Culturalism · Federal Government

Signs of Escalation

Years ago I had a brief gig working security on an overnight basis. The company in question required forty hours of training paid at minimum wage, an upgrade from the unpaid scam they had attempted to run earlier. Perhaps the most memorable part of the experience was the absolutely dogmatic obsession of instructors with telling students to escalate if things got complicated. Not simply for emergency situations, but also minor interactions with non-security employees in the vicinity. Failing to comply meant serious repercussions, which in the security business includes termination or transfer to another spot.

While a dead-end job may not appear to reflect much about the social state, this concept of escalation outlines broader problems in modern culture. The simplest way to explain it would be using the “CYA” moniker, itself a cynical display of the prevailing issue. People in Western realms are expected to always find someone else who will take responsibility in order to protect their own plot. In other words, don’t make a decision, refuse all ownership, and let the “chain of command” find a solution. If you happen to be in the uniformed services, the latter idea is especially crucial. Neglecting to ask permission before making a minor decision as an enlisted feller during peacetime can easily lead to NJP territory, if not something worse.

As matters “escalate,” the process creates spheres of feckless actors more than willing to support what is in their interests – while evading all accountability for the outcome. We see this manifested brilliantly in calls for “universal” healthcare. Republicans advocate “free market” healthcare, pretending it will attain the same outcomes as government-run alternatives. Democrats shill instead for the state-run option, whilst dodging questions about who will pay. In the case of Vermont, the lovingly-labeled “Green Mountain Care” program folded once questions of tax funding came to the fore, leaving moralized arguments behind.

The obvious next step for the Plural Left (and conservatives on other issues), is to appeal for federal promulgation of what the state or municipality has failed to achieve. Why? Because the federal government is a faraway money monolith which can make decisions with impunity, print extra dollars as needed, and enforce laws by the barrel of a gun. Localites and Staties are thus able to wash their hands and plead powerlessness by softly proclaiming, “It’s beyond my control.”

Therein rests the price of CYA and escalation culture: the launching of accountability so high and out of reach to where no one must face the trumpets, or shell out money for what they so tenaciously demand. Obviously such a system requires excessive bureaucracy, and the steadily-encroaching tendrils of top-down power into the lives of everyday souls. You may not wish to take ownership, so instead they will simply take ownership of you.     

Culturalism · Federal Government · Relations and Dating

The Predictable Illness

I admit to spending at least a small share of time browsing the Hufflepuff website. My logic holds that doing so provides an idea of the culture — or mental bearing — of those who think differently, making discourse with them more enjoyable. The alternative often devolves into mindless yammering over talking points selected from the political on high, and little eventual headway. At the same time, the process can reveal saddening truths about the roots of their ideas, and the addictions which fuel them. In the case of leftists, there seems to be a correlation between those perspectives and the swirling domination that drugs create.

Our journey of exposition will focus on Laura Cathcart Robbins, a prominent “Black Voices” columnist who has unleashed the following array of suspect. To start, we have the obligatory “I felt out of place” piece:

Seems to be a wholesome leftist wife:

With a healthy sense of intimacy:

Definitely not hung up at all about her choice of a dating partner:

She’s very comfortable with her decisions:

Not a shred of animosity towards the racial group she prefers:

And the final whammy:

Yes indeed, the empowered writer who layers her work with racist undertones is an admitted recovering alcohol and pills addict. I do not write this to salivate or rejoice over her struggles, but it reveals some difficult truths nonetheless. One would imagine the liberal mind with all of its opulence is capable of bypassing the trivial problems affecting the poor and downtrodden, yet in many cases there is no difference. This majestic “WOC” is brought to her knees by sheer dependency on the most basic of drugs.

On a broader level, Robbins’ story is disconcerting because of the already-established faithlessness of the Plural Left. Imagine if the California Comrade takes office in January, bringing like-minded throngs to the halls of power…will we be ruled by souls enslaved to the bottle, meds, or grass?

Time to drink on it.

Culturalism · Federal Government · investing · Personal Finance

Is Economic Decentralization Actually Good?

