The political economy of ripping off tinkzorg

Let us consider the writings of tinkzorg:



[Capitalist systems are inherently unstable machines for making profits that often destroy societies when they malfunction.] If one were a primitivist, or perhaps an anarchist, one could just say,

“Well I am against such machines. They are always fragile and will collapse.” The problem is that you can’t be outside of them, or at least not for long. Anyone who, in the face of a machine of infinite growth, says, “I shall not compete on this terrain—I know that this will one day it will crash,” will just be run over by it. In the long run the primitivist may be right. But by the time he is right, he will be dead or outcompeted into obsolescence by the users of the machine. Even in the aftermath of its collapse, he will not have the resources to implement a new society.

[The Pax Americana] may not crash around us tomorrow, but it is clear that the infinite growth Pax Americana depended on is coming to an end. One cannot opt out of this, and any long-term civilizational change is beyond the reach of an individual (or even a collection of individuals). You are forced to play the game into which you have been born. But knowledge of what has happened before and what is happening around you can help you try to position yourself as well as possible for the future, and also to train up your children so they likewise can navigate their way through the slowing of this machine of infinite growth. And (of course I say this, in the grand tradition of the idiot nerd, the fool autodidact, and the mad monk) the knowledge and hopefully eventually the wisdom of how human society functions serves as its own immaterial reward, one which brings a kind of equanimity and inner peace to people in a world that is ultimately beyond their control.


[We have seen] a widespread economic dynamic where wealth ”creation” by conquest and dispossession has become the American norm. … consider for a second the massive expansion of the ”gig economy”, which is often cynically hailed as the result of some sort of breakthrough in information technology. In reality it is anything but; to take the ”ride-share” company of Uber as an example, it is merely a taxi company with a phone app, in a world where nearly every taxi company in the developed world has a similar phone app. The real ”innovation” of Uber lies in simply defining its taxi drivers as contractors rather than employees, shuffling over a lot of costs onto the drivers that other taxi companies have to pay for out of their own pockets. Uber as a company has certainly made a few individuals at the top incredibly rich, but this is through directly making other people poor, rather than the ”power of innovation” or some such nonsense.

… the progressive political line has become one of wealth transfer through open discrimination (by having companies and institutions hire certain groups at the expense of others), or wealth transfer through forced subsidies of a constantly growing cadre of managers and commissars. When Donald Trump tried to forbid companies that received federal money from paying for ”diversity training”, he didn’t just upset people’s moral sensibilities; he threatened an increasing number of rice bowls reserved for the young scions of elite America.




Having failed in its imperial wars abroad, the US elite and professional classes today prepare themselves mentally and politically for their next big struggle, and their increasingly bellicose rhetoric is part and parcel to formulating a workable casus belli against the hated masses of american kulaks, people who have grown too fat and lazy and undeserving of the increasingly meager wealth they can still lay claim to. For the temerity of working for higher wages than illegal immigrants, or demanding political power through their votes, they will have to be destroyed in order to save the people that really matter.


…[Soviet logic] was in many ways very different from the economic and political logic now driving the elite of the United States to frantically try to unperson a majority of their own population.

The upshot of history not repeating itself is that in the US, far more people can – and probably will – become ”kulaks” in the days ahead than were ever tarred with that label in the USSR. To wit: if you are a truck driver, you are a potential kulak, because your dispossession could possibly lead to cheaper prices for the professional elite, who live their lives as consumers, not producers, of physical goods. If you are a college educated white male, you are definitely a kulak, because your dispossession means that the job you would have had can go to someone else. If you own a video equipment store, you are also certainly a kulak, because as a member of the ”petty bourgeoisie”, you do not have the kinds of profit margins that would make it possible for you to hire diversity consultants. If people buy their video equipment from Amazon or Walmart, that is more wealth freed from the hands of the inefficient and put in the hands of people who know how to give urban professionals a slice of the take.


…Far from being some principled opponent to this war against middle America, the top strata of the American business world is likely to join in on it; those companies that don’t will increasingly find themselves under siege from the nexus of NGOs, government, and corporate power that has matured over the last few decades. When Blackrock and the NASDAQ Stock Exchange team up to strong-arm private companies to fall in line with the new progressive mandates, the potted ideologues of the legacy Right can only provide them with moral and rhetorical cover; indeed, their very own survival and class position hinges upon the bribes they are paid in exchange for loyally putting lipstick on all manner of increasingly rancid pigs.

