The author noted, “All I do here is theory. I have no mission to change the world, only to try and understand it a little better.” Unfortunately, Barack Obama, promised to “transform America.” His communist parents and grandparents taught him well, and an easily manipulated demented man in the White House is furthering that transformation fundamentally.
Seems like current populist movement needs a two pronged offensive 1) focussed on the local community and 2) focussed on the Fed. While the head of the snake (so to speak) is the managerial class built into the Fed, there’s also a managerial class in both the state and local governments. This is really a leviathan-type struggle. Is their any historical precedent that populists could look to for hope, strategy, etc.?
And never underestimate the role of the faction of the managerial class running the major multinational corporations.
As to precedent, I'm guessing not. Of course, if you dig deep enough into the details -- which is necessary to have a properly calibrated strategy -- no two situations are ever really the same. But given things like the extent of technological development that factors into the current context -- in terms of surveillance, control, coordination, communication, etc. -- I think we must consider ourselves to be in extreme conditions of uncharted territory.
The problem in DC - and the US - is a longstanding structural problem. Neither Biden nor Trump set any kind of real policy - and if they try to, they're reined back in and quickly - note how Biden's statements at pressers, and Trump's "twitter explosions" are "walked back" by "staff". We've got two governments - the one at the White House and Capitol Hill, the not-very-dignified government, but elected by the people with the intent and expectation to set policy and run things, which is in some very attenuated form, a route for the "new populism" to take actual power, short of revolution - and the actual "efficient" government of the Administrative State, which is permanent and unelected and largely composed of corporatist neoliberals, and which is the expression of managerial liberalism and globalized corporatism. The Administrative State exists without any Constitutional basis, and has, since its inception. It has subverted Constitutional process since then, and now strives to overtly overthrow Constitutional governance. It is the living embodiment of sedition, and it itself must be overthrown and abolished at all levels.
"The post-New Deal administrative state is unconstitutional, and its validation by the legal system amounts to nothing less than a bloodless constitutional revolution. The original New Dealers were aware, at least to some degree, that their vision of the national government's proper role and structure could not be squared with the written Constitution: The Administrative Process, James Landis's classic exposition of the New Deal model of administration, fairly drips with contempt for the idea of a limited national government subject to a formal, tripartite separation of powers. Faced with a choice between the administrative state and the Constitution, the architects of our modern government chose the administrative state, and their choice has stuck. ... The United States Congress today effectively exercises general legislative powers, in contravention of the constitutional principle of limited powers. Moreover, Congress frequently delegates that general legislative authority to administrative agencies, in contravention of Article I. Furthermore, those agencies are not always subject to the direct control of the President, in contravention of Article II. In addition, those agencies sometimes exercise the judicial power, in contravention of Article III. Finally, those agencies typically concentrate legislative, executive, and judicial functions in the same institution, in simultaneous contravention of Articles I, II, and III. In short, the modern administrative state openly flouts almost every important structural precept of the American constitutional order." https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1941 context=faculty_scholarship
Liberal progressivism - which you refer to as managerial liberalism - is the political expression of an aristocratic oligarchy, whereas the new populism is the political expression of the majority of the people not in that aristocratic class. The former class tends to be urban and concentrated in the big cities and their more exclusive suburbs, and in exurban places like, say, the Hamptons. The latter class tends to be more rural, and in the Rust Belt, and places like that. And they are at war - a class war - with each other. And if you think about it, this class war has been ongoing since the beginning of the United States - the aristocratic urban class being the Federalists, Walll Streeters like John Jay and Alexander Hamilton in the lead, and the rural class being the Anti-Federalists, represented by Thomas Jefferson (in hock to his bankers, whose possessions were auctioned off a week after his death to pay his mostly inherited debts) and Patrick Henry. A look at Anti-Federalist #9 is of interest here:
"We the Aristocratic party of the United States, lamenting the many inconveniences to which the late confederation subjected the well-born, the better kind of people, bringing them down to the level of the rabble -- and holding in utter detestation that frontispiece to every bill of rights, "that all men are born equal" -- beg leave (for the purpose of drawing a line between such as we think were ordained to govern, and such as were made to bear the weight of government without having any share in its administration) to submit to our Friends in the first class for their inspection, the following defense of our monarchical, aristocratical democracy... Our friends we find have been assiduous in representing our federal calamities, until at length the people at large -- frightened by the gloomy picture on one side, and allured by the prophecies of some of our fanciful and visionary adherents on the other -- are ready to accept and confirm our proposed government without the delay or forms of examination -- which was the more to be wished, as they are wholly unfit to investigate the principles or pronounce on the merit of so exquisite a system. Impressed with a conviction that this constitution is calculated to restrain the influence and power of the LOWER CLASS -- to draw that discrimination we have so long sought after; to secure to our friends privileges and offices, which were not to be ... [obtained] under the former government, because they were in common; to take the burden of legislation and attendance on public business off the commonalty, who will be much better able thereby to prosecute with effect their private business; to destroy that political thirteen headed monster, the state sovereignties; to check the licentiousness of the people by making it dangerous to speak or publish daring or tumultuary sentiments; to enforce obedience to laws by a strong executive, aided by military pensioners; and finally to promote the public and private interests of the better kind of people -- we submit it to your judgment to take such measures for its adoption as you in your wisdom may think fit.