Among libertarian circles in the United States, there is a stalwart love for the concept of the gig economy model. The late politician Harry Browne openly advocated that employers should sack their workers and rehire everyone as independent contractors, while Gary Johnson was arguing for the Uberization of everything just a few years back. Their logic holds that getting outside government restrictions allows individuals to earn more, and companies to spend less. It sounds almost like a win-win scenario across the board.

Of course things are far more complicated in the applied economic sphere. As much as 1099’s and “zero hours contracts” are streamlined to begin with, the State has not cooperated with matters going forward. Contractors are thus left having to put aside money throughout the year in anticipation of a tax charge that would otherwise be taken out from the regular employee paycheck.  The result is people (especially the more youthful) getting shafted when they forget or fail to accumulate enough in savings to meet the annual tax bill. In theory the model is more efficient, but also dangerous to the average person’s financial picture.

Being off the hook for standard deductions can also increase the chances of having to purchase health insurance directly as a consumer, without any employer subsidies. Again, the model sounds great, though participants need to be careful about the type they buy. Cheaper health insurance plans and health sharing programs can elect for special rules to delimit their liability for conditions otherwise insured by federal mandate. An example of the shortcoming centers on the story of a diagnosed cancer tumor being deemed a preexisting condition, allowing the Medi-Share plan to deny financial support for medical services. The patient managed to successfully appeal, but at the cost of stress from a five-figure treatment bill.

High personal costs are often accompanied by unimpressive pay for gig workers. Although a top-performing delivery or rideshare driver can theoretically bring in over $1,000 per week, this is liable to demand long hours and no off days due to the nature of the market. Of course none of the money totals are guaranteed like a regular worker’s paycheck, so the pressure level can be astronomically higher, leading to mental health issues. Tie everything to the need to maintain one’s own car, and the picture becomes solidly grimmer.

The other issue with gig mania is the propensity for the leading firms to suppress individual freedoms. While Uber and Lyft have long been heralded as a way for the market to beat back the corrupt taxi union cartels and their big government supporters, they also permit a few silicone nerds to control service access. Uber itself recently admitted to banning 1,250 riders from the app for not observing corona mask restrictions. That’s over a thousand people who can no longer use the taxi service because their name and info has been blacklisted, and doesn’t include the political figures banned from their cars as well. A traditional cab would allow you to pay in cash, hence even those marked for derision would have the option to ride.  

So yes, decentralization has granted us enhanced freedoms, but in a twisted, cynical way. No longer must we tangle with the machinations of payroll; instead, one can simply stress and struggle to conserve money before STILL filing taxes amidst those April flowers. Hours are flexible, but so is the ability to even make a living. The greasy, unkempt medallion taxis have been replaced by loyal contract vehicles, but watch what you think, or they’ll pass on by.  

Ahh, the taste of liberty!

Culturalism · Federal Government · Uncategorized

The Wrath of Undecideds

MSNBC recently interviewed an Ohio voter to gauge his opinion of the Trump-Biden debate. The chap, who is undecided, gave a prototypical spiel about both candidates being negative, and asked them to provide more specifics. I had to stifle a laugh, because his line is so grimly predictable for an “independent moderate.” Such folks are trotted out every election, almost as if to maintain the fantastic faith people place in democracy, and the notion that votes somehow matter. The race becomes all about those swing ballots, with politicians desperately courting the enlightened few in hopes of seizing that magical 50.1 percent ticket so their legacy is protected. Democracy lives another glorious day.

But does it really? This sycophantic obsession with undecideds may warm individual hearts, yet in truth it simply masks the great scam which is civic duty in the United States. Headstrong souls march about feeling self-important in front of the reporter’s microphone, when in fact they reveal the bitter shallows of their own brain, and those of the comrade travelers nearby.

