Strange Bedfellows

It's too often said the politics makes for strange bedfellows but what is left out is the question of who is on the top which is really the most important factor(s).

It's a seemingly strange thing how such groups as corporations, big government politicians and apparatchiks, NGOs and sundry activists can appear to advocate for their own unique and different interests, sometimes opposing each other and yet at the same time, mostly will cooperate with each other. It's a phenomena that causes some to focus on only the differences and to then resort to the most crude, reductionist caricatures to make their cherry-picked facts fit their single magic bullet theory such as big anything bad and it's all about money. To some extent these can be factors but when dealing with large groups, reasons can be more varied and nuanced between the groups and even individuals within groups. Deconstruction can be a useful tool for understanding complex systems but the difficult part is to reduce motivations and reasons to their most basic components and understanding how they interact with each other without becoming too reductionist. Many people seem most comfortable with simple, single bullet explanations and are too intellectually lazy to look deeper.

The best explanation for mutual cooperation between largely unrelated groups is the Pareto Optimum from game theory. It can be thought of as a group of cars driving together on a highway where each driver has their own reason for driving and their own destination but it is in the best interests of most drivers to cooperate by following the rules of the road in order to arrive at their destination. There will be some drivers who will speed faster than the others, cut each other off, or get into an accident with another car but for the most part, the majority can be sure of reaching their destination. If too many drivers refuse to follow the rules, the result is known to be a large multi-car accident that blocks the highway and nobody will be able to get where they're going.

We human beings, imperfect as we may be, are moral actors capable of acting in our own best self interests whether rational or not and for either material or transcendent goals. So to some extent, cooperating with others with whom ones disagrees or even hates, at least for the present, if it advances their own goals and is therefore in their best interests. We may not always be rational but on average, we're not completely stupid.

So it would not be unexpected to see chemical companies support nominally luddite and anti-capitalist environmentalists in combating the so-called "ozone hole" as they would profit by patenting new refrigerants that don't last as long as the old freon, whose patent had expired, and need to be replaced more often. It wouldn't be difficult to understand why large corporations would support the ever growing list of EPA regulations and more stringent requirements to count a few hundred molecules per cubic centimeter of air as navigating all the regulations and compliance costs prevent upstart competitors from entering the business field. And to make large donations to politicians of both parties to buy the favor of allowing corporate lobbyists write legislation to their own benefit.

It must be remembered that corporations, no matter how large, may have influence but lacking an army or the law enforcement power to compel a citizen to obey the corporation's diktats, the corporation can not have real power. That is strictly reserved for government which commands a military, courts and law enforcement. Power to take a citizen's freedom, possessions or even his life for breaking the laws set forth by government. As Chairman Mao rightly said "power flows from the barrel of a gun" so the man with the gun, who can kill the man with the gold and simply take it all for himself unless the man with the gold offers to share it, is invariably in charge of the situation. Those who wield power will also jealously guard that power and not let it slip into the hands of those who are subordinate to their power.

Therefore the relationship between managerial corporations and the managerial state is more one of the vassal to his liege lord. The vassal pays tribute and swears obedience to his liege and in return the vassal is permitted, within limits, a free hand within his fiefdom. So with these bedfellows, it is clear who is on top.

In return for their fealty, the large corporations seem fine with being used by their managerial government overlords as the sockpuppet villains, used to deplatform and censor dissidents to the government's globalist schemes and to take the flak from the dupes of both the left and the right for it. The protection from competition, the  privileges and profits they receive, the too big to fail bailouts for playing along make it well worth it.  And as the system of government becomes more authoritarian verging into totalitarianism, corporate expressions of support for government policies will become more ostentatious and unctuous.

This is in contrast to the idea that corporations and billionaires are in fact the puppet masters of the government which is a favorite trope among libertarians and libertarian apostates who refer to themselves as the alt-right or dissident right. Libertarians, their apostates and heretics are unable to get past the notion that 'money makes the world go 'round' as they believe that all the fabulous wealth and bling simply bedazzles the people of the government power structure and magically compels obedience. What they observe as rich people, the elite, exercising privileges not enjoyed by the plebeian masses are privileges the elite have paid to have, not given from a fawning ruling class who stand in open mouthed awe of their wealth.

