, is another.

Halford Mackinder said that democracies cannot think strategically because they cannot think period; they certainly seem to be unable to think about threats over the long-term (which is also Hans Hermann Hoppe’s point about Western democracy and economics); thus, democracy cannot coordinate various actors and institutions  and concentrate on a specific strategy to engage threats (as we shall see).

While America was largely a post-democratic country by 2016, it was not fully; with the Trump election – where the people chose…. for the first time since… – they have chosen a candidate who is a complete outsider and one who wishes to enact radical change. The success of the Trump administration remains to be seen.

Trump has flummoxed not only the entire foreign policy establishment; it has caused consternation and panic in America’s allies (or vassals).

Consequently, the problem of imperium in imperio extends even to the fact that USG is an empire. The vassal states of England, France and Germany, moreover, have their own “state within a state” and the result is friction, instability and incoherence. For example, under the time tested imperial design, the instability and violence in France would be solved by USG appointing a new governor, dispatched with troops, to bring peace to the province. Today, however, France burns, and no one can do anything about it – within the constraints of the current system.

The breakdown in global and domestic security and the resulting political division is, I believe, the most important problem of our era. Trump has grasped this issue intuitively; sober analysts concur; the problem is what to do about it.

The problem is one of political engineering; my hunch was that the biggest reason why the Roman Empire collapsed was that the civilian branch of government kept losing control of the military branch.

Our Problem today, however, is that the military branch has no control over the civilian one.

The solution is unification under a single executive authority with some kind of responsibility mechanism involving succession and selection. It is no wonder that so many people chose Trump, for he acts like a boss- or a king – and that is what America needs.

Anyway, my last article argued that maybe the military have undertaken a coup against the Cathedral by throwing its support behind Donald Trump.

As this article claims, the military branch has grown exasperated with the corporate and political wing.

However, here we will look, very briefly, as to why this might be.

America has now been at war for over 15 years against Islamic radicals. It conducts military operations, without congressional approval or oversight, in numerous countries. Trillions have been spent, thousands have died, yet the threat of Jihad does not seem to be abating. If anything, it is increasing. Furthermore, the military has other possible threats – Russia and China, for example.

Now would be a good time to ask how robust is USG’s grand strategy?


How solid are the assumptions underpinning American grand strategy? How valid are the key ideas that U.S. officials have about how the world works? Such assumptions represent the intellectual foundation upon which American statecraft rests. If the foundation is solid, American strategy has a decent chance of success. If the foundation is shaky, American strategy may collapse.

Not solid. 

Not working.

After one of the most surprising presidential elections in generations, the need to reexamine core strategic assumptions has become ever more pressing. Since the Cold War, the United States has pursued a grand strategy centered on maintaining America’s global primacy and extending the liberal international order. 

Global primacy”  — imperium. 

Liberal international order — progressive imperium.

That grand strategy, in turn, rested upon a set of optimistic assumptions about the sustainability of American dominance and the direction in which the world is moving. Now, however, those assumptions are coming under greater strain than at any time in a quarter-century, thereby casting the future of American grand strategy into greater doubt.

“Optimistic assumptions” like hmm “liberal determinism”?

Coming under “strain” is not even the half of it.

The role of “assumptions”, “axioms” and “unstated theories” in knowledge and decision making:

Assumptions are the received wisdom among the policymaking elite — the intellectual axioms on which policy rests. They may be, for example, the core beliefs that policymakers hold about the nature and direction of the international system, their baseline views on a country’s particular role within that system, or their unstated “theories” about how some action will lead to some desired result. And crucially, although assumptions may sometimes be stated explicitly, they more often remain in the background, creating the implicit intellectual guidelines within which policy debates occur.

In short, the military guys are sticking their dicks into a meatgrinder because of the “assumptions” and “received wisdom” of the likes of Obama, Kerry, Bush and, of course, Clinton.

The problem here is twofold. The first order problem is the assumptions or visions themselves; the second is the awareness that you are thinking with assumptions in the first place, that these assumptions have a history, that they are received, and that they may well be the intellectual equivalent of crack. 

Here is what Thomas Sowell, who has written one of the best books exploring the philosophical assumptions of the two  main, western political philosophies, has to say about the role of “unstated theories” or “visions” in our knowledge and decisions:

A vision has been described as a “pre-analytic cognitive act.”

This means that it is not something that has been constructed analytically, or that it emerges via a “judicious study of reality” we might say. It is simply something that “seems” to be given.

 “A vision is our sense of how the world works.”

Thus, a vision implies a relationship of cause and effect, which may of course be entirely mistaken. Not only mistaken but deadly.


The effects of visions do not depend upon their being articulated, or even on decision-makers’ being aware of them. “Practical” decision-makers often disdain theories and visions, being too busy to examine the ultimate basis on which they are acting…”

This is the key point here. To a crack addict, they will shoot up crack or caffeine because they are too busy to examine, or care, which is which.

Nevertheless, we cannot dispense with assumptions, theories, or axioms; they are essential; they must, however, be tested against evidence, and they must produce the desired consequences:

“It would be good to be able to say that we should dispense with visions entirely, and deal only with reality. But that may be the most utopian vision of all. Reality is far too complex to be comprehended by any given mind. Visions are like maps that guide us through a tangle of bewildering complexities. Like maps, visions have to leave out many concrete features in order to enable us to focus on a few key paths to our goals. Visions are indispensable—but dangerous, precisely to the extent that we confuse them with reality itself. What has been deliberately neglected may not in fact turn out to be negligible in its effect on the results. That has to be tested against evidence.”

As pointed out here, this was Clinton’s problem.

Below, Sowell explains how visions underpin theories and how facts confirm theories:

Visions are the foundations on which theories are built. The final structure depends not only on the foundation, but also on how carefully and consistently the framework of theory is constructed and how well buttressed it is with hard facts. Visions are very subjective, but well-constructed theories have clear implications, and facts can test and measure their objective validity. The world learned at Hiroshima that Einstein’s vision of physics was not just Einstein’s vision.”

Sowell, Thomas. “A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles.

Arguably, war is the fastest and most reliable mechanism for testing one’s theories against facts.

So, how is USG’s war against Islamic Jihadists going?

The general conclusion is that, to the military at least, there is no coherent grand strategy; that the current assumptions, organisation and policies are not baring fruit. In short, the war is not being won.

In war, it is the men and women in uniform who fight and die – not the politician, or the civil servant. In 4th Generation Warfare, civilians are targets every bit as much, if not more so, than people who work directly for the state.

Secondly, and this is a key theme of this series, and especially the last post, the civil religion, the narrative, the formula of America, has been degraded by the actions of the political Brahmin elite.

What are the crucial assumptions that the article claims is under strain?

The article lists six:

Assumption #1: American Military Primacy Today, in the Future, and Everywhere

Assumption #2: The Best Allies

Assumption #3: A Wealthy and Integrated China Will Be a Democratic and Peaceful China

Assumption #4: Great-Power War is Obsolete

Assumption #5: The Unstoppable and Irreversible Advance of Democracy

Assumption #6: Globalization is Inexorable

Assumption #7: Technology Will Save Us  

 Of course, one can ask if these assumptions should have been adopted in the first place. At the very least, assumptions 3, 4, 5 and 6 are consequences of the post-war, progressive faith.

Now, let’s turn to a strategic document written by policy analyst, Mr. Nathan P. Freier,and thirteen serving officers. The conclusion they have for USG’s current strategy, security for itself and its allies (never mind USG’s global dominance) is not good.

Here are some extracts:

U.S. defense strategists and planners must dispense with outdated strategic assumptions about the United States, its global position, and the rules that govern the exercise of contemporary power.

 In fact, the U.S. defense enterprise should rely on three new core assumptions.

First, the United States and the U.S.-dominated status quo will encounter persistent, unmitigated resistance.

 Second, that resistance will take the form of gray zone competition and conflict.

 Finally, the gray zone will confound U.S. defense strategists and institutions until it is normalized and more fully accounted for by the DoD.

These assumptions, combined with the gray zone’s vexing action-inaction risk dilemma, indicate there is an urgent necessity for U.S. defense adaptation. Without it, the United States introduces itself to enormous strategic risk.

The consequences associated with such failure to adapt range from inadvertent escalation to general war, ceding control of U.S. interests, or gradual erosion of meaningful redlines in the face of determined competitors. These risks or losses could occur absent a declared or perceived state of war.


In the area of policy and strategy, this study found that there is no common perception of the nature, character, or hazard associated with the gray zone or its individual threats and challenges. Consequently, there are gaps in strategic design, deliberate plans, and defense capabilities as they apply to operating and succeeding in gray zone environments.

This study further found that there is significant asymmetry in risk perceptions between the United States, its partners, and their principal gray zone adversaries and competitors. The results of this apparent asymmetry of risk-perception are predictable—loss of initiative, ceded control over interests or territory, and a position of general disadvantage in the face of aggressive gray zone competition.


 Finally, this study discovered that there is neither an animating grand strategy nor “campaign-like” charter guiding U.S. defense efforts against specific gray zone challenges. Because of this, U.S. gray zone responses are generally overly reactive, late, and ineffective.

Just like what Mackinder claimed all those years ago.

Then, we have the conclusion:

Global leadership is no longer an assumed U.S. entitlement. If the United States does not reassert its leadership—especially against purposeful gray zone competitors—it hazards loss of control over the security of core interests and increasing constraints on its global freedom of action.

