The challenge before us is indeed difficult. We definitely need to drastically throttle immigration for an extended time in order to "digest" those we have already imported. The throttle should, however, allow in potential Super Americans. I'll be describing a filter for such in Rule 10.
At the current time, conservatism is heavily represented by Catholics of Irish and Italian descent. Meanwhile, the original English and Scottish Protestant denominations have been thoroughly converged.
I do, however, have several antidotes in mind to deal with the tribalism. For now, see Rule 6: Break up the Blue Zones. Let ethnic enclaves have their own urban village government.
Democracy is not unique to the U.S. Democracy in a multi-ethnic empire is. To make this work we need aggressive federalism.
And at some point I'll propose an alternative voting system designed to quash tribalism as well.
Well, while I do plan some serious poetic justice on the woke, my ultimate aim is rather less draconian then yours.
We had a pretty good country when I was a kid. I want it back for my offspring.
When I was younger, I pushed an ideal and didn't get very far. Today, I push for what we once had, and I am willing to take the Batmobile over the speed limit to get there.
---
Take your talk of yeoman land owners, for example. Maps of Redness vs. population density back up your theory. You are on the right path.
But note how we got off that path. It was Richard Nixon -- a lower right Republican -- who changed the farm subsidy system to encourage consolidation so that small farmers became truckers and their children moved to the big cities to find work, and those who remain in rural America work in the prison industrial complex.
And guess what? There are men and women of the Left who want to are game to have more land holding yeoman tending the farm animals. See Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma."
We need to replace the Mitt Romney's with someone else to create majority coalitions. There are sane people on the Left who can be pulled into the Populist coalition.
I am, however, trying to encourage you to read some of the other posts here. I am stretching out into separate posts material which should be a book. Just as individual chapters of a book can fail to stand on their own merits, so do some of the posts here.
---
As for Mitt Romney, he is part of the Lower Right on my political map. (He needs to trade in his hair gel for breast implants to go with the latest style) I thus have more love for certain lefties (like Russel Brand or Jimmy Carter than I have for Mitt Romney.
And I absolutely agree with you on Reagan. Reagan also deserves black marks for taking the Drug War to the next level, gutting antitrust, and getting Republicans to embrace the Santa Claus School of economics. I will give Reagan kudos for some of his deregulation, and for SDI. Defense is indeed more moral than Mutual Assured Destruction.
well, you may have just lost the "conspiracy theorists" who don't believe the "official" narratives of 9/11, JFK assassination, PLANdemic, and the Jan 6 "insurrection"... and those are a LOT of folks. then there's the few (like me) who see the false political paradigm for what it is. i suppose, "these are not the reactionaries you are looking for". ;-)
I decided to search. The best I discovered was one attribution to Morton, and a lot of "unknown" origins.
It's a quote worthy of having an ascribable author.
It's certainly in line with what I remember of him, but that dates back to his late YR/CYR days in the early '70's. Not even a lot of contact then, but he made an impression.
Hi Fabius, nice post. If you want to strengthen your argument for populism I think you should come up with rebuttals to Kynosarges's 2019 criticisms of it. He had six primary criticisms of populism, which he listed as follows:
1. Right-wing populists have no awareness of the depth of the [societal] problem and the necessity of a massive social transformation.
2. Right-wing populists consider metapolitics irrelevant. They view our plight as strictly a matter of state policy, therefore solvable by the legislative and executive branches (which is understandable given point 1).
3. Right-wing populists do not command parliamentary majorities or sole governments – neither in the past nor in the present, nor likely in the future. They are always in opposition or dependent on coalition partners who are not right-wing populists.
4. The institutional corset of late liberalism narrows the factual scope for political action to such a degree that profound changes are impossible.
5. Right-wing populists offer no grand designs for solutions because they lack a positive alternative framework beyond “liberalism without foreigners” (which is closely linked to points 1 and 2).
