Posted On: Friday - July 12th 2024 10:11AM MST
In Topics: US Feral Government Deep State
This ain't the half of it. Were Peak Stupidity to provide the reader with a full org chart with all the lettered agencies, bureaus, commissions, and what-have-you, we'd need to link you to a poster on a 4 x 8 piece of plywood with #4 fonts.
About what we'll now call here the Administrative State, from our 7 y/o post making the same point:
Now, the other definition I've been reading lately is more like just the deeply set-in-place US Feral Government bureaucracy. That is what some articles have been referring to as the Deep State in reference to the inability of President Trump to follow through on his promises to the patriotic American voters.I read over some of Steve Sailer's writings about the "Deep State" description of the "powers that be" in Turkey. There's a lot of overlap in there, as he notes that Turkey's MIC types, ex-military, ex-government folks, etc. are that Deep State. I can see that a portion of our Deep State would consist of these types surely. There's that "revolving door" deal between government and "private" "consulting" firms. High level Administrative State types can become part of the Deep State. They are still separate entities however.
This is quite a different story. There are indeed millions of entrenched usually not-easily-fire-able employees in government. These people are almost all very much in favor of Big Government, because, (yeah, no shit) they work there and want to keep their cushy jobs with decent pay and a really nice pension NOT coming. They shouldn't be able to vote to begin with, as none of them are (net) taxpayers - yet vote like hell they do, and even with Donald Trump not being anything resembling a small-government Libertarian, in general they don't like anyone who wants cuts to budgets, meaning (see Ron Paul's latest) any lowering of the GROWTH of ANYTHING in the Feral Gov't. This is the Deep State that some have been writing about lately in reference to implementation of any policies of President Trump('s campaign, anyway).
In that old post, I was perhaps too harsh in calling all of the millions of Government workers out using the term Deadbeat State in that old post. I do know that there are plenty of administrators and officials - it's mostly an old White man thing, though - who do really believe in the function of their organization and want to get a job done. That guy at the USDA who's in charge of some meat inspectors probably does care that people don't get retchedly (typo intended) sick, and that FAA inspector does care that new flight instructors won't pass on bad habits or runway pavement markings and signage is not confusing. People care, but the ship of state has a lot of inertia.
Take the guy working for the Border Patrol. I know guys (read East Into the Sunset for more) who join up because of the agency's function, to protect against home(land) invasions. Yet, if the higher ups, as pressured by that traitorous piece of shit Mayorkas, as pressured himself by, uhhhh who might that be?*, have them doing babysitting and welcoming duty, well, that's what most of them will do. (Others will quit in disgust and probably join other Fed law enforcement agencies.) They don't have to like it**, but they answer to higher ups. They do not RUN the show.
Now, we can argue that the Constitution means nothing anymore, but all these agencies answer to the President. It's not easy to fire them all, but high level heads can be made to proverbially roll until the ship starts to come about. (Oh, Congress won't approve your new pick, you worry? Well, you pick the Acting Head of the ABC you want and keep him doing your bidding as long as it takes. Hardball, it's called.)
Trump had a hard time for 4 years, partly due to his own stupidity in hiring swamp creatures to drain the swamp. The other part of it was that he was not, and is still not, in the UniParty. Decisions that the Commander-in-Chief has complete authority to do, such as GETTING OUT of wherever militarily, were blocked by sandbaggers and stonewallers, who answer to higher powers than Trump. Trump should have fired them more quickly.
I wrote that all the people in that org chart answer, through the channels, to the President. The question is, who does the President answer to? Also, who do the Senators and Congressmen answer to? As much as the people want it, even a complete Totalitarian scumbag like AG Merrick Garland can't be dragged off the floor and arrested***. It's always THIS CLOSE! Yeah, no coincidence, or more like control from higher up, is involved, just bad luck... every time.