Then, we have something very interesting asserted:

 Therefore, it is incumbent on senior U.S. leaders to deliberately plan in a campaign-like fashion to compete for primacy and defend core interests in the space where U.S. dominance is most at risk.

But democracies – or, perhaps, what is worse, semi-oligarchical democracies – cannot do this…

A coherent whole-of-government concept for combatting gray zone challenges would be ideal.

That means, if it means anything, a rejection of imperium in imperio

However, it is likely not forthcoming.

Now this, very interesting claim:

Thus, the DoD should not wait for definitive national-level guidance on countering gray zone competition before thoughtfully considering its own options.

What does “should not wait” mean? Who, whom?

Of course, it cannot act alone. However, with presidential approval, it can leverage its substantial strategy development and strategic planning capacity to design coherent and proactive strategic responses to revisionist gray zone competitors.

And they we are; the problem of imperium in imperio; the rejection of which is the foundation of reactionary political philosophy:

Moldbug’s UR is basically a rejection of competitive division in governance.

UR working from solid ground with Carlyle, De Jouvenel (and additionally it would seem) Carrol Quigley’s insights provides a series of additional analyses based on observable historically recorded behaviour.

The article from War on the Rocks concludes, meanwhile, that:

…… it is hard not to worry that this most fundamental assumption of U.S. grand strategy — that the country can effectively cope with its problems — may be becoming shakier as well. Were this assumption to be further undermined, it would significantly compound the effects of all the other global changes discussed here — and augur a bleak future for U.S. policy and the post-Cold War order it supports.

A bleak future.

So, that is a brief outline of the grand strategic situation, and the central flaw upon which it rests. Fifteen years ago, when I was barely beginning to think about the challenge of Islam, and the invasion of Afganistan following 9/11 (one reason why I chose the blog’s picture) is how can America as a democracy survive in a protracted war against an enduring problem like Islamic Jihad? Where every four or eight years you have changes in government? Indeed, where one side is using Islam as a proxy to undermine the other?

The answer, of course, is that it cannot.

For fifteen years, I waited for sanity to kick in, but it never arrived.

What, however, of the individual military man’s perspective with, say, the Democrat Party and the left’s embrace of Islam?

An enemy that is far and away is one thing, an enemy in the homeland is quite another.

So, imagine our military man who have been fighting Islamic Jihadists in Afghanistan and Iraq for over a decade and, upon his return, he learns that his government (the “Blue government”) is going to import hundreds of thousands, and one day, millions of the same people into your towns and cities.

Might this not strike him as madness, maybe even treason?

So, let’s recap the domestic situation with respect to Islam. I suggest the following reading material.

Islam is a religion of peace, yet:

Islam leads the world in terrorism (political violence), battle deaths and refuges. From the Economist no less! Of course, USG invades the world, and then invites the world.

The truth, as I argued here, against Nicholas Kristof, importing more Muslims will simply mean more Muslims will die.

Of course, we have a chicken and egg question here. All I will say is that the chicken existed one thousand years before the egg. Islam has always been an expansionist and imperial power. Other civilisations are thus doomed to come into conflict with it.

Political violence is on the rise in Europe and the world:

Fareed Zakaria, who is one of the smartest clowns in the circus, thinks the current eruption of political rage might have something to do with mass Muslim immigration:

According to the following poll, which sampled ten European countries, most Europeans don’t appear to want more Muslims:

In our survey, carried out before President Trump’s executive order was announced, respondents were given the following statement: ‘All further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped’. They were then asked to what extent did they agree or disagree with this statement. Overall, across all 10 of the European countries an average of 55% agreed that all further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped, 25% neither agreed nor disagreed and 20% disagreed.

Majorities in all but two of the ten states agreed, ranging from 71% in Poland, 65% in Austria, 53% in Germany and 51% in Italy to 47% in the United Kingdom and 41% in Spain. In no country did the percentage that disagreed surpass 32%.

Is it really a mystery why people want this?

A government’s first duty is to provide security; the West is not very secure, is it? Not like Japan, for example? Why might that be?

Why is Japan so much safer than America, England or France?

Why, however, should Americans care about what is happening in Europe?

Well, they have eyes, they have ears, they can read, and they can talk.

Also, it probably doesn’t escape the attention of many Americans who read Drudge, Town Hall, PJ Media, Brietbart or just watch Fox news and see that Europe is, well, fucking insane.

Just like America.

Then you have the Clown-in-Chief, Barack Obama, or wannabe who aint gonnabe Hillary Clinton who actually admires Merkel’s decision; a decision which directly led to rape, robbery and slaughter:

So, if Clinton had won the election, America would have been on the road to ruin like Europe. Which, quite rationally, to many people is an awful and despicable thought – no less to the military, as to millions of Americans.

Clinton, meanwhile, called these Americans “Deplorable” because of this:

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.”

What I find interesting is the moral judgement that they are irredeemable. Irredeemable means that someone cannot be saved, or corrected or reformed. It’s not a very Christian attitude is it? And Clinton claims she is a Christian:

I am a person of faith. I am a Christian. I am a Methodist. I have been raised Methodist.”

So there is much to be learned and I have been very disappointed and sorry that Christianity, which has such great love at its core, is sometimes used to condemn so quickly and judge so harshly.

How can Clinton “quickly” “judge” and “condemn” millions of Americans as “irredeemable” and still be a Christian?

The truth is that, like so many other people of her caste, Clinton has nothing but contempt for the masses.

Which, presumably, means she has contempt for the military; where do the military men and women come from? The masses.

Thus, the masses, backed by the military and the police, went over to Trump.

So far, following Fernandez, we have looked at the crisis of security, information and the decision makers within the system; next we will take a look at the economic aspect of the crisis.


How Trump Won Part 9D: A Coup against the Cathedral?

At the end of the part 9c, we had “Rhetocrates” claim that the “Red government” has lost faith in the civic religion of America which is the “formula” of the ” Blue Government.” 

In this, and the next part, we will consider why in a little more detail.

Warrior Citizens: 

One of the most important gaps evident in the survey data collected for this project is public disaffection with their elected leaders on issues of war strategy.”

“The public sees policy elites incapable of winning our ill-defined wars, implausibly expecting military force to produce sophisticated political, economic, and cultural outcomes.

Relying so heavily on military credibility to deliver their policy preferences only further erodes the public standing of elected officials.  It sets up military leaders as the guarantors of public support, something that should be anathema to the long-standing balance of civil-military roles in America. 

You have to be careful – if you’re a Brahmin.

Eric Hobsbawm, reviewing Luttwak’s notorious Coup d’etat writes:

As Mr. Luttwak rightly reminds us, the politics of officers’ corps are frequently quite different from those of their civilian masters, generally being both more reactionary and more romantic.”

Ok, three videos.

Watch this:

Now this

And finally, most importantly, this:

Begin at 1:55, pay attention to the symbolism of the soldiers just appearing and leaving and what Trump is saying. The key line is “Today’s ceremony, however, has very special meaning because today we are not just merely transferring power from one administration to another but we are transferring power from Washington D.C back to you the people.”

Remember the key lesson From James Burnham: words, slogans and formulas in politics do not mean, what they appear to mean.

Are you thinking what I am thinking? Well, what would it look like?

Let me suggest some background reading:

If that does not convince you that maybe something truly historical has taken place, then perhaps the considered (panicked) reaction from commentators all over the spectrum – especially progressive and liberal – will help.

“The fall of a great civilizational cathedral

New World Order:

Reactionary Populism:

Fukuyama’s “vetocracy” vetoed:

Two years ago, I argued in these pages that America was suffering from political decay. The country’s constitutional system of checks and balances, combined with partisan polarization and the rise of well-financed interest groups, had combined to yield what I labeled “vetocracy,” a situation in which it was easier to stop government from doing things than it was to use govern­ment to promote the common good. Recurrent budgetary crises, stagnating bureaucracy, and a lack of policy innovation were the hall­marks of a political system in disarray.

(What Fukuyama is describing here is actually better described as oligarchy.)

On the surface, the 2016 presidential election seems to be bearing out this analysis. The once proud Republican Party lost control of its nominating process to Donald Trump’s hostile takeover and is riven with deep internal contradictions. On the Democratic side, meanwhile, the ultra-insider Hillary Clinton has faced surprisingly strong competition from Bernie Sanders, a 74-year-old self-proclaimed demo­cratic socialist. Whatever the issue—from immigration to financial reform to trade to stagnating incomes—large numbers of voters on both sides of the spectrum have risen up against what they see as a corrupt, self-dealing Establishment, turning to radical outsiders in the hopes of a purifying cleanse.

Again, as I argued here, the Modern Structure is responsible for Trump.

In the next part, we will look at the state of the military and political grand strategy that has led up to Trump.


How Trump Won Part 9C: Sex, Lies, Facebook and the Pathological “Face Saving” of Progressives.  

President Trump is the gift that gives on giving – a gift of red pills that is.

President Trump, at his recent Florida, post-election rally, mentioned that he saw” last night on the TV” that there was “problems” in Sweden; then, the Cathedral, and the rest of the bobo Brahmins erupted into spasms of outrage accusing him of lying once again.

Firstly, watch the video of what President Trump actually said:

Below is the Fox News report that Trump was probably referring to. It refers to a documentary by Ami Horowitz, who spent time in Sweden reporting on migrant crime and the inability of the socially elite progressive (Brahmin) Swedes to overcome their cognitive dissonance with reality.