6. Right-wing populists are objectively too slow even where they bring about changes. A critical comparison between the development of right-wing populism and demographics during recent decades clearly shows that this approach is impossible solely due to lack of time (ignoring points 1–5)…"
Because of these issues, according to Kynosarges, " [Right wing populists] have no concept of how to actively solve the problems of late modernity or liberalism. They offer no counter-culture that goes beyond reactionary ideas. They become almost apolitical when they merely retreat into their nation-state bunkers (typical for Poland or Slovakia). They lack a dynamic counter-ideal, and they are not at all equipped to propagate such an ideal to the furthest corners of the West (and beyond), as the chief enemy is (still) capable of doing.
The equation of our identity with the liberal state (e.g. the Federal Republic of Germany as the land of the Germans) inevitably leads to disappointments and at best to the realization that this state neither defends nor recognizes our identity, sometimes even destroys it. No Western constitution has a decidedly identitarian foundation, nor is there any trend in that direction. Anyway such a foundation would be incompatible with the self-concept of liberalism (universalism, egalitarianism, individualism) – the left is correct on that point! But right-wing populists believe that liberalism would only need a “right-wing” orientation to solve the problem, thanks to insufficient analysis….
Modernity can only be overcome with the experiences of modernity, not by an utterly impossible return to an earlier or pre-modern era. The profound change that is now necessary is not genuinely political but belongs to the cultural, metapolitical sphere. Such a counter-enlightenment or counter-culture requires – in contrast to the liberalist eclecticism of right-wing populists – a spiritual preparation for a new European myth that binds us to our oldest past and reconciles us with our future. Nothing less than such an attempt at European rebirth is our task and the most promising exit from political modernity."
Regarding what you call "Grovellocracy", I think you might likely enjoy the black comedy "The Death of Stalin", which is about Stalin's inner circle -- all suffering from Grovellocracy -- as Stalin died.
Lastly, I don't call for a full transvaluation of values back into full warrior values -- I think a partial transvaluation is needed, one which balances out warrior and priestly energies.
The purpose of this Substack is to answer some of these objections, to create a truly intellectual populism, as I laid out in my initial battle cry "A Call for Counter Revolution". See Rules 2-7 for metapolitics and dealing with some deep rot.
Regarding a new European myth, I would note that the Reddest states in this country are also the Blackest. The U.S. has always been multi-ethnic. We need to cultivate the idea of Citizen's Privilege.
For Objection 4: See Rules 2, 3, and 5. And I'll deal with the university system in a future Rule.
For Objection 5: That's what this article is introducing: the full framework. (Actually, one chunk of the framework was Rule 1: Free Trade Isn't.)
For Objection 6: He could be right. We have a LOT of catching up to do. But where do you run off to if things keep going downhill? Argentina??
----
Regarding Harrison Bergeron mode and Christianity, I would note that the New Testament does not say that people have equal abilities. Paul wrote about different people having different spiritual gifts. Jesus taught the parable of the talents. And Jesus had his disciples referring Him as Master until right before the crucifixion, where he gave his closest disciples permission to call him friend.
To understand the New Testament teaching properly, first understand that the promise is not an eternal retirement in the clouds. The promise is having either priestly or leadership positions in the world to come. Do you abuse your position or do you take care of those underneath you? That's the test. Those who pass it well will have crowns in the future. (Yes, there will be rank after the Resurrection.) See:
resistance itself to a Grand Unified Conspiracy is not only unlikely, but was demonstrated over the last 4 years. many individuals have not accepted the official narratives of the conspiracies i noted, among so many more. yet, the masses have been unwilling to do their own investigation into any given one.
here's another one most people have never really investigated, apparently neither has any STATE agency. this lady [thankfully] put together a myriad of evidence which IMHO refutes the official narrative. but only ~220K among the masses who search YouTube have ever seen it, and nothing has become of it because there is an "official narrative".
and this keeps occurring, seemingly at an exponential rate. so yes, i agree with you that the masses are not even interested in investigation and evidence. likewise, the masses are not interested in the truth about the conspiracy of the corrupt banking institution, which ultimately allows tyrants to control the nations.
perhaps as things continue to get even more insane than they are currently, that small percentage of interested individuals might grow a bit, but i'm not holding my breath either. ;-)
Here is a case in point: how many minds have been changed by the Hunter Biden laptop scandal? How many in Pennsylvania are shocked that they voted for a zombie senator?
