What Is A Tory?

When Hayek wrote “Why I Am Not A Conservative“, he was referencing Tory leadership. This is often misunderstood by American liberals and conservatives.  Hayek implicitly knew that the American doctrine of natural rights possessed affinity with those mores needed for equity-capital formation, even though he despised Marxism, he also disliked Tories.  Why?

The answer is discerned in witnessing Theresa May’s recent call for elections.  She needs to dump every single Tory Europhile on her bench.  With this current majority, she’ll get slaughtered when the battle joins in Brussels.  The fear of sabotage is real, we’re witnessing a leader who openly trucked “remain“, now in charge of procuring a Brexit.

Her latest spat with her own Europhile Tory bench regarding health care funding specifically embodies a predicament that only she can resolve.  Hence the election.

The nasty truth is that the entire House of Lords is socialist and Tory maidens running the ruling establishment have never been market based fundamentalists.  This puts into relief the backdrop of Thatcher’s achievement as she railed against entrenched union membership and an openly socialist media commentariat.  Truth be told, it was Milton Friedman who sent Allan Meltzer to fortify Maggie’s limited formal grasp of neoclassical economics.  When the Times of London openly opined against Thatcher’s market based reforms it was Meltzer who took on and slaughtered established dandies of Keynesian kraft.

Thatcher’s achievement saved Britain.  Now Theresa May knows why the German’s referred to Maggie as the Iron Lady.

2a

Posted in England, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The End of Europe: The Limits of Secular Thought

I try not to cringe when I read most of what accounts for smart books these days, I’m thinking of The End of Europe:  Dictators, Demagogues & the Coming Dark Age by James Kirchick.  In my view, this book rapidly acknowledges why Henry Ford’s definition of history was right.  For Ford, history is “one damned thing after another“.  Do we really need a diachronic approach to how Europe is failing today?  Do we?  If a reader is a millennial, it would be acceptable, because so much of what constitutes education for this segment of American society is pure ignorance.  So if you’ve spent the last several years or decades succumbed to television, then Kirchick is your man.  If however, you’ve been introduced to greater writers of the mid-to-late 20th century like Solzhenitsyn, or say Robert Bartly, then Kirchick isn’t your truck.

The European project, as the European Union is known, was Paris’ concoction for accommodating American suzerainty over the European continent at the end of World War II, while Paris punished Berlin.  Given France’s near permanent geopolitical, fiscal and monetary weakness after the war, it sought to openly apply its own advantages while appeasing Washington, all the while it sought Teutonic subjugation.

Ironically, it is Germany today that rides Europe; given Berlin’s continued external surplus, it is Bonn, Stuttgart, and Berlin that usurp Paris and by extension, most of Continental Europe.  The peace, stability, prosperity, democracy and social harmony that characterizes European social order since 1947 isn’t an indigenous muscular liberal center.

With the collapse of Europe under the jackboot of Prussia, it fell to the Americans to vanquish what Europe couldn’t.  The impact of that, is what underwrote any European achievement.

Where else other than Europe and the Mediterranean littoral does one walk through grave yards to get to the beach?

Clearly their are problems throughout the Eurozone and its dominant periphery.  Russia continues to harass the North Atlantic, Scotland, the Baltic, all the while enveloping eastern Europe just outside the Bosphorus.  We witness a near permanent weakening of the Warsaw Pact; having engrossed liberal transformation under Reagan and John Paul, the Poles, Hungary’s own Fidesz Party and its charismatic irredentist minister Viktor Orban including Slovakia, the Czech Republic have all splintered under the pall of heavy capital flows of globalization.

How does Europe win.

It is my view that unless Europe rediscovers its Christian heritage it fails.

As of this writing, the Church is failing.

Here’s the good news, even militant secular thought is nothing less than gnostic rationalism.  The Church Fathers and more have tread this ground already.  By any standard, this is an old trick.  What may prevent any resurgence is economic frailty, Islamism, nuclear parity abroad, and economic autarky.  Its already happening.

Europe really doesn’t need an ever tightening union.  It needs nationalism.  It needs liberty and by extension confrontation.

If Europe is to recover any sense of its own identity, it must confront the open ideologies that underwrite its growing welfare state, its administrative state, its overwhelming socialist policies that prevent growth.

The U.S. had its Volcker and Reagan, will Europe discover hers.

