Take That, You Naughty Americans! The Triumph of the Salty Copium Eaters! Cope Hard!

To the Lotus Eaters: Gentlemen, love the Podcast of the Lotus Eaters but in this particular podcast, you're making this far too easy for me to make japes at your expense at this display of mis-placed national pride. Presenting an argument with so many holes in it and with such selective framing and leaving out, at least to you, embarrassing historical details that would negate your entire thesis. To the point of rendering it a farcical display of cope with how your people completely blew your once great empire and are now forced to endure the indignity of living in America's shadow. So much so that perhaps this is just comedy as I did get a few good chuckles over it. But if you're serious, this is nothing less than a pitiful exercise in whining and blaming others for your mistakes. Embarrassing, gentlemen, poor show. So much so, that I'm embarrassed for you. But fear not, for after I've had my druthers in unsealing a tin of whup-ass upon you to let the punishment fit the crime all the while enjoying some innocent merriment at your expense, I shall be magnanimous afterwards because I really do like you guys.

Yes America did import black Africans as slaves mostly while British colonies though. Wasn't it from about 1607 to 1776? Versus 1776 to 1865? Or did we conveniently forget that trifling little factoid? I know: Oh but the British outlawed the international slave trade, my dear boy! Yes and after how long of running it? Doesn't matter as how the Empire had its come to Jesus moment in 1833 and so all is forgiven and forgotten. Hands washed clean and fingers firmly pointed at the Americans. Huzzah!

And for how long did Britain keep the workhouses going or should we not speak of it as perhaps being a form of slavery that lingered into the early 20th century or kinda sorta not because workers were indeed fairly compensated for their labour with food and lodgings? Well, that's besides the point, old boy! It doesn't count after all because it was almost all poor white people and we're talking about black African slavery here and the rotten mess you Americans made of racism. It's perfectly okay to enslave and mistreat one's own people but never those of BAME as that would be uncouth. And as the selective amnesia Brits set the rules, the Brits win again. Huzzah! The Nepenthe Eaters triumph!

But with open immigration being a uniquely American thing and that those rascal Yanks (why do you keep blaming baseball players?) foisted upon you, so when did the Windrush thing welcoming Jamaican blacks with open arms happen? After 1965 with the Hart-Celler Immigration act? Why no, old bean, it was in 1948! Like during the time you Brits were constantly scolding us on how mean we were to blacks and mostly closed to immigration since the 1920's. Why look at you in 1948, so inclusive! Or perhaps in the early 1960's making films in Arabic inviting Muslims to come to Britain because you were so tolerant. Unlike us Americans, of course. And when did you start importing South Asians and allowed them to live among their own in ethnic enclaves? Well the tea-eaters may have done open immigration and tolerance of non-European people of colour before the Americans but it's still all us bloody American's fault as why should you take the blame for your own mistakes. Huzzah! The Amnesia Eaters win because they said so! Victory is yours! *slow clap*

But now, gentlemen of the Lotus Eaters, being in a generous mood fed by my amusement at taking the mickey out of you, and I shan't get into why you had a mouse inside you in the first place, but I shall provide you with the least cringe inducing excuse for this current mess that is closest to the truth that still grants you a spectacular triumph in being right:

(Start with characteristic English harumph) "Now see here, old sock, well yes we did start all that poppycock about women in high office, honoring gay men, open immigration with multiculturalism, showing lady's boobs on the telly and our page 3 girl, and all that all the while wagging our finger at you backwards, puritanical Americans. Well, yes, we did turn a blind eye to noncery since the swinging 60's. But for God's sake, we never thought you'd be mad enough to do all those silly things! And then to export our foolishness back to us, oh the bloody cheek!

We never meant for you American louts to do any of the things we said you should do in the 60's through the 80's. Why, we were just doing our British superiority dance, old thing which is kind of a palias glide whilst doing pelvic thrusts in your general direction. Just to keep up appearances, stiff upper lip and maintain the delusion that the English are better than you Yanks so necessary for our sanity. [Interjection: Sorry boys, you'd have to win more than 27 World Series rings to get there.] What bloody fool would do what we Brits, much less the French or other Europeans told them to do, as at least since Dunkirk even a blind man could see what incompetents we are! And the other Europeans are worse than we and one would have to be a complete odious, burke to listen to them as you've done. For heaven's sake, we own goaled ourselves as we blew our empire to pieces so hard the damned ball went up our arses. I doubt you Americans can appreciate just how much finesse is required to bungle something on such an epic scale let alone get a football lodged in such awkward location whilst making it look like child's play. Pure talent that, sonny Jim.

And not to mention how we almost accidently started World War III over the Suez Canal incident, pretty well irradiated ourselves with that Windrush thing, wretched American gadgets, made a complete hash out of honey trapping a Soviet military attache which ended up in the Profumo affair. How daft can you people be to let us have nukes as you know we'll most likely blow ourselves up with them? And you lot were taking notes on our social criticisms. Have you learned nothing from when Tony Blair told you Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction hidden in his trousers and you to this day still take his slimy counsel as wisdom? What bloody lunatic listens to Tony Blair as even we have wits enough not to listen to him!

