Is The Managerial State Our Enemy?

A lot of red-pilling has been going on last years. Among normies, of course, as Trump’s victory and the Brexit showed, but also among the Right in the wide sense, especially concerning economics.

Many of us have been libertarians at one point. We were looking for an alternative to the ubiquitous Leftism, without straying too far from what we could explicitly stand for in a so-called polite society. Libertarianism showed up quite naturally. We were—and still are—oppressed by political correctness, burdened by excessive taxes and paperwork when starting new ventures: libertarianism promised us free speech, freedom to work, and no more burdening nanny State. To Americans, libertarianism also tends to mingle with the pioneers, that is, undoubtedly masculine men who could deal with the harshest situations and built a bright civilization on their own.

But then something happened. Some of us noticed that, in a free market, cunning and wealthy businessmen can swallow other companies, thus creating monopolies and gauging consumers through artificially inflated prices. Some noted that workers who accept a lower standard of living than others will bring their peers’ standards down through a tougher competition. Some pointed out that libertarianism is ultimately inefficient against Leftists, who can use their own classical liberal “rights” as a basis for their destructive efforts whereas negating ours, and against wealthy people or companies who fund Leftism.

Among us, specifically, it has been noted that the sexual marketplace has become more deregulated and that women sell themselves to the highest bidder at the expense of most men.

As to contribute to this brainstorming on economics, which sometimes gives truly brilliant results, I would like to dwell on something we know but often gloss over: the managerial State. Its advent in the US has coincided with blue, then most white collars getting screwed. Yet, a managerial State does not necessarily offshore employments, screw the middle classes and fund sluts.

Capitalism, Socialism, and the managerial State

James Burnham

James Burnham

The first well-articulated description of the managerial State can be found in James Burnham’s The Managerial Revolution (1941). According to him, this kind of State—we’d call it “technocracy” in today’s language—is substantially different from both classical capitalism and socialism.

Capitalism means that capital property allows one to make money out of those who, having no such capital, need to sell their labor power to survive. Private property, as classical liberals theorized it, supports the idea that owning a factory or a company allows for reaping all its results—the payment of wages coming second and being subordinated, not to what one produces or merit, but to contracts and the owners’ goodwill.

Socialism sprang up in part as a reaction to the difficult condition of proletarian factory workers. Against the power of capital ownership, socialism stood up for the end of social classes, the sharing of work products, and an extended parliamentarianism allowing “the people” to have a voice in public debates. (I am just mentioning what socialism purported to defend in theory, not what actual socialists, or rather Marxists, did.)

By contrast, managerialism can actually arise from both. A manager can be a top dog in the corporate world, making millions out of his ability to coordinate the production of various departments, just as he can use the same methods as a civil servant. Right after the management sciences were born in the US, they have been eagerly imitated by the Bolsheviks—and Western bankers enthusiastically funded Soviet industry.

The efforts of these wealthy capitalists resulted in concentrating more and more power in their hands. From these heights, they felt the need to manage their power efficiently—thus feeling the same as Soviet plan commissioners. In the US, most of the economy has been absorbed by the corporate and banking behemoths, which makes very difficult to succeed as an independent: that absorption is equivalent to the USSR collectivization in that both rip small-scale independent properties from the hands of middle classes and put them under the sway of managers. Big State and Big Corp are run by like-minded men. Needless to add, defending one against the other is rather pointless.

If there is a struggle, it isn’t between capitalism and socialism, but between those who want a strong middle class—be it thanks to efficient trade unions or through the existence of a class of small independent producers, willing to stand for their prerogatives—and those who want to dissolve the middle class—either through open Statism or by turning previously independent producers or protected workers into precarious part-timers.

Burnham stressed how globalism would reflect the interests of the rising manager class. Managers perceive sovereignty, organic economy and institutions such as the family as impediments to their power. They would, thus, be naturally inclined towards the destruction of nations and institutions. Individuals ought to become more malleable to fit into the board of directors’ plans.

The managers’ Achilles heel


Sam Francis, one of Richard Spencer’s mentors, saw how the rise of feminism and “diversity” fit in the manager’s agenda:

[T]he managerial elite has a proclivity toward as well as a material interest in adopting and promoting ideologies of universalism, egalitarianism, cultural relativism, behaviorism, and “blank slate” environmental determinism… The ideological reconstruction of American society to suit the needs and interests of the emerging managerial class thus involved a repudiation of the older values, codes, and belief-systems of the old elite and a cultural conflict with those who continued to adhere to them.