While there are secretive power players, the observable fact is that millions of people are positive on The Narrative.
But that's many of those who vote Left don't realize the degree to which the already rich are subsidized. Packaging that knowledge with an elaborate conspiracy theory just causes most
minds to shut off the message -- no matter how true the conspiracy theory.
It's a Cry Wolf situation. So many wacky conspiracy theories have been floated that lots of people have been innoculated against legit theories. (Much as many on the Right are hardened
against any reasonable global warming theory due to the over the top doom forecasts.)
understood & i already agreed. my point is then how does one convey the very real money conspiracy, when people reject nearly all conspiracies as mere "theory"... well, except for the theory of evolution — there's one they do purchase. i suppose one could try to point out various ways how the rich are subsidized, but the masses will most likely ignore most of that as well. how is it possible to not only fix ignorance, but apathy as well?
I agree with what you say on conspiracy theories. While they shouldn't be discounted, they should not be the driving force within a movement. We can have plenty of time to chase them after we grab the power. Focus on the people's needs first and contrast to the establishment.
Great essay, with your chart providing a useful framing of the relevant political divisions! I detest the Marxcissist authoritarians on the Left, but I also strongly dislike the Mitt Romney vulture-hedge-fund bankster wing of the GOP, so I'm glad to see you charting out the alternative. Also, "grovellocracy" is an excellent term for the victimhood hierarchy we have now!
I'm rather surprised at the positive reception of this post. I meant it as inoculation against the rage from heresies to come. Note how the forthcoming Rules have names that make talking-point-parroting Republicans sad. And the coming blasts at the Santa Claus School of Economics will make them sadder.
I hope this means that there is a large body of people with similar inclinations, and that the Rules to come can help crystallize the ideology.
(The fact that RFK Jr. is getting positive attention from blue collar Republicans is a good sign.)
Personnel is indeed policy, but it's not at all obvious how to do anything about that. The President is capable of firing direct appointees, but the Senate (fully controlled by the Uniparty) is required to confirm them in office in the first place. All the rest of the Deep State bureaucrats are impossible to fire given civil service/union protections.
It isn't just that there wasn't a large stable of ideologically appropriate people waiting in the wings. There probably wasn't, but that's neither here nor there, because the Senate would never have approved them in the first place.
So yes: Trump definitely made mistakes in his staffing and appointment decisions and trusted a lot of people who quite clearly shivved him in the back at every available opportunity. But we all know what the Deep State did to General Flynn.
Your points have much validity, but I stand by my assertion.
The civil service has much in common with academia. Watch the old "Yes, Minister" TV series from Britain to see how it played out there. (Prepare to be entertained. The show is incredibly funny.)
As such, Theory can trump raw data and assertions from the titular leader. This is why "Free Trade Isn't" is Rule 1. Comparative Advantage is a principle esteemed by economists on both the Left and Right. Ricardo's proof is particularly elegant. But it doesn't take into account the welfare state.
Painting “conspiracy theories” with such a broad brush does a disservice to those brave and determined enough to do the hard labor of meticulously dismantling State narratives. Seeing videos of WTC 7 collapsing jarred me out of a great deal of ignorance and apathy, along with millions of others. I agree that it is counterproductive to myopically focus on even real conspiracies, and critical to focus energy on creating more equitable systems which will appeal to all but the most brain dead.
you make a very good counter point because many people have had their eyes opened by further investigating various "official narratives". millions? yes, i bet so!