This misunderstanding is due to first, they ignore or are blithely unaware of the fact that most power in government resides in the unelected bureaucracy as it is these managers who create laws and regulations and who actually operate government on a day-to-day basis. Tenured bureaucrats can find any number of ways to disobey the directives of the elected executive or legislative oversight with little fear of being fired. Corporate donations mean nothing to a bureaucrat who does not need it to keep his job.

Secondly, it is an obstinate refusal or failure to recognize the difference between models of power and models of influence. One can always refuse the requests or proposals of another who can only wield influence with money, goods or services as the lure. However, one cannot refuse the command of another who wields the power to forcibly take one's property, freedom or life by any means legal or illegal. Just as it is a failure of libertarians to understand the hierarchy of which the climate and environment of the country shapes the people which forms their culture. Then downstream of culture is formed their government and political system which in turn forms their economic system. The private business components formed within the economic system are therefore is no more capable of changing the the political system than it is in changing the physical nature or culture of the people who created it. The cart can never drive the horse.

However, to return to the topic at hand, it's to be expected that all large corporations would enthusiastically support the latest catastrophe du jour, global warming/climate change. It would not only usher in more new competition killing EPA regulations that might even knock off existent competitor corporations in the bargain. As well it would offer more crony capitalist grifter and middleman businesses opportunities to sell, by government mandate, more unneeded goods and services that are alleged to save the world from the weather. This also explains the recent "woke" capital mania as the vassal tries to emulate his lord's whims in social engineering and social justice to curry favor with his liege. It should also be added that ever image conscious corporations whose upper management tend to be as socially and culturally isolated from the average American as the political establishment. So the corporate heads might come to believe that progressivism is as popular with the majority of Americans as the mainstream media tells them. After all, the people voted Barack Obama president twice, didn't they? Going SJW "woke" would make for a kinder, gentler, corporate image and make the American people like them, wouldn't it?

However, following the progressive path of "woke" capital means not only talking the talk but walking the walk. So as corporations are obliged to create progressive positions within their company like expanded definition human resources, diversity coordinators, sensitivity trainers, etc., positions that cost the business money without adding any value to goods and services or improved productivity. To this end, they hire progressive leftist social justice warriors to occupy these positions as only such people would be interested in these tasks. What the corporate heads either failed to understand or whose new age CEO's would think is cool is that the SJW's they hired would in turn hire many more SJW's until the business that the corporation is engaged in would turn away from that business' function of providing goods and services people want or need and concentrate on social justice issues. The result is eventually a business that loses money. Marvel Comics, the latest Star Trek series and the Star Wars franchise are examples of this. The only businesses that can survive this SJW convergence are crony capitalist ventures with guaranteed government support, a multi-billionaire patron willing to throw good money after bad, the stock market with quantitative easing or as previously mentioned those which are deemed by government as "too big to fail". In effect, practically any large corporation, bank or brokerage.

It may be good to be the king but it certainly pays well to be the king's loyal lap dog.


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

Styxhexenhammer666: A good content creator who sometimes gets confused in putting the economic cart before the sociopolitical horse.

From Styxhexenhammer666 Alexandria Ocasio Cortez Celebrates Corporate Censorship In Newspeaky Tweet, posted on youtube 06/04/2019

Tarl Warwick the author, editor and youtuber who posts under the handle Styxhexenhammer666 is a good content creator whom I watch regularly and have even purchased some of his books. Styx presents common sense analysis in a straightforward manner that talks directly to his audience, not down to them and as such has amassed a sizable following. He's a bright guy who is fluent in normie and I can easily find myself agreeing with him up to 90% of the time. I have just a couple of points of disagreement too long to post in a comment.

As to the title and main idea of this post, Styx describes himself as a libertarian and this is why he does not grasp the fundamental concept that economics is downstream of politics as politics is downstream of culture. He therefore overlooks the cognitive dissonance created by claiming big tech businesses deplatform or censor content creators with whom the tech businesses make money and then acknowledges that the so-called "woke" capital always loses money. But why? Because they're either threatened by these youtube content creators because...reasons or some other big media business with tens of millions of viewers per program fears competition from youtubers with several thousand to hundreds of thousands or around a million viewers per upload. He likewise acknowledges that it is mostly perceived "right wingers" that are subjected to censorship and de-platforming on social media but then to deny the obvious political motivation and bolster that characteristic libertarian "man as a rational economic actor" nostrum he talks on about the few outlier leftists who are given the same treatment.

