Russia, China, and the American Experiment

Something new is happening on the American political scene.  Self-identified conservative Americans, mostly younger conservatives, are open to the “influence” of Vladimir Putin, or at least the Russian stance on the Syrian civil war and in Eastern Europe.   Younger Americans do not have a personal history with the Cold War, no do they identify Russia with the “old” Soviet Union like many Boomers do.  While they see China as a self-identified “communist” state, they also see it as communist in name only.  There is no larger capitalist state in the world, the USA included. China’s government may be authoritarian, perhaps even totalitarian, but it is very far from a Marxist/communist state in any classical definition.Those with no education in political philosophy, as well as the “low information voter” may be forgiven for assuming that communist is simply another word for authoritarian, but it certainly doesn’t make it true.

Both Russia and China have a distinct advantage over the United States regarding reaction to fast-moving international situations.  Both nations can react at almost any speed required to take advantage of any international situation.  In the United States, not only is this not the case, but there is a great chance that opposition members within the government can actually stall or completely negate the ability of the government to act.  In the United States, we call these “checks and balances”, but are they?

Recently, one well-known political pundit stated on a nationally broadcast television news program that “(T)he Chinese are eating our lunch in the South China Sea and the Russians are doing so in the Middle East because the United States does not have a foreign policy”.  Think about that for a minute.  The greatest, presumably the richest and most militarily powerful in the world  does not have an effective foreign policy.  I will make no attempt to explore how this happened, as I probably do not have the life expectancy to complete such a mission.  Succinctly, our nation is devolving.  All nations do.  Some, like the Russian Federation, are born out of the devolvement of the Soviet Union and the chaos of unchecked capitalism that followed during the Yeltsin era. China could be said to have devolved and resurrected at least twice, once after the collapse of the Manchu Empire in 1911, and again with the death of Mao Zedong which opened the current era of state capitalism.  The United States of America has been in existence realistically since 1787.  While our civil war did tear the nation apart for four years, after its conclusion, there was no great change in government or society, except in the South.  No devolution or collapse took place.

The United States is now facing events that the nation has never faced before.  There is an almost 50/50 split between Americans who want the nation to remain, or return to, a nation that honors individual liberty and economic and religious freedom, and Americans who want a socialist state in which cradle-to-grave governmental services requires the death of classical individual liberty and the imposition of an atheistic, authoritarian regime.  “Equality” has become much more desired than liberty, even though it is the equality of the Left only.  There is no presumed or implied equality for non-Leftists.

the United States has often been referred to as the “American experiment”.  All experiments end – that is the nature of experiments.  The question is, what will our nation be reborn as?



An American Deep State?

In the following, I am assuming that the reader is more or less unfamiliar with current Alt-Right theory and writing.  In fact, I must caution that when I use the term Alt-Right, I am no way referencing Donald Trump, Stephen K. Bannon, or Breitbart News.  None of these people or organizations are Alt-Right, although they may from  time to time have some mild Alt-Right  tendencies.  For true Alt-right commentary, you must read Oswald Spengler, Julius Evola, Sam Francis, Richard Spencer, and Jack Donovan.   I’m sure that you’ve probably never heard of any of these people,and there is no reason that you should have.  They certainly aren’t taught in any American public schools.  However, these are the founders of the modern Alt-Right movement.  You will never find them on Breitbart, and I doubt Trump knows them either.

Deep State: The concept of a “state within a state”.  While elected governments come and go, the Deep State – the infrastructure of the military, security and intelligence, as well as the judiciary and corporate structure, are intact, molding the elected officials to its aims and needs.

There have been several Leftist authors in the United States over the past fifty years who have written that the United States has a “deep state” which prevents politicians from truly altering the political life of America.  While this may seem to be true in certain snapshots of time, it has never been effective, or even truly existed in the United States as it has in other nations.  There could be said to have been evidence of a deep state during the Carter Administration (1977 – 1981), when the altruistic views of Carter were completely undermined by the military and intelligence operations the nation.  While I certainly don’t deny that (I was there), I see it as a “one-off” – a reaction to the dire circumstances to prevent clueless and perhaps unhinged Chief Executive from totally crippling the nation’s ability to defend itself or its national interests.  So while the Leftist press  – or at least those knowledgeable enough to be aware of the concept, claim that the United States has, or has had, a deep state, I would argue that our nation has not, but must have a deep state to survive in the future.

A deep state must exist in any nation undergoing severe demographic and social upheavals.  In the United States, for instance, a deep state will maintain order and a functioning government while it is determined how demographic changes would affect the electorate, and therefore how citizenship must be determined.  A deep state is not limited in political philosophy.  A deep state can be Marxist, liberal democratic, or any other political philosophy.  An Alt-Right deep state may differ in some functions from others, but the mechanics of sustaining the “continuity of government” would not be significantly different whether Marxist or “conservative’.  With the media completely confused about the definition of Alt-Right, it would be difficult for the informed citizen to determine and identify if there was an Alt-Right component in their political milieux.  The media assumes that the Alt-Right is a purist form of American conservatism.  The Alt-Right is NOT conservative.  There is almost nothing left worth conserving.  The biggest difference is that the foundational conservative idea is “limited government”.  The Alt-Right is interested in saving Western Civilization, and both limited government and the U.S. Constitution are not top considerations.  In fact, “individual liberty” has often devolved into total anarchy.  The greatest laboratory for “individual liberty” is America’s urban inner-cities, where law-enforcement is more of a concept than a fact, and a private small businessman may spend up to 50% of his gross profits for “security”.