WTC7 collapse (announced even prior to its collapse) was certainly one eye opener for anyone actually paying attention. the official "pancake" theory narrative for the Twin Towers in spite of their free fall is yet another blatant red flag which architects & engineers pointed out... but what do they know as compared with politicians in Mordor?!? ;-)
so i do believe exemplifying various forms of evidence (as did the lady who investigated the Route 91 Vegas tragedy) is a very good method of getting more people to recognize just how much the STATE has lied over the years. want to help folks better understand the reason why public schools are a dismal failure? show them that they are NOT a failure to those who designed the construct. etc.
The Prussian Connection - UNDERGROUND HISTORY (of American Education)
sure, all these millions of folks who have been made privy to such truths haven't yet rallied to overthrow the tyrannical STATE. however, we've not yet reached a critical mass yet either, and let's not forget that the overwhelming majority continue to be indoctrinated by STATE "education". ;-)
There are serious problems with Georgism. This will be a post or three at some point.
I do agree with the notion that the rich should not be able to do pyramid rent-seeking with land. But taxing all the ground rent of land means Use it or Lose it. No more private wildlife preserves.
And if the land you grew up on goes way up in value because of come heres, you have to leave -- without compensation. Georgism is gentle genocide.
Good points. It certainly needs refinement if it's ever practiced. Some exemption policy is in order. The biggest risk I see with taxes is the concentration of capital at the collecting party. To avoid that it could be split with respect to hierarchical territorial structure.
> And if the land you grew up on goes way up in value because of come heres, you have to leave -- without compensation.
Isn't the whole point of Georgism that you can leave _with_ a hefty compensation by selling if the land grows in value?
No. If land is taxed heavily based on ground rent, then it keeps the value from going up as fast. You become a renter instead of an owner.
This also throws a monkey wrench into the process of valuing land. The more you tax ground rent, the harder it is to measure.
Finally, we run into the problem of land that is worth less than its undisturbed state. A recently clear cut forest or declined neighborhood pays taxes on a value that is higher than the market price of the land.
It took me a while to parse the first "it". I don't think the scenario of converting the owner to renter is peculiar to Georgian tax. That seems to me a far right side of the Laffer curve for any tax.
Maybe I'm hallucinating but I think at the core of Georgian approach is a sane idea of taxing raw input. It may be outdated in that land is not the only significant instance. Mined energy resources, raw materials, water, wild life come to mind.
The trouble with concentration of power persists. This tax would be easy to levy and prone to centralization. Effort is necessary to make it as local as possible (limiting the distance at which the money may be used?).
Partial Georgism could work. Make land taxes progressive and give all citizens a deductible. This preserves market value and prevents rent seeking on the Blackrock scale.
A carbon tax is sort of Georgist: it is a tax on using an excess share of the atmosphere's ability to absorb new carbon without unpleasant consequences. (Or, if that amount is far higher than advertised, it is also a tax on extracting carbon fuels that future generations could use. Labor opportunity is ongoing. Tax labor so people don't work and work doesn't get done. Tax carbon future extraction and you do lose the value of that carbon fuel now, but you gain the use of that carbon fuel in the future. So even if the threat of global warming is a hoax or boo-boo, a carbon tax makes more sense than a labor tax.)
And a tax on Internet domains would make hoarding less profitable. Win-win!
The challenge before us is indeed difficult. We definitely need to drastically throttle immigration for an extended time in order to "digest" those we have already imported. The throttle should, however, allow in potential Super Americans. I'll be describing a filter for such in Rule 10.
At the current time, conservatism is heavily represented by Catholics of Irish and Italian descent. Meanwhile, the original English and Scottish Protestant denominations have been thoroughly converged.
I do, however, have several antidotes in mind to deal with the tribalism. For now, see Rule 6: Break up the Blue Zones. Let ethnic enclaves have their own urban village government.
Democracy is not unique to the U.S. Democracy in a multi-ethnic empire is. To make this work we need aggressive federalism.