Managers feel no loyalty towards their ethnic cousins, families or nations. When confronted with the consequences of their politics, comfy bureaucrats defend themselves with the so-called unavailability of “globalization”, which is a convenient excuse to keep pushing their class interest at the expense of most people. We are dispossessed because the Leftist establishment—managers and their “minority” pets—sucked up or destroyed what was rightfully ours.

Managers prosper through the hypertrophy of both public and financial sectors. HR are impeding the workers’ production, but managers won’t care, because they aim rather at control than wealth. As to the financial sector, remind that it does not directly produce any wealth but is essentially slave-racketeering as Samseau puts it. Financiers merely move money around for usury, low-wage work, and keeping the majority indebted.

Fortunately, the system is far from flawlessness. The most important flaw, I think, is that no matter the coldness and efficiency they try to project, managers are still human beings.

Take the Ivy League students for example. Outwards, they are winners, likely promised to brilliant careers in the Hollow Empire. Inwards, however, things are quite different. As a former Yale professor testified:

I have witnessed in many of my own students and heard from the hundreds of young people whom I have spoken with on campuses or who have written to me over the last few years…

Look beneath the façade of seamless well-adjustment, and what you often find are toxic levels of fear, anxiety, and depression, of emptiness and aimlessness and isolation. A large-scale survey of college freshmen recently found that self-reports of emotional well-being have fallen to their lowest level in the study’s 25-year history.

So extreme are the admission standards now that kids who manage to get into elite colleges have, by definition, never experienced anything but success. The prospect of not being successful terrifies them, disorients them. The cost of falling short, even temporarily, becomes not merely practical, but existential.

Having turned the social world into a pool of hapless, atomized, malleable individuals, managers got a taste of their own medicine: they are together alone, no one being loyal to anyone else beyond fleeting interests—that always end up creating new rivalries.

[The managerial class] is increasingly defined by neuroticism, insecurity, petty status competition, and a lack of intellectual foresight. In other words, the managerial class is composed of high-performing drones who are constantly fretting about losing their coveted positions and work even harder for the system that keeps them ensnared. (Source)

Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World envisioned a world where children would be growing up in incubators and taken care of by public institutions. We are already there. More and more children are born through surrogacy so that rich gay couples can play doll with them, and most children are “educated” by TV and a dumbed-down school system. Does this system produce happy people? The answer is a resounding noeven among managers.

Aside from those who kept the sense of family, managers have no other safety net than money. Aging, childless female careerists start chasing young men, and no matter how socially successful they may sometimes be, they will never be happy, as they failed to fulfill their true destiny.

All this is good news. The gap between managerial State logic and what managers as human beings need—kinship, thick social relationships, family—means that such an unnatural condition cannot last forever. The System cannot give more to its atomized managers than money, empty fashions and deep solitude. Thus, individual managers who discover the root of their perpetual dissatisfaction and existential distress may start leaning on our side.

And you, my little girl, constantly switching partners

When you’re doing something foolish, your salvation is abortion

But some mornings you just wake up crying

After you dreamt all night of a big table surrounded with children

Is the managerial State always an enemy?

"Throw it in the fire!" "No Sam. The ring is mine."

“Throw it in the fire!”
“No Sam. The ring is mine.”

But wait a minute. So far I talked about the managerial State as an enemy. I had to, because its rising in the US and everywhere after 1945 impacted badly on most of us. Yet it isn’t necessarily so. In fact, a managerial State can aim at defending its own people, the nation’s culture, or the family and traditional sex roles.

How does Trump repatriate jobs? He negotiates with big companies, along with a favourable power balance, so that they close their offshore sweatshops and run anew American factories. This isn’t capitalism, since capitalism in the strict sense forbids such interventionist policies. This isn’t socialism either since it has nothing to do with more parliamentarism or destroying social classes. Rather, Trump’s policy is a managerialism that aims at protecting American citizens.

A managerial State ran by GloboCorp, Jews and pathological individuals such as family-hating lesbians is an enemy. It will aim at stripping us from our jobs, our autonomy, our ability to create and sustain families. But what about a managerial State ran by vastly different individuals, that aim at protecting the majority, the family, and at dismantling cultural Marxism?

On the one hand, a new managerialism is both possible and necessary. In the aftermath of Trump’s election, red-pilled men should join the new administration, create formal or informal power networks, reconquer bulwarks and dismantle the Leftist establishment. Of course, such managers should be loyal to masculinity, to their kin, to the values most of us already share. Perhaps, in the long run, they should aim to grow anew an organic economy, even if this curtails their own power as managers.

