Amerika

The 2024 election will widely be regarded as a referendum on diversity, immigration, the entitlements state, and the Deep State. These things are linked because they support each other and come from the same root, namely the post-14A government based on civil rights, and consequently, on paying citizens to be equal.

We can visualize the “Deep State” as the entrenched bureaucracy and Uniparty both by realizing that an organization controls Washington which has long historical precedent in getting votes from immigrants, trading favors to stay in power, and buying loyalty with taxpayer money, just like Tammany Hall did for over a century:

The group was organized in 1789 in opposition to the Federalist Party’s ruling “aristocrats.” The Society of Tammany was incorporated in 1805 as a benevolent body; its name derived from a pre-Revolutionary association named after the benevolent Indian chief Tammanend. The group became identified with the city’s Democratic Party. The makeup of the society was substantially altered in 1817 when Irish immigrants, protesting Tammany bigotry, forced their right to membership and benefits. Tammany later championed the extension of the franchise to white propertyless males. Nevertheless, the society’s appeal to particular ethnic and religious minorities, the doling out of gifts to the poor, and the bribing of leaders of rival political factions, among them the notorious boss William Magear Tweed, made the name Tammany Hall synonymous with political corruption.

As usual, egalitarian movements start out by demonizing the competent who rule through methods that are inscrutable to many. This creates a natural support base of human miscellany who for whatever reason are having troubles and want someone to blame for their problems.

Once they form a mob and take over, they start spreading the wealth around, with a big chunk taken off the top for those who happen to be in power, the “champions of the people.” They focus on the least successful — the poor, immigrants, homosexuals, women, the insane, the sad, the lost, neurotics, sociopaths — in order to form this coalition.

Eventually they create a mass of people who are “lost in the crowd” and unite them around the things that committees normally like, namely ignoring real issues in order to pursue emotional, patriotic, and moral symbolism that makes the herd feel good about itself.

At this point, the deracinated and cultureless horde creates tyranny of the majority despite the majority being formed of people united on nothing but selfishness and resentment:

As “Democracy in America” revealed, Tocqueville believed that equality was the great political and social idea of his era, and he thought that the United States offered the most advanced example of equality in action. He admired American individualism but warned that a society of individuals can easily become atomized and paradoxically uniform when “every citizen, being assimilated to all the rest, is lost in the crowd.” He felt that a society of individuals lacked the intermediate social structures—such as those provided by traditional hierarchies—to mediate relations with the state. The result could be a democratic “tyranny of the majority” in which individual rights were compromised.

At this point the rent-seeking behavior normally blamed on “capitalism” or “the rich” comes out. Since no one has obedience to anything but themselves and the herd, they quickly divide up everything of value and consume it in a type of “gold rush” designed to exploit the resources of that society before someone else gets there:

The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, “What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?” This utility has one negative and one positive component.

1) The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1.

2) The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of -1.

Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another…. But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit–in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.

This is how the Deep State works, and why it succeeds: it is a job, but a good job, and to make a career of it, one has to swear allegiance to selfishness and resentment, which correspondingly are the most popular thing in any group of random humans without direction.

Tags: deep state, entrenched bureaucracy, political machine, tammany hall, tragedy of the commons, tyranny of the majority