No businessman or CEO in his right mind or absent compulsion by forces greater than himself would willingly deplatform successful content creators as to in effect kick money out of bed. Not to mention that in doing so, big tech alienates the fans of said content creator, customers and with draconian censorship discourages new customers and content creators with whom they make more money. To claim big media somehow would be willing to spend more money, without any reasonable way to profit from it to "bribe" social media tech firms to do the dirty work of deplatforming much smaller potential competitors is ludicrous. Big mainstream media makes its money selling advertising spots, not by posting content on youtube or other social media. Television and cable news were always operated at a loss for the corporate owners which was offset by their other, more popular and profitable offerings. It's not about the number of views on youtube but the Nielsen ratings that the TV people care about. To have these industries act in such close concert and often within 24 hours of each other in a way that harms their economic interests clearly demonstrates a higher coordinating power with a clear agenda at work than the libertarian's usual "muh money" thinking. Also consider how in the recent congressional hearings on the rise of white nationalism/white supremacy the big Silicon Valley CEOs were hauled in and berated for not censoring badthinkers on their platforms enough. If that was all some kind of act, it sure looked very convincing.
So it IS a political and social agenda at work here, Styx, your money is the root of all evil thesis not withstanding.

Sometimes the rational economic actor motive can be true but when all you have is the economic materialist man hammer then everything looks like a rich man bad/muh money nail. Any analysis that cannot fully explain all observed facts and yields a contradictory result must be assumed to be incorrect and re-examined.
Styx should really add a few more tools besides that one hammer to his kit.

So here is the crux of the problem. Styx, like any libertarian, does not understand the left (or real human nature for that matter) at all.

Whereas human beings have moral agency and will act in their own best self interest even if it is in an irrational and/or immoral manner, libertarians are stuck on the flawed premise that all human interactions are rational and economic. The libertarian is too much a pure materialist with a minimalist philosophy to comprehend the irrational, emotionally based thinking of fanatical leftists (explained further in my previous posts here, here and here). To a person with a rigid adherence to the few strictly materialistic philosophic principles libertarianism has, the concept of an immoral and irrational leftist who cares only about winning, carrying out their agenda, at any and all cost, even if it causes the bankruptcy of a business is, to the libertarian, inconceivable. That the left will ruthlessly pursue anyone who either disagrees with them, the heretics and unbelievers, or those whom they view as a devil for no other reason than blind hatred completely flummoxes the libertarian. They struggle to explain this phenomena through the gnosticism of the non-aggression principle and secular materialism with no success. That the left has no limiting principles in pursuing their agenda and in persecuting their enemies is such a violation of the non-aggression principle and rational man that they are left speechless. In this situation and left with no other means of explaining it, Styx inevitably falls back on a simplistic "it's big corporations picking on us" explanation no matter how contradictory it is.

Further, libertarians are unable to grasp the difference between the concepts of influence and of power erroneously conflating simple possession of wealth with power. Wealth without real power can only buy influence and privileges (a previous post on the difference between power and influence here). It must be noted that there are limits placed on the actions, public positions and policies of all private businesses by both government laws and regulations and public opinion which influences sales and stock prices. Big corporations and billionaires may buy influence but absent possession of a large standing army, do not have any real power. Rich people may have privileges the rest of us do not have, but the rich pay those in government with real power for those privileges. It's a feudal system where the tithe paying vassal is permitted a certain amount of latitude within his fiefdom but within limits set by his liege lord.

Finally, libertarians like Styx do not even recognize that they themselves are actually part of the right but erroneously think themselves as somehow above the whole left-right thing because they sometimes find themselves on the same side of an issue as the left. (my earlier post on left and right is here) Again the libertarian does not understand the left at all. Whereas a libertarian like Styx might support such issues as homosexual marriage and legalizing some drugs consistent with their individualistic philosophy, the leftist weaponizes these issues to attack and destroy society. It's OK to be on the right, Styx.

