Find all blog entries at A Commoner Manifesto Substack.
Susan Rice Proves Nazi Jurist's Point
If you have been wondering whether Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt is right with his dictum about politics, that:
The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be traced is the distinction between friend and enemy.
Not forgetting Curtis Yarvin that:
There is no politics without an enemy.
We now have further confirmation of Schmitt’s idea.
Here’s American philosopher Susan Rice, who opined on politics recently.
“If these corporations think that the Democrats, when they come back in power, are gonna, you know, play by the old rules, and say, ‘Oh, never mind, we’ll forgive you for all the people you’ve fired, all the policies and principles you’ve violated, all, you know, the laws you’ve skirted,’ I think they’ve got another thing coming,” Rice said.
Your mission, if you accept it, Madam Ambassador, is to stop treating political opponents as enemies.
Back in 2022 I wrote a piece “Politics and Enemies” about all this. I found that even the Canadian government, eh, needed enemies in the Battle of the Bouncy Castles.
Every conflict now is largely an information war and a public relations battle. The regime has a well-oiled propaganda machine, and they curated footage with spurious themes. For the regime, it was insufficient to have opponents; they needed enemies, which is why so much effort was expended to portray the demonstrators as dangerous ultra-nationalists and racists.
Now I think that Susan Rice, although perfectly competent to be an Ambassador to the United Nations and solid member of the regime nomenklatura, is not strategically smart. So she gets all riled up, as she is supposed to, by the regime Narrative, that Trump is an autocrat, and really, Literally Hitler.
See, honey baby chile, the Narrative is for the yokels, not for the noble ones.
She is not smart enough to realize that she is being manipulated. So obviously, corporate bigwigs that “Danced with a Man, Who’s Danced with a Girl, Who’s Danced with the Prince of Wales” — I mean Trump — are gonna be clobbered in the next Democratic administration.
Unless they vote Republican. Again.
We’ve been having fun “noticing” the corruption in Minnesota involving local Democratic politicians and Somali pirates. But that was last week. Now we have the curious case of burning cars in the streets of Jalisco, Mexico, after the arrest of Cartel CEO El Mencho.
Guess what, Susan Rice. We just learned a lesson from Mexico. The real domestic enemies of our regime are not Trump and billionaires and corporations and extreme right armed insurrectionists. They are drug cartels that effectively, we can see in the aftermath of the killing of a drug king pin, operate a state within a state in Mexico. There’s even a word — “Narco-bloqueos” — in Mexico when the cartels block the streets with burning vehicles.
We can see, indeed, that in Mexico there is a lot of dancing with a local politician that dances with a drug lord that dances with the princes of the national government.
And I am sure that the same sort of thing goes on in the US. Because politicians need money to run for office, and guess who has lots of ready money…
Do you see the point, Susan Rice? If the government of Mexico has a problem just keeping the drug cartels down to a dull roar, maybe we all need a politics that just limits itself to dealing with foreign enemies abroad and domestic criminals at home. And nothing else.
“Limited government,” don’tcha know.
If the politicians spend half their time thinking up new ways to spend money then they are not spending that time thinking about how to keep crooks and criminals from driving around the neighborhood telling small businessmen and women: “nice little business you got here. Pity if something should happen to it.”
This is not that hard, Madam Ambassador.
| perm | 02/23/26 11:31 pm ET | comments |
How Do We Get Out of Here?
Our big problem, writes Veronique de Rugy, is the Spending:
Between now and 2036, the CBO projects $94.6 trillion in federal spending against $70.2 trillion in revenue, a decadelong deficit of $24.4 trillion.
And the problem, of course, is entitlement spending.
These fiscal troubles are further intensified by spending on autopilot. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and net interest are projected to represent roughly 73 percent of total outlays by 2036 and absorb nearly all federal revenues.
And President Trump has not got close to solving the problem.
President Donald Trump must make good on his deficit-reduction promise. Democrats must sign on. Reform is a choice. Disorder is what happens when that choice is deferred.
The problem, says Croatian historian Tomislav Kardum, is populism. With populism you try to do everything, as Trump has done, with wild promises.