Whether all of this can potentially lead to real civil disorder and possibly even actual civil war is an interesting question.  … The coming war against the american kulak likely cannot be avoided, no matter what anyone does or does not do today, because it is not a war over ideology or culture, but a war of survival for the elites. They have no choice but to do what they do.

The reasons for why many so-called political dissidents on the Right seem to harbor an equally strong hatred for their own countrymen as the Left they supposedly oppose, is an interesting topic that would require an essay all on its own. But if you put that fairly self-serving fear and loathing of ordinary Americans aside, the future of the American republic looks both chaotic and uncertain. Going to war against your own population without having that population fight back is, to understate things just a tad, a very delicate process. It is an ancient political lesson that one should give gifts and bestow privileges sparingly, because once given, it becomes nearly impossible to safely take those things away. In a country like the US, with its very real federated political structure, with each state having its own citizen militia that takes orders from the state governor, with huge regional and cultural differences and more registered guns than people, a great many things once granted, will now have to be taken away. It would, putting it mildly, take some incredibly skilled politicians and gifted statesmen to pull such a feat of political and economic sleight-of-hand off without the marks getting awfully restive, or having critical parts of the bureaucracy shatter due to the system’s growing contradictions.

Thus, perhaps I should simply end this essay by leaving the reader to ponder a very basic question: do you see any of those incredibly skilled politicians and gifted statesmen anywhere around you today?





“Intelligence and rationalism are not in themselves revolutionary. But technical thinking is foreign to all social traditions: the machine has no tradition. One of Karl Marx’s seminal sociological discoveries is that technology is the true revolutionary principle, beside which all revolutions based on natural law are antiquated forms of recreation. A society built exclusively on progressive technology would thus be nothing but revolutionary; but it would soon destroy itself and its technology.”

– Carl Schmitt

Carl Schmitt [wrote in] The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy. …:

 ”In the history of political ideas, there are epochs of great energy and times becalmed, times of motionless status quo. Thus the epoch of monarchy is at an end when a sense of the principle of kingship, of honor, has been lost, if bourgeois kings appear who seek to prove their usefulness and utility instead of their devotion and honor. The external apparatus of monarchical institutions can remain standing very much longer after that. But in spite of it monarchy’s hour has tolled. The convictions inherent in this and no other institution then appear antiquated; practical justifications for it will not be lacking, but it is only an empirical question whether men or organizations come forward who can prove themselves just as useful or even more so than these kings and through this simple fact brush aside monarchy.”

What Schmitt is saying is that when the legitimating claim for a particular form of elite is used up, when people no longer believe in the concepts or claims that underpin a particular system or claim to rule, the extinction of that particular elite becomes a foregone conclusion.  ….

Though it didn’t start out that way, the war in Afghanistan morphed over time into a sort of modern Verdun for the liberal world order, a Verdun in a very ideological sense. For the french in the first world war, the name Verdun was made into the symbol of the french national spirit and willingness to win. It was the battle that defined the spirit of the entire war. Afghanistan, almost a century later, came to take on a similar ideological life of its own, now as the focal point of an entire worldview and historical epoch. It was in Afghanistan more than anywhere else, that the rubber hit the road for the post-Soviet, hegemonically liberal, ”end of history” era of human flourishing that Francis Fukuyama so famously (and somewhat ambivalently) christened just as the Soviet Union was rattling its final death throes.

It was in Afghanistan that not just a new rules-based international order was to be formulated, but also the new liberal ”world spirit”, in the Hegelian sense of the term. Where Hegel saw the spirit of the new age in the figure of Napoleon riding through Jena, the spirit of the liberal age increasingly came to be consciously and rhetorically centered, at least in part, in the figure of the afghan woman finally getting a chance to play football, celebrate pride month, and studying critical gender theory. …