And at some point I'll propose an alternative voting system designed to quash tribalism as well.
Stay tuned!
Well, while I do plan some serious poetic justice on the woke, my ultimate aim is rather less draconian then yours.
We had a pretty good country when I was a kid. I want it back for my offspring.
When I was younger, I pushed an ideal and didn't get very far. Today, I push for what we once had, and I am willing to take the Batmobile over the speed limit to get there.
---
Take your talk of yeoman land owners, for example. Maps of Redness vs. population density back up your theory. You are on the right path.
But note how we got off that path. It was Richard Nixon -- a lower right Republican -- who changed the farm subsidy system to encourage consolidation so that small farmers became truckers and their children moved to the big cities to find work, and those who remain in rural America work in the prison industrial complex.
And guess what? There are men and women of the Left who want to are game to have more land holding yeoman tending the farm animals. See Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma."
We need to replace the Mitt Romney's with someone else to create majority coalitions. There are sane people on the Left who can be pulled into the Populist coalition.
Fair enough. The Science is indeed not settled.
I am, however, trying to encourage you to read some of the other posts here. I am stretching out into separate posts material which should be a book. Just as individual chapters of a book can fail to stand on their own merits, so do some of the posts here.
---
As for Mitt Romney, he is part of the Lower Right on my political map. (He needs to trade in his hair gel for breast implants to go with the latest style) I thus have more love for certain lefties (like Russel Brand or Jimmy Carter than I have for Mitt Romney.
And I absolutely agree with you on Reagan. Reagan also deserves black marks for taking the Drug War to the next level, gutting antitrust, and getting Republicans to embrace the Santa Claus School of economics. I will give Reagan kudos for some of his deregulation, and for SDI. Defense is indeed more moral than Mutual Assured Destruction.
well, you may have just lost the "conspiracy theorists" who don't believe the "official" narratives of 9/11, JFK assassination, PLANdemic, and the Jan 6 "insurrection"... and those are a LOT of folks. then there's the few (like me) who see the false political paradigm for what it is. i suppose, "these are not the reactionaries you are looking for". ;-)
My point is that a Grand Unified Conspiracy is unlikely, and even if you exposed it, what's the point. Most people will shrug.
Focus attention on HOW the middle class is being looted and the WHO takes care of itself. Those who favor serfdom will have to come out of the close.
"personnel is policy" is true, but I'm not certain Morton originated it.
I vaguely recall him using it a fair amount. I took one of his courses back in the 90s.
I decided to search. The best I discovered was one attribution to Morton, and a lot of "unknown" origins.
It's a quote worthy of having an ascribable author.
It's certainly in line with what I remember of him, but that dates back to his late YR/CYR days in the early '70's. Not even a lot of contact then, but he made an impression.
Good essay. Lot of food for thought.
Your physiocracy platform is definitely in the populist quadrant. Feel free to drop a link and neener dance.
Hi Fabius, nice post. If you want to strengthen your argument for populism I think you should come up with rebuttals to Kynosarges's 2019 criticisms of it. He had six primary criticisms of populism, which he listed as follows:
1. Right-wing populists have no awareness of the depth of the [societal] problem and the necessity of a massive social transformation.
2. Right-wing populists consider metapolitics irrelevant. They view our plight as strictly a matter of state policy, therefore solvable by the legislative and executive branches (which is understandable given point 1).
3. Right-wing populists do not command parliamentary majorities or sole governments – neither in the past nor in the present, nor likely in the future. They are always in opposition or dependent on coalition partners who are not right-wing populists.
4. The institutional corset of late liberalism narrows the factual scope for political action to such a degree that profound changes are impossible.
5. Right-wing populists offer no grand designs for solutions because they lack a positive alternative framework beyond “liberalism without foreigners” (which is closely linked to points 1 and 2).