Signed by unanimous order of the lords spiritual and temporal." http://resources.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Constitutional/AntiFederalist/09.htm "Antifederalist No. 9, A Consolidated Government Is a Tyranny. "Montezuma," regarded as a Pennsylvanian, wrote this essay which showed up in the Independent Gazetteer on October 17, 1787."
Okay, so I was reading along thinking, yep, yep, I agree; yep, yep, I agree. And then I hit that lengthy quotation at the end. And I wound up a little confused. I must say, I've never read the Anti-Federalist Papers, though I'm pretty sure I've got them downloaded somewhere (I've lots of stuff downloaded I've never gotten around to reading). Are the aristocratic apologetics expressed those of Montezuma, the anti-federalist, or are they supposed to be a characterization of the views alleged to be held by the federalist? The latter seems as though it would make more sense, but as you've written it here it seems like it could/should? be interpreted as the former. But again, that would seem like an anomalous position, particularly given your description of the two sides leading into the quotation. Or is there some subtlety here I'm simply missing?
In any event, it was an interesting contribution to the comments section. Thanks for taking the time to post it.
That excerpt from Antifederalist #9 is actually biting sarcasm, most people in this day and age seem not to pick up on it. If you've read enough from that time, it's pretty obvious... The Federalists were deviously named, they were actually for a highly centralized "consolidated" government, ideally situated close to their center of power in New York City - and in fact the first US capital was there: "The first inauguration of George Washington as the first president of the United States was held on Tuesday, April 30, 1789 on the balcony of Federal Hall in New York City, New York. The inauguration was held nearly two months after the beginning of the first four-year term of George Washington as president. Chancellor of New York Robert Livingston administered the presidential oath of office. With this inauguration, the executive branch of the United States government officially began operations under the new frame of government established by the 1787 Constitution." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_inauguration_of_George_Washington
Note the use of the term 1787 Constitution - the United States had a previous Constitution, that of 1777 - known as the Articles of Confederation, which established a confederation of quasi-independent states much like the Swiss Confederation, with a relatively weak central government with little control over domestic affairs, much like the original idea for the European Union (and not what it turned into, with power centralized in Brussels.
The Federalists opposed the Articles, they were British Mercantilists, and they saw the loose confederation of 1777 as an obstacle to their desire for power and wealth - Hamilton in fact proposed that an elective Monarchy be established, with himself as the first Monarch, for life - hence the reference in the excerpt to Cromwell - "but we all know that Cromwell was a King, with the title of Protector". The intended ambit for the Convention of 1787 was supposedly limited to amending the Articles, but that Convention, held in secret (proceedings only published 53 years later) created an entirely new governmental structure. It was no less than a bloodless coup-d'etat, it entirely overturned the principles set out in the Declaration of Independence. There was an attempt made in the Tenth Amendment - the Bill of Rights was drafted by Antifederalists - to limit the powers granted to the Federal government, see "A TRUISM WITH ATTITUDE: THE TENTH AMENDMENT IN CONSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT" at https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1243&context=ndlr. This attempt was effectively stymied by Chief Justice Marshall, in dicta in Marbury v Madison, that "the courts shall decide what the law is" - and of course, Marshall was a very strong Federalist. If you read the Antifederalist Letters, you'll find that they are remarkably prescient, they did an amazing job of predicting what actually came about.