Fly back to 2012 for a moment. Obama and Romney were battling it out for the sainted executive office, and CNN began its custom of assembling a car of simpletons identified by their unwillingness to pick red or blue ahead of the election. Easily the most infuriating to hear blabber was our friend Joe:

The picture is everything here. Despite claiming to be the former owner of a flooring company, which probably required him to manage employees and make tough decisions, Stoltz remained dreamy-eyed until the very end, also demanding “more specifics” from Diversity Corporate Guy and Magic Underwear Corporate Guy.  Perhaps I expect too much of people, but how difficult is it to predict what a president will do based on history? Republicans like to spend on the military and cut taxes for the rich, while Democrats increase trans-revenue and expand welfare. Overlap exists, but namely on the Carebearland question.

 For a grown man who has lived through different elections to be still playing footsie with both parties right before the balloting day indicates either a lazy mind or pure ignorance, but not the foundations for brilliance and the sanctity of the vote. Joey would ultimately cast his paper for Obama after the president “was forceful” when responding to Romney, and because Billy Boy Clinton endorsed him. Furthermore, Obama’s mention of education in the debate really sealed the deal:

“That third debate sunk it all the way in for me — since I am in school and Obama was focused on education.”

That’s right, he voted for a politician who dropped the “education” word in a televised debate, because he is also in school. These are the creatures holding out to the end, my friends. Child-like minds agitating over trigger words and the prospect of being given something. Here are a couple more photos for good measure:

Is this the Try Guys convention?
Who’s writing this blog again?
The undecided “Radical for Jesus”

Ahh, is democracy not happiness?          

Culturalism · Federal Government

Of Mods and Generals

Some months back I noted that the generals who conservatives exalt are usually the biggest defenders of the political status quo. This explains why most nationalist coups in recent history have been led by colonels and below; those who have served long enough (and secured fat pensions) are less incentivized to pursue significant changes which might risk their own plot. Conversely, anti-reform coups such as in Thailand are pushed by generals who wish to protect personal interests against movements threatening the establishment. Rarely do we witness divergence from this general (haha) routine.

The events of this past week are no exception. When James Mattis was chosen by Trump as his Defense secretary in 2017, I had strong personal reservations, despite conservative gushing over the “Mad Dog.” Of special concern was his affiliation with Theranos, the scam-worthy company promoted to inflate the net worth of a certain pseudo-Steve Jobs, who now awaits trial on fraud charges. More information on that subject can be had in this book.

I also held reservations about someone with so many years in the military establishment now leading the Department of Defense, because fixtures are rarely reformers, and the DoD badly needs some changes. It was also painfully evident that few generals in recent memory have been particularly upright characters, with the possible exception of Peter Pace, who was quickly silenced for his opinions. Other characters include Stanley “He CARES” McChrystal, David “Double D Declassified” Petraeus, John “La Resistance” Hyten, and of course James “The OG” Crapper. None of these characters inspire confidence or leadership like Patton or Ike, but we’re supposed to honor them because muh uniform.

Thus it came as no surprise to hear of Mattis’ recently-reported folly. According to Bob Woodward, the retired Marine Corps general advised former DNI director Dan Coats that “there may come a time when we have to take collective action” against the president, who he described as “dangerous” and “unfit,” with “no moral compass.” In a surprise to no one, certain people are very thrilled by this story:

While it is true that previous suggestions were made for a coup against Barack Obama, these came from random opinion pieces, and not the mouth of a four-star general and secretary of defense. The concurrence of Dan Coats in part with Mattis’ comments makes it all the more disconcerting. Let us not forget too what Rod Squirrelstein had suggested about the 25th Amendment, along with prominent celebrities. The facts are on the wall, and somehow the tolerant liberal press is not cranking out foreboding warnings of a military junta taking over.

If this seems crazy, bear in mind what Trump just said at a recent press conference:

In our system of government, so brazenly calling out the powers that be can lead to disastrous consequences. Should something drastic occur before the election (or after), the media can be expected to cover it up by blaming some extremist, yet the average American will know what has occurred. We can only pray they do not become so emboldened as to lash out in that manner, for it would mean the charade of the Republic falls, and the mystique of democracy is lain aside.