6. Right-wing populists are objectively too slow even where they bring about changes. A critical comparison between the development of right-wing populism and demographics during recent decades clearly shows that this approach is impossible solely due to lack of time (ignoring points 1–5)…"
Because of these issues, according to Kynosarges, " [Right wing populists] have no concept of how to actively solve the problems of late modernity or liberalism. They offer no counter-culture that goes beyond reactionary ideas. They become almost apolitical when they merely retreat into their nation-state bunkers (typical for Poland or Slovakia). They lack a dynamic counter-ideal, and they are not at all equipped to propagate such an ideal to the furthest corners of the West (and beyond), as the chief enemy is (still) capable of doing.
The equation of our identity with the liberal state (e.g. the Federal Republic of Germany as the land of the Germans) inevitably leads to disappointments and at best to the realization that this state neither defends nor recognizes our identity, sometimes even destroys it. No Western constitution has a decidedly identitarian foundation, nor is there any trend in that direction. Anyway such a foundation would be incompatible with the self-concept of liberalism (universalism, egalitarianism, individualism) – the left is correct on that point! But right-wing populists believe that liberalism would only need a “right-wing” orientation to solve the problem, thanks to insufficient analysis….
Modernity can only be overcome with the experiences of modernity, not by an utterly impossible return to an earlier or pre-modern era. The profound change that is now necessary is not genuinely political but belongs to the cultural, metapolitical sphere. Such a counter-enlightenment or counter-culture requires – in contrast to the liberalist eclecticism of right-wing populists – a spiritual preparation for a new European myth that binds us to our oldest past and reconciles us with our future. Nothing less than such an attempt at European rebirth is our task and the most promising exit from political modernity."
His full post is here: https://news.kynosarges.org/full-speed-into-the-void/
Regarding what you call "Grovellocracy", I think you might likely enjoy the black comedy "The Death of Stalin", which is about Stalin's inner circle -- all suffering from Grovellocracy -- as Stalin died.
Lastly, I don't call for a full transvaluation of values back into full warrior values -- I think a partial transvaluation is needed, one which balances out warrior and priestly energies.
Excellent stuff!
The purpose of this Substack is to answer some of these objections, to create a truly intellectual populism, as I laid out in my initial battle cry "A Call for Counter Revolution". See Rules 2-7 for metapolitics and dealing with some deep rot.
Regarding a new European myth, I would note that the Reddest states in this country are also the Blackest. The U.S. has always been multi-ethnic. We need to cultivate the idea of Citizen's Privilege.
I absolutely loved "The Death of Stalin!"
My first reply was a bit of a rush. Had an appointment to make.
I will take a good hard look at your link when I get a bit more time. But some more quick answers:
For Objection 3: see Rule 8, especially https://rulesforreactionaries.substack.com/p/how-many-real-reactionaries-do-we
And also the upcoming Rule 11.
For Objection 4: See Rules 2, 3, and 5. And I'll deal with the university system in a future Rule.
For Objection 5: That's what this article is introducing: the full framework. (Actually, one chunk of the framework was Rule 1: Free Trade Isn't.)
For Objection 6: He could be right. We have a LOT of catching up to do. But where do you run off to if things keep going downhill? Argentina??
----
Regarding Harrison Bergeron mode and Christianity, I would note that the New Testament does not say that people have equal abilities. Paul wrote about different people having different spiritual gifts. Jesus taught the parable of the talents. And Jesus had his disciples referring Him as Master until right before the crucifixion, where he gave his closest disciples permission to call him friend.
To understand the New Testament teaching properly, first understand that the promise is not an eternal retirement in the clouds. The promise is having either priestly or leadership positions in the world to come. Do you abuse your position or do you take care of those underneath you? That's the test. Those who pass it well will have crowns in the future. (Yes, there will be rank after the Resurrection.) See:
https://rulesforreactionaries.substack.com/p/an-afterlife-a-nerd-can-believe-in
Contemplate the sentence: "The Captain goes down with the ship."
resistance itself to a Grand Unified Conspiracy is not only unlikely, but was demonstrated over the last 4 years. many individuals have not accepted the official narratives of the conspiracies i noted, among so many more. yet, the masses have been unwilling to do their own investigation into any given one.
here's another one most people have never really investigated, apparently neither has any STATE agency. this lady [thankfully] put together a myriad of evidence which IMHO refutes the official narrative. but only ~220K among the masses who search YouTube have ever seen it, and nothing has become of it because there is an "official narrative".