This is much easier said than done. Remember how the Lord of the Rings ends? When Frodo reaches the top of Mount Doom, right upwards a stream of the only lava that can destroy the maleficent ring, he backs down. Sam urges him to throw the ring into the lava. Frodo should. He accepted this as his mission, and he went through an incredibly arduous journey to do so. But even then, the power corrupts, and Frodo tries to keep it before Gollum providentially causes its fall.

Wouldn’t “our” managers be too tempted to identify as a class, with separate interests, and turn against us later?

We need, undoubtedly, to push red-pilled men in positions of power. The question of their loyalty is at best a future issue. Still, I think it is worth keeping on the back of our heads, especially since some on the Alt-Lite have already succumbed to the temptation.

Read Next: The American Elite Hates America

49 thoughts on “Is The Managerial State Our Enemy?”

    1. Kratom should not be managed by the United Nations. Maybe the international atomic energy agency could give it a go

  1. The apparently natural monopolies under deregulation and freedom is not actually so. For example, Warren Buffet made a huge amount buying up Goldman Sachs shares after he used his influence to convince the government to use taxpayer dollars to bail them out. Free markets aren’t free. I’m not saying that natural monopolies don’t exist under free markets and can’t be used for power. Just that the current system tends to create them much more so. I would propose a 2 tailed cut. One to curb too little wealth in the form of a baseline welfare (bread, water, and a tent, something like that), and for inelastic demand goods and services, I’m not sure, there are several ways to go about this.

  2. Managers are not the same as leaders. Our societies are full of the former and bereft of the latter.

    1. Agreed. But it is much more satisfying to lead yourself and family than lend your skills to a bunch of cowards who don’t have any strength of their own.

    2. A true leader tries to make his followers better. Our leadership has been trying to push us down in order to grab more(ironically losing out more in the future).

    3. You manage stuff and things, you lead people. Some people don’t see the distinction anymore.

    1. Too bad to see the Gender and Race Sections are on his page. Why race or gender should be accounted when applying for a job is ridiculous.

  3. Why did you have to blow Trump’s trumpet in the end and spoil an otherwise excellent article?
    All these new factories in US that Trump has promised will create new jobs indeed but jobs for whom? For the robots. There is no way big corporation will sacrifice their profitability for the sake of the workers. They will take advantage of the tax and regulations benefits that Trump will give them and will install automated jobs to keep the costs low as if the factories were in countries with poor labor costs.

    1. Trump can’t stop the future, anymore than Canute could stop the waves. The robots are coming whatever we do.

  4. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”
    Very few of us can get into positions of wealth/power without it going to our heads. Hardly any difference between these guys and the jokers up on Capitol Hill.

    1. You’re correct. That is why it is of the utmost importance to develop and refine one’s own character to a sufficient degree before seeking to ascend to a position of power.
      I’ve seen so many people — my younger self included — who pushed their way into positions that they were not yet prepared to handle. It can set you back years professionally, maybe cripple your career altogether; and if you’re not careful it may prevent you entirely from further personal development.
      In my mind, at the individual level, this is probably the greatest danger of the managerial state. Extra EXTRA bad when women try to climb the ladder too quickly.

  5. Its all a global evil cabal that coordinated things through our institutions (school, government, corporations) to subdue and dominate society.
    I think when institutions come together for a meeting (school faculty, our elected officials, corporate managers) they put out an agenda, with out everyone realizing what the purpose or reason behind the agenda.
    I thought it funny that while in college in the mid 2000s, i was being fed buzz words that I never heard of before. concepts that were “new” are now the banner in which SJWs march under. For example, who ever heard of Global Footprint, entropy (in regards to the enviroment) jargon that has to do with global warming, ect… before 2000?
    As if it was manufactured, agenda formed, and group concession to push this agenda. As if one day, the college professors were teaching classical economics and a die hard classical economist, and then he gets a memo from up top to teach Keynesian econ, and now he is all of a sudden a Keynesian fanatic and abandons classical econ completely, as if it never existed.
    Some one is telling our handlers (our teachers, managers, officials) to push an agenda/policies on us.
    “Why do you do this?”
    ::I dont know, understand the consequences of the action, i just do what im told and collect my paycheck and i just care about my job security :: “shut up, Its policy”

  6. James Burnham is a classic of North American Conservatism, which means is completely unknown even to people who should know him. Another classic is Russell Kirk, who wrote the best short introduction to conservative principles:
    Even when Conservatism is not the solution to all our problems, it’s a step in the right direction.
    P.S. extra points for the Mes Aieux song.

