The Theory of Balance of Power as Proven by the Course of Time – Part II

Napoleon as quoted by Metternich, Volume I page 312

He said to me one day in 1810, on the occasion of a long conversation in which he had just given me the history of his life: ‘I have clouded and obstructed my career by placing my relations on thrones. We learn as we go, and I now see that the fundamental principle of ancient monarchies, of keeping the princes of the reigning house in constant and real dependence on the throne, is wise and necessary.’

Metternich, Volume IV page 313

January 10, 1826. — The first need in every country being the clear and precise determination of the line of succession to the throne.

Metternich, Volume IV page 319

June 8, 1826. — The claims of the historian begin with the separation between the periods.

Metternich, Volume I page 87

Had Napoleon confined his plans to the preservation of what the Republic had conquered, he would have greatly increased his popularity; his warlike temperament carried him much further. He was a born conqueror, legislator, and administrator, and he thought he could indulge all three inclinations at once. His undoubted genius furnished him with the means of doing so.

Metternich, Volume I page 78

Raised by the Revolution to the summit of power, Napoleon endeavoured to prop up by monarchical institutions the throne he had made for himself. The destructive parties, having to do with a man equally great as a statesman and as a general, who knew his country and the spirit of the nation better than any who ever guided the destinies of France, were above all anxious to save from the wreck of their works all they could secure from the encroachments of the Imperial power.

Continue reading “The Theory of Balance of Power as Proven by the Course of Time – Part II”

The Theory of Balance of Power as Proven by the Course of Time – Part I

 

Metternich, Volume II page 283

September 24, 1808. — In M. de Talleyrand one cannot but separate the moral man from the political man. He had not been, he could not be, what he is, if he were moral. He is, on the other hand, pre-eminently a politician, and, as a politician, a man of systems. As such he may be useful or dangerous ; at this moment he is useful, and I do not fear to defend this statement, in spite of the powerful arguments contained in your Excellency’s remarks.

Metternich, Volume IV page 10

May 22, 1823. — What a miserable Power is that which is founded on error, is only supported by lies, and has no strength but the weakness of its opponents. This is a portrait of Liberalism.

While we’re on the topic of units of measure how well does Metternich’s contention that the strength of the Left is inversely proportional to the weakness of the Right serve as a point of reference to judge the condition of American Conservatism?

And by “Right” is meant both the inferior reich/ “Dissident Inc” wing as much as the mainstream/”Conservatism Inc” wing; including all of Dissident Inc’s numerous, failed, predecessors that ultimately allowed most of it to be (purposely?) taken over by FBI and CIA informants.

By Metternich’s standard the results make for grim reading – and who would dare say the modern American Right is in strong shape, aside from the always skillful Trump, from whom Dissident Inc has learned little to nothing from?

So grim that – to paraphrase Mikhail Bakunin who is infamously quoted as saying, “If God existed it would be necessary to destroy Him.” – one could truthfully say that it would be necessary to destroy the American Right if it hadn’t already destroyed itself.

This is especially alarming considering Metternich’s reasoning has an uncanny knack for converting easily into mathematical principles that demonstrate wide ranging applications across space and time.

When considering the fiercest policy debates (like the pronoun wars) from this perspective it is not accurate to say the Left is ‘winning’ the pronoun wars on account of their own strength.

It is more true to say the Left is winning the pronoun wars because the Right is too weak to successfully defend pronouns.

Judging the pronoun wars using this criteria is rich with negative implications for the quality of people calling themselves American “Conservatives.”

Continue reading “The Theory of Balance of Power as Proven by the Course of Time – Part I”

Trump’s Opportunity by Banning Transgender Treatment to Minors & Banning Transgender Men in Women’s Sports

After Trump’s brilliant strategic move to minimize the Democrat’s advantage on abortion, Trump has another opportunity to win votes by supporting a federal ban on transgender treatments (both surgical and hormonal) for minors under the age of 18 and banning transgender men from women’s sports.

This is a perfect opportunity because it divides the Democrat base of the large suburban women’s vote with the, electorally microscopic, transgender vote.