Trump has trumped the Cathedral once again; proving himself, again, to be an adroit ringmaster in getting all the clowns in the circus to run around in endless circles of confusion.

Trump is getting the Cathedral to unintentionally “Red Pill” everyone. The first level is the the various problems itself; the second is the fact that the Cathedral (its mainstream media arm) is dishonest and untrustworthy.

President Trump’s game is a simple two step procedure. First, he says something, then his enemies in the media  accuse him of lying; then (usually via twitter) he goes on to prove that they were either lying or confused or stupid. For example, after the media’s attack, he tweeted that he was referring to a Fox new report (see above video).

President Trump achieves two things here: he is getting the media to cover what is actually happening in Sweden, even if they only downplay or deny the problems, the problems nevertheless get mentioned. And of course, this all speaks to his immigration stance for America, which is his ultimate goal. President Trump, as I pointed out here, is using strategic ambiguity in his language to achieve this.

What seems to have happened is that either the journalists, or the rest of the progressives have either intentionally lied, or they have actually hallucinated that President Trump was referring to a terror attack when actually he was referring to “problems.”

Scott Adams, the canniest observer of Trump there is, has pointed out this phenomenon here. He also went on to make a telling prediction:

And that brings us to our current situation. As Trump continues to defy all predictions from his critics, the critics need to maintain their self-images as the smart ones who saw this new Hitler coming. And that means you will see hallucinations like you have never seen. It will be epic.

The reason this will be so fun to watch is that we rarely get to see a situation in which the facts so vigorously violate a hallucination. Before Trump won the presidency everyone was free to imagine the future they expected. But as Trump continues to do one reasonable thing after another, his critics have a tough choice. They can either…

1. Reinterpret their self-images from wise to clueless.


2. Generate an even stronger hallucination. (Cognitive dissonance.)

If Trump’s critics take the second option – and most of them will – it means you will see a lot of pretzel-logic of the type that is necessary hold onto the illusion that Trump is still a monster despite continuing evidence to the contrary. 

And its happening.

The Guardian’s byline reads:

After Trump suggests a non-existent terrorist attack took place in Sweden, supporters claim the media is covering up migrant crimes.”

He suggested no such thing. Ironically, the fact that there was “cover-ups” was covered, months ago, in the Guardian itself!

Andrew Brown, from the Guardian, on the covering up of sex crimes in Sweden concludes:

“This policy was fuelled partly by wishful thinking, partly by principle and partly by self-righteousness. It ended disastrously.”

“So teenage girls were systematically assaulted and robbed by gangs of young foreign men because too many powerful people found their suffering was inconvenient. The result of this cover-up will be far more damaging than the truth could have been.”

The editors of the Guardian are incompetent, as well as dishonest.

Not that the English are any better than the Swedes on the subject of sex crime cover-ups.

Back to President Trump, The Guardian reports:

“….the Swedes are still scratching their heads over Trump’s comments, and the former prime minister Carl Bildt wonders on Twitter what the president had been smoking, some Trump supporters believe the media is “intent on covering up what migrants have done to Sweden”.

The Guardian then uses the “no evidence that” canard:

However, there is little evidence that the nation is suffering under a migrant-led crime wave. In fact, the most pressing issue in Sweden at the moment is apparently who will become the nation’s Eurovision entrant.

I think everyone should watch this video:

So what is actually happening in Sweden? Let’s take a look:

“Sweden is a peaceful democratic state that has long been a safe haven for those fleeing conflict. Yet many young people whose families took refuge there are now turning their back on the country. More than 300 people have gone to fight in Syria and Iraq, making Sweden per capita one of the biggest exporters of jihadists in Europe.”

And yet:

According to a report by Radio Sweden, for example:

“Around 140 Swedes have so far returned after having joined the violent groups in Syria and Iraq. Now several municipalities are preparing to work with those who want to defect. This could include offering practical support to defectors.”

The municipality of Lund has dealt with this issue, and Malmö, Borlänge and Örebro have similar views. As Radio Sweden reports:

“Lund’s conclusion is that defectors from violent extremist groups should be handled like defectors from other environments, such as organized crime. After an investigation of the person’s needs, the municipality can help with housing, employment or livelihood.”

According to Sweden’s “national coordinator against violent extremism,” Christoffer Carlsson:

“…You need to be able to reintegrate into the job market, you may need a driver’s license, debt settlement and shelter. When people leave, they want to leave for something else, but they do not have the resources for it, so it is difficult for them to realize their plan. If they do not receive support, the risk is great that they will be unable to leave the extremist environment, but instead fall back into it.”

Anna Sjöstrand, Lund’s municipal coordinator against violent extremism, says that people who have served their penalty should all have support. Last year, the Municipality of Örebro received criticism for offering an internship to a young man who returned after having been in Syria.

“There may be such criticism, but for me it is difficult to think along those lines. They get the same help as others who seek help from us. We cannot say that because you made a wrong choice, you have no right to come back and live in our society,” says Anna Sjöstrand.

According to Sweden Radio, several of the municipalities stress that people who commit crimes should be sentenced and serve their penalties before they can receive support. According to Amir Rostami, who works with the national coordinator against violent extremism:

“If you are suspected of a crime, the investigation of the crime always comes first. But as long as there is no suspicion of a crime, then it is in our own interest to help those that come out of this extremist environment. The consequences for society are quite large if you do not.”

Sweden, meanwhile, also has a new rape culture like Germany:

Outrage and shock are spreading across Sweden over a case against three men of foreign origin arrested on suspicion of raping a woman and broadcasting it live on Facebook.”

Sex (crimes) lies and progressive pathology: 

Not long after, he and the other two suspects entered the young woman’s apartment in the city of Uppsala. They raped her for a full three hours. The entire crime was broadcast live on Facebook. Yesterday, footage was released of Khodagholi bullying his victim when she was calling someone for help. The poor girl was barely conscious, but her rapist couldn’t control himself. “You got raped. There, we have the answers. You’ve been raped,” he shouted gleefully at her. He then laughed like a psychopath and continued to make fun of her.

Like his friend Khodagholi, the second suspect is an immigrant and an acquaintance of the Swedish authorities. His name is Maisam Afshar. The identity of the third suspect has not been released yet.

It goes without saying that this horrendous gang rape has caused a major controversy in Sweden and in the rest of Europe. What angers people even more, aside from the nature of the crime itself, is the response of the Swedish mainstream media, which refuses to admit that the rapists are immigrants. Economist Tino Sanandaji explains:

Hundreds of people have watched the video and know therefore that the perpetrators have a foreign background. That’s a fact, but the media won’t mention it. The majority of perpetrators of gang rapes have an immigrant background. This is a well-known fact.

The government has the duty to share all relevant information when a crime is committed. The government denies that there’s a relationship between this sort of crime and immigration, but refuses to even look at the statistics.

A Swedish police officer who spoke out about the fact that immigrants commit more crime than the Swedes is now being investigated for blasphemy. 

Correction, “hate” speech

The police, meanwhile, are quitting in disgust.

There is a consistent pattern, across the Western world, of the ruling class behaving in ways that are fundamentally dishonest, incompetent, contrary and lethal to their “own” people’s lives and liberty.

The crimes are one thing, the lies, the cover-ups and the disinformation quite another.It is two pillars of the system (security and information) that are undermined, not one. And therefore the system is much more vulnerable to collapse or  capture by its rivals and enemies.

( In Richard Fernandez’s formulation, the Modern Structure has three pillars (security, economics and information); Moldbug, meanwhile, has four.)

The modern crisis is the Western world’s collapsing, interlinked system of security, economic prosperity, and people’s trust in the political and information systems and authorities; which will result in hostility against the social class (Brahmins) that manage them.


Nick Land concludes:

It’s almost impossible to over-estimate how important this is (and the trend matters more than the current level). Regime legitimacy is sunk in radical crisis.”

Land, however, is only referring to the American Press; but, as we have just seen, the crisis extends throughout the entire West.

Trump, meanwhile, is more trusted than the media.

Finally, a commentator going by the handle “Rhetocrates” at my Social Matter piece has something interesting and important to say; I will copy the entire comment without comment, because in my next post, that’s coming shortly, I will talk about the very thing that Rhetocrates is describing:

I am in a somewhat unique positions culturally with regard to the Red and Blue empires.

On the one hand, I am attending college at the graduate level, which means I get intimate contact with the faculty, administration, and other thought-shapers of the next generation. True, it’s a consolation university, so they’re not setting any trends.

On the other, I’m strongly allied with the Red government because my wife is middle management in the Navy (plus a whole lot of familial history – I was raised believing I would also join the Navy, for example).

Anyway, with my bona fides out of the way, I think the greatest and most dangerous service Trump is performing for reaction is the disillusionment of the military.

Our military is the source of modern conservatism, and specifically, its hang-ups about getting anything done. This was a masterful stroke by FDR: in creating the Pentagon structure he instilled the philosophy of absolute obedience to civil authority. Our military considers it a virtue to die on its sword defending the Republic, whether or not it agrees with the philosophical or political tenets of the fight. The civil religion of America – starting with taking the Constitution as a sort of sacred scripture, and moving down through, “I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to speak,” runs strong through our military. (The only thing missing from previous installments is that the saints – Washington, Paine, Henry, etc. – have withered away. This is par for the course with Protestantism.)

One of the strongest but most subtle effects of this is a lack of what I’ll call generalism or general-worship. Throughout history, armies have been loyal to their generals, not to the State. Thus, generals have always been something of a threat to the civil power. (Medieval feudalism partially got around this with the ingenious method of making the head of state also the head of the army, though it still had problems with the aristocracy, who could command the personal loyalty of their retainers, King be damned.)

