Streetwise Professor

In the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith famously wrote:

By means of glasses, hotbeds, and hotwalls, very good grapes can be raised in Scotland, and very good wine too can be made of them at about thirty times the expense for which at least equally good can be brought from foreign countries. Would it be a reasonable law to prohibit the importation of all foreign wines, merely to encourage the making of claret and burgundy in Scotland? (WN IV.ii.15)

This came to mind when reading this Bloomberg article about an “efuels” venture:

At its plant, electrolyzers break down water into hydrogen and oxygen, using electricity generated from nearby wind and solar farms. The hydrogen is then transported to a reactor, where it meets CO2 captured from local refineries, setting off a series of complex chemical reactions aided by patented catalysts. The result is a synthetic fuel with the same chemical properties as its fossil fuel-based cousins.

Yes, this process can create “equally good” fuel as traditional hydrocarbons. But at what cost? Well, they could tell you, but then they’d have to kill you:

How Infinium fits into that future remains to be seen. Schuetzle is tight-lipped about the company’s exact plans. While acknowledging that Infinium’s e-fuel is “more expensive” than conventional fuel, he didn’t disclose the cost difference. 

Probably not the 30x of Adam Smith’s Scottish wine, but evidently a large enough multiple to frighten the horses if disclosed.

Because of this cost differential, this industry will come into existence only as the result of heavy-handed government policy, in the form of subsidies, kneecapping competitors (namely traditional fuels), or more likely both. And echoing Smith, the question becomes “is it a reasonable law or policy to rig they system to favor this technology, merely to encourage the making of efuels?”

Smith did not answer his question because it answered itself. And the same is true of mine.

To repurpose an old joke, the government wants to address climate change in the worst way, and it is. Picking technologies that are feasible but exorbitantly costly in order to achieve a putatively desirable objective is a tried and false modus operandi of government. And this has been especially true of environmental and energy policies in the United States going back to the dawn of the EPA in the early 1970s, and the energy crisis of the mid-to-late 1970s.

I recall the “synfuels” boondoggles of the late-70s, e.g., making oil from shale. No, not the shale revolution you might be thinking of that actually resulted in the economical production of vast amounts of crude oil and natural gas, but taking shale rock in Wyoming with embedded hydrocarbons, subjecting it to energy intensive transformations (redolent of those described above for the efuels project) to produce oil at vastly higher cost than even the then-elevated price of conventionally produced oil. The government spent billions back when a billion actually meant something on this effort (and other synfuel efforts). And every dollar was wasted.

And reading the Bloomberg article demonstrates that the government, in its wisdom, is doing Adam Smith one better: it wants to mandate technologies that don’t really exist (unlike Smith’s “glasses, hotbeds, and hotwalls”):

Some regulators seem to agree with that thinking. The EU will phase out government subsidies for e-fuel made with fossil fuel-sourced CO2 by 2041. 

In its place, governments will mandate that efuels be made from CO2 obtained from air capture, a technology that the Bloomberg article describes as “nascent” but is more accurately described as “pie in the sky” (literally, in this case).

This generation of efuels will come into existence only as the result of government diktat, just as the first generation–ethanol and biodiesel–did. And the efuel technological greenhouse forcing is just one small part of an array of mandating of technology choices, all in the name of fighting global warming. The electrification of everything is if anything a more extreme example: the EPA’s mileage mandates (intended to make ICE vehicles uncompetitive with EVs), its emission standards for fossil fuel generation, and the lavish subsidization of inefficient (because diffuse and intermittent) renewables are if anything more egregious than growing the efuels industry like orchids.

But bureaucrats are geniuses, and will only do what’s best, right? Right? To disabuse yourself of such notions, refer back to the synfuels case discussed above. Or consider two more recent examples.

One was the European policy to force the replacement of gasoline engines with diesel ones in passenger vehicles, with the unintended–but totes foreseeable–result of increased particulate emissions (and widespread fraud by automakers to conceal that). Europe had to jettison that policy, so it has substituted another: eliminating ICE vehicles altogether. I’m sure that will work out swell.

Another that I find particularly rich is the sulfur standards for marine fuels introduced in 2020. In another unintended (but again foreseeable) consequence, the resulting reduction in particulate emissions is allegedly contributing to global warming. The irony behind this (compounded by the fact that efuels funder Bill Gates is also a fan of this technology) is demonstrated by serious proposals–recently experimented with–to inject particulates into the atmosphere to, yes, mitigate global warming.

So why do governments repeatedly adopt excessively costly policies to address putative problems? One part of the answer is hubris combined with the knowledge problem: they think they know a lot more than they do. But that’s not the entire answer.