Afghanistan turned into a testbed for every single innovation in technocratic PMC governance … the full force of the entire NGO world, the brightest minds of that international government-in-waiting without a people to be beholden to, were given a playground with nearly infinite resources at their disposal. There was so much money sloshing around at the fingertips of these educated technocrats that it became nearly impossible to spend it all fast enough …. Western society today is openly ruled by a managerial class. Where kings once claimed a divine right to rule, and the bolsheviks of old claimed a right to rule as messiahs of a future kingdom on this earth (bearing a conspicuously strong resemblance to a very old tradition of messianic christianity with the serial numbers filed off, by the way) the technocrats of today base their claims to lordship not necessarily on the idea of the democratic will of the people, but on the historical inevitability of technocracy as such. Just as there once was a properly ”socialist” way to understand great literature, there is today a properly technical, scientific, or ”critical” (in the academic sense of the term) way of understanding war, nation building, cinema, primitive marriage rituals, or whatever else. Our managerial leaders deserve to rule us, because managerialism as a world ethos is the only means of effecting functional rule … Kings ruled in the epoch of monarchies, because only kings could rule, or at least so they all claimed. Technocrats rule our post-Soviet era for very much the same reason; they are, according to the legitimating narrative of our age, the only ones that can rule. Much like you can’t put a monkey in charge of a battleship, you can’t possibly hope to rule a modern country without being part of the educated managerial class. And just like the kings of old, our technocrats at one point claimed (and even enjoyed) a form of quasi-magical power in the eyes of their peasantry; a view once commonly shared that they could use the very thing that made them rightful rulers – science, logic, rationality, data – to lay on hands, cure ills, and improve society.

Put plainly: managers, through the power of managerialism, were once believed to be able to mobilize science and reason and progress to accomplish what everyone else could not, and so only they could secure a just and functional society for their subjects, just as only the rightful kings of yore could count on Providence and God to do the same thing. At their core, both of these claims are truly metaphysical, because all claims to legitimate rulership are metaphysical. It is when that metaphysical power of persuasion is lost that kings or socialists become ”bourgeois”, in Schmitt’s terms. They have to desperately turn toward providing proof, because the genuine belief is gone. But once a spouse starts demanding that the other spouse constantly prove that he or she hasn’t been cheating, the marriage is already over, and the divorce is merely a matter of time, if you’ll pardon the metaphor.


…It is not just that the elite class is incompetent – even kings could be incompetent without undermining belief in monarchy as a system – it is that they are so grossly, spectacularly incompetent that they walk around among us as living rebuttals of meritocracy itself. It is that their application of managerial logic to whatever field they get their grubby mitts on – from homelessness in California to industrial policy to running a war – makes that thing ten times more expensive and a hundred times more dysfunctional. To make the situation worse, the current elites seem almost serene in their willful destruction of the very fields they rely on for legitimacy. When the ”experts” go out of their way to write public letters about how covid supposedly only infects people who hold demonstrations in support of ”structural white supremacy”, while saying that Black Lives Matter demonstrations pose no risk of spreading the virus further, this amounts to the farmer gleefully salting his own fields to make sure nothing can grow there in the future. How can anyone expect the putative peasants of our social order to ”trust the science”, when the elites themselves are going out of their way, against all reason and the tenets of basic self-preservation, to make such a belief completely impossible even for those who really, genuinely, still want to believe?

The managerial class increasingly appears as a sort of funhouse mirror inversion of the doomed russian nobility of the late tsarist era; they no longer know how to run a country and only seem to parasitize on the body politic while giving almost nothing of value in return. In tsarist Russia, the nobility proved increasingly incapable of winning Russia’s wars or running its ministries, making their legitimating narratives proclaiming them to possess some natural-born right and capacity for rulership increasingly impossible to believe in. In modern America, it is the meritocrats who now openly lack any merit or ability to rule, quickly undermining the ability of the average person to believe in the very foundational claims behind the managerial order. And by what right does the collective of non-divine kings rule? To borrow from Schmitt: by the same right as the collective of stupid and ignorant technocrats. In other words, by virtue of simply not having been replaced yet. Nothing more.





… ”wokeness” in today’s America is arguably the primary sorting mechanism for the elite. The purpose of a sorting mechanism is literally to exclude people, but that is far from its only requirement. Lotteries exclude losers as well, but this exclusion is at least supposed to be based purely on chance. Given that elite parents by and large want their own kids to remain inside the elite, a sorting mechanism has to have some accessible way of stacking the deck, where preparation and foreknowledge conspire to help some at the expense of the hoi polloi. On the other end of things, a sorting mechanism should not just be a passive yardstick of success or failure, but an active and malleable standard which can be used to actively cull the competition. Being able to ”cancel” people under various pretenses is not so much an anti-social bug in a system of elite selection; it is a necessary and vital feature; cancelling someone is the same as taking them out of the race.


In societies where the elite forms some sort of warrior caste, the solution to there being too many unlanded sons is to quite literally come up with some way to have those sons kill each other, or at least go somewhere else to get killed, such as by fighting saracens in the holy land. A less martial society may have fewer direct options for getting rid of surplus elites, but that does not mean the problem somehow goes away. The less that is done to deal with surplus elites, the more unruly they will become, and the more direct or indirect ways to alleviate the pressure will be introduced by parents hoping that their own children will make the cut. If there’s more chairs than people, a game of musical chairs tends to be a pretty sedate affair. If there’s suddenly twenty people and one chair, you can expect things to get pretty rowdy!

