Dwight Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex, a fancy way of saying that if government buys from industry and hires people from industry, you will have regulatory capture or bureaucrats working indirectly for industry while spending taxpayer money.
The same pattern applies to any industry that is regulated or funded by government. In the same way that the Uniparty came from the bipartisan desire to work together efficiently, when government interacts with industry, a quid pro quo emerges.
To really understand how this situation got out of control, we have to look at the transition from the Reagan to Clinton years. Reagan intensified the federal government by withholding funding from those who did not follow the federal line; Bush I expanded this to include ideological objectives; Clinton used this to force diversity on everyone.
Coming after the lackluster Bush years and the LA riots, Bill Clinton saw himself facing a two-headed monster: how to reboot the economy and improve “race relations,” as it was called back then. The former he handled with Rubinomics, the latter with an emphasis on diversity.
Under Clinton, affirmative action accelerated, crackdowns on racism intensified, investigation of insurance fraud church fires as hate crimes increased, and Black people took front and center in most of his speeches and as the people featured in imagery from his administration.
Just as Gen X began to graduate college, the Clinton motto of “diversity is our strength” and “it takes a village” replaced the WASP-based view of America with a new vision of pluralism, pacifism, and civil rights. This created the greatest swelling of the bureaucracy in history as it transitioned to the diversity agenda.
Where the Reagan and Bush era had backed off of the welfare state, the first Clinton term involved cutting it back and replacing it with diversity-oriented programs. These were bound to expand over time, but by the second Clinton term, had grown large enough to strangle a once-productive economy.
Not surprisingly, America slid into the lead-up to the third millennium AD with a lackluster economy, stalled hiring, and general malaise settling on the population which was reminiscent of the latter half of the Carter administration. Funny how doing the same thing produces the same results even twenty years later.
In the broader picture, this showed us that since WW2, America had headed Left with brief interruptions by Nixon, Reagan, and later Trump, but otherwise it stayed on the same agenda of Keynesian socialism with a foreign policy based on protecting energy and trade interests.
Clinton also presided over the internet boom and the outsourcing boom which reduced the cost of everyday goods to new lows. Thanks to cheap Chinese labor, the everyday products that had previously been expensive were now affordable, but the rot caused by wealth redistribution was already slowing the economy.
Most of this got forgotten in the chaos after the September 11, 2001 attacks because our economy faced an even bigger threat then as people stopped flying planes, effectively paralyzing an industry that was a cornerstone of many managed stock funds, resulting in the threat of bankruptcy to retirement accounts and investments designed to outpace inflation.
With a brief break for Bush II, who was sort of in the middle on most issues, the country then went back into straight Leftism with Barack Obama, who not surprisingly was the result of all that indoctrination during the Clinton years. He restarted the Carter program and began further bankrupting the country.
Right now however all things are caving in within the world of democracy. With simultaneous massive immigration waves in Europe and the USA, diversity has been shown to be White Replacement; we all now accept that whether we like him or not, Hitler was right about diversity being an abyss, and the West was stupid to adopt it just to be anti-Hitler enough.
Globalism has turned into a nightmare because China has revealed that it and the BRICS, like diversity, want to replace us. Our substitutes for the WASPs — Italian, Irish, Jewish, Arab, and Hispanic bureaucrats and politicians — have not been performing at the same level.
Even more, our society is in a competence crisis brought on by affirmative action and ideological nepotism. All our leaders know the party line, but most of them seem unable to handle even basic tasks without falling back on the agenda and narrative of their ideology despite these methods not working.
Riots burn our cities, looters deplete the economy further, a record-high budget and deficit devalue our currency, and now we have yet another scandal which dwarfs Watergate as our pResident becomes embroiled in a multi-decade corruption scandal worthy of Tammany Hall:
The family name helped James and Hunter Biden when they took over hedge fund Paradigm Global Advisors in 2006, before Joe Biden was gearing up for his second presidential bid.
When James and Hunter asked Wall Street veteran Charles Provini to serve as the fund’s president, he saw the business model up close. While the uncle and nephew team knew little about running a hedge fund, “the story was that they had relationships with different unions and that they would anticipate being able to get union funding or union investments into the fund,” Provini said in an interview with the Journal. The pair said these relationships flowed from Joe Biden’s political career, Provini said.
Joe Biden would occasionally join business calls Provini had with James and Hunter Biden. “I was a little star-struck at the time perhaps,” Provini said. “I think most of the things that he was saying were just pleasantries,” he said. “It might have been for credibility.” Topics included Provini’s work running the fund and a lawsuit that had been filed against James and Hunter Biden related to the company, he said.
We have also been exposed to the “deep state,” which is the permanent unelected bureaucracy started by Clinton to administer the diversity agenda. These government workers do whatever is necessary to keep growing diversity as an industry independent of whatever administration is in charge.
The proof of that comes from a recent study which found that when presidents lean against the Left, someone keeps investing heavily in Left-leaning causes and promoting those who support them:
They found that liberties, or DEI initiatives, put in place for LGBT groups yielded higher stock returns during the Trump presidency, which rolled back many supportive LGBT rights, as opposed to the Obama presidency, when ground-breaking policies were implemented. Conversely, liberties aimed at veterans generated higher stock returns during Obama’s presidency, when the administration dealt with military budget cuts placed on them as part of a debt ceiling negotiation, as opposed to during the Trump presidency, when a lot of those military budgets restrictions were reversed.