General-worship was intentionally stamped out by FDR’s reinvention of the Republic, though it may have been on the decline beforehand. (I’m not sure. Washington definitely commanded personal loyalty from his troops, Teddy Roosevelt may have done the same.) To replace it, the civil religion was installed. In practice, this was done by coopting the generals into the scheme of the religion – Patton was still idolized, but Patton himself would never countenance marching on Washington.

Over time, even that level of general-worship was extirpated, to the point these days where the strongest example resides in Petraeus. When his character was assassinated, there was wide-spread, low-level grumbling from the military, but only because he was ‘one of us’ and was used unfairly. Not because he was anyone’s general, and damn the State, because the general needs his men.

Back to Trump. Trump’s greatest and most dangerous triumph so far has been to rock the military’s faith in the civil religion. There has been a sea change because of him (and, in the negative, because of men like SecNav Mabus, who under Obama tried to destroy Navy tradition as much as possible). Men are starting to identify primarily with their commands and their commanders, because the ‘legitimate authority’ of the State has shown itself to be a fraud. Men in uniform are under attack, and they know it.

We’re coming around to days when (for example) Mattis using the personal loyalty of his troops to occupy Washington and ‘restore order’ with an ‘interim’ government that completely ignores the screeching of the judiciary and civil service are, if not close, at least thinkable.

Proceed to Part 9d.


How Trump Won Part 9B: The Crocodile Circus

Tick Tock Tick Tock

In France, we have the Communist Clown Hollande:

“Ending austerity was just one of the pledges Hollande made when he addressed thousands of supporters in the Place de la Bastille in Paris on the evening of 6 May .’I am the president of the youth of France! I am the president of all the collective pride of France!’ he thundered. ‘Carry this message far! Remember for the rest of your life this great gathering at the Bastille because it must give a taste to other peoples, to the whole of Europe, of the change that is coming. In all the capitals, beyond government leaders and state leaders, there are people who, thanks to us, are hoping, are looking to us and want to put an end to austerity.’

President for youth indeed, especially when one considers the youth who were massacred, tortured and dismembered in the Bataclan night club, and the children who were crushed to death in the streets of Nice:

According to this testimony, Wahhabist killers reportedly gouged out eyes, castrated victims, and shoved their testicles in their mouths. They may also have disemboweled some poor souls. Women were reportedly stabbed in the genitals – and the torture was, victims told police, filmed for Daesh or Islamic State propaganda. For that reason, medics did not release the bodies of torture victims to the families, investigators said.

Running for their lives, and their children’s lives:

One mother, called Linda, told France’s iTélé: “My husband picked up the kids and started running, I turned around and just saw so many dead people. I even saw a baby with its head totally crushed.” 


Apart from all that, Hollande has done nothing to help France’s woeful economy, or its endemic corruption:

The other side of the coin, incompetence, is epitomised by hapless outgoing current President Francois Hollande, a leader so gormless that in November 2016 he had a personal approval rating of just 4%, a subterranean low unequalled in the history of the Fifth Republic.

(President of “all the collective pride of France” indeed.)

Bowing to electoral reality, in December 2016 Hollande surrendered, not even bothering to try to run for a re-election he stood absolutely no chance of winning.

The main reason for this was his pathetic failure to even begin to substantially reform the sclerotic French economy. During his tenure, France has lost a further 600,000 jobs. In 2016, France grew at an anaemic 1.1% of GDP, in line with its lacklustre 1.2% in 2015. Stunningly, as of January 2017, more than one in four workers under 25 is jobless. The world is simply passing the French economy by.

The Corrupt Communist Clowns will end up giving away the Entire Circus to Le Pen:

There is no doubting that Marine Le Pen, the charismatic, firebrand leader of the xenophobic Front National (FN) has a great story to tell about both French elite corruption and incompetence.

The corruption portion of the populist narrative is beyond dispute. Beyond Fillon, former President Jacques Chirac and former Prime Minister Alain Juppe were given suspended sentences for corruption. Former Finance Minister and current IMF chief Christine Lagarde was found guilty of negligence for approving a massive payout of taxpayer money to a controversial French businessman. Former President Nicolas Sarkozy is presently under investigation for alleged illegal campaign funding. In reading this doleful list, sometimes I truly wonder if there is anyone left in power in France who has behaved honourably.

All Le Pen needs are five more years of economic failure, and then she has all the chance in the world to win the presidency next time, especially as her narrative of elite incompetence and corruption hardens into certainty for the French electorate. Le Pen is merely betting on is things staying as they are, with the talented, youthful Macron (he is only 39) unable to drag his country into the twenty-first century. Given France’s recent past history, that is more than a reasonable bet to make.

Yeah, that a couple of really juicy, really wicked as shit terror attacks: a school, a celebrity and their family; a massacre of sociology students; an army barracks that goes boom boom boom.

Do the Clown realise how close to collapse the circus is?

This is what Hollande is saying privately about Islam:

“.. “no one can doubt there is a problem with Islam.”….France’s Socialist president echoes the same reactionary language as the country’s extremist Front National.”

Hollande and thus the entire political class is lying about Islam.

Why are they lying?

Tick Tock Tick Tock

In Italy, meanwhile, we have the political “autist”Matteo Renzi:

“Renzi’s hubris is typical of a type of politician to be found all over Europe right now….

Part of a pattern, just like in America.

“Romanian political scientist Valentin Naumescu observes on Contributors:

Intuition should be part of the talent, competence and values of any national or European political leader.

(Which is what Trump has, as I argued here and here.)

Before taking action the how, why and whether to take this action at all must be clarified. You don’t just press buttons randomly to see what happens. Both Renzi and [British ex-prime minister] Cameron have proved to be politicians who lack intuition. … Neither of them would have called the referendums had they known that they would lose them. The logical conclusion is that all those leaders who thought that they would be backed by their voters on this issue and then even praised reinforce the idea that the current generation of politicians in Europe is autistic.

De Groene Amsterdammer concludes:

During his three-year ego trip Matteo Renzi lost sight of his country and its population. He thought he was dealing with an Italy that doesn’t exist. The non-elected prime minister constantly congratulated himself on achievements that no one experienced. Things did not improve for the people. The number of jobs didn’t go up and taxes didn’t go down. On the contrary. … So the enslaved people rose up against him. … Eighty-one percent of those aged between 18 and 34 who are unemployed in the south of the country – where various Mafia organisations offer the only work to be had – said No.

The Italians said NO because:

“In the past 20 years changes have always resulted in a lower quality of life.”

We have now had three voting upsets: first the British General Election of 2015; then Brexit; then Trump and now the Italian referendum. In all three, the experts and politicians involved have seriously misjudged the mood of the people.

Tick Tock Tick Tock

Angela Merkel, Europe’s paramount Clown, was on pure Communist crack when she made her decision to let one million Muslims into Germany in 2015.

Let’s take two examples from Germany itself (never mind the rest of the world) that show how seemingly insane her decision was.

(I said “seemingly insane” only if you think that there is supposed to be some connection between democratic government and good government. But if you look at Merkel, as you should all democratic politicians, not as MAD but as Machiavellians, you will see that what is madness and murder is often cunning manoeuvres in the game of power.)

Firstly, the lead hijackers of the 9/11 attack were “radicalised” in German mosques — thus demonstrating, more than twenty years ago, the problem of radical Islam in Germany.  (See Terry McDermott’s Perfect Soldiers.)  

Secondly, Germany has faced terror threats from Jihadists even when Merkel was Supreme Leader.

For example, there was a major terror plot foiled in 2007:

Merkel, however, unilaterally decided to allow one million Muslims (many, if not most, of whom were young males) into Germany during, well, wartime. Just imagine Germany letting in during the Second World War all those vulnerable Russian males fleeing Stalin’s terror. What would the poor dears get-up-to with all those pretty little blond maidens?

“Soldier: You are now on German soil. The hour of revenge has struck!”

Merkel raped these women:

October 1. Two migrants raped a 23-year-old woman in Lüneburg as she was walking in a park with her young child. The men, who remain at large, forced the child to watch while they took turns assaulting the woman.

October 2. A 19-year-old migrant raped a 90-year-old woman as she was leaving a church in downtown Düsseldorf. Police initially described the suspect as “a Southern European with North African roots.” It later emerged that the man is a Moroccan with a Spanish passport.

October 6. More than 400 residents of the Altenessen district in Essen met local politicians in a televised “town hall meeting” to discuss spiraling violence and crime perpetrated by migrants in the area. Residents complained that police often refuse to respond to calls for help and begged city officials to restore order. One resident said: “I was born here and I do not feel safe anymore.” City officials flatly rejected the complaints. Mayor Thomas Kufen said: “Altenessen is not a no-go area, the people here are just angry.” Police Chief Frank Richter added: “I am sick and tired of hearing about no-go zones in Essen.” He insisted that Essen und Altenessen are perfectly safe.

October 10. Jaber al-Bakr, a 22-year-old refugee from Syria, was arrested after police found explosives in his apartment in Chemnitz. He was suspected of plotting to bomb an airport in Berlin. Two days later, he hanged himself in a jail in Leipzig.

October 15. A Syrian migrant disrupted a wedding at the Karmel Church in downtown Duisburg. He burst into the building and began fondling a statue of the Virgin Mary while shouting “Allahu Akhbar” (“Allah is the greatest.”) After undergoing a psychological evaluation, the man was released. The incident is one of a growing number in which Muslim migrants have disrupted or vandalized German churches.