Back to Administrative State big shots who are working against us, let's mention Lois Lerner again, and how about your nasty**** Leticia James types? These folks may have their own agendas. Patrick Cleburne over at VDare has created a new genre of writing about these non-White, mostly female administrators who care nothing about that old White Man rule of law and fairness. (It's partly genetic.) James is just out to get the White man. She campaigned on simply "getting Trump", since he is just a little too favorable toward White people, and her VDare Vendetta is just side work. What was Lois Lerner's problem? She's a White lady, so it's not the anti-White society jealousy thing. Was it also personal?
There's more to it. These people work against traditional America because there are people much higher up than them who WANT THAT. Maybe there aren't memos one can point to. The Lois Lerner IRS story can be explained by the fact that the Globalists/Deep State really, really want to end the White Middle Class. Lerner's persecution of White Conservative businesses while leaving the parasite class alone was just going along to get along. Maybe these Administrative State higher-ups take on projects all on their own. However, the zeitgeist, if I may, they work within is created by others, the actual Deep State. We'll get to who the REAL Deep State is soon, if not tomorrow, early next week. Stay tuned - you're probably dying to know, right?
* I'll take Deep State for a thousand, Alfred.
** The Border Patrol Union, for example, hates the Bai Dien Administration. JoeMentia lied right during that debate that it supported him, so the Union tweeted back to refute it in real time.
*** The new, watered-down idea (by likely blackmailed speaker Ron Johnson) of fining him $10,000 a day for not honoring that subpoena didn't pass either.
**** I'm borrowing this new favorite iSteve adjective, but he uses it for more than the word applies to. (Example here. ctrl-f "nasty". See?)
Comments:
Moderator
Saturday - July 13th 2024 8:05AM MST
PS: Mr. Hail, I wrote you back on your site. I have more to say here re: Hong Kong and the programs to bring in people from the ex-colonies, etc.
Alarmist, I have watched my share of Star Trek, but I don't know all the episodes. Are we talking the original, i.e. James T. Kirk, Commander, show? I'll try to find it on youtube.
Good morning, Adam.
Alarmist, I have watched my share of Star Trek, but I don't know all the episodes. Are we talking the original, i.e. James T. Kirk, Commander, show? I'll try to find it on youtube.
Good morning, Adam.
Moderator
Saturday - July 13th 2024 8:02AM MST
PS: That was a good example there, Mr. Hail, about the public housing and the unfairness of it all as administered by the Administrative State. Let's think about who is really deciding. Yes, if the higher-ups let it happen - AA and other screw-the-White-man policies being the general rule for 60 years now - then the underlings will implement things in this way.
As an aside, there's not so much pushback from White people for 2 reasons:
1) Anyone bringing up anti-Whiteness with no big group to back him up is subject to all kinds of problems.
2) (1) notwithstanding, White people are more prone to not wanting to game the system and are less tribal to begin with, so the lose out to those who act the opposite way by nature.
You get a group of black "civil" "servants" in one department, and no, you can't expect fairness to the White man. However, at the high level, the Administrative State can be slowly turned about, these pocket of diversity perhaps going their own way.
I can't speak about public housing when it comes to Trump, but on border invasion issues, he got the "rulemaking" done. This is non-Congressional action that is, albeit temporarily, as good as law-making. The ICE or whomever USCIS(?) implemented the "Remain in Mexico" policy. This was VERY important, as it meant that the millions of bogus-asylum claimants could not get into the interior of this country and "await their 2 year later court date", yeah, right!
These kinds of policies get implemented by the Administrative State, but the Administrator of the Executive Branch, i.e. the Pres, has got to know how to do this.
Trump ran into a lot of resistance, but I'll give him credit for being a really tough guy and not folding to go along to get along.
So, who decides? Someone at the high level of President has got to know enough about how the Admin. State is deciding things in most harmful ways and get it all reversed. It could take a lot of firings to put the fear into these people. From his old TV show ads, I'd thought Trump was pretty good at that.