This is all to say that most, if not all, of the ”flaws” of wokeness and ”CRT” being lambasted by conservatives, aren’t really flaws at all. As an example, the notion that CRT is intended to be a form of ”blood libel” ”against white people” becomes somewhat less convincing once you realize that the high priestesses of this new faith is typically an affluent WASP woman, in many cases one who can trace their lineage back to earlier generations of elites. This is not a bug, nor is it even hypocrisy or confusion, but practical ideology. It is certainly not self-hatred. The US is currently in a crisis of elite overproduction, and there are far more contestants than there are seats at prestigious institutions. CRT or wokeness is not the name of some discrete set of ideas or a coherent ideology as much as it is a language or toolset one can use to compete against other people by means of a form of ritualized social combat. Unlike in the Aztec empire, the losers of this particular kind of ritual combat do not run the risk of being sacrificed at top of a bloodsoaked temple pyramid, but they do risk being marginalized and ultimately excluded from elite competition. The incredible flexibility inherent in this system – where a white elite woman can, without dropping a beat, lecture a black janitor for his internalized racism and lack of moral character – means that the people who win are the ones who are the most ruthless, the most cunning, and (more importantly) the ones that have the means to go to private schools or hire essay coaches and so on. Officially, skin color matters a great deal, but in real terms the people that win do so because they are masters of the insanely complicated set of rules, exceptions, and kinks inherent to the language.



…the actual effect of the woke takeover of America’s education system has among other things been the creation of an inegalitarian order where poor minorities from the ghetto are left with much reduced chances to climb the social ladder compared to the previous, slightly less inegalitarian order.

… Given the sort of constraints and pressures faced by the kind of people who belong to the social class in America that actually become circuit court judges, it is a grave mistake to think that wokeness is anything but an efficient solution to real, intractable problems. People who belong to the American social caste that produces circuit court judges really do need some means of regulating elite competition. In other words, they need a way to cancel people, to unperson them, they need a set of tools and rules and methods for partaking in ”combat” by which the weak can be culled and the strong can triumph. The alternative to this regulated elite competition – and wokeness is not the only possible shape such a competition can take – is to simply have seats at the elite table given out by lottery.

Nobody who belongs to an elite that considers it normal to spend many more times the median wage of an average American just to make sure Junior has every possible advantage in the rat race wants a lottery to happen. A society that picks its elite based on wokeness, whatever else one may say about it, is still a society where rich people can do something that poor people can’t, which is to pay tens of thousands of dollars a year to send their kids to preparatory schools and have it actually confer a real, meaningful advantage.

”Guns don’t kill people, people do”, an often-mocked saying goes. But this saying does get at something fundamentally correct, and it is equally correct when discussing things like CRT. It is not necessarily the existence of competition that destroys a society and turns people into soulless robots or woke apparatchiks desperate to parrot the party line, it is the stakes of the competition that matters. Gather twenty kids and have them play a game of musical chairs over half a bar of candy, and you might see some light shoving towards the end. Gather twenty increasingly precarious elite adolescents and their neurotic helicopter parents and have them play the same game of musical chairs where the price is a spot at Harvard, and you would – quite unironically – do well to expect the parents to pour rat poison into the drinks of the hapless teenagers before the contest, blatant acts of malicious sabotage, and serious incidents of physical violence during the game. Similarly, switch out CRT for something else and you will quickly find that thing – whether it be horse-racing, knitting, or dueling with pistols – swamped with all the symptoms of desperate, no holds barred elite competition, with all the social ills you’d care to name following in its wake. …


Tainter’s best known work is called The Collapse of Complex Societies, and it is a work that gives us a useful model for conceptualizing some of the practical problems surrounding modern CRT and its role as an elite selection mechanism. Tainter’s basic argument is that humans almost always tend towards a one way approach to solving problems they encounter in life: by adding complexity. To illustrate this, the most basic (but certainly not the easiest) way to hunt an animal requires no tools or weapons at all. Utilizing the fact that we as a species sweat and are incredible long distance runners, humans can actually hunt gazelles by simply chasing one particular animal doggedly over a period of days, until the animal eventually collapses from exhaustion. At that point all one has to do is find a nearby rock or heavy branch and club the tired animal to death. This method of hunting is obviously pretty demanding, so over the millenia we’ve come up with many tools to make hunting safer, easier and more painless. Every new tool tends to be more complex than the last – a neolithic bow is not very complex compared to a modern hunting rifle – in turn requiring more and more time and resources in order to function, but rewarding us with greater comfort and capability for the end user.