The Federalists were the monied Eastern urban Establishment, the Anti-federalists were the party of the rural people and the lower and middle classes - "Of the fifty-six men who had signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776, only six of those attended the Federal Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 where the specially selected delegates secretly concocted a plutocratic structure of rule. Patrick Henry refused to attend the convention and genuinely democratic patriots such as George Mason, Luther Martin, John Francis Mercer, and Elbridge Gerry participated in the convention but refused to sign the new constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights and provided inadequate representation of the people. John Lansing and Robert Yates attended the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia as members of the New York delegation. As the Hamilton-Madison plutocratic conspiracy group took control of the convention, both Yates and Lansing became disillusioned because they believed it was exceeding its instructions to merely modify the Articles of Confederation. They were dismayed at the Hamilton-Madison-inspired movement to write an entirely new constitution. After six weeks, John Lansing and fellow New York delegate Robert Yates left the convention, explaining their departure in a joint letter to New York Governor George Clinton. They explained that they opposed any document that would consolidate the United States into one government, and indicated that they understood that the convention was going to consider such a consolidation. In their letter to Clinton, they warned that the kind of government recommended by the convention would not “afford that security to equal and permanent liberty which we wished to make an invariable object of our pursuit.” As members of the New York ratifying convention in 1788, Lansing and Yates both vigorously opposed the Constitution. In 1787, the vast majority of American people lived in a community-oriented culture, on farms or in cities working as artisans and laborers. Their concept of independence was associated with interdependence and cooperation–all for the common good. Women worked with men, families traded labor and animals. In this culture of mutual concern and mutual obligation, working class people took care of one another. They shared common values and interests, completely different from the values of a market-driven approach to life. According to this common welfare approach to life, merchants and financiers would be restricted to what the community decided about how resources are used. The working class had put its democratic, interdependent ideals into their state constitutions and in town and city charters when possible." https://tapnewswire.com/2016/05/completing-the-american-revolution/
And the ratification was done by similar devious means - it made the Election of 2020 look like an entirely fair and honest contest in comparison: "The “Federalists” (the junta that had called the Constitutional Convention, subverted its purposes to the writing of a plutocratic document, and pushed through the totally flawed “constitution”) pushed for excessively rapid election of delegates to state conventions who would vote on ratification of the “constitution.” The “Federalists” made sure that most of the delegates who would vote on ratification were sympathetic to the “constitution.” Members of state conventions known to be unsympathetic to the “constitution” were harassed by “Federalist” dirty-trick operators. Mail documents that discussed the pros and cons of the “constitution” were disrupted by “Federalist” operators. Only one-fourth of the adult males in America were allowed (by property requirements and other restrictions) to vote on delegates to the ratification convention. Not more than one-sixth of American adult males voted for ratification." https://tapnewswire.com/2016/05/completing-the-american-revolution/
The January 6th "insurrectionists" were misled, as most are, as to the location of the true government of the US, it's not at the Capitol or White House, it's South of the Potomac, in Langley and Arlington - and in Wall Street.
An acute and fully justified observation about the true government being located in Langley, Arlington and Wall St.
The coordination and distribution of power across institutions has created a kryptarchy, the perfect form for a gangster-state in which politicians, senior officials and the corporate/banking oligarchy co-operate for personal and class enrichment at the expense of everyone else.
IMO the weakness of the PMC is that they thrive through sponsoring and curating dysfunction amongst the masses, but this weakens the nation relative to competitors within the international system. Social engineering that aims at anti-social or dysfunctional results can only work in a seamless, truly global, system. Once there is inter-state rivalry states with pro-social domestic policies have a distinct advantage. The differential rate at which assabiyah is sustained may be the Achilles heel of the PMC.
Assabiyah refers to group cohesion/social capital that energises groups, tribes or societies. The term is from Ibn Khaldun, a medieval Arab historian who was explaining why particular bedouin tribes rose to power, then became decadent and lost out to other tribes fresh from the desert.
I've actually read - English translation of course - Ibn Khaldun's book, which is fascinating, I think he made an incredibly accurate estimate of the circumference of the earth, amongst other things.
Ah, so my second option. That seemed like the most likely.
I'm afraid my mentioning that I hadn't read the anti-federalists may have misled you into thinking I didn't know about them. I know about them and the Articles. In fact, federalism is another theme of interest to me that is going to be getting attention on this substack later in the year, or early next year. But thank you again for taking the time to provide this detailed explanation.