Ron DeSantis in Florida has been doing a great job in ripping out D.I.E. department from Universities, etc. If you can take out whole masses of people at a time, you get things changed quicker. Of course, he DID have the support - the lawmaking - of the Conservative Florida legislature. Trump did not have that kind of support. He could have, had he known how to apply pressure.*
* I mean, he is so good at rallying people, he could have told some of the "reluctant", i.e., UniParty Congressmen, "See these 10 issues? If you don't vote my way on all of them, I WILL be out there in [pick your State] to campaign for your primary opponent! Vote for them all, and I guarantee you 2 trips to support you and 85 tweets too. What's it gonna be, asshole?"
As an aside, there's not so much pushback from White people for 2 reasons:
1) Anyone bringing up anti-Whiteness with no big group to back him up is subject to all kinds of problems.
2) (1) notwithstanding, White people are more prone to not wanting to game the system and are less tribal to begin with, so the lose out to those who act the opposite way by nature.
You get a group of black "civil" "servants" in one department, and no, you can't expect fairness to the White man. However, at the high level, the Administrative State can be slowly turned about, these pocket of diversity perhaps going their own way.
I can't speak about public housing when it comes to Trump, but on border invasion issues, he got the "rulemaking" done. This is non-Congressional action that is, albeit temporarily, as good as law-making. The ICE or whomever USCIS(?) implemented the "Remain in Mexico" policy. This was VERY important, as it meant that the millions of bogus-asylum claimants could not get into the interior of this country and "await their 2 year later court date", yeah, right!
These kinds of policies get implemented by the Administrative State, but the Administrator of the Executive Branch, i.e. the Pres, has got to know how to do this.
Trump ran into a lot of resistance, but I'll give him credit for being a really tough guy and not folding to go along to get along.
So, who decides? Someone at the high level of President has got to know enough about how the Admin. State is deciding things in most harmful ways and get it all reversed. It could take a lot of firings to put the fear into these people. From his old TV show ads, I'd thought Trump was pretty good at that.
Ron DeSantis in Florida has been doing a great job in ripping out D.I.E. department from Universities, etc. If you can take out whole masses of people at a time, you get things changed quicker. Of course, he DID have the support - the lawmaking - of the Conservative Florida legislature. Trump did not have that kind of support. He could have, had he known how to apply pressure.*
* I mean, he is so good at rallying people, he could have told some of the "reluctant", i.e., UniParty Congressmen, "See these 10 issues? If you don't vote my way on all of them, I WILL be out there in [pick your State] to campaign for your primary opponent! Vote for them all, and I guarantee you 2 trips to support you and 85 tweets too. What's it gonna be, asshole?"
Adam Smith
Saturday - July 13th 2024 7:52AM MST
PS: Good morning, Frens, Gentlemen, and Scholars...
"๐๐ข๐ (๐)๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ก"???
Our???
Not my (p)Resident.
โฎ๏ธ
"๐๐ข๐ (๐)๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ก"???
Our???
Not my (p)Resident.
โฎ๏ธ
The Alarmist
Saturday - July 13th 2024 3:26AM MST
PS
Bai Den in his current state (there are five Bai Dens, dontchaknow) reminds me of Professor John Gill in Star Trek episode โPattern of Forceโ (s2 ep 21), a Federation busybody who turns the planet Ekos into a new Nazi Reich, but ends up pumped full of drugs and making empty television speeches while his handlers carry out an anti-Zeonic final solution.
We are the new Zeons.
Bai Den in his current state (there are five Bai Dens, dontchaknow) reminds me of Professor John Gill in Star Trek episode โPattern of Forceโ (s2 ep 21), a Federation busybody who turns the planet Ekos into a new Nazi Reich, but ends up pumped full of drugs and making empty television speeches while his handlers carry out an anti-Zeonic final solution.
We are the new Zeons.
Hail
Friday - July 12th 2024 11:16PM MST
PS
-- Who are The Deciders? --
The question of "who gets in, and who doesn't" can apply both to immigration and this thing called "the federal government" (actually simply a central government, the meaning of the word 'federal' is distorted into meaninglessness by the U.S. usage, I believe; as if each "federal" employee were really on loan from a sovereign state government to which his primary loyalty belonged).
Who decides?