So you see, chaps, this really is all your fault as you twits took all our utter folly and nonsense seriously and made it a reality for yourselves as we had long ago done to ourselves. I mean socialism. Who would be stupid enough to try that? Besides us and the Europeans. Ah, you Americans, of course because we told you to. And as for our Lotus Eaters subtle snide remarks about Americans, we've earned, earned I say, this right, you see. Imagine the shame we had to endure to come begging, sorry, I mean manfully asking, for help against Hitler in a war we could perhaps have done a better job of not letting happen in the first place. Mind you, not that we couldn't have beaten him ourselves, sans lend-lease, the money, the spam, the weapons and whatnot even after leaving all our equipment in Dunkirk, because we would somehow by reasons and suchlike. But then you bounders take another bloody year to get in the war and afterwards expect us to pay back our loans when you know we're scint wastrels. Dash it all, you were over here, overpaid and oversexed, taking our birds and making us look underpaid and undersexed and to top it all off, under Eisenhower. Is it any wonder we Brits grouse endlessly about you Yanks? But remember, we still had one over on you cheeky Americans. We had George Formby and all you lot had was Glenn Miller, so HA! You shall never best us in in being gormless.

Imagine now how we feel when you Yank go about inventing the aeroplane, binary digital computers, the microprocessor, and other gadgets and put men on the moon when we Brits only had Lucas Electrics and are foxed by the coffee machine at Prete a Manger. But we here in the UK invented the Butlins so top that! Now how do you think we English feel when we, your mother country, the galaxy's oldest democracy, the older and more advanced civilization in debauchery and decadence have to live in your economic and technological shadow? And then to add insult to injury, you exceed us in debauchery and decadence. How could you! You could have at least left leadership in debauchery and decadence to your poor, old, mother country, you ungrateful scamps!

Now then, we Brits have indeed earned the right to grouse about Americans and make any assortment of snide remarks to make ourselves feel better about being second rate. So take that!"

As promised, I do hope this helps you cope in a better, more stylish way, gentlemen and of course, I shall remain at your disposal should you require further, discreet assistance in this matter.

Your Most Obedient Servant

Donald Cavaioli

YouTuber Brandon F's Farbtastic Woke Sermon

Indeed, one would be hard pressed to find a YouTube content creator more eloquent and verbose the Brandon F. His channel usually features military history subjects which are interesting even if he tends to sperg out on the "farb" he finds regarding his subject du jour. Farb, of course, a word Brandon tends to perhaps overuse, is a historical reenactor's term for anything not exactly historically accurate down to the molecular level in terms of uniforms and weaponry. But as they say, spergs are gonna sperg.

So we come to his recent upload of the second part of his grand review of the movie The Patriot and here he not only waxes eloquent but feels compelled to pontificate a grand sermon on the evils of slavery in the colonies but to spend and entire 57 minutes and 2 seconds of being repeatedly kicked in the groin by gassing over scenes that were probably all said about 10 or 15 minutes or so of the 2 hour and 45 minute movie. For most mundane mortals, myself included, a 5-7 minute oration on the immorality of slavery and the positive depiction of it at a prima facia glance as somewhat callous and in poor taste would suffice. However, Brandon, are you not familiar with the term poetic license or the concept of suspending disbelief in fiction or how about chill out, man, it's only a movie, not a f&#*@^% historical documentary, you tool?

However, we do learn soon enough that the black men and women on the farm of Benjamin Martin (played by Mel Gibson) are in fact freedmen and women working as hired hands. Something over which Brandon proceeds to beat his chest in outrage as he does not believe slaves were ever manumitted. I suppose in all his research on the proper way to wear a cocked hat, which mundane dullards erroneously refer to as a "tricorn hat", the correct pronunciation of "huzzah" as "hoo-zay" he somehow missed that even Thomas Jefferson had freed his slaves in his will as had some other slave owners. Something known to any school child.

That the other character, Charlotte (Joely Richardson) has a well dressed house slave, has two homes or how the extras playing the field slaves are dressed and stand has no deeper significance as a social statement and is not the main plot of the movie. They're just extras acting as background characters, of course they don't have lines and neither do the white extras. And Charlotte is herself a secondary character and only part of a sub plot, you pretentious twit.

Further, I should hate to see the apoplectic fit that would be induced were I to inform him that there were even black men who owned black African slaves. Or that horror of horrors, slavery has been practiced all over the world by all races and civilizations since the dawn of H. Sapiens and even still is today in some places in the world *cough* North Africa, Islamic State *cough*. The little fellow might have a stroke for heaven sake!

Moreover, Brandon takes particular umbrage at Benjamin Martin working his own fields! Next to a black man as if they were on friendly terms! Brandon, old bean, I do suggest you consider the image of manhood prevalent at the time not only of bucks and blades but of the American yeoman who worked his own fields with a latent Cincinnatus homage there. Sure there were gentleman farmers who never touched a plow but there is some historical references to landowners who would occasionally do some of their own work in the fields or around the farm if only for appearance sake. The actions and attitudes of Benjamin Martin may be unusually progressive for the time, extremely rare, but not wholly impossible. Not everybody thought slavery was a great thing in those days and perhaps only a relative few, but not all white people looked down upon black people. And by the way, the character of Benjamin Martin, although based on the historical person, Francis Marion is not meant to exactly be Francis Marion, based on being the operative term here. Recall, it's only a movie, you twit.