October 16. A 16-year-old boy and his 15-year-old girlfriend were walking along the banks of the Alster, a lake in the heart of Hamburg, when a stranger ambushed him from behind and plunged a knife into his back. The attacker then pushed the girl into the water and walked away. The girl survived, but the boy died of his wounds. The suspect, a “southern-looking” (südländischer Erscheinung) man in his early twenties, remains at large. Police say the victims were not robbed and there is no evident motive for the crime: The suspect appears to have randomly stabbed the boy just because he felt like it. The Islamic State later claimed responsibility for the murder, but German police cast doubt on that claim.

October 17. The German Press Council reprimanded the weekly newspaper, Junge Freiheit, for revealing the nationality of three Afghan teenagers who raped a woman at a train station in Vienna, Austria, in April 2016. The press council said the nationality of the perpetrators was “not relevant” to the case, and by revealing this information the newspaper “deliberately and pejoratively represented the suspects as second-class persons.” In the interests of “fair reporting,” the council demanded that the newspaper remove the offending item from its website. The newspaper refused to comply, and said it would continue to publish the nationalities of criminal suspects.

The Rape of Cologne.

As Richard Fernandez described (see here), when the security system fails, then the information, or propaganda, system must carry the load — which is to deny, distort and misreport the problems. The problem being the rape of German women as a consequence of Merkel’s decision, with the entire backing of the entire political establishment.

This is exactly what happened:

And it continues:

Merkel, and her minions, have not only lied about the sex attacks, she herself has lied about refugees and political violence as well.

Here is a clear example of her dishonesty.

According to Reuters, Merkel said:

“Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Wednesday refugees had not brought terrorism to Germany, adding that Islam belonged in the country as long as it was practiced in a way that respected the constitution.

More than a million people fleeing war and poverty in the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere arrived in Germany last year. The mood towards them has soured after a spate of attacks on civilians last month, including three carried out by migrants.

Her lies were contradicted in the second paragraph!

And, of course, we had the Berlin Christmas market attack, where a Muslim “refugee” used a lorry to crush Germans at a Christmas market:

Merkel raped these women:

The police report on the Cologne attacks, which was written by a senior official at the scene, describes a chaotic situation in which the officers found themselves outnumbered by “several thousand men.” Police were largely powerless to protect the women, who were forced to navigate an “obstacle course through a mass of severely drunk men that is beyond description.”

Though the police questioned dozens of suspects, they made only a handful of arrests, none of which were connected to the sexual assaults. Witnesses reported that some of the assailants shouted “f**k the police” and spat at officers.

In the report, one suspect is quoted as saying: “I’m Syrian, you have to treat me nicely. Frau Merkel invited me.”

Merkel killed these people:

Fabrizia Di Lorenzo –“The 31-year-old Italian national, who had lived and worked in Berlin for several years, is believed to have died in the attack.”


An Israeli woman, Dalia Elyakim, has also been identified as being among the victims, according to Israel’s foreign ministry. Elyakim was visiting Berlin with her husband, Rami, who was seriously wounded in the attack but is now stable.

The couple, in their 60s, are from the central Israeli city of Herzliya. They “loved to travel, especially around Christmas time,” said Moshe Egoz, a longtime friend. Egoz, who said he had been following their trip to Berlin through her posts on Facebook. Elyakim was a “good soul”, he said.”

Collateral Damage.

Merkel, despite everything, still wants more Muslims

Tick Tock Tick Tock

The UN Clown Show.

Here is more lies and deceit, this time from a United Nations’s special rapporteur, Ben Emmerson:

The United Nations’ special rapporteur for counterterrorism and human rights unveiled a 23-page report Friday arguing that there’s “no evidence” tough immigration policies stop terrorism.

Ben Emmerson, a London barrister whose experience includes the Khmer Rouge tribunal and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. was appointed to the position in 2011. In a UN address Friday, Emmerson said his report found “overly restrictive migration policies introduced because of terrorism concerns are not justified and may in fact be damaging to state security.”

While there is no evidence that migration leads to increased terrorist activity, migration policies that are restrictive or that violate human rights may in fact create conditions conducive to terrorism,” he said.

“This perception is analytically and statistically unfounded.”

We keep hearing this phrase “no evidence” and its nonsense.

The man is hoist on his own petard when he says that immigration control “may in fact create conditions conducive to terrorism.” Does he any evidence for that claim?

Here is the simple, but harsh truth. If Muslims – all Muslims – were never allowed into the United States, then there would never have been a 9/11 and thus no war on terror and thus all those dead Muslims – now over a million – would still be alive.

Is that a justifiable trade-off? You decide.

However, as for the claim that refuges, migrants, immigrants – first and second generation – do not carry out acts of political violence, well:

I wonder if Ben Emmerson considers those dead Europeans “statistically unfounded”?

Tick Tock Tick Tock

The New York Times Clown Show.

Nicholas Kristof writes for the New York Times.

Nicholas Kristof is a very, very, very smart man.

Here is how the Times describes this Brahmin:

He grew up on a farm in Oregon, graduated from Harvard, studied law at Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar, and then studied Arabic in Cairo. He was a longtime foreign correspondent for The New York Times and speaks Chinese, Japanese and other languages.

Mr. Kristof has won two Pulitzer Prizes for his coverage of Tiananmen Square and the genocide in Darfur, along with many humanitarian awards such as the Anne Frank Award and the Dayton Literary Peace Prize.

As I said, A very smart man.

I am not a Rhodes Scholar; I am a Rogue Scholar; I’m gonna rip your spiel to shreds.

Piss on your Pulitzer.

Kristof urges his readers to “resist” the President’s “tantrums” and focus on matters of “life and death.”

Yes, let’s focus on life and death.

Kristof writes:

Consider two critical issues: refugees and guns. Trump is going berserk over the former, but wants to ease rules on the latter. So let’s look at the relative risks.

In the four decades between 1975 and 2015, terrorists born in the seven nations in Trump’s travel ban killed zero people in America, according to the Cato Institute. Zero.

In that same period, guns claimed 1.34 million lives in America, including murders, suicides and accidents. That’s about as many people as live in Boston and Seattle combined.

It’s also roughly as many Americans as died in all the wars in American history since the American Revolution, depending on the estimate used for Civil War dead.

The President is going “berserk”? Don’t you just love that framing?

When someone goes “berserk” I think of this:

For Syria:

The threat of terror, in London, and throughout England remains “severe”; or so says the Metropolitan police.

These attacks, by people who really are “berserk”, are part of a wider pattern:

Kristof is not really troubled by this sort of thing – intellectually, or emotionally. As a Brahmin, as a man of a particular class,  earned by graduating from Harvard; writing for the Times; winning a Pulitzer Prize and writing about things that men and women of his class care care care about like “Human rights, women’s rights, health, global affairs.”

No. What really troubles a man like Kristof is because President Trump is not a Brahmin.

Kristof’s contempt for President Trump – contempt because of class – has compelled him to write such intellectually dishonest idiocy.

Let’s take a close look Kristof’s reasoning:

In the four decades between 1975 and 2015, terrorists born in the seven nations in Trump’s travel ban killed zero people in America, according to the Cato Institute. Zero.

What to make of this passage? What’s wrong with it? Firstly, the overall goal here is to paint Trump as an idiot, as a bigot, as “berserk”. Notice the focus on the number “zero”, and the number which follows: “1.34.”

Like wow. What a difference you are expected to say.

Secondly, his claim that none of the terrorists born in the seven nations in the travel ban have killed zero Americans between 1975 and 2015, implicitly – or surreptitiously, rather – leads us to draw the conclusion that there is no reason to ban potential terrorists from these countries.

Kristof wants to persuade us that Trump is an idiot; his writing, like all of his ilk,  is laced with rhetorical techniques, and hidden, unquestioned, assumptions.

But is Kristof’s reasoning logical? Is it sensible? Is Kristof’s conclusion, which he wants us to draw, regarding the travel ban – that it is “morally repugnant,” sound? That it is prudent?


Kristof reasons that because “zero” Americans were killed in a 40-year period by folks from the countries that President Trump imposed the ban upon there will be “zero”, or, perhaps, only 10, 20, 100 or 2,996 people killed in the future.

Every day, in the Chicken’s life, the same hand fed it; however, one day, the exact same hand was the hand that wrung its neck.

President Trump’s travel ban’s purpose is to prevent potential attacks from potential terrorists.

Statistical evidence, however true, is not necessarily accurate or even a reliable guides to the future. Its called the problem of induction, surely a Harvard man like Kristof must have heard of it.

How many Americans, I wonder, had Japanese people killed between 1901 and 1941? Maybe zero? Maybe a couple of Yankees in a bar fight? The nips can do karaoke and Karate after all.

On December 7, 1941, how many Americans did Japanese people kill, however?

Answer: 68.

Not a lot, to be sure. I’m sure the Kristofs of that era were more concerned about bathtubs and ladders back then too:

“The bottom line is that most years in the U.S., ladders kill far more Americans than Muslim terrorists do. Same with bathtubs. Ditto for stairs. And lightning.”

But wait.

What were the consequences of that little act of hostility on the part of Japanese people?

Here is one consequence.

Here is another. 

Bit more serious than bathtubs and ladders don’t you think?

Since Kristof is so concerned with Muslim welfare – which he should be as a good Universalist – he should spend more time cogitating over the following number:

1.3 million.