2a

Posted in Europe, Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

The Sons of Ishmael, OPEC & U.S. Statecraft: The Weapon of Hayek’s ‘Extended Order’

Those that never had to compete never will.  This is the answer to the rise of Europe’s Fascist right.  What should we expect of political economies whose social base remains homogenized during a crisis.  Economies and rigid social orders don’t respond well to existential threats.  The United States in 2008 is a great example of a dominant political class that punted on any substantial reform.  Congress abrogated to the Central Bank, we’re now left picking up an economy that was never allowed to fail.

Enter the Saudi’s.  The House of Saudi has no growth.  Its social base is weak, homogenized and used to massive subsidies, and cash transfers, neither permit price signals to emerge. A feudal political economy that is currently being asked to reform.  A daunting task, because Riyadh’s central bank is running out of foreign exchange reserves. Simply put, the Saudi’s and by extension most of Islamic Civilization isn’t competing. Everything’s been fixed, until now.  Even still, Saudi threats are mounting.  Not having a functioning economy, having no base from which to expect monetary velocity to fund the fisc, the Saudi’s are in a hurry.  The struggle that has unfolded between OPEC members and U.S. shale producers is over.  The Saudi’s LOST.

They should have expected that, especially given how their economists are western trained.  But Keynesians don’t study Joseph Schumpeter and his magnum opus on changing interior social relations resulting from new innovations.  We watch Downton Abbey but we can’t quite seem to formalize how digitization and its inversion of scale yields to atomized beings.

For the Saudi’s and OPEC members, they’ve never had to live or function on $40-$55 a barrel.  The U.S. shale revolution has inverted entire petrol economies to operate at low cost structure.  The American’s can do this because of something we have that Islamic Civilization doesn’t have:  civil society.

What have the Americans done to threaten OPEC membership?  We’ve collapsed their budgets, their business models, their way of life.  It had to happen, if only because how artificial the social base underwriting these nation states were.  When the Americans began pumping 1.4 million barrels A DAY beginning in 2014, we destroyed 60% of Muslim societies superstructure, we continue to so today.

How did OPEC respond?

They sought to raise the price by collapsing their own output.  To do that, they needed what OPEC never had, communion.  OPEC members had to agree on scheduled reductions of output.  They had to agree to willfully lose major market share.  They all succeeded, but the market, the ‘extended order‘ comprised of innovative components, kept moving on.  When OPEC returned, they discovered a changed playing field to the Americans advantage.  The innovative components driving the shale revolution made exploration and production cheaper by 50%.  With demand growing and prices falling, OPEC lost again.  Having the west recalibrate to the lower bound destroyed OPEC.

Schumpeter knew something OPEC didn’t, we live in an active social environment, they don’t.

Adam Smith called it ‘the invisible hand‘, Hayek termed it ‘the extended order‘, everyone else calls it ‘the market‘.

The west, and by extension, our President has more weaponry to roll back the Islamists than we acknowledge.  If we want to take the fight to the sons of Ishmael, let them compete. 

1b

Posted in Oil, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Macron’s Tutorial: Raymond Aron & The Recovery of the Political

What did France do recently when it elected a novice like Macron.  The facts speak for themselves, he ran against a government he worked for, he spoke eloquently, engaging multiple sides of all issues presented to him, clearly an icon fit for television.  Yet the French have castrated themselves in honoring Macron as their leader.  A Socialist who continues to rail against France’s own indigenous polities, he’s pushing the very globalized politics that continue to ruin France.  Do they understand that only the French can fix themselves?  Do they comprehend what an every closer union means?

The scale of his win sacks Le Pen, but this electoral landslide will not transform France. Why?  Because the nations conservatives, the Republicans, haven’t gained traction on any reform initiatives.  As the dominant Socialist party was thrown out under Hollande, they actually sutured themselves to Macron’s candidacy.  The minion Macron will now suffer for his success.

By vanquishing the pretext of a perennial Gaullist threat, those Marxist parliamentarian companions have no reason to tie themselves to a novice without solid achievements.  If anything, the Islamists have been given a gift in Macron.

So what exactly happened in this election?

What happened was chronicled by France’s premiere scholar decades ago in his book titled “The Recovery of the Political“.  Raymond Aron sought to vanquish from France’s utopian mien, a love of abstractions.  By revealing the intrinsic paralyzing components of utopian ideologies, Aron was seeking to liberate France from the confines of mystification. For Aron, the entire edifice of ideology obfuscates, it never clarifies, it never arouses one in identification of formal or proximate causation.  To remain mystified was to embrace obscurantist tendencies that exacerbated political life in avoidance of resolution.