As a nation, we have about a two-year window to make significant changes and modify governmental infrastructure to preserve them.  A deep state will greatly increase our chances of survival in the face of changing demographics.


Donald J. Trump Won – Now What?

[For about two weeks, I have had two manuscripts on my desk:  “Trump Won”, and “Clinton Won”.  You get the first one.]

With a surge of White, blue-collar men and women – yes, women – and more than a smattering of Latinos and Blacks looking for more than the same old, warmed-over Democratic Party dollars for dindus crap, Donald J. Trump became the President-Elect of the United States this morning.  The Clinton crime family is over as a power in American politics.  Due to the unsavory residue left by her parents, any notion that Chelsea Clinton would attain national office has ended.  The Democrats, as they say, will “move on”.

So what can we look forward to?  First and foremost, Trump must, above all else, keep his word about building a wall on our southern border.  There is no alternative, unless Trump wants to lose the support of 90% of the Americans who supported him.  While he is building the wall, he must create American jobs for American citizens.  This can be done partially by identifying and punishing corporations – all corporations – that knowingly employ illegal aliens.   Illegal agricultural workers, busboys, roofers, and lawn maintenance workers must be “let go”.  This will, as Mitt Romney famously said, lead to “self-deportations”.  American workers will take those jobs.  Why am I sure?  Because the dollars for dindus programs will be scaled back to near zero.  Section Eight housing will require some actual cash every month.  EBT cards will be eliminated in favor of the surplus food products that cannot be easily exchanged for nail salon services or cheap convenience store alcohol.  Womb-to-Tomb care will be a thing of the past.  Subsidized housing will be reduced to those over 65 who simply don’t have the income for market-based housing.

Hopefully, international trade agreements will be readdressed.  To those who say that cannot be done, I say “Watch”.  America is a huge market, and can actually do pretty much whatever it pleases in international trade.  Feelings may be hurt.  Boo-hoo-hoo.

If Trump is to be successful, he will have to hold strong to the idea that America, and Americans come first, last, and always.  The President of the United States is not the “big daddy” to the world.  We have seen for eight long years what kind of weak, pathetic creature that requires.  Some nations may have gotten used to the United States bending over (forwards) to “accommodate”  nations that would not give the time of day to the U.S.   They will, I am sure, get used to a United States doing exactly what it needs to do for its own people, and not much caring if other nations like it or not.


How Public Education Led to Economic Stupidity

I entered the American public school system in 1960.  Dwight D. Eisenhower was President.  Man had not yet entered space, and the nation had approximately 900 troops in a place called Viet Nam.  American public education was placing an emphasis on math and science.  Universities were beefing up their engineering programs and high schools were reinforcing the math programs.  All this was the result of the 1956 Soviet entry into space with Sputnik 1, and the resulting American space program, which seemed to rearrange the nation’s government overnight.  I graduated from high school in 1972.  Our nation had placed twelve astronauts on the moon.  America was in the process of withdrawing troops from Viet Nam, from a high of 536,100 in 1968 to a 1972 level of 24,200.  Between the nation’s attitude toward the war and the civil rights struggle for African Americans, public education was changing.  The “60’s Generation” was entering the classroom, and the space program was considered a waste of money that could have been spent on the oppressed and downtrodden.  Education made a 180 degree turn from objective to subjective.  Facts were irrelevant.  feeling were what mattered.  To a great extent, this zeitgeist has held for the last forty plus years.  But in the last fifty-six years since 1960, there is one discipline that has not been showcased, and it shows.  Economics.  Macro, micro, whatever.  The average American, and the college-educated American especially, is amazingly ignorant of economics.

In this election year, I cannot count the number of interviews I have seen with unimpaired (apparently) Americans who have no knowledge of the national debt, or how (or why) it could possibly affect their lives.    They have no idea where “money” comes from, how it is valued, or why debt makes a difference.  Even members of Congress seem to think that the national debt can simply be “fixed” by printing more money (Sheila Jackson Lee).  The average American is even more ignorant, if that is possible.  People with a large pool of disposable income tend to be somewhat more ignorant about microeconomics, simply because they have less to worry about.   Non college-educated Americans have less knowledge of macroeconomics, and that puzzles me, because less than 20% of university students take any economics course these days.  It would interfere with their Gender Relativity class or Deconstructing Western Civilization seminar.  All this has been a great boon to the Democratic Party, which uses economic idiocy to attract huge numbers of voters.

In about twelve hours from the time I write this, we will see if the idiots won.