Although Marion Francis' deeds in life both good and bad are matters of historical fact, his misdeeds may be noted as such and rightly condemned but still they now belong to history. For all Brandon's posturing, it is a false dichotomy to claim it is moral relativity for recognizing it as such. A cheap way of instilling guilt in all who refuse to continually flog the shade of Francis Marion for his long dead sins and to make modern Americans continue to wear the hair shirt of slavery that ended 154 years ago. Besides, who Marion Francis was and whatever dark and malevolent nature he was possessed of is utterly irrelevant to the movie The Patriot or the protagonist. Benjamin Martin. The point of the movie was the story of a man seeking revenge during the American Revolution, not about rehabilitating Francis Marion and the institution of slavery. Focus, Brandon, focus.

Here I might add Brandon's mention of the historical Marion executing slaves found guilty of carrying provisions or gathering intelligence, working or fighting for the enemy (the British). However, even a white American colonist found guilty of the same would likewise have been executed because this was called being a collaborator, spy or traitor- something of a no-no in wartime. A little factoid Brandon seems to have overlooked during his witch hunt for racism which eclipses his previous exhortations of not judging the past when he demonstrated a commendable measure of probity. But when the topic of slavery and racism rears its ugly head, the liberal narrative of the evil white man over truth bursts forth, denials of the same not withstanding and topped off with feigned display of dismay at being impaled on the horns of a moral dilemma. Medice, cura te ipsum.

However, one must keep up appearances and burnish our goodwhite anti-racism credentials, of course. Respectability amongst one's fellow Bay Staters is of paramount importance, you know. So who wouldn't accept the word of an activist non-profit, the Equal Justice Initiative whose stock and trade is race baiting as to be kinda unreliable and claims of lynchings and their causes as being because a black man simply smiled at a white woman may, er, be somewhat exaggerated(?) as to be blowing smoke up your ass makes no nevermind. Maybe the Equal Justice Initiative is sorta full of bullshit and not a objective source of information? No! Forward, comrade forward! Good Sir Brandon has a holy crusade to fight and a noble sermon to preach! African Americans are most fortunate to have such a white wordsmith and master of righteous indignation speak out for them on the horrors of white people and black people getting along with each other at an improbable wedding.

Oh and by the way, old sport; what do lynchings between 1877 and 1950 have to do with colonial era slavery and racism? Just thought you'd throw that in to further gild an already badly over gilded lily? Or just padding out the content?

Be that as it may, Brandon rests comfortably in the singularly liberal notion that only, only in these United States of all places on earth past or present was the absolute worst form slavery ever employed with only black Africans of all humanity ever placed in bondage. And presumably all these Africans captured and placed in chains by white Europeans and Americans only according the the leftist holy Gospels of Alex Haley and Howard Zinn. I am sure that were Brandon to read these words, he would sniff disdainfully that he never said exactly those words and technically, he would be correct. But his statements about the horrors of American slavery without any comparison with other instances of contemporaneous slavery demonstrates either ignorance of the subject or a willful attempt to create this impression by lifting it out of context.

But not Brandon for whom political correctness ultimately supersedes historical facts inconvenient to the modern progressive narrative should he find the two crossing paths. For Brandon F is truly a most servile courtier to the great Woke Zeitgeist, ever watchful for even the spectral evidence of racism. And as ever sensitive to the insidious attempt to cynically hide it behind a facade of faux friendliness towards black people, or to note the appalling scene of a white landowner plowing his fields, blatantly displaying toxic masculinity to the horror and dismay of liberal goodwhites.

In the end, this video was an extravaganza of insufferable virtue signalling, a colossal neon sign surmounted by bright flashing lights announcing in blinding letters: "I so totally denounce slavery as a very bad thing and I am implacably against racism in all its forms and manifestations no matter how trivial". 57 minutes and 2 seconds of being figuratively beaten over the head by bloviating platitudes, pointless digressions and tiresome non-sequiturs such as the percentage of the population who were slaves and endless repeating of the same scenes and same histrionics ad nauseum. 7 minutes at most would have sufficed if Brandon stayed on point. However, the depiction of slaves or black extras in the background in the movie were not germane to the plot and it would be understandable if the director and producers would like to avoid controversy and so tread lightly on the subject. Something an overly literal Aspie cannot fathom any more than he could poetic license. Thus the witchfinder general digs deeply far and wide to dredge up all that can be sarcastically stretched beyond the break point as evidence of racism which he presents in excruciating detail.

Finally it seems clear after 57 minutes and 2 seconds of my life which I will never get back, that the base motivation for this spectacular of historical filibuster is as much Brandon F's being an Anglophile deeply offended at the bad guy depiction of the British soldiers, which even when I watched this movie found to be rather over the top and silly, as is his penchant for insipid hand waving virtue signalling. If so, I would more respect the intellectual honesty of Brandon starting his rant in high dudgeon with a statement of his taking deep umbrage at the beastly portrayal of his beloved redcoats. Then I might better tolerate the pedantic, long winded, cringe inducing sermon about the evils of slavery and racism. Yeah, slavery was morally wrong and it's a good thing that it was abolished. I get it.

Believe it or not, I actually like Brandon F's other videos. I'm just a bit disappointed with this particular clunker and hope in future he confines himself to nit-picking about uniforms with his characteristic erudite sarcasm and calling everything farb. Huzzah!