It's the same with government-controlled "affordable housing." In the area I live, all these affordable-housing buildings, apartments, are invariably are 100%-nonwhite. Who decides that they get the subsidized housing-units? It's clearly not a random lottery, nor something trying for fair demographic balance, or there'd be lots of Whites. But there are no Whits. (For that matter, even if it were all Whites in an all-White society, who decides? Why does one man making $40,000 get it while the next man, say making $40,500, get passed over? With the huge savings, the state is hugely subsidizing a life for the first man.).
As usual with the USA, slick immigrants are gaming the system, and the only reason there isn't outrage is because (1.) the places that do this are ideologized to support this kind of thing or at least keep quiet on it; (2.) people don't even know about it, government redirecting public money without people knowing where it goes. That is the Administrative State, maybe, in practice.
I once had dealings in one of the buildings to which I refer, a new Affordable Housing apartment. A nice place, newly built a few years ago. And a pure colony of non-Westerners in an otherwise-White area. There were a few giveaways in the way people behave, low-class behaviors that would otherwise mostly be out of place. There was a paranoid air to the place, an attitude like "we're getting away with something here." And they were. A disproportionate number of them were recent immigrants from certain specific countries; I got to talk to a few who were less paranoid at seeing a White man, and from him I learned that they had indeed networked aggressively in their "community" (members of a specific immigrant-nationality in Asia) to find loopholes and things and flooded the administrative agencies with applications and sob-stories, which succeeded to the degree that their people -- a tiny sliver of the local population -- had perhaps 15% of units in the building.
Surely any subsidized housing, if it exists, should be for natives in need. Not people who show up from somewhere and walk into taxpayer-subsidized housing. The whole thing is an outrage, but a typical one for today's USA.
Besides low-public-trust but-high-IQ immigrants gaming the system, there is probably a racial spoils-system. And its gets administered efficiently and behind closed doors. THAT is the Administrative State plus Wokeness.
---
Who decides who gets in, who is out?
Again on Prime Minister Thatcher, one of the big acute "immigration" controversies during her years came all of a sudden in mid-1989, over what to do with the Hong Kongers. THe controversy lingered all through the next year, this question of whether to grant UK citizenship to all Hong Kongers. George H W Bush and his people were pressuring the UK to do, for some reason, which annoyed Thatcher. This was after the Tiananmen Square protests were quashed.
The British-Empire tradition was that British subjects in overseas possessions were NOT "British citizens" but a special category, "British Dependent Territories citizen" (BDTC). This second category had certain British protections and privileges but no right to reside in the UK. (Something like the defacto U.S. policy for Puerto Rico, until the dam began to break after about fifty years, and sometime in the 1940s and Puerto Rican migration to the "mainland" began, to the net-loss of the USA.)
Who decides? Should several hundreds of thousands UK-citizenships be handed out to Hong Kongers (with chain-migration benefits), because the U.S. State Department wanted it? What would the UK be today if the population were, say, 5% composed entirely of post-1990-origin immigrants from Hong Kong and China? Would it be morally the right thing specifically because people feel bad about PRC-China bullying and humiliating the Hong Kongers (which has happened)? But why would that trump the right of White-British people to live in peace in their own homeland, absent millions of racial-cultural foreigners?
The big problem with the Administrative State is that this already-tricky issue becomes even more tricky: no one really knows WHO is deciding anything. Migration policy: We CANNOT send back migrants, we are told, because something-something laws and policies something-something. Laws and policies from who? We don't know. (It's not Biden.)
It seems that in both my examples here, the first principle should be a baseline of healthy racialism. It's something we've lost, turned against, to such a degree that the entire society is perverted to being FOR others and AGAINST the core-population itself. This is too bizarre, I think, for most people in the world to understand, much less believe fully. But it's the way it is. When a powerful Administrative State locks into such a thing, staffed by Wokeness-adherent scolds and do-gooders, it's a very bad thing to be stuck in, which is why the ghost-dance cargo-cult MAGA-Trump movement happened, the one led by a "very lucky bullshitter" (a phrase often used by J Derbyshire).