Route 91: Uncovering the Cover Up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GidVHyh2-Ek
and this keeps occurring, seemingly at an exponential rate. so yes, i agree with you that the masses are not even interested in investigation and evidence. likewise, the masses are not interested in the truth about the conspiracy of the corrupt banking institution, which ultimately allows tyrants to control the nations.
perhaps as things continue to get even more insane than they are currently, that small percentage of interested individuals might grow a bit, but i'm not holding my breath either. ;-)
Here is a case in point: how many minds have been changed by the Hunter Biden laptop scandal? How many in Pennsylvania are shocked that they voted for a zombie senator?
While there are secretive power players, the observable fact is that millions of people are positive on The Narrative.
But that's many of those who vote Left don't realize the degree to which the already rich are subsidized. Packaging that knowledge with an elaborate conspiracy theory just causes most
minds to shut off the message -- no matter how true the conspiracy theory.
It's a Cry Wolf situation. So many wacky conspiracy theories have been floated that lots of people have been innoculated against legit theories. (Much as many on the Right are hardened
against any reasonable global warming theory due to the over the top doom forecasts.)
understood & i already agreed. my point is then how does one convey the very real money conspiracy, when people reject nearly all conspiracies as mere "theory"... well, except for the theory of evolution — there's one they do purchase. i suppose one could try to point out various ways how the rich are subsidized, but the masses will most likely ignore most of that as well. how is it possible to not only fix ignorance, but apathy as well?
I agree with what you say on conspiracy theories. While they shouldn't be discounted, they should not be the driving force within a movement. We can have plenty of time to chase them after we grab the power. Focus on the people's needs first and contrast to the establishment.
Great essay, with your chart providing a useful framing of the relevant political divisions! I detest the Marxcissist authoritarians on the Left, but I also strongly dislike the Mitt Romney vulture-hedge-fund bankster wing of the GOP, so I'm glad to see you charting out the alternative. Also, "grovellocracy" is an excellent term for the victimhood hierarchy we have now!
I'm rather surprised at the positive reception of this post. I meant it as inoculation against the rage from heresies to come. Note how the forthcoming Rules have names that make talking-point-parroting Republicans sad. And the coming blasts at the Santa Claus School of Economics will make them sadder.
I hope this means that there is a large body of people with similar inclinations, and that the Rules to come can help crystallize the ideology.
(The fact that RFK Jr. is getting positive attention from blue collar Republicans is a good sign.)
Personnel is indeed policy, but it's not at all obvious how to do anything about that. The President is capable of firing direct appointees, but the Senate (fully controlled by the Uniparty) is required to confirm them in office in the first place. All the rest of the Deep State bureaucrats are impossible to fire given civil service/union protections.
It isn't just that there wasn't a large stable of ideologically appropriate people waiting in the wings. There probably wasn't, but that's neither here nor there, because the Senate would never have approved them in the first place.
So yes: Trump definitely made mistakes in his staffing and appointment decisions and trusted a lot of people who quite clearly shivved him in the back at every available opportunity. But we all know what the Deep State did to General Flynn.
Your points have much validity, but I stand by my assertion.
The civil service has much in common with academia. Watch the old "Yes, Minister" TV series from Britain to see how it played out there. (Prepare to be entertained. The show is incredibly funny.)
As such, Theory can trump raw data and assertions from the titular leader. This is why "Free Trade Isn't" is Rule 1. Comparative Advantage is a principle esteemed by economists on both the Left and Right. Ricardo's proof is particularly elegant. But it doesn't take into account the welfare state.