Donald Cavaioli

The Americans

What makes an American and their culture, the original post-colonial era Americans what they were. Just to spitball some theories, some of which are pure speculation based on certain observations. Thinking out loud, so to speak, to follow the line of reasoning and see where it takes us on this long, somewhat rambling post. It is something of an off-shoot of my previous posts, the peasant mindset and the peasant mindset II (as even a servile subject can have enough), as the concept of what is an American would appear to be intertwined with that as well as blood to some degree and culture.

We could say they were or are fundamentally based on British with its Magna Carta and rights of Englishmen with the white Anglo-Saxon protestant morality and work ethic. But it is more than that. It was a spirit of independence where one could rise as far and as high as one's talent's, energy and ability could lead them, differing from their brethren back in the motherland. And not to be overlooked was their rejection of a hereditary based social caste system. People who could not tolerate a master or betters.

This independent attitude and refusal to acknowledge the innate superiority of their rulers would appear to be a problem for an orderly strong man European monarchy. But what, in seventeenth century Britain, is to be done with these malcontents who may desire liberty, but obviously, simply do not want to grovel to a master and obey all his betters tell him just as the majority of the population willingly do. The solution for this sort of independent, go it alone type of weirdo (as any sensible peasant or nobleman would have viewed them) was to have them shipped off to the colonies in the new world and let them hack out towns and cities from the wilderness. It was a good way for the aristocracy to get rid of these malcontents, caused less anxiety for the good peasantry, and put their restless energies to good colonial and mercantilist use.

Then the colonists wanting for complete independence from the mother country was inevitable, finding even minimal obedience and servility to an aristocracy even if they were across an ocean to be extremely distasteful, and the spat over a relatively small 2 percent tax issue and demands for a parliamentary representation was just as good as reason for independence as any. Even if representatives of the colonists and King George III had come to some sort of agreement, the type of people who lived in the colonies likely sooner or later would have pushed for independence and wouldn't have it any other way.

It must be noted that the citizens of the 13 colonies and later the new nation, those who lived in the thirteen colonies prior to July 4, 1776 were not of a single nationality. As well, the revolutionary war was not popular with the majority of colonists, estimated at not quite half, about 40% to 45% supporting (which was enough a critical mass to fight for independence) and a vocal Tory remainer contingent estimated at 20% to 25% with the other 30% to 40% not saying much, going along to get along.

When independence from England was formally recognized after their defeat, the new ethnicity called Americans then formed a system of government according to their nature. Or at least to the nature of the New England descendants of the puritans who weren't not the only Christian sect but also not the only European nationality in the newly formed United States.

When the colonies in the new world declared their independence from England in 1776, the population were mostly English, Irish, Scots or Scotch-Irish, along with Germans at about 30% of the population, Dutch, French with a few freed black slaves, a smattering of Poles and Jews among others. It was not a single ethnicity but a mixed bag of different European nationalities which may or may not include Jews depending on one's view of the subject. Aside from the Germans, I could not find any good demographic numbers for any of the other European ethnic minorities in the mid-18th century. Nor could it be found the percentages of Scotch-Irish and English WASPs.

It should be noted that these different European nationalities were in the past, often rivals or at war with each other. So smoothing away old differences and forming a new national identity and unique culture would take time and isolation to develop. A difficult task considering the colonists couldn't even come to a majority agreement on whether or not to declare independence from the British Empire.

In light of this, it may be legitimately asked exactly what is an ethnic or heritage American beyond anyone alive in the 13 colonies prior to the American Revolution and their descendants? If one were to say a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant, or rather an Englishman, New England puritan or descendant thereof, they may or may not have been a majority of the population in the colonies even though their culture predominated. The Scotch-Irish colonists were Celtic people and although closely aligned with the English, still a different people with their own history and culture and were at times even hostile to the English.

But what of the Germans of Pennsylvania of whom Benjamin Franklin expressed doubts as to their assimilation into or compatibility with the dominant WASP culture and even today as the Pennsylvania Dutch maintain a unique culture of their own? They are, as any proponent of the heritage or ethnic American concept, just as much a heritage or ethnic American as anyone of English descent and whose ancestors fought in the American Revolution and every subsequent war the United States has been involved in. Yet they differ in culture both ancestral and present day. Just as much as anyone of Dutch, Belgian or Huguenot descent.

That is unless a purity spiral were to start among those who would discuss the topic which should include true WASP blood, how many verifiable colonial era ancestors the heritage American can lay claim to and what the minimum number should be for real bragging rights.

In any event, a new country needs a new government. First was the Articles of Confederation intended to protect popular liberty with a weak central government but the founders discovered roughneck individualist types quickly set on each other such that there was political and economic chaos between the states which threatened collapse. Our present constitution ratified on June 21, 1787 was a carefully balanced series of compromises, based on a gentlemen's agreement to obey it. This allowed for a stronger federal government but still respected the American citizen's natural individual rights and property rights as well as an unspoken freedom of association. This emphasis on individual and property rights, Protestant work ethic, and a gentlemen's agreement on the citizen's natural rights that the constitutionally limited federal government would respect would be the core of what could have been the culture of the ethnic Americans. That is, had they been able to fully amalgamate the mix of people already there and develop and clarify this culture without letting in waves of new, more servile peasant-minded immigrants comfortable with traditional old-world, strong man monarchies and later socialism to further muddy the waters.