Culturalism · Federal Government

Left In Disbelief

Much has been made of the COVID-19 panic over the last few months. An otherwise decent economy was put into the ditch by concerned governors, people got reported for not being zealous enough at their distancing measures, and epic debates were held over belief in the virus’ seriousness, or even more than that, its very existence. On the latter point, progressives made stark contrasts between the anti-scientific mutterings of Donald Trump, and the calm, collected rationalism of Fauci the Entertainer, whose belief in science appeared unshakeable, giving  the liberal order a worshipful altar.

Yet the stage only reveals a great tragedy: that leftists believe in nothing, and thus stand for nothing. Their entire existence revolves around a petty and materialistic lust for the immediate moment, for the fleeting blink and thirty-second spell, before a refresh and new paths. Completely incapable of looking past the foggy future, and desperately loathing the crumpled past, they latch onto brief flair, oftentimes without verifying the truth or consistency of prior advocacy. A couple glimpses and the scene changes, having learned little, and contemplated less.

Consider their broader obsession with shutting down and locking up all free actors during the pandemic. Because leftists tend to be irreligious, they naturally view the possibility of sickness (or death) with caterwauling terror. For them there is no afterlife, hence every minute on earth holds value in gold—even if they do spend it locked in a house to discharge tweets of rage against a national leader. The mask, itself a highly dubious  method to prevent transmission, serves as their symbol of collective mortality, and thus billowing ferocity. Any person not observing the guidelines is threatening them, while also showcasing how empty their lives happen to be.

Historically, leftism has not been any different. Mazzini famously criticized the early socialists for predicating their entire movement on material interests, such as pay and working conditions, safely ignoring factors of faith or dedication to community and nation.  Today they screech about healthcare and taxes, both means to allow the bitter souls within a spigot’s burst reason to survive, so again they live in shallow proof.  

If we look to their ultimate principle, that vision enshrining diversity, again the justification is devoid of meaning. Diversity trumpets as a mere check on the opposing side’s power, not for any rational reason apart. Hence the appeals to different cuisines and “global culture,” the latter topic one of little interest to the progressive outside his strictly political realm. For this same reason leftists do not comprehend good comedy: they cannot process any joy outside the fleeting material aspects of party politics, or financial security for themselves. Everything must be in service to goals of self-preservation, no matter contradictions or folly.

The question is imperative because limited faith does not imply affordance of respect for life to others. Progressives have no issue with slaying babies in the womb (or outside), and will make quick work of those who do not fight back. Such behavior is entirely rational, for if they fear death with the terror of a caught fly, inflicting the same on opponents is a natural route to feeling powerful, the unsated lust of every creature unsure of what control they possess when the heart ceases to tick.

And that makes their faith so dangerous.

Culturalism · Federal Government

Those Permissible Lies

The problem with paying attention to the media is that you start to see through their illusions. The “facts,” or “reliable sources,” quickly unravel when more than a casual look is granted, and often the transformation is so rapid as to make it feel intentional.  Almost as if they want the plebe to find out, but expect him to have no curiosity.

In point, I recently got a letter from The Center For Voter Information, an activist group purporting to support more engagement by the electorate in state and federal elections. The included paperwork listed my voting score, something I had never heard of, and a rather unnerving idea at that. Luckily I was better than average, so perhaps Mama Kamala will grant me a prize for this achievement. Also included was an application pre-populated with my personal information for a mail-in ballot, a pleasant advantage for those terrified for the Corona.

Since the sender seemed rather official, I did a Google search and discovered it exists as the sister organization to the Voter Participation Center, with both being billed under the joyous and comfortable descriptor of non-partisan. Hearing those words excited my idealistic side. Could it be that a group was simply acting in the public interest, and not shilling for any specific political entity? What a breath of fresh air!

Feeling greatly empowered, I checked the “About Us” page, and read with interest into the biography blurbs. Who could these wonderful folks be, taking time out of their ideological lives to support the common good without a hint of bias? Well, their names are Page Gardner and Tom Lopach, the latter of whom could probably sub for Pete Buttigieg if he desired. Their smiles felt endearing and true, so I decided to perform a bit of a Google search on both.