    1. “Even when Conservatism is not the solution to all our problems, it’s a step in the right direction.”
      1) Conservatives and Progressives are like Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers arguing over how to pronounce ‘tomato’.
      A better description would be ‘Right-Liberals’ and ‘Left-Liberals’.
      2) Conservatism has conserved nothing; it couldn’t even prevent a man from going into the women’s restroom.

      1. Burnham and Kirk are the initial steps of a path that, if you do it sincerely will end in Enoch Powell, Revilo P. Oliver, Anthony Ludovici, they all considered themselves Conservatives. I was talking about real Conservatism, in the line of the former.
        Of course, ‘Conservatives’ [sic] of today are totally indistinguishable from the Progressives. His doctrinal references (if they have any) are the same of any Liberal.

  7. Solution: corporate nationalism, where the managerial class owns shares in Nation Corp and have the same interests as the rest of us.

    1. Either that, or monopoly tax. Get rid of income tax and tax corporations proportionally to how big of a share of the market each company has. Companies would be able to take on a bigger profit if they were smaller.

      1. Speaking of corporate taxes. If this administration successfully lowers the corporate tax rate and they start coming back to U.S. … I expect corporations in-turn to use the increased profit to invest in more automation.

        1. good…..I’d admit, I was nervous about Trump before he took office with his Democratic past. I have been very pleasantly surprised this first week.

        2. I got behind TRUMP shortly after he announced. I went to several of his rallies too. But some of his personal things are becoming a bit of a concern. This ridiculous focus on crowd size is bizarre. There is no denying Obama’s 2009 crowd WAS larger. And for a President to be consumed by it and flat out lie that his was larger is slightly alarming.
          I’ll be happy when I actually see things happen. What he’s doing right now is picking the low-hanging fruit. Part of me is still concerned everything will get tied-up in grid lock. Nevertheless … it is ridiculously refreshing to have a president no longer prompting petty feminist demands and LGBT BS over the decline of middle and working class Americans.

        3. “o. But some of his personal things are becoming a bit of a concern. This ridiculous focus on crowd size is bizarre. There is no denying Obama’s 2009 crowd WAS larger”
          Agreed. I don’t get why Trump is all about the crowd turnout on innaguration day. There were other factors that explains shy the turnout for Trump was less than Obama. But the fact is Trump is president and the innaguration turnout is a moot point.

        4. ” I don’t get why Trump is all about the crowd turnout on inauguration day.”
          It’s getting the media to chase squirrels and shiny objects while Trump does his work.
          Think of the Obama administration: every day a new outrage. Same idea, but in reverse.

        5. “It’s getting the media to chase squirrels and shiny objects while Trump does his work.”
          Good point. There might be a method to that madness.

        6. Trump Admin was 100% warranted to call out the media on that fraudulent MLK tweet. They were absolutely attempting to create faux story to fuel the “racism” narrative.
          However … his obsession with lying about crowd size — when all of us can see Obama’s was larger — only gives the media validation.
          I appreciated Trump taking on the media during his campaign. We all know the damage these assholes have done to innocent people with their “report now, fact check later” mentality. But if this President is going to obsess on blantant lies and engage in petty feuds, I will grow extremely disgruntled. We got behind this guy to tackle real problems n get shit DONE.

        7. 1. The photo that circulated was taken early morning before the event had started. At full attendance they both reached the same physical cap.
          2. And besides Trump never said that the”crowd size” was larger. He said he had a larger audience.Ie, including everyone that watched it live over streams.
          3. Seriously dude. it didn’t earn the title of fake news for nothing.

        8. I’m aware they were using an earlier photo from his Inauguration. And I understand the point of calling out media lies. But I didn’t get behind Trump to obsess over petty feuds once achieving the Presidency. The bulk of us who voted for him don’t give a damn about crowd size or largest audience between cable and internet viewership. We supported the guy to get shit working again in this country.

      2. Allow no company to exist with a net value in excess of $100M, prevent publicly traded companies. Small is good. Don’t allow Jews to handle other peoples money (banks and finance companies).

        1. I don’t know some companies like car manufacturers need more than that to operate I don’t think it would be wise to put in a hard dollar amount but when companies like Disney run 60% of the market you have a problem.

        2. How much did HenRy Ford need to get started? Wouldn’t you rather pay a little more for a hand built car made in the town you live?
          Come to think of it, I can make a good case for banning private ownership of cars in cities. Use bicycles and scooters.