In conclusion, I have posted very two abbreviated versions of this post in the comments section of Styx's videos. It's not surprising he did not engage me because he uploads four videos a day and receives hundreds of comments per upload. I don't expect he reads every single comment as that would be impossible. Styx certainly has other necessary things to do during the day than to personally respond to each and every comment or engage in lengthy debates. I don't think he's scared and hiding from me as another notable local blogger who shall remain nameless does so no offense is taken or offense meant with this post. If Tarl Warwick were to run for an elected office in which I could vote, he would have my vote, minor differences aside.


Donald Cavaioli

The Peasant Mindset II: The Tolerance of Tyranny Curve

In a previous post, I discussed what I referred to as the peasant mindset in that most people will behave like servile peasants under a master. This is to be expected as we humans are social beings having evolved in small hunter-gatherer tribes with a Pareto distribution in the leader-follower percentage. A tribe cannot function with too many leaders and not enough followers since all members of the tribe working together are essential in the overall survival of the group. This is hard wired into us but as diversity in any species is likewise essential to allow for changes in the environment and ecosystem, there will be a percentage of outliers- the individualist of whom a larger than average percentage of such minarchists in late eighteenth, early nineteenth century north America who founded our constitutionally limited republic.

As I stated earlier, the follower or peasant needs a master to follow or in our present case, a managerial ruling class, and will not mind strictures on their personal liberty even preferring a strict ruler over a lax one who is likely to be overthrown. After all, only strong rulers and leaders attract followers. So the ruler who promises his peasant the most benefits may tyrannize over them as much as he can. That is as long as the peasant's table has some food on it, the ruler keeps some of his promises of largess, or the iron rice bowl has a few crusts of bread in it, the individualist minority who resent being lorded over are ignored by the majority of peasants who will deem them fools or insane.

However, depending on the majority peasant's level of servility, if the master lets his peasants starve too long and beats them too hard, after a time even the most servile ones start to think the situation over. Here is where things get interesting.

If one were to plot a graph of peasant loyalty versus living standards we would see that strangely enough, the peasant's displays of loyalty to their rulers increases as their living standards decreases. This is in the hope of reversing the situation as perhaps the rulers are doubting the loyalty of the followers and is rightfully punishing them or are unaware of the peasant's dire straits. In either situation, the peasant hopes his rulers will act to alleviate the situation. This loyalty curve will continue to increase along with the master's complacency until a critical mass of peasants realize their bowls are empty and they have nothing left to lose. Then the ignored individualists' agitations against the master start becoming more popular, the loyalty curve suddenly changes sharply downwards to zero and a revolution starts brewing. If the rulers, sensing this, tries to make concessions to their peasants, this ruler is seen as weak and the revolution comes sooner rather than later. Otherwise this popular discontent may long simmer without boiling over until the situation somehow improves and the peasant loyalty curve increases to normal or a breaking point is finally reached.

What we see today in France is just this breaking point situation with the yellow vest protests. This is the potential start of a revolution, peaceful or otherwise, with the ruling class there pushing their ethnic French population too far with policies they do not want and realizing they have little left to lose. Let us hope the situation is resolved peacefully.

Countries like Italy and the United States are starting to support populist candidates outside of the mainstream of the ruling class parties to effect peaceful change necessary to curb the excesses of the ruling class through the ballot box. Let us hope this will be successful for a ruling class that ignores the will of the people, thwarting all attempts at redress of grievance and peaceful change, is a suicidal folly as it can have the dire consequences of making violent revolution inevitable.

To our ruling class here in New York, beware how you treat the working and middle classes, especially the white plebs you demonize, forcing them to accept and pay for your globalist policies of open immigration balkanization, degrading their standard of living with your overwrought environmental policies and subsequent increases in the cost of living. They will indeed notice how the rulers and elite of New York will not live under the same strictures and privations as they will do. And although they cheer your policies now, continue down this path and sooner or later they too will don yellow vests.


Donald Cavaioli

The Great Guy Syndrome

Here in New York City as in the rest of the country we have a problem with the elected political establishment not being responsive to the will of the citizen voter. One of the most important reasons is that elected politicians have an incumbent re-election rate of 90% or more. In many cases, we give electeds a virtual lifetime appointment to office no matter how they behave in office. Then worse, when the elected either retires or dies in office, we vote for another member of their family making an entrenched political dynasty.