Painting “conspiracy theories” with such a broad brush does a disservice to those brave and determined enough to do the hard labor of meticulously dismantling State narratives. Seeing videos of WTC 7 collapsing jarred me out of a great deal of ignorance and apathy, along with millions of others. I agree that it is counterproductive to myopically focus on even real conspiracies, and critical to focus energy on creating more equitable systems which will appeal to all but the most brain dead.
Very provocative essay, thank you.
you make a very good counter point because many people have had their eyes opened by further investigating various "official narratives". millions? yes, i bet so!
WTC7 collapse (announced even prior to its collapse) was certainly one eye opener for anyone actually paying attention. the official "pancake" theory narrative for the Twin Towers in spite of their free fall is yet another blatant red flag which architects & engineers pointed out... but what do they know as compared with politicians in Mordor?!? ;-)
so i do believe exemplifying various forms of evidence (as did the lady who investigated the Route 91 Vegas tragedy) is a very good method of getting more people to recognize just how much the STATE has lied over the years. want to help folks better understand the reason why public schools are a dismal failure? show them that they are NOT a failure to those who designed the construct. etc.
The Prussian Connection - UNDERGROUND HISTORY (of American Education)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ho7PPR93XJk
sure, all these millions of folks who have been made privy to such truths haven't yet rallied to overthrow the tyrannical STATE. however, we've not yet reached a critical mass yet either, and let's not forget that the overwhelming majority continue to be indoctrinated by STATE "education". ;-)
I recently learned about https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
It seems to mirror your sentiment.
There are serious problems with Georgism. This will be a post or three at some point.
I do agree with the notion that the rich should not be able to do pyramid rent-seeking with land. But taxing all the ground rent of land means Use it or Lose it. No more private wildlife preserves.
And if the land you grew up on goes way up in value because of come heres, you have to leave -- without compensation. Georgism is gentle genocide.
Good points. It certainly needs refinement if it's ever practiced. Some exemption policy is in order. The biggest risk I see with taxes is the concentration of capital at the collecting party. To avoid that it could be split with respect to hierarchical territorial structure.
> And if the land you grew up on goes way up in value because of come heres, you have to leave -- without compensation.
Isn't the whole point of Georgism that you can leave _with_ a hefty compensation by selling if the land grows in value?
No. If land is taxed heavily based on ground rent, then it keeps the value from going up as fast. You become a renter instead of an owner.
This also throws a monkey wrench into the process of valuing land. The more you tax ground rent, the harder it is to measure.
Finally, we run into the problem of land that is worth less than its undisturbed state. A recently clear cut forest or declined neighborhood pays taxes on a value that is higher than the market price of the land.
It took me a while to parse the first "it". I don't think the scenario of converting the owner to renter is peculiar to Georgian tax. That seems to me a far right side of the Laffer curve for any tax.
Maybe I'm hallucinating but I think at the core of Georgian approach is a sane idea of taxing raw input. It may be outdated in that land is not the only significant instance. Mined energy resources, raw materials, water, wild life come to mind.
The trouble with concentration of power persists. This tax would be easy to levy and prone to centralization. Effort is necessary to make it as local as possible (limiting the distance at which the money may be used?).
Partial Georgism could work. Make land taxes progressive and give all citizens a deductible. This preserves market value and prevents rent seeking on the Blackrock scale.
A carbon tax is sort of Georgist: it is a tax on using an excess share of the atmosphere's ability to absorb new carbon without unpleasant consequences. (Or, if that amount is far higher than advertised, it is also a tax on extracting carbon fuels that future generations could use. Labor opportunity is ongoing. Tax labor so people don't work and work doesn't get done. Tax carbon future extraction and you do lose the value of that carbon fuel now, but you gain the use of that carbon fuel in the future. So even if the threat of global warming is a hoax or boo-boo, a carbon tax makes more sense than a labor tax.)
And a tax on Internet domains would make hoarding less profitable. Win-win!
No argument here.