Winning over an extra 1 point of suburban women nationwide could easily tip the election to Trump because of how large it is and how their vote is distributed in strategically important regions of the swing states such as the Philadelphia suburbs.

The Democrats will almost certainly respond by fighting Trump on these two issues to please the small number of transgender voters, while losing ground among the much more important suburban women’s vote who are likely to oppose the transgender position on these two issues.

The result would be to divide the Democrat base much like Trump has divided the Democrat’s blue collar base in the Rust Belt from their Green energy base by pointing out how restricting fracking in Pennsylvania and encouraging electric vehicle adoption in Michigan will harm the working class there to enrich the Green industrial complex.

Supporting Congressional legislation to ban transgender men from women’s sports takes hysterical media attention away from abortion.

So too would a ban on transgender treatment for minors under 18.

The reason for the ban should simply be that even hormonal treatments have severe developmental side effects such as structural deformation of the skeleton and spinal column, neurological underdevelopment, and numerous other side effects.

A cancer risk from hormonal treatments alone is also very probable since IVF treatments that stimulate ovulation have to be careful not to stimulate the ovaries excessively or else there is a marginal increase in the risk of ovarian cancer.

If IVF hormonal treatments, which are done only temporarily, and are performed on adult women can potentially raise cancer risk then the risks are probably orders of magnitude higher for transgender hormonal treatments to children.

The penalties for allowing children to undergo any type of transgender procedure (even if only hormonal) should be revocation of the doctor’s license and prosecution of the doctor for felony medical malpractice, federal child abuse charges filed against the parents, revocation of custody of the child, and unlimited financial liability for any doctors who are sued by their patients for medical side effects as adults.

If doctors are really confident that these procedures are safe then they should have no fear of medical malpractice lawsuits because their treatments should few to no side effects.

MGT’s Bid to Remove Speaker Johnson Risks Greatly Helping the Biden Campaign

House Republicans should threaten to expel MGT from the House if she tries to remove Speaker Johnson with a motion to vacate because if she succeeds it will greatly help the Biden campaign at the expense of Trump.

If Speaker Johnson is toppled then the momentum the Trump campaign has right now would face considerable disruption from MGT shifting the media attention from Biden’s failed job performance and poor poll numbers to the total chaos that will ensue in the House.

Removing Johnson as Speaker would divert away all of the media attention because the House would be a total mess with bills not getting passed, House committees that would otherwise be investigating Biden and his family not able to meet, and months wasted trying to find a new Republican House Speaker who would have to win almost unanimous GOP member approval and who would face exactly the same problems Johnson faces with a tiny House majority and no Republican control of the Senate.

The House Republicans need to force her to back down from her idiotic plan or she will inflict completely unnecessary harm on Trump’s campaign as well as all of the important down ballot races the GOP is competing in by distracting the country for month’s from Biden’s failures to House Republican chaos.

Israel Should Attack Iran’s Nuclear Sites & Oil Infrastructure

Israel should win the proxy war Iran has been waging for decaudes by emulating Reagan’s winning approach to proxy wars.

Reagan defeated the Soviet Union by stressing out its resources through the Reagan arms buildup and by pressuring the Soviets with increased military support to America’s proxy allies.

The principle in operation here is that proxy wars are inherently resource expensive because they require significant supplies to be distributed.

The Soviets could not afford to both keep up with Reagan’s arms buildup and keep its proxies competitive against NATO alligned proxies.

Iran is even more vulnerable than the Soviets were to collapsing from an inability to keep their proxies well supplied and keep their domestic projects going because they do not have a fraction of the Soviet Union’s resources.

To stress out Iran’s proxy war strategy Israel should destroy the Iranian nuclear program and destroy all of Iran’s oil and gas production capabilities.

Destroying the Iranian nuclear program is a necessity because, after October 7, they should never assume Islamic terrorist nations aren’t crazy enough to use nuclear weapons despite the threat of mutually assured destruction.

Furthermore, even if Iran doesn’t intend to use a nuclear weapon against Israel, the US, or America’s Gulf Arab allies, they will use nuclear weapons as a deterrent to prevent victims of their terrorism from retaliating with conventional weapons against them.