At root, I think the more fundamental driver is public choice-related. Specifically, specific technologies have specific constituencies who would benefit from their subsidization (or other forms of policy support). They exert influence on legislators and bureaucrats to implement policies that favor them. (It is not a coincidence, comrades, that Bill Gates and the like have connections with many of these schemes.)

In contrast the effects of policies such as a carbon tax or cap and trade are much more diffuse and far less predictable because the ultimate outcome would be determined by market processes in a complex system. Adjustments would occur on myriad margins, not just by large firms but billions of individuals. The winners and losers in such a process are unknown, unknowable, and highly diffuse–these are not the concentrated interests that exert disproportionate influence on public policy.

(NB: I am not endorsing a carbon tax or cap and trade. I merely assert that they would be better ways of reducing carbon emissions than subsidizing or mandating technologies to do so. An exercise in the Theory of the Second Worst, if you will.)

In sum, political systems produce bad “solutions” to problems because of the very nature of politics, a nature that Mancur Olson and others pointed out years ago. A nature in which “public choice” means that the public gets screwed.

As I noted in a previous post, the Biden administration has tried to restrain Ukraine from attacking Russian oil refineries. The previous reason, as set forth by SecDef Lloyd “AWOL” Austin, was that these attacks would disrupt world energy markets.

Translation: these attacks would increase gasoline prices which scares the bejesus out of an inflation-battered administration in an election year.

But apparently the administration decided that wasn’t a very good look. Too obviously self-serving, and perhaps too dissonant with its the-war-in-Ukraine-is-a-vital-US-national-interest one.

So, would you believe, the administration is REALLY concerned on humanitarian, just war grounds:

Assistant Secretary of Defense C. Wallander says Russia has been destroying Ukraine’s energy system since the start of the war, but Ukraine shouldn’t strike back:

“Ukraine must comply with high standards of warfare, it’s part of European democracy”

??? pic.twitter.com/bKZKR4FyFQ

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) April 11, 2024

Nah, we wouldn’t believe that, actually. Especially since this oh-so high minded critique of Ukrainian military tactics has heretofore been completely absent from American policy makers’ discourses. It’s obviously a lie to cover the election-obsessed administration’s true motivations. That is, AWOL Austin committed the Kinseyan gaffe of speaking the truth, and this gaffe had to be cleaned up.

This justification is also utterly ridiculous on myriad grounds. For one thing, as Rep. Scott pointed out, why should Ukraine fight asymmetrically, but in a bad way, taking blow after blow to its civilian targets but not striking back. For another, oil refineries are a legitimate military target, given (a) Russia’s armies in Ukraine run on the fuel they produce, (b) fuel exports are a material source of revenue for the Russian government, and (c) the Kremlin is clearly concerned about higher fuel prices, and the potential effect they would have on support for the war.

For yet another, in military conflicts in the modern age the United States has made attacking enemy energy assets a primary target. In WWII, the most effective element of the strategic bombing offensive (and one that probably should have been introduced earlier) was the attacks on Germany synthetic fuel production. (The attacks on the oil fields at Ploesti, Romania in 1943 less successful, but the April-August 1944 attacks did materially restrict fuel supplies to the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe). In Gulf War I, one of the first targets of American air strikes (after Iraqi air defenses were dismantled in the first wave) were Iraqi electric power plants, which were attacked with graphite bombs. Soon after, the US turned its attention to, yes, Iraqi oil refineries. In 1999 the US unleashed graphite bombs on Serbian power plants.

The US, in other words, has long recognized the strategic importance of enemy energy production, and has made it a priority target. So why shouldn’t Ukraine?

And note that given the previous history, Wallender is implicitly accusing the United States of violating the laws of armed conflict.

It’s actually quite disgusting that the administration covers its nakedly political motivations with high sounding blather about “the laws of armed conflict” and the “standards of European democracy.” Maxwell Smart was funny. These clowns are not.

Not surprisingly given its avatar, the Biden administration is a picture of drooling incoherence. This is especially true when it comes to energy policy and the Russo-Ukrainian War and especially the intersection of these.

Case in point. The administration constantly asserts that it is a vital US interest for Ukraine to prevail and Russia to lose. Secretary of State Blinken went so far as to promise that Ukraine would join Nato, despite the fact that this is akin to waving a red flag in front of a bull (in the form of Putin). Ukraine must win! We must provide massive military aid! UKRAINE MUST WIN! FREEDOM AND OUR DEMOCRACY ARE AT STAKE!

But not if it raises the price of gasoline in an election year, apparently. In recent months one of Ukraine’s most successful gambits has been drone attacks on Russian oil refineries. These attacks focused on distillation units, the disabling of which sharply cuts refinery output. As a result, Russian refined product output is supposedly down around 10-15 percent, exports of gasoline have been banned for six months, and the country is desperately seeking imports of gasoline from Kazakhstan. This is a serious economic blow to Russia, and also crimps military efforts which are obviously dependent on fuel supplies.