The author noted, “All I do here is theory. I have no mission to change the world, only to try and understand it a little better.” Unfortunately, Barack Obama, promised to “transform America.” His communist parents and grandparents taught him well, and an easily manipulated demented man in the White House is furthering that transformation fundamentally.
Seems like current populist movement needs a two pronged offensive 1) focussed on the local community and 2) focussed on the Fed. While the head of the snake (so to speak) is the managerial class built into the Fed, there’s also a managerial class in both the state and local governments. This is really a leviathan-type struggle. Is their any historical precedent that populists could look to for hope, strategy, etc.?
And never underestimate the role of the faction of the managerial class running the major multinational corporations.
As to precedent, I'm guessing not. Of course, if you dig deep enough into the details -- which is necessary to have a properly calibrated strategy -- no two situations are ever really the same. But given things like the extent of technological development that factors into the current context -- in terms of surveillance, control, coordination, communication, etc. -- I think we must consider ourselves to be in extreme conditions of uncharted territory.
The problem in DC - and the US - is a longstanding structural problem. Neither Biden nor Trump set any kind of real policy - and if they try to, they're reined back in and quickly - note how Biden's statements at pressers, and Trump's "twitter explosions" are "walked back" by "staff". We've got two governments - the one at the White House and Capitol Hill, the not-very-dignified government, but elected by the people with the intent and expectation to set policy and run things, which is in some very attenuated form, a route for the "new populism" to take actual power, short of revolution - and the actual "efficient" government of the Administrative State, which is permanent and unelected and largely composed of corporatist neoliberals, and which is the expression of managerial liberalism and globalized corporatism. The Administrative State exists without any Constitutional basis, and has, since its inception. It has subverted Constitutional process since then, and now strives to overtly overthrow Constitutional governance. It is the living embodiment of sedition, and it itself must be overthrown and abolished at all levels.
"The post-New Deal administrative state is unconstitutional, and its validation by the legal system amounts to nothing less than a bloodless constitutional revolution. The original New Dealers were aware, at least to some degree, that their vision of the national government's proper role and structure could not be squared with the written Constitution: The Administrative Process, James Landis's classic exposition of the New Deal model of administration, fairly drips with contempt for the idea of a limited national government subject to a formal, tripartite separation of powers. Faced with a choice between the administrative state and the Constitution, the architects of our modern government chose the administrative state, and their choice has stuck. ... The United States Congress today effectively exercises general legislative powers, in contravention of the constitutional principle of limited powers. Moreover, Congress frequently delegates that general legislative authority to administrative agencies, in contravention of Article I. Furthermore, those agencies are not always subject to the direct control of the President, in contravention of Article II. In addition, those agencies sometimes exercise the judicial power, in contravention of Article III. Finally, those agencies typically concentrate legislative, executive, and judicial functions in the same institution, in simultaneous contravention of Articles I, II, and III. In short, the modern administrative state openly flouts almost every important structural precept of the American constitutional order." https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1941 context=faculty_scholarship
Liberal progressivism - which you refer to as managerial liberalism - is the political expression of an aristocratic oligarchy, whereas the new populism is the political expression of the majority of the people not in that aristocratic class. The former class tends to be urban and concentrated in the big cities and their more exclusive suburbs, and in exurban places like, say, the Hamptons. The latter class tends to be more rural, and in the Rust Belt, and places like that. And they are at war - a class war - with each other. And if you think about it, this class war has been ongoing since the beginning of the United States - the aristocratic urban class being the Federalists, Walll Streeters like John Jay and Alexander Hamilton in the lead, and the rural class being the Anti-Federalists, represented by Thomas Jefferson (in hock to his bankers, whose possessions were auctioned off a week after his death to pay his mostly inherited debts) and Patrick Henry. A look at Anti-Federalist #9 is of interest here:
"We the Aristocratic party of the United States, lamenting the many inconveniences to which the late confederation subjected the well-born, the better kind of people, bringing them down to the level of the rabble -- and holding in utter detestation that frontispiece to every bill of rights, "that all men are born equal" -- beg leave (for the purpose of drawing a line between such as we think were ordained to govern, and such as were made to bear the weight of government without having any share in its administration) to submit to our Friends in the first class for their inspection, the following defense of our monarchical, aristocratical democracy... Our friends we find have been assiduous in representing our federal calamities, until at length the people at large -- frightened by the gloomy picture on one side, and allured by the prophecies of some of our fanciful and visionary adherents on the other -- are ready to accept and confirm our proposed government without the delay or forms of examination -- which was the more to be wished, as they are wholly unfit to investigate the principles or pronounce on the merit of so exquisite a system. Impressed with a conviction that this constitution is calculated to restrain the influence and power of the LOWER CLASS -- to draw that discrimination we have so long sought after; to secure to our friends privileges and offices, which were not to be ... [obtained] under the former government, because they were in common; to take the burden of legislation and attendance on public business off the commonalty, who will be much better able thereby to prosecute with effect their private business; to destroy that political thirteen headed monster, the state sovereignties; to check the licentiousness of the people by making it dangerous to speak or publish daring or tumultuary sentiments; to enforce obedience to laws by a strong executive, aided by military pensioners; and finally to promote the public and private interests of the better kind of people -- we submit it to your judgment to take such measures for its adoption as you in your wisdom may think fit.