Roughly the same death toll he cites with gun deaths. However, his number is American gun deaths over a 40 year period; my number, meanwhile, is for the death toll from the global war on terror.

Hey Kristof!

It has only been 16 years!!!

Suppose we use your inductive logic and extend that out to a forty-year period. What do we get?

Why, its (only) what? 3 and bit million dead Muslims! Many of them women and children – but who cares, Kristof doesn’t.

A couple of million deaths is pretty low- ball, however, compared to the 1941-1945 meat factory fun-party.

What, however, if we extend this reasoning out for the rest of the century? (Why, you don’t think this is going away any time soon?)

So, 19 terrorists  from countries that America was, and still is, allied with – Saudi Arabia and Egypt – have played a pivotal, causal role in the deaths of over a million people – so far.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Kristof would no doubt reply that America overreacted…. and it should have…. Should have….. done… what… exactly?

The hidden, unexamined, assumption that Kristof’s reasoning contains is that America is not at war.

But America is at war.

It does not matter what Kristof thinks should happen, or would happen if he were in charge of USG.

The truth is that USG is an 800 pound Alpha male gorilla – with permanent resting bitch face – and it sits and shits where it wants.

If USG wants to toy with Muslims by bombing a few funerals or marriage ceremonies with drones operated by people using joysticks while sipping red bull then that is what it does. If USG wants to, say, water-board Muslims, it can do so. If USG wants to, say, throw every single Muslim, like every single dirty Jap, into a concentration camp (Sorry, I meant “internment” camp) it can do so.

If USG wants to drop a “Fat Boy” over Fallujah, who the fuck is going to stop it?

Certainly not Nicholas-fucking -Kristof of the New York Fucking Times.

If President Trump is berserk then so is USG; if USG is berserk, then FDR was berserk; if FDR was berserk, then so was Woodrow Wilson.

If this 800 pound alpha male gorilla – armed with phalanx of Fat Boys – is berserk, then why would anyone – anyone sane, rational and prudent – ever want to poke-poke-poke provoke?

I mean, you could say that pricking a gorilla with a safety pin is not all that bad; maybe the gorilla could “manage” the situation.

This gorilla is an alpha male, however; armed with FAT BOYS, alas.

I mean, if say, one smart, young Muslim immigrant from Pakistan – who studied physics at Caltech – builds a Fat Boy on his Farm and decides to seriously fuck up New York, and then the gorilla decides to………….

Inconceivable ? 

Muslims didn’t kill (many) Americans in the 1970’s because they “weren’t” at war (much) with America.

But today, many are.

And all it takes is one, or 19.

And we are off to the races….

Run Rabbit Run.

Morally repugnant?

Was FDR morally repugnant?

Was Obama morally repugnant for dealing out the death cards and doling out the drone strikes?

Doesn’t-Mr-Pulitzer-prize-winning-motherfucker-not-realise-there-is-a-fucking-war on?

Then we have this beauty:

Correction: February 12, 2017 

An earlier version of this column said the risk of an American being killed last year by a Muslim terrorist was one in 17 million. That was for 2015; in 2016, the risk was about one in six million.

So, in the space of one year, the threat level went from one in 17 million to one in six million. Quite a jump.

Would it have anything to do with the practice of importing more and more Muslims?

What would the threat level look like if America imported 100 million Muslims? What would it look like if America imported 200 million? 

If it is true that the more Muslims you have in your country, the more likely there will be violence, then is it not likely that the gorilla is all the more likely to, well, you know……

Does Kristof want America to be like France, with its permanent national emergency?

Just imagine


a President Trump,

or a President Bannon,

or a President Fascist or a General Julius

could do with a NATIONAL EMERGENCY

Mr I-went-to-Harvard-and-won-a-Pulitzer-prize-twice-Nicholas-I-write-for-The-New-York-Times- Kristof?

Carry on Comrade.

Carry on you Crack-Addicted-Communist- Clown.

Carry on feeding-all-those-lovely-little-Muslim-children-to-that-big-fat-fucking-crocodile.

Tick Tock Tick Tock


How Trump Won Part 9A: The Clowns Who Gave Away The Circus

In part 1, I began by talking about patterns and the threat of Islamic terrorism.

In part 5, I argued that the American system — the Modern Structure — was in crisis.

The Modern Structure is, however, an empire. Perhaps we could call it the Global Structure.

The Global Structure, especially the European vassal states, is also in crisis.

In the last part, we had Clinton the Clown in our sights; here and next couple of parts, we will survey the whole Circus.

Trump’s Inaugural address became known as “American Carnage”

His entire campaign has, and even in his recent press conference, painted a picture of social and political disorder – “a mess” – and dysfunction:

( Given what I have covered, here and here, Trump seems to be fighting back against the Deep State, by claiming Flynn did nothing wrong and that the “leaks” were illegal. In the press conference he hammered the media by acting as the tools of the Deep State.)

Is it an accurate vision of the world? Is the Global Circus in danger of falling down?

How have the Clowns in the Circus responded to Islam?

Let’s take a look. First, let’s take one last look at Clinton and her lies over Islam.

The American Circus.

Clinton claims that there is no problem with Islam:

“Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

The facts suggest otherwise. Here is Robert Spencer:

Abdullah Azzam — who, along with Osama bin Laden, co-founded al-Qaeda — wrote in his book length exhortation to jihad, Join the Caravan, that “the Prophet (SAWS) was a master of the Mujahideen” who “used to go out on military expeditions or send out an army at least every two months.”

(Muslims see Muhammad as the “perfect man” and one who should be emulated.)

Are Muhammad’s “military expeditions” in any way “problematic”? Egyptian scholar Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd explains:

If we follow the rules of interpretation developed from the classical science of Koranic interpretation, it is NOT possible to condemn terrorism in religious terms.

It remains completely true to the classical rules in its evolution of sanctity for its own justification. This is where the secret of its theological strength lies.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow 9/11 defendants, in their lengthy apologia for 9/11, explicitly depicted it as an Islamic jihad attack:

Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims. Therefore, killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks, are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion.

Indeed, Taliban terrorist Baitullah Mehsud declared:

Allah on 480 occasions in the Holy Koran extols Muslims to wage jihad. We only fulfill God’s orders. Only jihad can bring peace to the world.

So, these terrorist leaders certainly found Islam to be “problematic.” Are these terrorists “extremists”?

Well — even though they were all devout Muslims determined to follow their religion properly — we should first turn to the authoritative sources in Sunni Islam, the schools of Sunni jurisprudence (madhahib), to answer that question.

Shafi’i school:

A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, perhaps the leading authority in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy.

When discussing jihad, that manual stipulates that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians … until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.”

It added a comment from Sheikh Nuh Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya) … while remaining in their ancestral religions.” (Reliance of the Traveller, o9.8).

Of course, there is no caliph today, unless one accepts the claims of the Islamic State, and hence the oft-repeated claim that Osama, et al are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad.

However — they explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad. Defensive jihad needs no state authority to initiate it, and becomes “obligatory for everyone” (Reliance of the Traveller, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked.

And the defensive jihad is not declared over when peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals is achieved. Reliance of the Traveller specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until “the final descent of Jesus.”

After that? “[N]othing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent” (o9.8).

From Theory to Practice.

ISIS in America:

Seventy-one individuals have been charged with ISIS-related activities since March 2014. Fifty-six have been arrested in 2015 alone, a record number of terrorism-related arrests for any year since 9/11. Of those charged: ‚ The average age is 26. ‚ 86% are male. ‚ Their activities were located in 21 states. ‚ 51% traveled or attempted to travel abroad. ‚ 27% were involved in plots to carry out attacks on U.S. soil. ‚ 55% were arrested in an operation involving an informant and/or an undercover agent.


The numbers in the U.S., while similarly difficult to measure precisely, are significantly lower than those in most European countries. In June 2015 the FBI stated that “upwards of 200 Americans have traveled or attempted to travel to Syria to participate in the conflict.”17 A few weeks later, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence estimated that more than 250 individuals from the U.S. had traveled or attempted to travel to the conflict area, a few dozen had joined the ranks of ISIS, and some 20 had died. Moreover, the surge in the number of American foreign fighters is small compared to those who sympathize with and embrace ISIS’s ideology. American authorities have consistently said that the popularity of ISIS’s propaganda, driven largely by its savvy social media tactics, wholly overshadows that of al Qaeda. Tellingly, in May 2015 FBI Director James Comey spoke of “hundreds, maybe thousands” of ISIS sympathizers and potential recruits across the country, disclosing that the Bureau had related investigations running in all 50 states.19 A few months later, in October 2015, Comey revealed that the FBI had a staggering 900 active investigations against homegrown violent extremists. Publicly available information confirms a sharp surge of jihadist activities in the U.S., especially when compared to dynamics seen in the years since the wave of arrests following 9/11. Since March 2014, 71 individuals in one way or another linked to ISIS have been charged in the U.S. for terrorism-related activities. The number of arrests has spiked in recent months, with 56 arrested since January 2015. In the same period, a handful of attacks have occurred across the country.

ISIS is not just urging attacks but is using refugees to infiltrate and attack Europe:

And yet:

The Obama administration has resettled 13,210 Syrian refugees into the United States since the beginning of 2016 – an increase of 675 percent over the same 10-month period in 2015.

Of those, 13,100 (99.1 percent) are Muslims – 12,966 Sunnis, 24 Shi’a, and 110 other Muslims – and 77 (0.5 percent) are Christians. Another 24 (0.18 percent) are Yazidis.