Here it might be tempting to invoke the nation of immigrants as previously noted and ethnic/cultural homogeneity is important to form a cohesive nation. The now former colonists and newly minted Americans were still mostly united in a more what we could describe today as a classical liberal outlook with libertarian overtones. It was this general view of things, in my opinion, that helped paper over cultural differences making part of this nation based on a general agreement on certain principals and which the sub-cultures are close enough alike to make it all work.

Eventually it would have formed the American which over time should have eroded away or absorbed ethnic and religious differences and amalgamated into an authentic, new heritage or ethnic American had they remained isolated from newcomers. But for a new and growing country in the early to mid nineteenth century with dreams of manifest destiny and an industrial revolution needing more workers, waiting for the ethnic American founding stock to raise enough children on their own was not enough. Immigration was necessary even if the founding stock WASPs found it distasteful but for the some who held sway, politically advantageous and for others, profitable in cheap labor.

If it is true that subsequent waves of different European immigrants did gradually alter the political, social and cultural landscape of America, it is equally true that this was with the general agreement of the ruling WASP Americans and thus the heritage American of that era was complicit in these changes. It was a precedent that like a machine once set in motion began to accelerate along the direction it was initially set on coming to its logical endpoint of the Nation of Immigrants rhetoric, the 1965 Hart-Celler Act ending up with now virtually unrestricted immigration both legal and tacitly accepted illegal immigration. If the heritage American WASP is rightfully unhappy with the current state of affairs, most of the blame for starting it lies with his ancestors.

In conclusion, most of what is an American can be seen in the sense of the heritage American with ancestry going back to the founding ignoring whether those ancestors were English and/or Scotch-Irish or Germans, Dutch, etc. more or less united in a set of preferences and attitudes. This is a function of the culture of European non-preasant mindset outliers and should not be confused with the concept of a nation founded on ideals.

So the ethnic American is not really a nationality in the strict definition of the word as the U.S. was not founded by a single tribe or confederation of closely related tribes creating a country and civilization built on the ruins of previous ancestor civilizations.

So heritage American would be a better term describing present Americans with pre-revolutionary ancestry and with traditional WASP culture.

This is a whole new country carved out of a wilderness, displacing the previous immigrants who settled here from Siberia anywhere from 12,000 to 18,000 years ago. This makes the concept of an ethnic American tricky unless painted with a very broad brush. The composition of the former colonists at the founding used as justification for the present nation of immigrants narrative would be a gross oversimplification and wrong. It must be noted it was mostly immigrants from similar European Christian cultures and most importantly, mostly of people with an individualistic, non-preasant mindset.

Given a thousand or so years, a collapsed civilization or two, taking in almost no new immigrants going forward, a true ethnic American will develop. But for now, it's just too new of a country.


Donald Cavaioli

An Excellent YouTube Video on the Origins of Communism

Joshua Philipp, senior investigative reporter at The Epoch Times on the China Unscripted podcast #31 gives an interesting history of communism and its historical relationship with occultists. Just over 1 hour and 55 minutes long but well worth the time. 

Donald Cavaioli

Did the U.S. Constitution really fail?

The subject of is the U.S. constitution a good paradigm of government, is it too restrictive of government power, does it address modern problems or is it a failure is a subject that makes the rounds of chattering class circles on both the left and the right. And the answer from most on the extremes of both left and right is yes. But is it really?

The answer can only be no, the constitution in and of itself did not fail. For the constitution is itself only a piece of paper with words written on it. The constitution does not have any agency nor is it able to influence people by its own will. For anyone on the right to think this way, shame on you, you're imparting sentience and moral agency to an inanimate object just as leftists do. In the end, a piece of paper with words written on it means something when the people whose actions it is intended to provide guidelines and/or limits for willingly obey what is written thereupon.

The constitution is therefore like any other law, rule or regulation, meaningless if it is disobeyed with the culprits not held accountable. To claim it failed because the present managerial state routinely finds ways to either circumvent it or outright disobey it and therefore should be abolished is as silly as saying for instance, that because people commit murders, the laws against murder have failed and should be rescinded. It means that those who violate the constitution should be held accountable, the responsibility for which rests in the end with the American people. The constitution did not fail, we did.

One problem is how many of us have forgotten that elected representatives are our employees, hired to represent us and our best interests at home and abroad, not foreign nationals or foreign governments. Too many Americans act as if their representatives are their boss and not the other way around or worse, treat politicians as if they were celebrities or rock stars. If you let any employee get away with not doing their jobs, pilfering the business and treating the boss with contempt, then it should be no wonder if the business eventually fails.

We need to remember that we are the bosses and make our elected representatives respect us, not the donors and lobbyists. It is we who pull the lever at the polls in greater numbers than the donors or lobbyists so let's remember that they are not as all powerful an influence in elections as anyone may imagine.

To claim the constitution does not reflect modern values and conditions and is unable to stop the advance of the left's overthrow of the bill of right is simply the childish whine of "it's not perfect, mommy take it away!" This is simple minded utopianism, or a way to deflect responsibility or an underhanded scheme to impose some other form of government. The framework itself is sound for a representative republic and the amendment process suffices to meet and address modern issues. Anything else is simply pure intellectual and moral laziness.

The fault lies not only with we the people of today, but of generations past who in turn gradually traded liberties in return for the care and freestuff of the nanny state. A government to take care of us and see to all our needs but failing to see the danger of unchecked power in too few hands. Being blind to the fact that a government that gives you all you have can likewise take it all away.