Some of this will be the backlash against the current administration by speculators. If the president says something and you think he is a moron, after all, it makes sense to buy stock in whatever he dislikes. Whenever he experiences a dip in popularity, your investment will increase in value.
But even more we see an entrenched bureaucracy that will keep pushing the same programs because their jobs depend on them. Jobs feed families, and in politics, the loss of a program or direction means loss of many jobs. As a result, the many people hired during the Clinton years are still pushing hard for those initiatives.
The point of a “deep state” is that it starts with the bureaucracy, but because they write the grant approvals, warrants, and tax documents, they are people you need in your pocket. If you are not deep state, you are little people. If you do not have a friend in the deep state, you are in trouble as a businessperson.
It was the same way with the Communist party and the Jacobins. The bureaucracy controlled the money by making it dependent on the bureaucracy, at which point private business went along with the farce and anyone who dissented was arrested and possibly executed.
This shows us the bare essence of Leftism: thirdworldism. In the third world, a few uber-wealthy warlords control the wealth and hand out favors for loyalty. It is a government made of pure quid pro quo. In that sense, it is the most natural human government, sort of like the natural state of humanity is subsistence poverty and disease.
Our ancestors formed the first world governments from a different idea: order. Instead of loyalty to people, citizens had to be loyal to civilization; this is what separated us from tyranny. Order requires honesty and shared social institutions in order to have efficiency and accountability (its substitute for Darwinism).
Naturally, as soon as you set up something good, those who have troubles blame their troubles on the power that rules them because this is easier than blaming themselves. Consequently they adorn treason in the camouflage of morality and take positions in the system to subvert, sabotage, and replace it with thirdworldism.
They make their living in the “pocket” between when a conjectural idea is advanced and when it is revealed to be empty. For example, climate change is our latest theory pretending to be reality:
The IPCC lead author cited British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s latest policy changes and leading Republican politicians in the United States “who do not recognize the scientific reality of climate change”.
“What bothers me is the fact that science, for a part of the population that might be growing, is becoming a matter of belief, opinion, even ideology,” said Gemenne.
Current climate-related damage is happening with global temperatures at around 1.2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and as the world lurches towards breaching the key 1.5C target agreed in Paris in 2015.
They do not tell you that the entire science is based on computer models that may not include all of the relevant data, a phenomenon known as p-hacking, and that there is such a trend in the scientific community that very few who disagree with the trend are going to speak up.
They co-wrote an article published in 2014 that coined the now-common academic term “p-hacking,” which describes cherry-picking data or analyses to make insignificant results look statistically credible. Their early work contributed to a shift in research methods, including the practice of sharing data so other scientists can try to replicate published work.
Much as Political Correctness forces ideological conformity by demonizing anything but what is desired, and rationalizing individuals sabotage every option but what they want with constant critique, p-hackers remove any data except that which agrees with their thesis and then end up with a “valid” argument that is nonrepresentative of reality.
However, in social groups, all that matters is what focuses the group. Any resemblance to external reality is purely secondary. Diversity unified the people around a vision of peace instead of racial conflict, even if it turned out to be wrong; it also unified the bureaucracy around a new “war” that provided jobs for everyone.
Perhaps more importantly, it fit into the pattern of the modern era, which is Revolution as the only method of moving past an obstacle created by our past pacifistic compromises and bipartisan tradeoffs:
Hollywood has long been obsessed with revolutions. There are uprisings in other popular movie franchises like “The Hunger Games,” “Harry Potter” and “Avatar.”
These fictional universes also show how difficult it is for revolutionary leaders to recruit and organize others to help fight for their cause. Sometimes, the cost to fight might be too high, as the government in power could imprison or execute anyone who tries to change the system. This discourages participation in the revolution. If the cost is lower, it might be easier to recruit revolutionaries.
In real life, recruiting others to join a revolution can becomes easier over time if more and more people participate. The more people there are, the harder it becomes for the government to punish all the people who are rebelling. This, in turn, makes it safer to join the cause, implying that more people may join in.
Unfortunately for humanity, this means that we have narrative blindness or tunnel vision in that once we identify one threat, we act against it, but then miss all other threats in an environment where there are usually multiple dangers, risks, and enemies at any given time, even if we ignore most of them:
Recent research indicates that humans have a “finite pool of attention” such that “when we pay more attention to one threat, our attention to other threats decreases” (Sisco MR et al. 2023).
History will record that because of an obsession with Hitler, the Civil War, civil rights, and the LA riots, America transformed itself from a culture into a political system based on redistributing money to the underclass so they buy low-quality products and keep the economy churning in the Rubinomics sense.
At this point, however, we are watching the Berlin 1945 moment for liberalism arrive. It turns out that pacifism, or ignoring threats in order to enforce compromise and unity, does not work out so well, but it takes a number of decades to get to the point where that is visible.
The diversity/immigration crisis has forced democracy to admit that it is in a corner. It cannot solve its problems without debunking its precious myth of equality, and any action which is compatible with equality will not solve its problems. Regime change — and more importantly, regime type change — is on the winds.