With a nuclear deterrent Iran would be free to launch much more frequent, non-nuclear terrorist attacks and disrupt Middle Eastern cargo shipping more because they would know a nuclear arsenal would deter Israel and the US from retaliating against them.

Iranian oil infrastructure should be destroyed (much like Ukraine is destroying Russian oil infrastructure) so that Iran cannot as easily afford to support their proxy forces.

Destroying Iran’s oil and gas export income completely will be necessary if Israel intends to attack Hezbollah next because Iran will not as easily be able to replace Hezbollah losses when their oil and gas export revenue drops to zero.

Also, the Israeli Navy should sink all Iranian warships operating in the Red Sea that are supporting Houthi attacks on Israeli and other Western cargo ships.

After destroying those Iranian ships Israel should warn that the Red Sea is off limits to the Iranian Navy and any of their ships that approach the Red Sea area will be attacked on sight.

Abbott as Trump’s VP & Preparing for Newsom Replacing Biden as the Democrat Nominee

Another point in favor of Gregg Abbott being Trump’s running mate (aside from the fundraising advantages Abbott brings which will efficiently minimize how much Trump needs to pay out of his own pocket for campaign and legal expenses) is that Abbott’s legal battles over securing the border of Texas would keep the focus of the general election campaign squarely on immigration issues.

The more Texas and its immigration lawsuits are in the news the harder it will be for Biden (or his one of his potential replacements…) to evade the immigration issue.

And speaking of potential replacements for Biden, the Trump campaign would be wise to be contingency planning for the possibility that Biden will be somehow removed by the Democrats as the nominee due to the continued poor polling of Biden in the swing states.

If the Democrats pull the plug on the Biden usurpation before their convention then the most likely candidate would be Gavin Newsom.

This is despite the fact Newsom performed extremely poorly in his debate with Ron DeSantis because Newsom’s record as Governor of California is completely indefensible considering the entire 40 million population of the state of California is now homeless.

However, Newsom’s astonishing 100% homeless rate and other failings such as rampant “snatch and grab” crimewaves are no obstacle to the Democrat nomination since the Democrats care only care about how much money and power their candidates hand to the bureaucracies.

In that respect, Newsom has the inside advantage to the nomination should Biden be withdrawn because Newsom has funneled hundreds of billions of California tax dollars to the state’s extremely powerful government workers.

The amount of money California’s bureaucracy has dwarfs that of almost any state, and thus gives Newsom the bureaucratic influence to seize the nomination in the event of it opening up; and in the absence of a more credible alternative on the Democrat frontbenches to Newsom.

Therefore, the Trump campaign should be strategizing how to deal with a potential Newsom candidacy being sprung at the last minute.

Fortunately, the most likely replacement for Biden is also the most unelectable candidate, perhaps worse in some ways than Biden.

Homelessness alone could sink Newsom in the general election.

But he would need to be defined with attack ads quickly, when he is still an unknown quantity to the broader electorate (which may not be aware 100% of California is homeless) and before the media can polish his image.

Therefore fundraising in advance becomes essential because the Trump campaign may need to unload on attack ads earlier than they were planning against Biden who is much more of a known quantity with the voters.

That makes it more vital that Trump’s VP be either Abbott or Youngkin in order to haul in a good reserve that can be saved either to attack Newsom early or, if Biden remains, be unleashed on Biden as planned closer to the election if Biden is still the nominee.

They should also avoid attacking Newsom too early unless his nomination becomes official because if they damage him too much, too quickly, Democrats might look for another candidate they think is more electable.

If it looks like Newsom is about to seize the Democrat nomination it would be better for the campaign to hold off on condemning him until he has the nomination locked up officially.

More on Fundraising & Trump’s VP Options

After reviewing other VP options for Trump his best ones in terms of who can gain him extra votes while making large GOP donors happiest remain Glenn Youngkin and Greg Abbott.

Who can help Trump the most in terms of fundraising is an especially important criteria for VP candidates because of the potential that Trump’s legal bills could allow Biden to eke out a victory.