The results were interesting, to say the least. As it turns out, Page Gardner is actually a long-time Democratic operative with close ties to the Clinton Organized Crime Family and Media Matters. One of her related groups, Women’s Voices Women Vote, even got started using the influence of John Podesta, the former Clinton chief of staff. But don’t worry, because she’s running a “non-partisan” group to promote democracy.

Lopach is not much better. His LinkedIn profile reveals recent jobs promoting Steve Bullock for president, along with earlier roles working for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Committee for a Democratic Majority. Maybe he is unbiased though, just like Snopes claims to be.  One just has to believe.

Groups such as the CFVI are a great example of the tolerated lies in our society. Just like how wearing a white coat makes the speaker legitimate, or holding a PhD is supposed to arrest all doubts. We are trained to focus on the trigger word or image, not what who else (or how much money) might lie behind it. This implied ignorance works because large swaths of the public simply are not curious enough to question what they see, and merely act on the superficial qualities.

Considering how crucial a national election is for the purposes of appointment powers and control of the Justice Department, that obliviousness matters.

Federal Government

Expect a Ceremonial President

Nowadays calling an election with any degree of certainty veers dangerously close to the path of damnation. Copious statistics and technical analysis cannot reliably affirm an outcome in cases where the political Black Swan prevails, and therefore electing to make bold predictions presents a troublesome risk. With that being said, value can still be extracted from pontifications about what specific results might look like.

On this front, let us consider the notion of a Biden Presidency, and how minimally Biden would tend to influence day-by-day machinations. It is abundantly clear that Mr. Robinette has been affected by some form of mental decline. This fact is not advanced to mock him as a person—and indeed sympathy should be called for—but in terms of the office itself, Uncle Joe is bound to be more of a figurehead than any other president beforehand, and perhaps will not even be much apart from a statue to promote the vague sense of national unity.

Such a development is interesting in light of America’s political tradition. Although officially a presidential system, the Executive Branch has vacillated widely in terms of overall power. We have the concept of the Imperial Presidency conceived in the 1970s, and the tenure of Chief of Staff Don Regan, who was popularly seen as “prime minister” over President Reagan’s government. More recently, Dick Cheney usurped great power from George W. Bush while serving as the latter’s vice president, while Donald Trump has reclaimed significant authority for himself in the Oval Office.

But Biden would likely be different. At the tender young age of 78 and with failing memory, he is liable to embody the ceremonial, Head of State-style president visible in most European democracies; typically an elderly man or woman with basic duties to make appointments and appear at events but otherwise divorced from real responsibility and power. Democrats can flash his smile for the cameras, get legislation signed, and then allow the inner chamber doors to shut securely, locking Joey out of the real decision table.

Some will undoubtedly decry the possibility, perhaps appealing to his many years as a senator and champion for transforming bills into law. The same could of course be said for Robert Byrd, who hung on until the very end despite limited abilities towards that junction. Biden’s advantage over others here would be his legacy as a president, not simply another grouchy curmudgeon in the congressional retirement home. That prize is quite substantial for a person not confident of what his own name is.

But fear not, for while Biden may happily inhabit the world of ceremonial statesmanship, the Head of Government will be faithfully executed by a steady puppet mistress, if not her crafty friend.       

Culturalism · Federal Government

On Calls For An Ebony Republic

It has come to my attention that members of the protest collective are now calling for the establishment of their own nation within the existing territory of the continental United States. They appear to want either Texas, or the creation of a new state somewhere in the African continent. While this proposal is hardly novel in nature, it seems like a worthy topic of discussion due to the tide of current affairs.

At the heart of the concept is an obsession with justice. Since blacks were enslaved by various African empires in their home countries and then sold to Europeans wishing to cultivate the New World, they have borne the weight of that legacy for years, and even after the abolishment of slavery through laws such as Jim Crow. Black Nationalists seem to believe the possibility of reform is either unlikely or insufficient, thus separation has become the most viable solution in their eyes; only by ruling an independent country can the past truly be brushed aside so progress rises.