        3. Problem with that is a scooter isn’t gonna get me and my gear up to the Rockies from Denver when it’s time to hike or shred. Gets me to the bar and back just fine though. and so cheap.

    2. I think all employees should be given shares in the company they work for. not sure what economic system that would fall under, but seems like a good idea.

        1. The expectation that people should actually give a shit about their work is pretty fucking bold without share or incentives other than the peanuts they pay..

        2. Market socialism implies you own the business you work in and share in its profits rather than being paid a wage.

  8. Once again the mainstream media ideas of libertarianism combined with grade school history has simply made my eyes glaze over and I stop reading.
    Capitalism does not progress to price gouging monopolies unless the state is involved. When the state is not involved the dominating company must continue to please customers or it will lose their business. Where are the big names of consumer electronics of the 00’s? The 90’s? The 80s? The 70s? Where? Mostly gone and those that survive no longer dominate the markets they once did. You’re not out there buying Zenith TV’s, RCA stereos, etc.
    The social engineering, the managerial state was born of state interventions and the failure of wealthy utopia builders to achieve their goals without the state. It exists to preserve the social order and all the skims and rackets by which those on top thrive.

    1. And then it privatizes the profit and socializes the debt by Government ‘Bail-out’ ie; the taxpayer suckers (you and me).

  9. Interesting suggestion about taking the managerial state over for the advantage of the citizens.

  10. Good article on an important subject, that may be worth revisiting from time to time.
    “what about a managerial State ran by vastly different individuals, that aim at protecting the majority, the family, and at dismantling cultural Marxism?”
    It’s hard to contemplate the transfer of power to the new Trump administration, and the sweeping clean of the some areas of the bureaucracy (the state department?) if not necessarily all (the treasury amongst many other positions still seems to be populated Goldman Sachs denizens), which does of course raise interesting questions relating to the kind of political philosophies that must accompany even a genuinely (?) conservative state administration, and Trump is hardly minimal state even if he has spoken about freezing or decreasing the size of the bureacracy.
    So the question arise, can managerialism, and a bureaucratic class running the order of things, be OK if it is ‘our people’ (whatever that might mean) and ‘our order of things’ (again, whatever that might mean).
    The caveat here is relates to the concerns of Anthony Sutton amongst others who note that compatibility of and convergence of capitalism and socialism occurs at exactly this point: once the state moves towards expansionism, collectivism, monopoly (and indeed globalism / transnationalism etc. then it will become increasingly dependent on particularly types of technocrats, some of which may be expendable and replaceable (e.g. those Trump has got rid of) and others who may be somewhat more firmly ensconced. This could be the deep state, or deep bureaucracy, but it is also the international classes, of corporate management, entrepreneurs, scientists and academics and any other sub-group serving a technocratic function. It’s worth remembering how deep the roots of this idea are: one can trace these ideas back to at least Saint Simon in the modern sense, or perhaps further back to Plato, if we think of this class as akin to the philosopher king / aristocracy envisioned by Plato/Socrates.
    Likewise with communist statism, Burnham’s lens of managerialism allows us to see the vanguard of intellectuals, these days morphed into ‘thought leaders’ or ‘change agents’, as relating not merely to a group with the kind of skills necessary to create a particular type of (proletarian) revolution, but as something akin to a permanent civil service who would run the show not just in the interim, but in perpetuity: indeed the thing about Marx’s state was that it was supposed to ‘wither’ and yield to joyful communism and unalienated life and work, but that never happened. Indeed the opposite happened: the state grew bigger, the bureaucracy / technocracy grew bigger and permanent. If one considers that the revolution was always supposed to international, or permanent until it became internationally supreme, then it is impossible to imagine that anything like the withering of the state, or of the class of bureacrats and technicians that sustained it could ever be possible. As the world becomes more complex, and more technologically advanced managerialism, technocracy in the form of an interconnected world run by experts capable of making the kinds of decisions that only experts can make, would gradually usurp the kind of limited anarchical and democratic forms of political association that might be possible at the level of state or region.
    It was always inevitable that there would be some attraction in all this to those who considered themselves capable of partaking of such an international aristocracy. Now Trump find himself in an interesting relation to all of this: he wants to pull back from the runaway cancerous globalism and chop away at the state a bit as well as the ideological internationalism that has helped nurture and sustain it, but he has to do this without collapsing the entire edifice, an eventuality that, should it happen, could end up being exploited as proof that the globalist international bureaucracy that is currently being cut down to size was right all along.
    That’s why it is crucially important that Trumpism both delivers on the promise of a scaling down big government and the emerging new world order while not sinking the whole ship in such a way that will only strengthen the hive