Biden’s plan to overcome Trump’s early poll lead will probably be to simply saturate the airwaves with attack ads to drive up Trump’s negatives to a higher level than Biden’s, rather than the Biden campaign attempting to make Biden look good in his own right.

This could be countered by Trump further raising Biden’s negatives with attack ads of his own, but this requires strong fundraising by the Trump campaign in order to afford it.

If the Trump campaign cannot afford to counter-attack heavily enough on the airwaves because of legal expenses then there is a high risk the Democrats would erode Trump’s current lead enough by Fall for Biden to be narrowly reelected, especially if some of the major 3rd party candidates drop out of the race due to Democrat pressuring/bribing them to leave in order to help Biden (which is a likely Democrat strategy).

Fundraising will be even more important in the event the Democrats replace Biden before the election with another candidate like Gavin Newsom because a new Democrat presidential candidate would require extra attack ads to negatively define a more unknown candidate to the public before they can positively define themselves.

Youngkin and Abbott are the VP options who can most help Trump in this regard while also bringing in more votes to Trump’s total than any other VP options could.

Here, in no particular order, is an assessment of other Trump candidates.

Katie Britt – Might give a small boost to Trump with younger voters, possibly with women voters. Whatever votes she gains would be negligible compared to what Youngkin or Abbott can offer Trump.

Marco Rubio – Decent fundraising potential, though not at Youngkin and Abbott’s level. In terms of votes he could help with women voters somewhat.

J.D. Vance – He is disliked by both voters and donors. His winning a Senate seat in Ohio was unimpressive because it was narrow compared to other Ohio Republicans running statewide who won by bigger margins than he did. He also did not run a very good campaign. Mostly he won just because Ohio is so Republican that even a less than mediocre Republican can win statewide there.

But that won’t be nearly good enough nationwide in the swing states. Voters find him too angry and grating, sort of like Ramaswamy. His personality would lose Trump more women voters than he would with another running mate.

Large donors dislike Vance.

He appeals to Trump’s base, but, like Ramaswamy, this doesn’t gain Trump anything he doesn’t already have because Trump already has the Trump base secured.

Like Ramaswamy, Vance hurts Trump, net-net, with independents, women voters, and in fundraising potential.

Like Ramaswamy, Vance may also be insincere in his some of his beliefs: For example, Vance has called Trump “Hitler” in past interviews.

Israel Should Sink Iranian Warships Near the Red Sea & Delay Biden’s Pier to Gaza

In addition to Iran and its Houthi proxies causing hundreds of billions in economic damage by forcing global cargo container and oil tanker traffic to avoid navigating the Red Sea, the Iranian coalition has also caused significant ecological damage by recently sinking a cargo ship containing large amounts of fertilizer and launching another Houthi missile attack that killed crew members of a US flagged vessel.

These attacks (which may end up killing US Navy personnel in Iranian backed missile, or air drone, or naval boat-drone strikes) have been supported by Iranian warships operating in the Red Sea that have been providing targeting information to the Houthis.

The normal American response should have been to consider the Iranian forces to be co-combatants with the Houthis and resulted in the US sinking these Iranian ships.

However, since Jake Sullivan is apparently an Islamic State operative attacking Iranian warships has been taken off the table as an option.

Therefore, the Israeli Navy should (with or without US permission) sink any Iranian ships operating in the Red Sea theatre and threaten to unilaterally sink any other Iranian vessels that approach the area.

The Israelis should also throw as many bureaucratic and logistical delays as possible in the way of Biden establishing a pier to Gaza.

What Biden is trying to do is setup a foothold in Gaza that can later be expanded to “internationalize” the Gaza occupation with US and UN “peacekeepers” whose real mission (aside from being killed by the Palestinians they will be trying to protect) will be to create a safety buffer zone separating Gazans and the IDF.

This buffer international buffer zone will prevent Israel from further defending itself from terrorists in Gaza.