During the Jan.-Oct. period in 2015, 1,705 Syrian refugees were admitted, of whom 1,664 (97.5 percent) were Muslims and 29 (1.7 percent) were Christians.

Meanwhile the surge of Syrian refugee admissions initiated by the administration last February has continued into the new fiscal year, now one month-old: A total of 1,297 were resettled during October – a 593 percent increase over the 187 admitted in October 2015.

Perhaps you think this is an unfair, cherry picked, depiction of Islam?

I recommend the following two books:

The first is a compendium of Islamic theology and the scriptural and textual justification for Jihad from the Koran, the Haidths, and Muslim scholars across a thousand years. Secondly, it contains primary and secondary literature of how the theory of Jihad manifested itself in practice – the repeated invasions of Europe and the conquest and colonisation of Africa and India. It’s a fat book, and I don’t think you can consider yourself really educated on the subject unless you have read it.

The second is a translation of the theological and propaganda works of Ayman Al Zawahiri and Osama Bin Laden. The theological works are essential reading, for here you see the careful consideration that is given to justifying suicide bombing as theologically and ethically justified.

The only real question here is why is Clinton, the Cathedral and the Brahmins lying about Islam?



How Trump Won Part 8: Crack-Addicted-Communist-Clowns 

“Dopey Donald” Trump (Brian Leiter’s failed linguistic kill shot for the new President) has demolished the smartest, bestest, greatest people in the world.

Who is looking smart now?

Clinton and all the smart people – wonks, strategists and pundits – have been completely beclowned by Donald Trump, who Scott Adams called the “clown genius.”

Consider the following by a Princeton PhD:

There’s been buzz about the Princeton Election Consortium’s win probability for Clinton, which for some time has been in the 98-99% range. Tonight let me walk everyone through how we arrive at this level of confidence. tl;dr: With a more conservative assumption (see discussion) the PEC approach gives a probability of more like 95%. I will also give a caveat on how it is difficult to estimate win probabilities above 90% – and why fine adjustments at this level might not matter for my goals in running this site.

An obvious contrast with PEC’s calculation is the FiveThirtyEight win probability, which has been in the 60-70% range. As a prominent outlier this season, FiveThirtyEight has come under fire for their lack of certainty. Its founder, Nate Silver, has fired back.

A reasonable probability was that this Princeton fella was smoking crack.

After watching Trump’s speech about Islam, his first republican debate and reading his strong early poll numbers, I was intuitively certain -right then and there -that he would win the nomination.

With any American Presidential election, I would estimate the probability of each candidate winning to be roughly 50/50.

As for Trump V Clinton, my intuition was that the race would be close, but I expected Hillary to win because that was the conservative, “safe option” given all the “information.” My estimate was 60/40 Clinton. As the election went on, I said 55/45 Clinton.

When the election entered its final stage, my intuition (“gut feeling”) was that Trump was going to win; my more “rational” (explicit reasoning) side still expected a narrow Clinton win, however.

In retrospect, however, I realise that my explicit reasoning was driven by highly unreliable information derived from the media; the polls can no longer be trusted. I already had this belief going into the election, since I was aware of the polls being wrong about the 2015 British General Election and the Brexit vote; furthermore, as Peter Hitchens rightly claims, opinion polls can be tailored to whatever outcome you want. Habits are tricky thing to kick though.

The media’s behaviour in this election is exhibit A in proving that there is a Cathedral, and that it has become considerably degraded.

In part 5, I said that the most important fact there was that it was the progressives (or is it Communists?) who were responsible for the triumph of Trump.

In more esoteric terms, it was actually the system – The Modern Structure that is really to blame.

Philosophically speaking, I don’t believe in free will, and I don’t believe in moral responsibility either. So, in a sense then, I agree with JesusMarx and Nietzsche.

The central fact to be examined in this post, however, was the fact that all these smart people are so thoroughly, and so dangerously, detached from reality.

Smoking crack in other words.

Andrew Sullivan seems to be having some kind of nervous breakdown and thinks Donald Trump is just mad and delusional.

Jerry Coyne – a very smart man – thinks Sullivan is delusional (and mad) because Sullivan believes in Jesus. I think they are both mad. That is, I think both of these very smart men are systematically confused about the nature of political reality. These guys are as confused about politics as creationists are about evolution; now, like creationists, because their world-view is getting trampled on by reality, and they-are-mighty-angry.Trump is not mad, he is a master persuader. The fact that Trump triumphed throws Sullivan’s and Coyne’s self-identity as rational men into question. Bit like Ben Affleck really.

The Clowns and the Circus. 

In this part and the next we are going after the five star clowns in the circus.

First up is the Crack-AddictedCommunistCunt-Hillary-Clinton.

Politics and war exist along continuum.

Politics and war exist in a fog of epistemic doubt and informational uncertainty. Feynman’s first principle of science (don’t fool yourself because you are the easiest person to fool) could easily be the first principle in war as well. The big difference between science and war is that getting it wrong, fooling oneself, has lethal, sometimes catastrophic consequences.

The same is true in politics.

Clinton, her team, nearly all of the entire Cathedral, and virtually all of Priests have proven to be, from even their own self-interested viewpoint, catastrophically wrong.

What else have they gotten wrong?

Is there a pattern at work?

Karl Rove, a head honcho of the Bush administration, in the run up to the Iraq invasion was smoking crack:

The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

President Obama was smoking crack:

I am not against the notion that Islam is in some way different than other faith traditions. I argue in my new book that Islam is “exceptional” in how it relates to politics, and that this has profound implications for the future of the Middle East. But this is not quite the same thing as viewing “Islamic exceptionalism” as something bad, unusual, or at odds with history. Being the liberal determinist that he is, Obama, like so many others, seems frustrated by both Islam and Muslims. Why can’t they just get their act together and stop being such a nuisance, distracting me from dealing with “emotionally contained” technocrats in Asia? This was a sentiment I noticed more and more after the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris in January 2015: the desire, sometimes a demand, to see Muslims embrace liberalism, and an anger that many simply won’t. Too many Muslims, it seemed, were intent on defying the arc of history.

The “arc of history“? How does that differ from the religious belief that God providentially guides human affairs? The belief (faith?) that history has a meaning, that there is a purpose, and a clear direction to history, is, of course, a belief that came from Christianity. Islam, unsurprisingly, has similar beliefs. Is this not disturbing? How would it feel to know that the State Department is staffed by Scientologists?

The assumptions about freedom and democracy didn’t seem to turn out to well in the Obama as it did in the Bush one.

Then there is Hilary Clinton. I assume one thing about Clinton: she wanted to win.

Clinton was billed as smart, experienced and capable.

In fact, she was seen as more than a President: she was a goddess, and would have been the bestest leader in history.

It’s hard to tell if the following is (slightly) satirical, but here is Clinton supporter, Virginia Heffernan, writing in Lenny Letter about “Athena”:

“She will be the finest world leader our galaxy has ever seen.”

Except she won’t.

And I’m not alone in my commitment. Millions of Clinton’s supporters — we were thanked by Clinton as the “secret, private Facebook sites” — expressed it among themselves, all the time, in raptures or happy tears with each new display of our heroine’s ferocious intelligence, depth, and courage. We were frankly bewildered by the idea that anyone would hedge their commitment to her (“You don’t have to be her friend”; “Yes, she’s made mistakes”; “lesser of two evils”).

Chairman Mao and Hitler also had their fans crying over them; they also made “mistakes”; they also had people killed and enjoyed doing so:

 Maybe she is an idea, a world-historical heroine, light itself. The presidency is too small for her. She belongs to a much more elite class of Americans, the more-than-presidents. Neil Armstrong, Martin Luther King Jr., Alexander Fucking Hamilton.

If Clinton stands for any idea it is one of delusional failure.

Hillary Clinton did everything right in this campaign, and she won more votes than her opponent did. She won. She cannot be faulted, criticized, or analyzed for even one more second. Instead, she will be decorated as an epochal heroine far too extraordinary to be contained by the mere White House. Let that revolting president-elect be Millard Fillmore or Herbert Hoover or whatever. Hillary is Athena.

Hilary is a has-been because she-did-everything-wrong.

But anyway, enough of this silliness.

Our key lesson here is Clinton’s and her staff’s delusion and their arrogant overconfidence — just like all the rest of the Communist Clowns.

She had access to hundreds of millions of dollars. She had the support of the Polygon and the Cathedral — all the smart, good people; consequently, her victory was seen as virtually certain.


“Clinton’s loss at the hands of Donald Trump amounted to the most surprising outcome in the history of modern electoral politics.”


“”We are pissed at them and state parties are pissed at them because they lost due to arrogance,” a top DNC staffer tells U.S. News, sharing the candid sentiment suffusing the high levels of the committee in exchange for anonymity.””

Insular, self-assured and presumptuous:

“It’s no surprise that the hierarchy of the Clinton campaign leadership was insular and self-assured. But DNC staffers say the team’s presumptuous, know-it-all attitude caused it to ignore early warning signs of electoral trouble inside the states, and demoralized DNC staff who felt largely marginalized or altogether neglected for most of the campaign.”