The remedy however, lies with us and our descendants for we didn't get into this fix overnight and it will take some generations to rectify. Are we as a people going to give up and allow the managerial state to grow until it collapses under its own weight or are we going to take positive action by electing political leaders who will follow the constitution and govern according to our founding principles. Are we going to hold our elected leaders accountable at the ballot box and demand the gradual reduction of the managerial state to a more manageable size? Do we have the will and character to reduce the welfare state to a minimum, reject the precautionary principle and accept more personal responsibility for ourselves? Will we insist judges read the laws and amendments as written instead of finding  magical penumbras, emanations or auras through some alchemy as a cynical cover for ruling as they wish with no accountability or check on judicial activism or otherwise demand their removal? 

As a free people, citizens of a republic, are we going to assert ourselves as the owners and operators of this country or do we feebly cry about the failure of a piece of paper to protect us and hope someone else comes to our rescue? It's a long, hard road to recover and reclaim our country and it will never be perfect but it can be better than what we have today as it had been before the excesses of the progressive era and the New Deal.
The choice is ours.


Donald Cavaioli

Murray N. Rothbard- 'The Progressive Era'

In looking for historical background and further research on the progressive era of the early 20th century, I've begun reading Murray N. Rothbard's book titled The Progressive Era and am currently about a third of the way through it. The reason I mention this is that Rothbard has already covered a hypothesis I proposed in an earlier post, The Great Robber Baron Swindle, in that the programs proposed by the progressives in the early 20th century were not to help the common man as advertised but the then growing statist ruling class. I further theorized that big businesses were at first opposed but later saw the obvious benefits government regulations in keeping out smaller competitors and became the willing champions of managerial state control over the business.

As previously noted, Rothbard did indeed confirm most of what I wrote that essentially yes, progressivism was a tool to advance greater levels of managerial state power but that first, Rothbard traces this back to the late 19th century and second, that big business recognized the advantages of statism for them and were in favor of it from the beginning.

I hadn't read Rothbard before and was unaware the he had explored this concept far earlier than I had and that was a bit disappointing as I never heard this hypothesis before and believed I may be plowing new ground here. Oh, well, it's true that there's nothing new under the sun and with so many more intelligent and better educated people out there doing research long before I was born, it's next to impossible to look at history from a new angle that nobody ever considered before. I should get out more could be a valid criticism but hey, there's so many books out there to read, one still has to find the relevant ones and only so much time to read them.

There again, finding some confirmation for my hypothesis, derived independently, does deserve a bit of credit but fear not, I won't overtax my arm in patting myself on the back.


Donald Cavaioli

Objective Truth in History

Where it  might be possible to approach an objective truth in history, it is exceedingly difficult, if not completely impossible to escape subjective biases. Then intellectual honesty with some measure of humility is necessary to accept criticism and to review information which would contradict one's theory explaining a historical event. Through debate, it is possible to approach a more objective and comprehensive explanation of history.

My purpose in writing previous posts is to propose postulates as a basis to build a theory by observing past historical events to discern a pattern that may be analogous to current events. It is as if fitting the pieces of a puzzle together to build an overview of the political and social problems we face today which should provide a way of predicting what will happen next and, it is hoped, can suggest solutions for these problems. It is a large task, most likely never to be completed, with more to explore and I've only just started to scratch the surface with some observations and suggestions.

One thing I will not do is start with a pre-determined theory and cherry pick or distort facts to fit my theory. All I have written so far I have carefully considered and am confident that I can successfully defend from challenge. However, if I am presented with facts and arguments that can conclusively refute my theories, surviving rebuttal, then I am willing to stand corrected. Correct postulates and data form the foundation of sound theories which can be most useful for predicting and solving problems. This, to me, is more important than my ego. Clarity and understanding are my goals and I will post new pieces (not every day but when I can) as they come to me to further these goals and see to where we are going.

I hope you the reader will find this blog useful for this purpose.


Donald Cavaioli

The Managerial State's Great Robber Baron Swindle

In summary:
I've long noticed that many, if not most, of the leaders of the early twentieth century progressive movement came from the wealthier classes of Americans and others like Al Smith being a New York City Tammany Hall politician. An organization within the Democrat party not known for honest dealings to put it mildly.

The obvious question which should be asked is why would rich people be so concerned with the plight of the poor and working class? One cannot truly know what is in the minds and hearts of others but an indication may be found by observing their actions and the consequences of those actions. My own admittedly cursory examination of the subject shows some evidence that self-interest, detrimental, perhaps even intentionally so, to the interests of those for whom ostensibly this progressive enterprise was undertaken, was the true motivation. Others may have been motivated by promoting new, sciency-sounding crank economic and social theories like the efficiency movement that either did not work as advertised or caused unintended consequences.

Nevertheless, we may note the stated intentions and goals, but always in the end, must judge by the actions and results. We must be able to distinguish between words and deeds to understand intent and motivations and know who is really the boss and who is just the employee.
Recall the old adage that if something to too good to be true, it probably isn't so beware of those who promise to do good things in return for power and always look closely for the strings when discerning who the puppet is and who is the true villain.


