From the “Deep State” to the “Steady State”: Anti-Trump Derangement Reaches New Lows…

The New York Times published an anonymous essay claiming to be authored by a “senior administration official”, to the effect that Trump is a flaky child, and the country is saved by “resistance” inside the Trump administration by the “steady state”. Trump is not just immature, but: 

“The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision-making.

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.”

“Free markets”? What is “free” about Chinese market domination? 375 billion dollars of deficit in 1917! … With the US alone. Adding the European deficit, one gets more than half a trillion dollars in deficit. So many good jobs, and know-how lost! … And the consequences are major, even ecologically: France, for example, has no recent development of solar PhotoVoltaic, the cheapest unsubsidized energy in 2018. Why no French PV? Because, argue the French higher-ups, the solar panels are made in China, and purchasing them would aggravate the already catastrophic French trade deficit! 

Chinese market domination is enabled by governmentalism:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/synthesis-found-governmentalism/

Governmentalism works: all serious civilizations have known this. The Greek city states, especially Athens, practiced governmentalism extensively. So did its enemy, the Achaemenid empire. Rome practiced governmentalism, even more so. Western Europe also did, led by the Merovingians, Carolingians, the French monarchy, and the Anglo-Normand state.

Governmentalism was practiced for so long, it spawned a trade subsidiary: mercantilism.

So why doesn’t the West practiced it as much as it used to?

The trade imbalance and de-industrialization of the West is not an happenstance, but a plot: Chinese market domination is enabled by collusion with global plutocracy.

As I have explained many times, the scheme was inaugurated when the Roman Republic degenerated: the Roman plutocracy became strong from not paying taxes, and weakening the core of the empire, Italy, which had given birth to it. Now we are repeating it, on a planetary scale.

***

So will sneer that Trump is no anti-plutocrat, but that he is not of them himself. Right. However, in disagreement with most other plutocrats (and no, it has nothing to do with Putin: Trump is on the record with his positions since 1970… If anything Trump influenced Putin first, not vice versa!)

Several ideas Trump promotes are lethal to the existing plutocratic establishment (anti-”free” trade, anti massive immigration, anti deindustrialization, denouncing the vested, biased opinion of most media, etc.) The more Trump pushes those iconoclastic ideas, the more the plutocratic establishment is hurt, because it rests on them. Soon, at this rate, lethally hurt… For example “trade”, like “art” are viewed as absolute goods by all old fashion parties be they “left” or “right”. Never mind that they are tax eschewing. No attention is paid by the media that those augment the plutocratization exponentially. And why would the plutocratically owned media undermine beliefs which enables it to exist? Instead the “liberal” establishment insists that having a Supreme Court justice who won’t fancy abortion at 8 months, for no good reason, undermines democracy.  Brandish red herrings, and thrive!

***

Although Trump has helped civilization to sink lower than ever, this is not the worse problem. The worst is that his opposition is worse.I replied to the anonymous editorial. Here is my comment below. It apparently baffled the New York Times (charitable interpretation!), which started by NOT publishing my ideas (the NYT published another 10,000 comments on the anonymous ed in the meantime)! Thus the readership was kept safe from subservience.

***

One has to look beyond Trump. One has to look beyond the present “administration”. One has to look beyond the present political system, that so-called “representative democracy”. One has to look at reality: “representative democracy” puts too much power in too few hands. This cannot end up well, because the physical power is increasing while the brain power (the few hands in power) is not.

Thus, “Representative democracy” has to be contained. Notice that “representative democracy” is a contradiction in adjecto. Demos kratia means people power. It does mean the few ruling, that’s oligarchy. Oligarchy is what we have, but we call it democracy. And when, as is the case, just one man has power, that is tyranny (rule of the one). Thermonuclear tyranny. We came very close to all-out thermonuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis. If the two leaders had been a tiny bit more crazy…

At some point just one Russian officer, in a particular submarine by chance, prevented the firing of thermonuclear torpedoes against an US aircraft carrier.

Giving too much power to a few men was long tried: contrarily to repute, kings were often elected (such as the founders of the Merovingians and the Capetians). It is the principle of kinship, too much power for one man, which was at fault.

To contain the exaggerated power of a few men, one has to go back to DIRECT democracy, as Athens (and Rome to some extent) practiced, enabling them to advance civilization. In the Internet age, We The People can vote directly in plebiscites. This is done in Switzerland,  very successfully, albeit partly, in California. They both balance the usual representative system with the direct voting system.  

***

I was disappointed that the NYT didn’t publish my comment, and sneered that it was naturally more interested to exhibit Trump Derangement Syndrome symptoms, rather than addressing the deep issues at hand. Then I did something I didn’t do for a while: I sent a protesting comment. Here it is:

***

I sent a comment to the NYT which was cogent: the problem isn’t so much Trump inasmuch that there is too much power in too few hands, but my comment doesn’t seem to have been published (I got no notice to this effect!) The solution to too much power in too few hands is more direct democracy, not just changing one man, and vest another with the same powers. Why doesn’t the NYT believe that the entire principle of representing one country by one all-powerful man is not at fault, and not relevant to the problem at hand?

***

What happened? Ten hours later, the NYT published my protesting comment! … Another 39 minutes after that, a full day after submission, the NYT published my initial comment… A rare case where protesting worked.

***

One can see that great care is bestowed to determine which ideas We The People is exposed to… 

Obviously plutocrats hope that, or at least, hold that, if civilization collapse, they will make out like the bandits they are. This is what happened, indeed, when the Roman state collapsed: the aristocracy survived by making alliances with the invading barbarians. Thus the relative status of the wealthiest improved while everybody else suffered or died… History repeats itself. However, history repeats itself less than ever. Where it used to whisper, it now roars, where it used to crawl, it now rushes, and where it uses to advise, it now lies.

Ideas drive civilization. Sometimes they drive it into the ground. The “fittest” civilizations survived. But, now we have just one world civilization. Just as there is no planet B, there is no civilization B. That’s it. There is no alternative. Only the best ideas, better ideas can save it, by helping it to morph into a sustainable form.

One will not get there by preventing We The People to be exposed to more sophisticated ideas. Because better ideas will be more sophisticated.

Patrice Ayme