Almost without fail, when human societies encounter new problems, they try to solve them by means of some new invention or social process that adds to the total level of complexity of that society. This is not bad in and of itself – we wouldn’t be doing this if complexity didn’t genuinely solve real problems – but there are certain limits to this. The first limit is inescapable: complexity tends to allow for efficiency (indeed, that is one of the reasons we love it so much), and an efficient system is by definition not a robust system that tolerates shocks well. A just-in-time logistics system illustrates this principle perfectly; if everything is just in time, then any disruption to circulation means that the entire system seizes up. If you have a lot of spare parts lying around in case something goes wrong, you’re actually not even using a just-in-time system.

The second limit is somewhat more subtle but over time it becomes equally intractable: complexity has diminishing returns. Put another way, the costs of complexity can grow linearly or even exponentially all the way up into infinity, but the added benefit invariably decreases over time. To illustrate this, take the concept of ”the internet of things”. This once-popular Silicon Valley meme is increasingly hard to take seriously today, but even looking at it during its heyday, consider what it actually promised to deliver to humanity. Instead of an ordinary fridge you’d have a new, ”smart” fridge that could then send you notifications to buy milk next time you visited the grocery store (and, realistically, said fridge would then sell all your personal data to the highest bidder). It is very easy to imagine such a ”smart” fridge costing almost twice as much and being almost twice as complex as an ordinary fridge from the 90s. It is another thing entirely to imagine that you would be getting double the perceived usefulness out of it. For most people, keeping your food cold is more or less what a fridge is supposed to do, and here new fridges offer no benefit over old ones. Whatever added advantage one gets from slapping an AI, a bunch of sophisticated optical sensors, and an internet connection to a fridge is likely to fall very short of the added costs and very real drawbacks of doing so.

Where societies start running into real, regime level crises is when their preferred method of solving a problem (making things more complex and more centralized) end up actually making problems worse rather than better, through a combination of increased fragility and diminishing returns. Societies that run into this dilemma rarely decide to voluntarily go in the other direction and reduce complexity while they can still safely do so; the social reality inside any such society is that nobody wants to be the one that loses out. Complexity is therefore retained, even when it starts doing more harm than good, and even past the point where system itself starts breaking down, the go-to solution to new problems will still be to add new physical or social technologies in spite of the fact that they stopped being affordable a long time ago.

Sooner or later, this process will break down. Further attempts to add complexity run into such resistance that they fail outright, and complexity is then increasingly taken away from society by force. Civil strife begins in earnest, barbarians sweep in, or just-in-time grain shipments stop arriving. Each new crisis forces a rationalization and downsizing of complexity back to levels that are actually possible to maintain. At some point, this process of breakdown and simplification also slows and eventually halts, as society stabilizes at a more sustainable level.

The most central aspect of CRT (and, mutatis mutandis, the entire political moment we are living through) is deeply connected to this dynamic. If one accepts Turchin’s thesis of elite overproduction as pointing to something real, and elite competition as one of the driving causes of political and social instability in the United States, then one should also acknowledge that the elites’ preferred solution to this crisis of overproduction is a haphazard, desperate, and widely unpopular turn toward centralization and increased complexity at almost any cost.



…The United States still operates on a fairly decentralized, bottom-up political model. For all the departures made from the original republic envisioned by the founding fathers, the American system retains its political federalism to an unique extent, especially when compared to the centralized, unitary state model that dominates Europe. But decentralized models are inherently inefficient when compared to centralized ones, meaning less surplus resources can be squeezed out of them to benefit those at the top. In order to really maximize the living standards of ”Blue America”, especially the struggling parts of that nation within the nation, any remaining traces of federalism, political localism, or mechanisms of self-determination have to be done away with. The angry parents now going to meetings to protest what their kids are being taught represents a barbaric, unwanted anachronism: the American idea that those living in rural Virginia should have any say in what is being taught in schools in rural Virginia is a political concession that the system can quite literally no longer afford to make.

Centralization – and therefore complexity – must increase. The benefits of that process will go to a smaller and smaller slice at the top end of American society – precisely the sort of people who happen to be in favor of things such as CRT, by the way – while the costs will be borne by everyone else. That is more or less the shape of the progressive project as such, looking at its broadest possible strokes. Along the way, many things will have to be sacrificed, including local political self-determination of any kind, not just limited to the realm of school textbooks. Having encountered a problem of elite overproduction, blue America is reaching for the only solution it knows how to deploy: increasing complexity, adding new layers of employment, regulation and control, and letting everyone else deal with the fallout.