Call it "the great guy syndrome". If one were to ask their neighbors' opinion on politics they would invariably say that all politicians are crooks, incompetents or in the pockets of their donors and would express amazement that people in other districts or states are such idiots to vote the wretches back into office. All the wretches except their politicians because their politician is a great guy and they can't wait to vote him (her or it) back into office.

What the great guy voter never realizes that all the other people he views as idiots who keep re-electing losers to office also think their politician is a great guy and can't understand what's wrong with everyone else as well. So we end up with re-election rates of 90% or more and nobody can ever figure out why nothing changes.

The great guy syndrome also causes voters to treat their electeds like rock stars because they're great guys rather than employees hired by the people of the district or the state to represent the community and it's interests.

Really, the important thing to remember is the people are the boss and elected politicians are our employees, hired by us in elections, and whose paycheck comes from our tax dollars. (H/T Mitch Waxman)

The problem with this current situation is that an entrenched politician with a virtual lifetime sinecure, like any employee the boss does not watch over, will begin to slack off of his responsibilities. If the employee realizes the boss will never fire him, he will lose any and all respect for his boss who he will then take every advantage of and virtually rob blind.

What should be done is for we the people to grow some backbone, take charge, and act like the boss.

Watch over your elected employee and hold him accountable if he fails to represent your interests or follow through on campaign promises. If he doesn't work up to standards, vote him out no matter how much you personally like him or his party affiliation, the platitudes or ideology. Vote for a candidate of another party if necessary to send a message to your preferred party and let them know why. Better luck then to the next candidate. No excuses.

Limit electing any candidate for office to two terms only! Maybe he is a great guy working miracles for your district so let him run for another office and be a great guy there. Don't let them sit in one office too long becoming indolent and disrespectful of the constituents.

It can be done.


Donald Cavaioli

Bill de Blasio: Progressive Liberal. Man of the Left. Deal With It.

To my fellow New Yorkers, denizens of Queens County still clinging to the "muh real progressive liberalism" nostrum and desperately promulgating the notion that our mayor is some kind of counterfeit progressive liberal in the vain hope of salvaging your political cult and snowflake egos from ruin: You're wrong. de Blasio is a progressive liberal and meets or exceeds all left wing checkpoints.
All you're doing is making yourself look pathetic.

All that you see before you in our city today that dismays you, causes the most deepest existential angst, shaking the core of your belief system, is exactly what a Marxian collectivist ideological system of government would bring: Equality and justice defined as equality of outcome requiring wealth redistribution and elevating the stupid and incompetent to positions they cannot achieve through merit, economic strip mining through highly regulated, select crony capitalist vassals and foreign investors, that the delusional are accorded high social status and the rest of us must validate their lunacy, and multicultural balkanization turning us into a third world borough. It's a socio-economic slow motion train wreck that can't end well.

What you're mostly whining about based on comments I have read in other blogs, is that although you've all drank the progressive kool aid and paid lip service to these programs, even virtue signaled your asses off in hopes of gaining good thinker brownie points, it has not worked out to your benefit. Your little tin gods took no notice of you and your prayers.

In fact, in some cases, you find yourself on the wrong end of the stick. You were hoisted on your own liberal petard and are now suffering a severe case of butthurt aggravated by sour grapes. Sorry you didn't make the cut but that's socialism: Where you're more likely to end up as the zek in the camp or the body in the ditch rather than the commissar or apparatchik living the high life with the beautiful people. Luckily, it hasn't gone that far...yet..., but it still sucks to be you. Maybe if you just keep mindlessly babbling about republicans' fault and "Orange man bad" then you'll feel better.

de Blasio never fails to support any of these progressive liberal points and as a member of the ruling elite, the boss, he gets to decide proper interpretation of the liberal religion, what to give to whom and who gets royally fucked over to pay for it all. You, me and the rest of us are just plebs who are expected to sit down, shut up and do what we're told by our betters who alone decide what's best for us.

So don't hate the player, hate the game.



Donald Cavaioli