Signed by unanimous order of the lords spiritual and temporal." http://resources.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Constitutional/AntiFederalist/09.htm "Antifederalist No. 9, A Consolidated Government Is a Tyranny. "Montezuma," regarded as a Pennsylvanian, wrote this essay which showed up in the Independent Gazetteer on October 17, 1787."
Okay, so I was reading along thinking, yep, yep, I agree; yep, yep, I agree. And then I hit that lengthy quotation at the end. And I wound up a little confused. I must say, I've never read the Anti-Federalist Papers, though I'm pretty sure I've got them downloaded somewhere (I've lots of stuff downloaded I've never gotten around to reading). Are the aristocratic apologetics expressed those of Montezuma, the anti-federalist, or are they supposed to be a characterization of the views alleged to be held by the federalist? The latter seems as though it would make more sense, but as you've written it here it seems like it could/should? be interpreted as the former. But again, that would seem like an anomalous position, particularly given your description of the two sides leading into the quotation. Or is there some subtlety here I'm simply missing?
In any event, it was an interesting contribution to the comments section. Thanks for taking the time to post it.
That excerpt from Antifederalist #9 is actually biting sarcasm, most people in this day and age seem not to pick up on it. If you've read enough from that time, it's pretty obvious... The Federalists were deviously named, they were actually for a highly centralized "consolidated" government, ideally situated close to their center of power in New York City - and in fact the first US capital was there: "The first inauguration of George Washington as the first president of the United States was held on Tuesday, April 30, 1789 on the balcony of Federal Hall in New York City, New York. The inauguration was held nearly two months after the beginning of the first four-year term of George Washington as president. Chancellor of New York Robert Livingston administered the presidential oath of office. With this inauguration, the executive branch of the United States government officially began operations under the new frame of government established by the 1787 Constitution." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_inauguration_of_George_Washington
Note the use of the term 1787 Constitution - the United States had a previous Constitution, that of 1777 - known as the Articles of Confederation, which established a confederation of quasi-independent states much like the Swiss Confederation, with a relatively weak central government with little control over domestic affairs, much like the original idea for the European Union (and not what it turned into, with power centralized in Brussels.
The Federalists opposed the Articles, they were British Mercantilists, and they saw the loose confederation of 1777 as an obstacle to their desire for power and wealth - Hamilton in fact proposed that an elective Monarchy be established, with himself as the first Monarch, for life - hence the reference in the excerpt to Cromwell - "but we all know that Cromwell was a King, with the title of Protector". The intended ambit for the Convention of 1787 was supposedly limited to amending the Articles, but that Convention, held in secret (proceedings only published 53 years later) created an entirely new governmental structure. It was no less than a bloodless coup-d'etat, it entirely overturned the principles set out in the Declaration of Independence. There was an attempt made in the Tenth Amendment - the Bill of Rights was drafted by Antifederalists - to limit the powers granted to the Federal government, see "A TRUISM WITH ATTITUDE: THE TENTH AMENDMENT IN CONSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT" at https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1243&context=ndlr. This attempt was effectively stymied by Chief Justice Marshall, in dicta in Marbury v Madison, that "the courts shall decide what the law is" - and of course, Marshall was a very strong Federalist. If you read the Antifederalist Letters, you'll find that they are remarkably prescient, they did an amazing job of predicting what actually came about.