-- Who are The Deciders? --
The question of "who gets in, and who doesn't" can apply both to immigration and this thing called "the federal government" (actually simply a central government, the meaning of the word 'federal' is distorted into meaninglessness by the U.S. usage, I believe; as if each "federal" employee were really on loan from a sovereign state government to which his primary loyalty belonged).
Who decides?
It's the same with government-controlled "affordable housing." In the area I live, all these affordable-housing buildings, apartments, are invariably are 100%-nonwhite. Who decides that they get the subsidized housing-units? It's clearly not a random lottery, nor something trying for fair demographic balance, or there'd be lots of Whites. But there are no Whits. (For that matter, even if it were all Whites in an all-White society, who decides? Why does one man making $40,000 get it while the next man, say making $40,500, get passed over? With the huge savings, the state is hugely subsidizing a life for the first man.).
As usual with the USA, slick immigrants are gaming the system, and the only reason there isn't outrage is because (1.) the places that do this are ideologized to support this kind of thing or at least keep quiet on it; (2.) people don't even know about it, government redirecting public money without people knowing where it goes. That is the Administrative State, maybe, in practice.
I once had dealings in one of the buildings to which I refer, a new Affordable Housing apartment. A nice place, newly built a few years ago. And a pure colony of non-Westerners in an otherwise-White area. There were a few giveaways in the way people behave, low-class behaviors that would otherwise mostly be out of place. There was a paranoid air to the place, an attitude like "we're getting away with something here." And they were. A disproportionate number of them were recent immigrants from certain specific countries; I got to talk to a few who were less paranoid at seeing a White man, and from him I learned that they had indeed networked aggressively in their "community" (members of a specific immigrant-nationality in Asia) to find loopholes and things and flooded the administrative agencies with applications and sob-stories, which succeeded to the degree that their people -- a tiny sliver of the local population -- had perhaps 15% of units in the building.
Surely any subsidized housing, if it exists, should be for natives in need. Not people who show up from somewhere and walk into taxpayer-subsidized housing. The whole thing is an outrage, but a typical one for today's USA.
Besides low-public-trust but-high-IQ immigrants gaming the system, there is probably a racial spoils-system. And its gets administered efficiently and behind closed doors. THAT is the Administrative State plus Wokeness.
---
Who decides who gets in, who is out?
Again on Prime Minister Thatcher, one of the big acute "immigration" controversies during her years came all of a sudden in mid-1989, over what to do with the Hong Kongers. THe controversy lingered all through the next year, this question of whether to grant UK citizenship to all Hong Kongers. George H W Bush and his people were pressuring the UK to do, for some reason, which annoyed Thatcher. This was after the Tiananmen Square protests were quashed.
The British-Empire tradition was that British subjects in overseas possessions were NOT "British citizens" but a special category, "British Dependent Territories citizen" (BDTC). This second category had certain British protections and privileges but no right to reside in the UK. (Something like the defacto U.S. policy for Puerto Rico, until the dam began to break after about fifty years, and sometime in the 1940s and Puerto Rican migration to the "mainland" began, to the net-loss of the USA.)
Who decides? Should several hundreds of thousands UK-citizenships be handed out to Hong Kongers (with chain-migration benefits), because the U.S. State Department wanted it? What would the UK be today if the population were, say, 5% composed entirely of post-1990-origin immigrants from Hong Kong and China? Would it be morally the right thing specifically because people feel bad about PRC-China bullying and humiliating the Hong Kongers (which has happened)? But why would that trump the right of White-British people to live in peace in their own homeland, absent millions of racial-cultural foreigners?
The big problem with the Administrative State is that this already-tricky issue becomes even more tricky: no one really knows WHO is deciding anything. Migration policy: We CANNOT send back migrants, we are told, because something-something laws and policies something-something. Laws and policies from who? We don't know. (It's not Biden.)