Instead of allowing Biden to risk American lives by protecting genocidal Palestinian terrorists from Israel, Netanyahu should instead say only the IDF will be allowed to build port infrastructure along the coast of Gaza and that building a pier could take 2-3 years to complete (or 20, or 30 years…) due to security risks in the area.

Israel’s position should be that Israel alone will run any existing coast infrastructure in Gaza and that any aid coming by sea to the Palestinians will have to be delivered directly to the IDF which alone will be responsible for inspecting and delivering the aid packages to Gaza.

If Biden doesn’t accept security delays as an excuse for delaying the oath he gave to defend genocidal Islamic terrorism, then Netanyahu should tell Biden to go fuck himself.

This will prevent the Islamic State controlled Biden Administration from getting any base of operations in Gaza that can be expanded to protect Hamas with a US-UN buffer zone.

Ranking Trump’s VP Options

Trump’s choice for Vice President will have more impact than normal for a presidential election because Trump would be limited to only one term.

This means that voters will weigh the strengths and weaknesses of his running more strongly than usual because they will be thinking of how they would perform in 2028.

Therefore, it is very important for Trump’s choice to bring more reward than risk to his campaign in order to maximize his chances of winning.

The two candidates who help Trump the most are, in order, Governors Glenn Youngkin and Greg Abbott.

Youngkin brings the most positives because he brings appeal to suburban voters (where the GOP has recently been weak) and independents along with fundraising power. He is also Conservative on the issues which means the GOP base vote will have no problem turning out in November.

The second best option is Greg Abbott. Abbott also brings strong fundraising power via his political connections. He would be an energizer for Conservative turnout but he has less appeal to suburbanites and independents than Youngkin.

Both Youngkin and Abbot would be assets in terms of checking the “plausible option for 2028” box because they both look like they would be plausible candidates in 2028 for President.

The other candidates for VP all have more negatives than positives and, except for Noem and Haley, have no executive experience which is more important than normal due to 2028.

In no particular order –

Ramaswamy – He is toxic to women voters, especially in the suburbs. Worse, he has no positives that the Trump campaign doesn’t already have because his primary strategy was to be a clone of Trump. This might help with the Trump base, but Trump already has the Trump base by virtue of being Trump!

Why should Trump choose a running mate who tanks him with suburban and women voters and gains him no extra base votes which Trump already has in the bag anyway?

Kristi Noem – Not impressive enough for people to think of her as a plausible 2028 candidate. Her record on social issues is weak, which might depress base voter turnout. It is unlikely she will win enough moderate women voters to compensate since recent elections have shown that women do not automatically vote for a woman candidate because so many women are now in office that almost no one thinks it is exceptional.

Also, she is probably having an affair with Corey Lewandowski which would negatively impact Evangelical turnout and add an unnecessary distraction to the general election campaign.

Ultimately, she has no offsetting benefits to compensate for the risks she brings.

Tim Scott – He was a useless nonentity in the debates and there is no reason at all to believe he would do better if he were Trump’s running mate. He is so weak in debates that he may actually end up losing the VP debate to Kamala Harris, making him the only running mate option that is capable of losing to the drugged-out, babbling Harris.

He is also such a nonentity that he would not gain a single black vote for Trump.

The base probably won’t mind him being on the ticket, but they won’t be enthusiastic either, and Trump already has the base without needing help on that front from anyone else.

What is best is someone who will help him beyond the base.

Elise Stefanik – She is a weaker version of Kristi Noem but without executive experience. She also brings no extra women votes because the novelty of women running for office has worn off.

Nikki Haley – Not that she is being considered but even if she hadn’t burned bridges with Trump she would depress Conservative turnout as Republicans have an increasingly negative opinion of her. She also wins no Democratic votes to compensate for the decrease in GOP base turnout.

Winning Michigan through Hamiltonian Class Warfare Against Electric Vehicles

Trump has a major strategic opportunity to win Michigan with Hamiltonian class warfare by splitting the Democrat’s wealthy, quasi-government worker, upper class that profits nationwide from government subsidized green energy scams from the state-level working class in Michigan (and potentially the middle and higher classes in Michigan who remember the false promises of free trade with China) over the issue of electric vehicles.