In all honesty, I am not diametrically opposed to the idea for those who want it. The suggestion of Texas seems out of step with history and remains a political non-starter, but perhaps an area of the coastal South could work admirably towards the goal. Having access to the ocean would be important for trade and economic development, as well as travel purposes. It also melds with African-American history, so the foundational possibilities are vivid.

Obviously the obstacles to such a proposal are numerous. To start, the government would have to figure out how to compensate those being forced from their homes or properties, assuming they are not allowed to remain under the new state. Similar questions might abound in terms of federal welfare programs and educational funding—would the existing federal authorities transmit payments for years to the new country, and what might become of American citizenship for those in the new state? The status of security forces in such a regime would be similarly questionable, as National Guardsmen are ultimately dependent on federal money.

 At the same time, benefits might materialize with black Americans being able to command their own destiny politically and economically. Though it is guaranteed that whites would still be blamed for any possible woes of the Ebony Republic, the level of social tension over the question might be exceptionally diminished, perhaps preventing violence or misunderstandings, at least assuming that a large portion of the population would join the country. Over time, one can merely speculate as to the new national outcomes.

So while I’m hardly an advocate of separatism or Black Power, the notion is interesting.

Culturalism · Federal Government

In The Name of The King

A recent inductee to my reading convent was Prussianism and Socialism by Oswald Spengler. The German philosopher is often cited by modern conservatives decrying the West’s decline, particularly in the face of radical Islam, yet they conveniently leave another part out: his harsh criticism of liberalism and a full-throated advocacy for the monarchical system. Given my own skepticism of kingship, I was pleased to read his compelling argument in favor such a model. According to Spengler:

“The leadership of such a system cannot be ‘republican’ Putting aside all illusions, ‘republic’ means today the corruptibility if executive power by private capital. A prince will obey the tradition of his house and the philosophy of his calling. No matter what our opinion of this may be, it removes him from the special political interest of parties as we have them now. He acts as their arbitrator. And, if in a socialistically structured state, membership of the professional councils including the State Council itself is determined in view of practical talents, the prince can narrow the selection by use of ethical and moral criteria. A president, prime minister, or popular representative is the pawn of a party, and a party is in turn a pawn of those who pay for it. The prince is today a government’s only protection against big business. The power of private capital is forcing a unification of socialist and monarchist principles. The individualistic ideal of private property means subjugation of the state by free economic powers, i.e., democracy, i.e., corruptibility of the government by private wealth. In a modem democracy the leaders of the masses find themselves in opposition, not to the capitalists but to money and the anonymous power it exerts. The question is how many of these leaders can resist such power.”

This perspective undoubtedly holds currency among American thinkers today. No matter how hard the grassroots activists work to express their varied aspirations for change, the political tide of complacency remains, driven eternally by money, and the elections dependent upon it. The dynamic helps us understand why Trump’s agenda was largely untouched by the Senate majority, and Bernie fans saw the party shift safely back into the corporate column on both sides of the ticket. The peso wins again.

Spengler’s idea is of course not new. Plato specifically designed his Republic in response to the shortcomings of Greek democracy, creating three classes to administer various aspects of society. At the top were the Guardians, who placed the highest value on knowledge and truth, including the famed “philosopher king.” The state system was protected by the Auxiliaries class, or warriors and soldiers devoted to courage, honor, and homeland (nation). Finally, there stood the Producers, a business classes devoted to the fruit of their labors and material gain.

The model of Plato works to ensure those who love money are deprived from holding the reins of power due to their underlying nature. While the private sector may excel at creating products and generating wealth, it rarely observes standards of virtue, and certainly does not respect the ethical role of the state. Corporations frequently pollute, attempt to diminish worker rights, and undermine the national identity through policies of free movement. They care little of traditions or family, because items can be marketed to anyone with money to pay and a heart to lust.

What remains to be seen is how long the tender auspices of liberal democracy will be enough to keep the populace content. Regardless of which outcome flies this November, it is likely that the multinational establishment will continue scoring wins at the expense of both the people and the integrity of the federal system.  And obviously any checks on this slide require employment of the popular election model, which freely cooperates with private sector money. The cycle continues.

 That is, unless a coronation occurs.