It seems that in both my examples here, the first principle should be a baseline of healthy racialism. It's something we've lost, turned against, to such a degree that the entire society is perverted to being FOR others and AGAINST the core-population itself. This is too bizarre, I think, for most people in the world to understand, much less believe fully. But it's the way it is. When a powerful Administrative State locks into such a thing, staffed by Wokeness-adherent scolds and do-gooders, it's a very bad thing to be stuck in, which is why the ghost-dance cargo-cult MAGA-Trump movement happened, the one led by a "very lucky bullshitter" (a phrase often used by J Derbyshire).
Moderator
Friday - July 12th 2024 10:20PM MST
PS: I can see the pros and cons of that Pendleton Act, but, as you say, they could never have envisioned the Feral Beast that it is today. Also, until recently these government positions were known to be lower in pay than equivalent private jobs, but with the trade-off of better job security.
One more thing: Back in the late 1800s, there was quite a different set of people in the civil service - must have been 90% to 95% White men.
Yes, I did read your reply comment on your blog, Mr. Hail. Thanks for the work you put into it. I should have written back already, but I will.
One more thing: Back in the late 1800s, there was quite a different set of people in the civil service - must have been 90% to 95% White men.
Yes, I did read your reply comment on your blog, Mr. Hail. Thanks for the work you put into it. I should have written back already, but I will.
Hail
Friday - July 12th 2024 6:57PM MST
PS
I responded to your remarks about Margaret Thatcher's place in Western political history in a comment long enough to be an essay all its own (updated just now).
https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2024/07/06/the-british-political-jailbreak-attempt-of-2024-reflections-on-the-attempt-to-destroy-the-conservative-party/#comment-51996
I responded to your remarks about Margaret Thatcher's place in Western political history in a comment long enough to be an essay all its own (updated just now).
https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2024/07/06/the-british-political-jailbreak-attempt-of-2024-reflections-on-the-attempt-to-destroy-the-conservative-party/#comment-51996
Hail
Friday - July 12th 2024 6:55PM MST
PS
"People care, but the ship of state has a lot of inertia."
This is why you occasionally here people talk about the Pendleton Act of 1883. Very few legislative matters of the 1880s have any business getting actively talked about a century-and-a-half later. But this one does.
The Pendleton Act, as interpreted and to simplify it down, makes it so "government bureaucrats can never be fired." The idea was to block out the practice of corrupt political-spoils appointments.
No one, in the 1870s when the civil-service reform movement started to get real momentum, conceived of the huge apparatus that people today breezily refer to as "the Regime."
"People care, but the ship of state has a lot of inertia."
This is why you occasionally here people talk about the Pendleton Act of 1883. Very few legislative matters of the 1880s have any business getting actively talked about a century-and-a-half later. But this one does.
The Pendleton Act, as interpreted and to simplify it down, makes it so "government bureaucrats can never be fired." The idea was to block out the practice of corrupt political-spoils appointments.
No one, in the 1870s when the civil-service reform movement started to get real momentum, conceived of the huge apparatus that people today breezily refer to as "the Regime."
Moderator
Friday - July 12th 2024 5:04PM MST
PS: Hello, Alarmist. I wish I could follow what our (p)Resident is telling us too. Maybe then we'd know the whole story.
Someone ought to catch him in some state in which he's telling the whole truth. A long-term politician like Bai Dien has got to be on some weird drugs to get into that sort of state. We just need the right elixir.
Someone ought to catch him in some state in which he's telling the whole truth. A long-term politician like Bai Dien has got to be on some weird drugs to get into that sort of state. We just need the right elixir.
The Alarmist
Friday - July 12th 2024 12:53PM MST
PS
None of these people/agencies/officials answer to the (p)Resident. He said it himself, that he needs to take it up with his Commander in Chief. Whatโs more interesting is how Vice President Trump exercises her duties, as well as when he started identifying as a she.
๐
None of these people/agencies/officials answer to the (p)Resident. He said it himself, that he needs to take it up with his Commander in Chief. Whatโs more interesting is how Vice President Trump exercises her duties, as well as when he started identifying as a she.
๐
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8iulak
Cheers! โฎ๏ธ