Postulated Motivations:
It is natural for we humans to want to protect whatever power or wealth we have, no matter how great or even humble, and to ensure that power and wealth is transferred to our own genetic descendants. But the greater the wealth and power, the greater the drive to protect them from outsiders.
To the old money elite and ruling class, the industrial revolution in the light of a laissez-faire political and economic system brought a new breed of nouveau riche entrepreneurs who hailed from the lower classes into prominence that could topple the old guard from their thrones. The lower orders seeing this might forget their station and reach for the brass ring as well as a growing middle class with more potential threats from which to contend with. Not to mention new strains of socialism and anarchism imported from Europe that were starting to make trouble.

The old guard rulers were no fools. Knowing that wielding a naked iron fist to protect their interests by enforcing a social caste hierarchy could prove disastrous. Therefore a soothing velvet glove that the masses would find palatable and cooperate with had to be found to cover the iron fist. Even more to the point where the working and middle classes would eventually, voluntarily agree to remain within their respective classes. Then some means must be found of co-opting or managing the socialists making them into useful tools for the ruling class.  What that velvet glove would be follows.

Further in detail:
My theory is that the progressive movement primarily operated by the old money ruling class establishment of the late 19th, early 20th century had as one of its goals to completely stifle all social mobility as a means of protecting their own wealth and power from potential challengers. Therefore, they rather cunningly couched their machinations in the honeyed tones of concern for the poor and workingman, appealing to their ignorance, vanity and envy by castigating those troublesome upstart nouveau riche whom they termed "Robber Barons" and then smeared them as the most odius of villains solely responsible for any all the problems of the poor and working class. But not to worry, the old money rich would come to the downtrodden's rescue.

Thus the ruling class connived the electorate into giving more power to the growing managerial government to redress the working man's grievances on his behalf. The poor, the ruling class promised, would benefit from the unfairly gained wealth of these Robber Barons which would be redistributed to the poor as some form of justice. Or at any rate simply taken away. Although many of these Robber Barons, really entrepreneurs, themselves who rose to success and wealth from humble beginnings is forgotten in the righteous mania to punish them for the sin of success and make examples of those who dare to buck the system by following the entrepreneurial example.

That successful entrepreneurs is proof that a classless, laissez-faire system where success for anyone is possible or at worst, there would be jobs available with the prospect of social mobility, competitively priced goods that are more affordable for the poor and an overall higher standard of living makes no never mind. For there is no appeal more powerful than an appeal to the most base of human instincts such as envy, greed and the mind numbing emotionalism of an evil to be vanquished, a war on poverty to be fought or existential threat to be destroyed. Why, these Robber Barons somehow amassed their ill gotten fortunes by plundering the poor when not trying to outright kill the poor by pollution, dangerous working conditions or shoddy products. Why, the modern progressive liberal thinks, who wouldn't want to kill their employees and customers? That would be obviously and absurdly counterproductive.This can only be liberal projection for whom violent fantasies are a not so guilty pleasure.

All this is not to say that those entrepreneurs labeled as Robber Barons were perfect angels, nor is all legislation regarding trusts, working conditions and pollution unnecessary. The State and the laws and their enforcement mechanisms are a necessary evil and is charged by the citizenry to act in their best collective interests. Otherwise a stable, healthy and prosperous society would not be possible. 
But no system is perfect. Too much of a good thing can turn bad if the citizenry in a constitutionally limited republic or democratic society grow lethargic and do not use due diligence and common sense in exercising their rights and responsibilities as citizens. Power should be granted to leaders grudgingly, only as much as necessary for the problem at hand and after it is fully demonstrated to be absolutely necessary with the proviso that it can be taken back.

It is indisputable that nobody who ever got rich through licit free enterprise had ever made anyone else poor. Or that a potentially dangerous industrial work environment be shown as excessively hazardous, with only a few exceptions, with noticeably higher percentages of worker injury that fully excludes worker error must be noted.
For what motive management would have to want to murder their own employees or customers for that matter and explain why factory owners and management would knowingly poison the air that they themselves breathe and water they themselves drink as all of this makes no rational sense.

In the end analysis, according to the prevailing pop culture history, the sins of the Robber Barons were they got rich, they were mean and they were racists. The former two is the noise of cognitive dissonance and the latter is at best irrelevant and at worst complete nonsense. But all in all, it worked. This nostrum of homicidal maniac capitalists is still today unthinkingly accepted as irrefutable fact. The Robber Barons were held up as an unspeakable evil that must be shunned and thus discouraged any of the lower classes from following their example. The lesson taught was that it is  more moral and good to remain a poor and powerless victim in your own social class after all.

Methods and results:
The lesson was the carrot of superior morality but a stick was still needed to reinforce it.
The income tax is a means by which the working class would find it difficult to accumulate or pass much of the wealth the accumulated to their heirs that would be capital enough to start a business that would potentially pose a threat to already established corporations who already exist with the approval of the political establishment. The income tax was sold and accepted as "making the rich pay their fair share". But consider that at the time of the passage and ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1913, the rich then were apparently not effective in stopping it despite their apparent wealth and presumptive power and today the already very rich wholeheartedly support the progressive income tax and that they not only pay their fair share but amazingly enough, they say they do not pay enough. This is even as they fight tax bills in court with IRS and refuse to instruct their accountants to limit deductions to increase their tax bill. It's the actions that count, not the words.

Excessive government regulations that create further barriers to the upstart requiring more capital to comply with regulations as well as the cost of lawyers and consultants to help navigate byzantine regulations. All of this was sold to the working man as necessary for his safety, to maintain some kind of unspecified fairness and to punish those mean capitalists for being dour misers.