Trump can use this wedge issue to win Michigan by promising to end all of the tax breaks and subsidies for electric vehicles, and by significantly raising tariffs on electric vehicle batteries and other EV parts from China, in order to prevent China from wiping out US auto industry jobs because of illegal domestic Chinese subsidies to their own electric vehicle industry and because electric vehicles require fewer workers to make than hydrocarbon powered cars.

The Progressive’s green energy corporate welfare “upper class” would object that green energy will not benefit China, which will in turn simply work to Trump’s advantage by reminding Michigan autoworkers of previous promises in the 1990s that trade with China’s highly distorted manufacturing sector would not lead to manufacturing job losses.

Removal of the tax breaks and subsidies and increasing tariffs on Chinese EV batteries and parts would cause the electric vehicle industry in the US to shrink back to a smaller market share that reflects the fact electric cars cannot survive on their own without Progressive market distortions due the fact the technology is still immature with major performance flaws, their used batteries are a significant environmental pollutant, produce more carbon in their manufacture than they save over the normal life of the battery, and that electric vehicles are poor financial investments for consumers due the fact they have weak trade in value because the cost of replacing a used EV’s battery would be close to the cost of purchasing an entirely new car.

This is unlike a traditional IC car which can usually cut at least a third of the cost of a newer model during trade ins.

In fact, the position of the entire Republican Party should be to financially destroy the entire green energy sector and guarantee global fossil fuel industry world domination by ending all government subsidies for wind and solar power projects and ending, via tariffs, all green energy trade with China because government green energy market distortions are just a way to give trillions of dollars of the fossil fuel energy sector over to line the pockets and, of course, enhance the political power of Progressive corporate welfare “green” billionaires and Progressive green corporations.

Given the fact that the Progressives are gaining trillions of dollars for what is a de facto government run energy sector, the GOP should do everything in its power to crush green energy even if its technology works (which it doesn’t).

In particular the Republicans should destroy the wind and solar energy industries by significantly raising the engineering performance standards on wind and solar plants to a point they cannot meet with current technology, by cutting off their government subsidies, and finally ending their access to Chinese parts with greatly increased tariffs.

The only zero carbon energy source that is proven to work is nuclear which is also, of course, the only zero carbon energy source that Progressives don’t support funding.

Everything about the green energy market (aside from nuclear) is junk science and junk economics.

In the first place, the green industry is probably falsifying how much human greenhouse emissions affect the environment because 94% of all atmospheric carbon is naturally produced from the earth; because the projected increase in global temperatures a few degrees Celsius (if actually caused by the 6% of global emissions generated by man) is too small to significantly affect life on earth; and because the technology is simply not workable given technology constraints and the fact emission decreases in the West are being more than wiped out by increases in China and India.

Technology that is “not ready yet” is a concept that Progressives do not understand at all, but which plagues other scientific fields.

For example, paleontologists would like a time machine so they could study living dinosaurs. The problem with their wish is that the technology for time travel doesn’t exist yet.

Likewise, the technology to make green energy work reliably doesn’t exist yet.

Wind is too unpredictable and erratic to add without destabilizing electric grids, unless fossil fuels and nuclear still provide the bulk of energy.

Solar energy doesn’t work during the day in colder parts of the country and even in warmer parts of the country it is useless when the sun sets and energy demand starts to peak in the evening.

Neither wind or solar have the gigantic battery farms that would be needed to store electricity to increase their availability, and the lithium soil pollution from mining that much lithium for batteries would be enormous and probably be more carbon producing than simply producing more low-carbon natural gas.

And both solar and wind have other negative effects on the environment.

Wind mills are killing endangered species of birds in North America and Europe.

Meanwhile, solar panels produce significant toxic waste when the panels eventually stop working and need to be disposed of.

The GOP could destroy the wind and solar industries by raising environmental and engineering performance standards that neither industry could meet, such as by requiring any new solar and wind projects to produce 100% available energy to electric grids all the time, require battery storage to not use lithium, and requiring wind to not kill any birds and solar panels to not include any toxic materials so they are safer to dispose of.