One way to understand the angry parents crowding the school board meetings of today is that the silent majority is finally heeding the tocsin bell being rung by the conservative radicals, thronging to defend truth and justice from the scourge of the anti-American ideology that is CRT. This is a flattering view, but it is also likely to be proven incredibly wrong by the end of this decade. A more humble interpretation is that the American system is simply starting to buckle under the stress of useless, harmful complexity it can no longer afford to maintain, and that many of the people who reap none of the rewards but pay all of the costs are starting to reach a painful breaking point. That’s not at all to say that CRT is not a hateful and socially corrosive ideology that many parents find incredibly offensive and un-American. It is however to say that at this point, the camel cannot muster the strength to carry many more piles of useless straw, regardless of whether that straw is called Critical Race Theory or something else entirely. This is in fact good news for conservatism, because quite frankly it means that even if it marshals its incredible reservoirs of incompetence, delusion and institutional grifting to successfully ruin this particular moment, it will not be able to fuck things up for itself forever. The problem is simply too big for even the tender mercies of Conservatism, Inc to smother in the cradle. The anger that is being expressed today is organic and will not go away anytime soon, even if or when the issues of the day change. As such, while conservatives can certainly hope to ride this angry tiger, to harness its energy for constructive political ends, they will not be able to truly domesticate it, nor can they hope to kill or even abjure it for long.


…a massive diversion of even more of America’s resources into the wonder that is Silicon Valley would, at this point, at best result in something akin to the Internet of Things: a new way to do what we’ve already done, but more expensive and with tacit surveillance built into the object. All told, Silicon Valley can probably build your kids a playground that sells their medical info to the CCP, charging ten times the cost of a playground that doesn’t, but it is less and less clear whether they can revolutionize the act of playing itself, or any other act of human flourishing for that matter. Today, even the grandees of various social media empires and -technologies seem to harbor a desire to protect their own kids from the effect of their own creations. It is doubtful that Henry Ford saw any reason to shield his own kids from the idea or temptation of ever owning a car. One should probably not expect many miracles from a religion that even its own apostles seem to have lost faith in.

But what about the military? Didn’t the Romans explode onto the world scene through military means, discarding the outdated republican form of government to become one of the greatest empires the world has ever seen? And aren’t Americans just Romans with better food and worse highways, when all’s said and done?

Well, giving more money to the Pentagon and expecting this to solve anything in the year of our Lord 2021 probably qualifies as the single most foolish idea a person can have, as things stand today. With its current astronomical budget, it has already given the world and the (no doubt quite grateful) American taxpayer planes that can’t fly and warships without guns that struggle to even float. Another handful of trillions and you are perhaps likely to see some examples of handguns that can’t shoot and tanks that can’t move, but probably not much else. Nobody even knows where the current money is going; the Pentagon is so institutionally kafkaesque it puts the man himself and his imagination to shame. Even auditing the current budget has been deemed impossible. Whatever your feelings about the American military, there is clearly no great hidden potential here just waiting for an injection of more money and more complexity to finally bear some wonderful fruit that will improve the lot of all Americans.

The same holds true, in some sense, of the entire edifice of the federal government. Just recently, the US Capitol police signalled that it wants to open branch offices in other American states, supposedly as a part of its nebulous (but clearly expanding) mandate. Before that, the US Postal Service announced it is branching out into the world of covert operations programs and monitoring what Americans post on social media. The putative scourge of campus rape in America was supposed to have been solved by adding a byzantine and costly alternate justice system under title IX, but in reality it just presents another truly kafkaesque institutional labyrinth for students and faculty to get trapped in. Soaring costs, institutional paralysis, confused and ever-expanding mandates, exploding debt loads and a growing failure to carry out even basic institutional missions; these are increasingly the only fruits being brought to harvest by the people who promise you succor by adding yet another centralized department or federal commissariat to solve your problems.


… old America is dead, … the new America, the America of ever-increasing centralization and endless institutional bloat, the America of San Francisco coming for your kids in order to make them all gay, is also dying. The mandating of Critical Race Theory in all schools, properly understood, is more a sign of accelerating decay than a herald of some new radical dawn

This entry was posted in political economy. Bookmark the permalink.

comments with fewer than 4 links should be auto-approved if everything works properly...

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.