With Macron, the French identified with a politician who embraced the very policies that have destroyed France.  He ran against the record of a government he served.

How will this end?

My guess is that France has surrendered its sovereignty, it has deliberately sought to avoid the very cataclysm that envelops it; permanent unemployment, cash transfers as fiscal-monetary policies, unassimilated Islamists and open borders.

Perhaps the American’s should not worry about Iran possessing nuclear weapons, the Shia in Paris already have them.

1a

Posted in France, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Feat of Balshazzar: U.S. Policy Falters In Balancing

Anyone with even a mediocre classical education knows what “mene, mene, tekel upharsin” refers to; a doomed Empire.  What does this have to do with the Pax Americana?  If one looks to the Maghreb, the Arabian peninsula, Mesopotamia, southwest Asia, Iran, the Levant, North Africa, and all of western Europe, you gain an insight that most never acknowledge.  A patient strategy of regional, near global growth is happening within Islam.  It cannot be stopped.  We must harness our best efforts if we’re ever to gain traction from the inside.  Its really our only shot.  What is needed is deft Statecraft, an executive committed to linking the interior growth of political economies in regions throughout the world than are nominally linked to the west.  This means opening Islamabad to break its long held idea of remaining a client state to Beijing favoring indigenous reform, one that would disrupt to unleash a moribund civil society that isn’t fortified in Saudi Arabia but is in Indonesia or East Africa.

We need an American ‘string of pearls strategy‘.  We need to build for the long game.  Our endemic problem is domestic, for the governing opposition has no currency in this Republican regime. To fix that, we need growth; without it, we cannot suture along Marxists who seek to champion their own agenda irregardless of growth.

What team Trump needs to do is wind down our conflicts in Afghanistan, position Iraq favorably to western entreaties while fortifying our policies against Iran.  A balancing move that requires all we’ve got aboard Defense & Pentagon.  This can’t be done alone, we need Riyadh, London, Poland, Australia, Japan and hosts of others in support.

Why is this THE strategy?

The American’s alone don’t have the time, given how we’ve floundered for eight years.  Our threat deterrents are hollow because we’ve squandered much.  As every prior American executive knows, coalition management is fraught with domestic imperatives that often don’t work in tandem with foreign policies.  Our diplomacy isn’t strong because its completely divorced from the commands of realism, our foreign aid resembles handouts, divorced from the needs of true reform, we struggle to turn weak nation states western.  Still, we must do more. . .

This is THE strategy because we’re witnessing millions and millions of children in Yemen and Syria become indoctrinated.  We can’t surmise numbers but they are exceedingly large. Why do seemingly well grounded professionals throughout Defense speak of not inveighing against Islam?  Its simple, they’re growing and they aren’t with us.

It is possible that the Americans falter throughout our multiple engagements.  Its possible that we’re witnessing a rerun of the 1930’s.  Expect proliferation.  Expect Riyadh and hosts of others inimical to our norms to seek nuclear parity.

The opening gamut of ‘the long war’ has begun.  We can’t really influence the changing nature of the character of this war.  Yet still, the indispensable nation must engage.

My monies on the hard working stiff, the forgotten Muslim man.

Pray we still possess enough credibility to harness the children of Ismael.

2a

Posted in The Long War, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Asia’s Future: Hindutva or Caliphate

Modi’s win in Uttar Pradesch brings coattails.  Most thought Modi’s rise could survive any blemish, nevertheless, we’re witnessing the limits of secular writ in India.  The rise of Modi cannot be laid at the feet of Amit Shah, Modi’s chief strategist, for India’s Congress Party is faltering badly much like Britain’s Labor.  Political environments matter, but so does leadership; for years now Modi’s rise was underwritten by sound institutional ground work supplemented by globalizations inroads throughout the Subcontinent.  India’s consciousness was always inward and positioned facing the Eurasian northwest passage, now its sprawling towards Mughal achievements in Swahili East Africa, Oman and most of the Arabian littoral.  Political leaders know of India’s passivity, they also trust its capitalist ethos.  That cannot be said of Beijing or Iran.

Having Amit Shah handpick candidates for India’s most populated Muslim state, Uttar Pradesh delivered Modi a writ of ascendancy that is currently questioning the Hindutva, the hegemony of India’s indigenous self-consciousness that is Hinduism.  Given the status of the neighborhood, this is very dangerous.