  11. We don’t really true free market capitalism today. I don’t know what the heck you would call it. It was like Jefferson said, if you allow a private central banking system into your country, then corporations will grow up around the banks.
    What you had a century ago was a private central banking system that was installed into our country via fed reserve act that eventually created wall street. Fast forward today, you have corporations that treat workers like garbage because their first and foremost responsibility is to the shareholder. The major shareholder of all major public corporations is wall street of course. They want returns every year on their shares. Therefore, corporations ONLY care about the bottom line and will raise the bar higher and higher every year stagnating wages and cutting benefits, destroying careers and people’s lives. The central banking system, wall street, and corporations are nothing but a jewish system. It’s a system that needs to go away. All the debt created by the markets needs to be dumped on wall street and wall street needs to be bankrupted along with the central banks. They should pay OUR government back and our government should begin coining our own money again, interest free, and backed by precious metals. Those precious metals would simply become your retirement account. As the population grows, and the economy expands, and more money is coined as time goes on, then the value of your metals you hold would grow grow and grow. You wouldn’t need to invest in stawks and casino markets. It’s all jewish racket we have today and it needs to be done away with. We need new money, new way of doing business, no more corporations, no more “CEO’s” , no more corporate prick narcissistic managers, no more affirmative action, no more EEO, etc.

  12. Too many chiefs and not enough indians as we say on the job site. Even worse; too many chiefs that never overcame the passage to manhood and not enough indians. Nothing worse than a cunt or a minority hire “reminding” a true man how to fulfill his daily duties.

  13. Great article, except for the self indulgent references to Jews.
    As a member of that ethnic group, I intend to share this article with the same because his points apply to all of humanity, but since the OP absolutely had to single out that group, it is now going to be more difficult to relate the ideas to them.
    People tend to be less inclined to accept an idea, even a brilliant one when the proponent of the idea refers to them as the root of all evil.
    Just saying.

    1. Exactly. Why did he ruin it my mentioning “Dem joos”? Is in the contract for people who write for this otherwise worthy blog?

  14. Spend a week in a large bureaucracy before you write such drivel. Unless you can drastically transform the administrative state, and that means paring it by 80% of its ‘functions,’ then real men cannot prosper or achieve in such an environment.
    The bureaucracy, public and private, is chock full of graspers, main-chancers, whatever. They are soulless cretins whose very existence (probably for the atomized reasons you touch upon) is dependent upon their status in that machine. None of them wish to actively pursue the alleged goals of the organization, as they are 100% focused on grovelling and back-stabbing well-enough to stay in place or to rise.

  15. I currently work with some awful managers. I know someone who has a management degree who is quite clearly half as intelligent as I am (and I don’t consider myself a genius). I had a manager made redundant at one job, and I was never more productive there than after he was gone.
    Seriously, most managers could be ****ed and burned and the corporate world and the public sector would be better off.

  16. Man what a good essay. Very optimistic. In this age of the individual – shall we manage towards the individual’s best reward? – towards a sense of accomplishment? Maybe the new mantra should be “Let’s make America great again – what do YOU want to accomplish? How can we help each other make that happen?”

  17. Well-written article with a lot of strong points. More topics like this should be discussed in the site.
    We need good and competent men running the world. And should this halcyon age cease the people should fight to bring it back immediately and consistently. It’s that seesaw balance of staying in the right track that assures the world will never get too out of hand.

  18. A fascinating thing is to look at the difference between dying corporations and balls to the walls expanding corps. Often CEOs of dying corps make a killing, not because they earned it rather they politically captured their position. In the growing corp, its all about skill, just getting enough bodies to do the work is the most important thing. Real innovation going on here. Interestingly this is related to male and female aspects. Men have learned to cooperate to kill a bigger game than any of us individually. Women the weaker sex have had to learn to use their mouths and politically manipulate things so she can steal as much to make sure her baby survives. Those two behaviors are proper but also in conflict, so you will see a pendulum swing of them in larger culture. This pornographic, lying undisciplined new world order that we live in is feminine utopia(or a version of hell for some of us). Of course it is ultimately destructive because it is based on much of the negative aspects(put two thieves on an island and watch them fight over one coconut forever rather than working to find another coco). With Trump and Brexit the pendulum has started swinging back to the masculine and disciplined.

Comments are closed.