The Federalists were the monied Eastern urban Establishment, the Anti-federalists were the party of the rural people and the lower and middle classes - "Of the fifty-six men who had signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776, only six of those attended the Federal Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 where the specially selected delegates secretly concocted a plutocratic structure of rule. Patrick Henry refused to attend the convention and genuinely democratic patriots such as George Mason, Luther Martin, John Francis Mercer, and Elbridge Gerry participated in the convention but refused to sign the new constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights and provided inadequate representation of the people. John Lansing and Robert Yates attended the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia as members of the New York delegation. As the Hamilton-Madison plutocratic conspiracy group took control of the convention, both Yates and Lansing became disillusioned because they believed it was exceeding its instructions to merely modify the Articles of Confederation. They were dismayed at the Hamilton-Madison-inspired movement to write an entirely new constitution. After six weeks, John Lansing and fellow New York delegate Robert Yates left the convention, explaining their departure in a joint letter to New York Governor George Clinton. They explained that they opposed any document that would consolidate the United States into one government, and indicated that they understood that the convention was going to consider such a consolidation. In their letter to Clinton, they warned that the kind of government recommended by the convention would not “afford that security to equal and permanent liberty which we wished to make an invariable object of our pursuit.” As members of the New York ratifying convention in 1788, Lansing and Yates both vigorously opposed the Constitution. In 1787, the vast majority of American people lived in a community-oriented culture, on farms or in cities working as artisans and laborers. Their concept of independence was associated with interdependence and cooperation–all for the common good. Women worked with men, families traded labor and animals. In this culture of mutual concern and mutual obligation, working class people took care of one another. They shared common values and interests, completely different from the values of a market-driven approach to life. According to this common welfare approach to life, merchants and financiers would be restricted to what the community decided about how resources are used. The working class had put its democratic, interdependent ideals into their state constitutions and in town and city charters when possible." https://tapnewswire.com/2016/05/completing-the-american-revolution/
And the ratification was done by similar devious means - it made the Election of 2020 look like an entirely fair and honest contest in comparison: "The “Federalists” (the junta that had called the Constitutional Convention, subverted its purposes to the writing of a plutocratic document, and pushed through the totally flawed “constitution”) pushed for excessively rapid election of delegates to state conventions who would vote on ratification of the “constitution.” The “Federalists” made sure that most of the delegates who would vote on ratification were sympathetic to the “constitution.” Members of state conventions known to be unsympathetic to the “constitution” were harassed by “Federalist” dirty-trick operators. Mail documents that discussed the pros and cons of the “constitution” were disrupted by “Federalist” operators. Only one-fourth of the adult males in America were allowed (by property requirements and other restrictions) to vote on delegates to the ratification convention. Not more than one-sixth of American adult males voted for ratification." https://tapnewswire.com/2016/05/completing-the-american-revolution/
Other interesting reading includes "The Rise and Rise of the Administrative State" https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1941&context=faculty_scholarship and
https://mises.org/library/peoples-pottage
The January 6th "insurrectionists" were misled, as most are, as to the location of the true government of the US, it's not at the Capitol or White House, it's South of the Potomac, in Langley and Arlington - and in Wall Street.
An acute and fully justified observation about the true government being located in Langley, Arlington and Wall St.
The coordination and distribution of power across institutions has created a kryptarchy, the perfect form for a gangster-state in which politicians, senior officials and the corporate/banking oligarchy co-operate for personal and class enrichment at the expense of everyone else.
IMO the weakness of the PMC is that they thrive through sponsoring and curating dysfunction amongst the masses, but this weakens the nation relative to competitors within the international system. Social engineering that aims at anti-social or dysfunctional results can only work in a seamless, truly global, system. Once there is inter-state rivalry states with pro-social domestic policies have a distinct advantage. The differential rate at which assabiyah is sustained may be the Achilles heel of the PMC.
Is assabiyah the same as Desmet's "Mass Formation"?
Assabiyah refers to group cohesion/social capital that energises groups, tribes or societies. The term is from Ibn Khaldun, a medieval Arab historian who was explaining why particular bedouin tribes rose to power, then became decadent and lost out to other tribes fresh from the desert.
I've actually read - English translation of course - Ibn Khaldun's book, which is fascinating, I think he made an incredibly accurate estimate of the circumference of the earth, amongst other things.
Ah, so my second option. That seemed like the most likely.
I'm afraid my mentioning that I hadn't read the anti-federalists may have misled you into thinking I didn't know about them. I know about them and the Articles. In fact, federalism is another theme of interest to me that is going to be getting attention on this substack later in the year, or early next year. But thank you again for taking the time to provide this detailed explanation.