I find the use of that term presumptuous interesting. By way of the Jew who is yet to be discovered, we have a description of the character of the leftist and their effects upon society from none other than arch reactionary and the absolute enemy of the French Revolution: Prince Metternich:

Having now thrown a rapid glance over the first causes of the present state of society, it is necessary to point out in a more particular manner the evil which threatens to deprive it, at one blow, of the real blessings, the fruits of genuine civilisation, and to disturb it in the midst of its enjoyments. This evil may be described in one word — presumption ; the natural effect of the rapid progression of the human mind towards the perfecting of so many things. This it is which at the present day leads so many individuals astray, for it has become an almost universal sentiment.

Presumption certainly led Clinton, her team and her supporters, to the most humiliating election upset in American history.

The Prince continues:

Religion, morality, legislation, economy, politics, administration, all have become common and accessible to everyone. Knowledge seems to come by inspiration ; experience has no value for the presumptuous man ; faith is nothing to him ; he substitutes for it a pretended individual conviction, and to arrive at this conviction dispenses with all inquiry and with all study ;

Progressives to-a-T.

The next part is fascinating:

.for these means appear too trivial to a mind which believes itself strong enough to embrace at one glance all questions and all facts. Laws have no value for him, because he has not contributed to make them, and it would be beneath a man of his parts to recognise the limits traced by rude and ignorant generations. Power resides in himself; why should he submit himself to that which was only useful for the man deprived of light and knowledge ?

Recall how Virginia Heffernan described Clinton?

Maybe she is an idea, a world-historical heroine, light itself. The presidency is too small for her.”

Because Clinton was “light itself” she clearly had no need of law.

Here is the case against Clinton:–election.html

Hillary Clinton is a law unto herself:

Presumption makes every man the guide of his own belief, the arbiter of laws according to which he is pleased to govern himself, or to allow some one else to govern him and his neighbours ; it makes him, in short, the sole judge of his own faith, his own actions, and the principles according to which he guides them.

Prince Metternich says the following about leftism and nationalism:

Is it necessary to give a proof of this last fact ? We think we have furnished it in remarking that one of the sentiments most natural to man, that of nationality, is erased from the Liberal catechism, and that where the word is still employed, it is used by the heads of the party as a pretext to enchain Governments, or as a lever to bring about destruction. The real aim of the idealists of the party is religious and political fusion, and this being analysed is nothing else but creating in favour of each individual an existence entirely independent of all authority, or of any other will than his own, an idea absurd and contrary to the nature of man, and incompatible with the needs of human society.

Hillary Clinton and the rest of the establishment: The Polygon and the Cathedral wants to abolish America:

Why? Because Hilary Clinton and the rest of the Communists hate Americans.

In England, another Communist Clown hates not only the flag of England but its people.

Angela Merkel has the exact same attitude regarding flags:

Michael Totten notes that this attitude of contempt over national symbols, such as flags, is all over the new generation as well.

This contempt by the political elite for their own country, and the people who live in it, is international, multi-generational and deeply embedded.

It also blinds them to the needs, values and aspirations of these voters and they can and will vote – as Clinton found out to her cost.

For example, Clinton and her team were apparently warned about Michigan and other states:

Jake Sullivan, Clinton’s policy director—a brainy and nervous former State Department aide who took on an increasingly important political role as the campaign ground on—was the only one in Clinton’s inner circle who kept saying she would likely lose, despite the sanguine polling,” Thrush says, citing Sullivan’s friends. “He was also the only one of the dozen aides who dialed in for Clinton’s daily scheduling call who kept on asking if it wasn’t a good idea for her to spend more time in the Midwestern swing states in the closing days of the campaign.

But the rest of Clinton’s campaign ignored Sullivan, with his warnings being dismissed so quickly, they weren’t even substantively considered.

They spent far more time debating whether or not Clinton should visit Texas and Arizona, two states they knew she had little chance of winning, in order to get good press,” Thrush says. Just a week before Election Day, Clinton made a campaign stop in Tempe, Arizona.

In the end, though, Sullivan was vindicated entirely. Clinton’s “Blue Wall” in the Rust Belt crumbled, and she suffered shocking defeats in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin by a combined margin of less than 100,000 votes. Had she won all three, she would have been the president-elect. In the case of Wisconsin, she lost narrowly after not bothering to visit the state a single time during the general election campaign.

Donald Trump “shattered” the “Blue Wall”

Clinton and her team, unlike Trump, failed because of an over-reliance on models, numbers and analysts — scientism — and not enough on common sense:

“But it was all about analytics with them,” the DNC source says. “They were too reliant on analytics and not enough on instinct and human intel from the ground.”

(As the Mises school teach about entrepreneurs, they go beyond reliance on numbers and what can be measured to things like imagination, creativity, intuition and insight — exactly how Trump works.)

From Politico:

But in the weeks since, the wealthy Democrats who helped pump over $1 billion into Clinton’s losing effort have been urging their local finance staffers, state party officials, and campaign aides to provide a more thorough explanation of what went wrong. With no dispassionate, centralized analysis of how Clinton failed so spectacularly, they insist, how can they be expected to keep contributing to the party?

A lot of the bundlers and donors still are in shock and disbelief by what happened. They’re looking for some introspection and analysis about what really happened, what worked and what didn’t,” said Ken Martin, chairman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and a top campaign bundler himself. “It may take some time to do that, but people are still just scratching their heads.

1 billion dollars’ worth of crack.

Arrogance and incompetence:

But there also were millions approved for transfer from Clinton’s campaign for use by the DNC — which, under a plan devised by Brazile to drum up urban turnout out of fear that Trump would win the popular vote while losing the electoral vote, got dumped into Chicago and New Orleans, far from anywhere that would have made a difference in the election.

Nor did Brooklyn ask for help from some people who’d been expecting the call. Sanders threw himself into campaign appearances for Clinton throughout the fall, but familiar sources say the campaign never asked the Vermont senator’s campaign aides for help thinking through Michigan, Wisconsin or anywhere else where he had run strong.

The leadership sailed straight into the iceberg despite all the warning:

Politico spoke to a dozen officials working on or with Clinton’s Michigan campaign, and more than a dozen scattered among other battleground states, her Brooklyn headquarters and in Washington who describe an ongoing fight about campaign tactics, an inability to get top leadership to change course.

Consistently incompetent:

“The anecdotes are different but the narrative is the same across battlegrounds …”

The campaigns epitaph:

They believed they were more experienced, which they were. They believed they were smarter, which they weren’t,” said Donnie Fowler, who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee during the final months of the campaign. “They believed they had better information, which they didn’t.

Not experienced, not smart and not informed. If Clinton and her Clown Circus, and by extension, the entire Priestly caste are this uninformed, how they be trusted with global leadership?

Hillary, her team and her supporters were suffering cognitive bubbles, from groupthink.

Richard Fernandez commenting on the collapse of Clinton:

But groupthink has advantages.  For one it allows organizations to implement swarming tactics. People are attracted to such organizations because in exchange for submission it offers apparent power.  It is no coincidence that Hillary’s slogan of “stronger together” sounds like the “democratic centralism” of Lenin’s day.  It’s essentially the same thing. Submit to the group and you will be part of an irresistible movement. Alone you are weak but as part of a swarm directed by a single mind you can overcome anything.

It has weaknesses too.  The problem with swarms is their collective fate is tied to the network. Once the network is disrupted, hacked or collapses the whole swarm will fall apart or worse, commit collective suicide.   The fate of the swarm is reliant on the signal which binds it.

What could go wrong? The signal.

This is the power of the evil meme. Groupthink periodically sweeps through history driving people mad, making killers and idiots. The 20th century was punctuated with such events and one should have learned that “stronger together” ideologies can have their own self-destruct code where last line sets the created objects to nothing.  If that doesn’t happen someone like Putin can come along and do it for you. The reason freedom, and to a certain extent chaos are valuable is they prevent the plaque of groupthink from forming.  They are jam-resistant.

How do the progressives escape stupidity? By smashing the system of talking points, groupthink and intellectual rigidity that create it. Hillary had twice Trumps money and couldn’t find the coconut on Coconut Island.  She lived by the Narrative and fell by it.

The following from Fernandez is critical. Assuming that Clinton wanted to win, she lost because her information and her judgement was corrupted:

When the best informed establishment figures wreck their careers by relying on “real news” it raises the possibility that public policy and economic management is based upon a information corrupted by years of political manipulation. It would be like an airline pilot realizing, as he is hurtling down the runway, that the view through the windshield was a matte painting and not real.  That means the world could potentially be flying blind with jagged terrain just beneath it without anyone knowing how close it is because we have filtered it out.

That is intolerably dangerous. The facts are necessary for safety.  They are necessary for survival.  We must learn how to face the truth again and calculate upon it, however hard and ugly it may be. No more Narratives. Never again should we have Narratives, either of the Left or Right variety.

Napoleon had a rule: good news can wait, but bad news must be brought to his attention at once. Napoleon also had a maxim that one must be able to anticipate dangers from the front, left, right and the rear.

The key lessons here is that one simply cannot afford to lose contact with reality — no matter how unwelcome that reality is; secondly, one must try to anticipate and be prepared for threats and dangers from all directions.

Politics and war is a continuum, information exists in a fog of doubt, confusion and deception. One must have the cognitive ability to not only understand this but to live it.

One must make explicit one’s operational assumptions; delineate one’s cognitive horizons (intellectual bubbles); seek out contradictions and ugly facts that pierce one’s epistemic bubble.

A leader must not only encourage but require and reward those who bring forth contradictions, ugly facts and bad news and challenge basic assumptions.

Finally, if one is a leader, one must not encourage the concealment of bad news from subordinates.

In the next part, we will look at the global circus.