BJP’s momentus win since 2014 is validating Islamabad’s propaganda.  The message of pan-Hindu unity solidified in Uttar Pradesh does not help India’s self image abroad.  Caste based politics is purely domestic, but we should expect more militancy from Modi and his cohorts.  If anything, the Islamists in ascendancy throughout the northwest passage are being given a gift, Hindu militancy.  Samajwadi’s party will be measured in blood.  Just ask Kashmiri’s.

Modi’s BJP party hasn’t been able to translate its domestic reign into any majority outside its lower chamber.  This is because Indian politics resembles a feudal relation whereby business oligarchs reign both the upper chamber, multinationals and banks.  India’s upper chamber is selected by state assemblies, this opens insight into how Amit Shah progressed through Uttar Pradesh.  Yet it remains to be seen if Modi’s big ticket reform agenda remains legislatively stalled.  As of this writing, State banks and regulatory reform haven’t gained any traction.  Given vast geographic and institutional differences, we remain quite a few years away from what China achieved.

What would coalesce to bring Modi’s momentum down.  The answer is twofold.  Archaic atavism evidenced in party politics seeking reaction as solidarity.  The open killing of Indian Muslims putatively accused of cow slaughter is perennial.  Modi’s silence is damaging to Indian secularism.  Secondly, India remains a nation besieged in rivalry.  Even the social, political and economic continuity of the nation state is cut through with irregularity.  As Churchill said in London’s Constitutional Club in 1931, “India is a geographic term“, although he meant it pejoratively, the concept is evidenced in India’s Parliament.  The false cohesion underwriting so much of the nation remains forcibly contrived.

The movement of goods and taxes is similar.  Individual state prerogatives trump interstate commerce. Their simply isn’t anything resembling nationhood, just witness how the central bank continues to underwrite the profligacy of provincial debt creation.  The concept of parochialism is endemic to both the Congress Party and indigenous Indian politics.  Modi’s ascendancy can reverse these trends.

Why do Indian plutocrats put up with this scheme?  The answer is the archaic feudal mindset animating India’s upper chamber. They are oligarchs resembling defeated Brits.

If equality remains the fault line dividing Islamic Civilization, just wait until the west tries to wade into India’s socio-political mess called politics.

The future of Asia rests in whichever religion accommodates the demands of realism.  Its between India & Islam.

The Hindutva or the Caliphate.

3a

Posted in India, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why Political Regimes Matter & the Limits of Covenants

For decades now, the west and by extension Israel which is often thought of as an American frontier, has been besieged by propaganda that an openly agreed covenant would resolve the peace process; a nomenclature of U.S. Department of State.  The Israeli’s knew something that State ignored, the nature of regimes matter, and politics is ultimately about ethics.

State pushed a false realism that if Israel, which has made peace with Jordan and Egypt in openly secured covenants, then Israel should do the same with Palestinians.  No mention here of how wealthy petro-Monarchies view the Palestinians as proxies keeping Israel in a near permanent state of war.  Nevertheless, the positivist mindset of pursuing open covenants missed the geopolitics of the nature of regimes or the kind of political comity that animates Islamic Civilization.  Egyptian and Jordanian initiatives have no affinity to Palestinian claims.

Even if the Israeli’s pursued a three State solution where Egypt controls Gaza and Jordan annexes the West Bank, the black box of Iranian regional ambitions remains unsettled.  And lets not forget Turkey, Lebanon or the Syrian civil war raging.  Nevertheless, having Islamists arriving in Golan from McKinder’s Heartland should provide caution for State and its view of covenants.

Simply put, as it stands today, a Palestinian state on Israel’s border isn’t a viable option.

Even a three state solution is a return to pre-1967 borders.  Do we really want a besieged settler mindset enveloping Israel?

Here’s a solution:  the American’s must maintain to underwrite Israeli prerogatives as we do with other Arab nation states in the region, however, until Islamic Civilization accommodates western political norms, there cannot be openly agreed covenants.

Panorama of Jerusalem old city. Israel

Posted in Israel, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Nadia Schadlow & the Reform of Dept. of Defense

Dr. Schadlow’s magnum opus is War & the Art of Governance, it remains a perennial achievement from which to dismantle the chorus of neo-isolationists that insist that Amerika Come Home; if team Trump under McMaster and Mattis are to win throughout the subcontinent and additional regions touching the Eurasian littoral, we’re going to need allies, sound tactical achievements and a bit of luck.