However, the most potent method is the negative aura that surrounds all business people as mean, greedy capitalists who are always exploiting their workers for their dirty profits, polluting the planet, etc- so you don't want to be that guy. Being poor is much more praised and seen as more virtuous so it is better to stay in your respective socio-economic class, or else.

New Deal, Same Old Con:
It really makes no rational sense but it made some kind of emotional sense to the masses of workers who in the 1930's enthusiastically gave the political managerial ruling class all the power it craved (and more), even to their own detriment, for the vicarious pleasure of watching their New Deal rulers make a show of punishing the corporatists and heart-warming fireside chats that made the workers feel better or something or other.

But make a show was all it was. Behind the scenes, a new relationship between the growing managerial capitalism, banks (and even academia) and the growing managerial state was taking shape in the grim shadow of the second world war. Once having reached the top, the already successful were ready to kick the ladder down behind them and that suited the managerial state just fine as long as they were willing pay the piper (who called the tune) to be allowed to dance.

And the Beat Goes On...
For the corporations and banks, the obligatory political donations, paying prominent politicians exorbitant speaking fees  and lobbyist gifts to buy influence with the political establishment are now simply the cost of doing business. Wisdom would suggest that if you can't beat 'em, join 'em and there's no point in fighting a battle you can never hope to win. Especially if you have no army of your own.

For the political managerial establishment, it is easier to control a handful of large corporations than hundreds of thousands of smaller businesses and as well line their pockets in the process. Therefore, it is in the managerial state's own interest to keep the business herd well culled and perhaps well abed with. All in all, it was a match made in heaven....sort of.

However, this relationship was and is largely kept from the plebs of working and middle classes. Corporations and banks were and still are made out to be a sort of Neo-Robber Barons but now serve as sock puppet villains to misdirect the public's attention away from who was really pulling the strings. But what corporation or bank complained? After all, it's better to be a sock puppet villain in managerial state hell with a few privileges and profits not enjoyed by the proles rather than a victim of unfettered competition in a free enterprise heaven. For example, today, Silicon Valley tech corporations, not only dutifully pay tribute to their political overlords for the usual perks and privileges, but receive federal tax dollars as virtually paid federal employees and carry out a censorship and de-platforming reign of terror on behalf of governments, of the United States and others.  The tech companies do the dirty work and take the blame but they get to keep the money and monopolies in return. Phaemon's dog was right.

All the while all concerned pretend this be the actions of private business. Sorry folks, capitalism and all that, you know, and being a "free" country nothing your government can do (when the tech giants censor and de-platform gov't designated targets). Or, don't worry folks, we'll haul the scoundrels up before a congressional committee and really yell at them (when banks obey regulations and the CRA making sub-prime loans to stay in compliance). Even if you're set up by the managerial state to be the bad guy everybody hates, there's the compensation of limited competition, government contracts, golden parachutes, and receiving government bailouts for being "too big to fail" for all of which the managerial state pushes the blame off on their sock puppet villains- a small price to pay. Yes, Phaemon's dog was genius after all.
And the general public, ever on the scent for new Robber Baron rascals to hate just lap it up and never notice the sly, skillful hand of the managerial puppeteer at work.

Neo-Feudalism and Final Victory
Make no mistake, it really isn't a partnership of equals, it is, in fact, a feudal relationship of lord and tithe paying crony capitalist vassal. Whereas the vassal may conduct his own affairs to some degree and have influence in court, the lord exercises the real power and has the final say and the vassal is, in the end, obedient to his lord's command. The difference between power and influence is a significant distinction that should not be overlooked.

To demonstrate who in fact holds the whip hand, there are always the federal attack dogs of the Security and Exchange Commission with its vague insider trading laws for naughty Wall Streeters. The FBI, who could prosecute the recalcitrant miscreant for vague racketeering laws or lying about crimes the FBI cannot prove said miscreant committed along with sundry process crimes. If the federal government needs flimsy or even contrived evidence, it has plenty of phone records and e-mails to look in to create probable cause. If all else fails, there's always Congressman Swalwell's nukes. If the lord can giveth, then the lord can sure as hell taketh away or vaporize your ass.

It is truly then, better to be the sock puppet villain in the hell of negative public perception than to be cast into the void, financially ruined, end up doing time in the federal pen and thus figuratively share Palinurus' sad fate. Whereas Phaemon's dog always eats well even if he does sometime get rapped on the nose to keep the masses happy.

The managerial state has now reached the comfort level where the old velvet glove can now sometimes be safely taken off, the iron fist revealed there for all to see, and when used on designated "bad people"such as the insidious Orange man, the masses are now so well trained as to believe it as a victory for themselves and cheer heartily never thinking that same iron fist could as well be used on them. Nobody ever thinks themselves as bad people.


In Conclusion:
Lesson learned as now it is well known by all that the nail that sticks up will be hammered down by the velvet gloved iron fist of the ruling class and not only is there little recourse but that the masses will cheer as the nail is driven down. The ruling class might have had to let a few newcommers in, here and there, over the years, made accommodations with other global power brokers but overall, they succeeded in not only in cementing their hegemony but have succeeded in freezing almost all social mobility, diminishing the wages and living standards of the working class and reducing the size of the middle class. Mission accomplished...for now.


Donald Cavaioli