[Problem is that] as a populist campaigner, Trump refused to consider the trade-offs required by governance[.]
I see. Trade-offs. Why didn’t I think of that!
Truth is: these people don’t get it. I wrote about the central problem over 10 years ago.
Nobody wants to give up a dime of their free stuff. Grandmothers say things like: “’they’ better not cut my Medicare.” Seniors say: “I paid for my Social Security with my taxes.”
And frankly, I don’t blame people. They have paid taxes all their lives — serious taxes — and now you want to cut their Social Security and Medicare to balance the budget? That is why all big government regimes, from lefty populists in Argentina and righty populists in the USA and totalitarian regimes from the Soviet Union to Iran, just start printing money to cover up the mess. They know that if they faced up to reality it would be the end of the regime.
That’s why I say that libertarian analysts like Veronique de Rugy and historians like Tomislav Kardum are missing the point.
Maybe the politicians could solve the problem if the Democrats could get together with Trump — behind closed doors, of course — and carve out a solution. But guess what: the solution would have to not-so-gradually replace Social Security and Medicare with real savings and wealth generation programs. Beautiful. But to get from here to there you would have to cut entitlement spending, divert part of FICA taxes to personal wealth programs, and stiff all the special interests and reduce their carve-outs. Good luck with that.
Against that is a vast institutional barricade that I wrote about here and here. “The Groups” of left-wing activist groups would primary every moderate Democrat that went along. And the administrative and educated elite that has governed us for the last century basically by handing out freebies because that’s how you get elected would have to admit that they don’t have a clue, and indeed nobody has a clue, and never has.
It comes down to this: The Groups are mobilized to fight the enemy. The Political and Administrative Elite is mobilized to hand out freebies to their supporters. This reduces society to politics as defined by Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt as just about friends and enemies.
But humans are social animals. We need to work with each other, making and using and buying and selling and helping and gifting. And we need natural elites, rather than the artificial political elites that just take our money to give to their supporters.
Politics? We need it to defend the border and to whack violent criminals with a billy club.
The problem is how to get from here to there. Maybe someone, somewhere has a great idea about how to do this. But I haven’t detected it, anywhere.
| perm | 02/21/26 3:51 am ET | comments |
Switch to Substack for more blog posts
Christopher Chantrill
He runs usgovernmentspending.com, the go-to resource for government finance data, and is a frequent contributor to the American Thinker. He lives in Seattle, Washington. Click for more.
“I love this guy.” — Steve Ballmer
A Commoner Manifesto
Commoners have nothing to lose but their shame
Class Analysis: A hundred years ago the rich were thin and the poor were fat; today the rich are thin and the poor are fat. A hundred years ago the rich were idle and the poor worked; today the rich work and the poor are idle.
Communism is a hammer that we use to destroy the enemy — Mao Zedong
The simplest way to understand human society is as Three Layers such as Nobles, Yeomen, and Serfs.
My take on Three Layers is my Three Peoples Theory of Creatives, Responsibles, and Subordinates.
I believe that we moderns live in Three Worlds: the War World of politics, the Market World of the economy, and the Life World of family and neighborhood.
The world that we all live in today is the one created by the German Turn in philosophy, psychology, science, and meaning.
But our modern elite, the educated elite, has taken, I believe, a Wrong Turn and has imposed a cultural Great Reaction on the world, a lurch back to the primitive. This manifests in the elite’s conceited Activism Culture and its patronage of Subordinate people as its Little Darlings.
The principal reason for the elite’s Wrong Turn has been that it does not understand and does not want to understand how the Three Peoples’ Religions are necessarily different.
The root of the educated elite’s Wrong Turn is its conceit that it knows what the world needs. I think there is a better way; I call it “A Good Life Better than the Left”.
ABC of Politics – Activism Culture – “Anatomy of Revolution” – Allyism – Critical Theory – Downstream-ism – Dutch Finance – German Turn – Good Life – Great Reaction – Little Darlings – Perfect Plan – Women in the Public Square – Ruling Class – Three Layers – Three Peoples – Three Peoples Religion – Tribalism – Two Cultures – Wrong Turn
Today’s topic: Against Government Education