Pakistan still thinks of Afghanistan as its backyard from which to recover from any entanglement with New Delhi.  India wishes to flank Islamabad in its interior.  Moscow is arming the Taliban with Islamic proxies moving down from Central Asia feeding the insurgency.  As it stands now, the American’s cannot afford to multiply their challenges as we desperately need both New Delhi & Islamabad’s help in stabilizing Afghanistan.

The regimes throughout the northwest frontier don’t need clear political objectives, they can fight on for decades.  Our Clauswitzian prerogatives mean that war has political objectives.  We simply cannot go on for decades in a war that has already consumed 16 years.  Simply put, we cannot have another eight years of wandering, our threat deterrents are hallow.

When Mattis recovered his position after entering as Secretary of Defense, he admonished everyone within earshot that America had a solvency problem.  He’s clearly thinking about financing ‘the long war’.  He might be alone in that insight with only Senator McCain and Congressman Thornberry.

What the Department of Defense needs is flatter hierarchies, joint platforms; redundancies that assist each service in command mission.  But all these changes remain at the periphery, what we need is to dump the entire Keynesian foundation that underwrites our military industrial complex.

Here’s why:  their are limits to reducing procurement costs, they are, fewer design changes and fixed price competition.  No mention here of having regional allies redesign their own industrial bases, nor is there any mention of strong Statecraft that would openly link our regional objectives to local political economies.  Nevertheless, the above noted reduction in procurement costs have pitfalls.  Fixed price contracts without controlling design changes is useless, and using fixed prices in programs with unproven technologies cannot work.  A brief explanation is needed.

How do defense contractors gain revenue after bidding low?  They seek design changes that drive up costs, often suing the government to recover.  Let’s not forget the miracle of supply side political economies and the inversion of scale that typifies digitization, with a glut of supply and strong economic growth Dept. of Defense should expect cost curves trending down.  This cannot happen with a federal budget swamped from entitlements.

What worked for Reagan can work for Trump, but the Clash of Civilizations will require the entire edifice of Defense and Pentagon to be reformed outside the dominant myopia of Keynesian kraft.

Get ready for the Pentagon and by extension, the Department of Defense to resemble Great Britain during Empire at its ascendancy, with specialized civilians driving both the construction of foreign policy, and its imperial governing.

Dr. Nadia Schadlow’s latest is a glimpse of war outside the confines of the third offset.

2a

Posted in Empire, The Long War, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Steven Bannon’s Tutorial on Jacksonian Rage

What are the limits to populism in a Constitutional Republic.  The answer is, we’re about to find out.  When Trump rode in on the heels of a Jacksonian moment, it took nearly three months to discern the limits of being a purely domestic President.  Even though Lyndon Johnson, Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter remain divisive Executives, they were primarily elected to fix domestic agendas.  But that’s not the most effective or judicious way to wield Executive power as President.  Our unitary executive was created resembling monarchy.  Only a Hamiltonian Presidency can shape a Jacksonian creed.  Trump is learning this now, even as Steve Bannon rails to curtail H.R. McMaster’s writ in Southwest Asia.

What Bannon has yet to acknowledge, Trump has already acquired and recalculated back into his tactical posture of executive strategy, for Trump, the United States domestic economy resides as the foundation for global security and prosperity.  We’re severely constrained with an executive pursuing a domestic agenda.  If anything, we’ve just relinquished eight years of naval gazing that procured nothing but diminishing returns.

The core goals of a Jacksonian domestic Presidency can only succeed within the confines of a Hamiltonian Presidency.  The sine qua non is expressed power, and only perhaps realists understand how best to wield this instrument.  As Dr. Walter Russell Mead recently wrote, Lincoln embodied the symmetry of the American electorates binary party system between Jacksonian Democrats and Hamiltons Whigs.  By the time of the Cold War, the American electorate knew expressed requisite power alone could curtail Soviet expansion.  Both Truman, Kennedy and Reagan implicitly knew it.

My interview with Dr. Henry Nau, Ronald Reagan’s Director of the National Security Council cover this agenda by examining his latest publication, Conservative Internationalism:  Armed Diplomacy Under Jefferson, Polk, Truman & Reagan.

Posted in Alex Tocqueville, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 2 Comments