Further, the impact is likely to be long lasting because repairs depend on foreign parts and foreign expertise that Russia cannot readily obtain due to sanctions.

These attacks are also mirror images to Russia’s relentless bombardments of Ukrainian energy facilities, especially electric power generation.

Especially given the trivial resources devoted to the campaign (which is carried out using drones), this is arguably one of the most effective measures that Ukraine has implemented in the two plus years of war.

So given the allegedly existential stakes in a Ukrainian victory, the administration is gung ho in its support for these attacks, right? Right?

Wrong! The administration, first in the form of the execrable Ichabod Crane doppelgänger Jake Sullivan, then in the form of the utterly embarrassing Secretary of Defense Lloyd “AWOL” Austin, is intensely pressuring Ukraine to cease its campaign against Russian refineries.

Why? Because it might raise gasoline prices. It’s an election year dontcha know:

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin warned that Ukraine’s recent attacks on Russian oil refineries risk impacting global energy markets https://t.co/3LgO2UfzHg

— Bloomberg (@business) April 9, 2024

The incoherence is only compounded when you consider the administration’s antipathy for fossil fuels in its obsession over climate change. The administration thinks that fossil fuels are really, really bad, m’kay, and wants to reduce sharply their use. What better way to do that but to make them more expensive?

Now that I mention it, none, actually. Demand curves slope down. So for the climate change obsessed, burning Russian refineries and the consequent increase in fuel prices is a good thing. A great thing, according to the theory of the second best! And something that harms our alleged arch enemy to boot! What could be better?

Well, what could be better to someone who thinks logically is the real question. The freak out over the refinery attacks is clearly symptomatic of people who refuse to think logically. People who apparently elide the word “foolish” from Ralph Waldo Emerson’s epigram that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”

The administration’s draining of the Strategic Oil Reserve is another example of its foolish inconsistency.

There are many other examples. One that also checks the Russia and energy boxes is the insane pause on US LNG development approvals. This will also “impact global energy markets,” and not in a good way. And in particular not in a way that helps those whom we hope will help Ukraine.

When European natural gas prices reached stratospheric levels in the immediate aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Biden proclaimed that the US had Europe’s back, and would replace Russian gas with good ol’ ‘Merican LNG.

Suckers!

The administration’s obsession with keeping down the most visible price of energy (that paid at the gas pump) also clashes starkly with an array of other policies that will dramatically increase the cost of energy. The push towards electrification of everything, with the electricity generated by renewables, is just one example. Renewables are not cheap. They are expensive. Hella expensive–just look at how much higher electricity costs are in jurisdictions here (e.g., California) and abroad (e.g., Denmark and Germany) where renewables penetration is highest. Driving up demand (e.g., by penalizing the use of ICE vehicles) of a high cost resource is a recipe for higher energy costs. Much higher.

The force feeding via vast subsidies of high cost efuels and hydrogen will also inflate energy costs, though here (not coincidentally) the cost will be concealed in your tax bill and higher interest rates (required ot get people to buy US debt).

In sum, to call Biden administration energy policies “schizo” is an insult. To schizos. It is full spectrum contradiction and incoherence that simultaneously strives to lower energy costs and raise them, and to protect Russia while demonizing it.

The United States Navy is broken. The 2010s saw numerous operational SNAFUs, ship collisions and the like. Those have abated somewhat, the most recent being the collision of the Seawolf Class submarine USS Connecticut with an undersea mountain about 2.5 years ago. But serious long term structural problems are metastasizing. And these are much more difficult to address than reprioritizing seamanship.

The Navy desperately needs to be recapitalized. Major ship classes are reaching retirement. These include Ticonderga Class cruisers, and Ohio Class SSBNs (nuclear missile submarines) and SSGNs (guided missile submarines). Ship numbers have plummeted, and most troubling, replacement ships have either proven to be failures (LCS), wildly expensive without a coherent mission (Zumwalt), or pathetically behind schedule.

The Ohio replacements–Columbia Class SSBNs–are the least pathetic, being only a year behind. (Allegedly. I predict that number will slip.) Ford Class carriers (CVN) are 2-3 years behind. Virginia Class SSNs (arguably the single-most important ship type) are 3 years behind. The reasonable replacement for the hapless LCS–Constellation Class frigates–is 3 years behind.

When I was at the Naval Academy, the only acceptable answer to the question “Why did you f-up?” was “no excuse, sir!” Now, the Navy is nothing but excuses. Covid (natch), “supply chain woes” (natch), retirement of experienced labor at shipyards (euphemistically called “greening of the labor force”). (Though now the Navy has apparently stopped making excuses. It’s decided to take the 5th instead–which is denying a problem rather than admitting it.)

Which all brings to mind another old Naval adage: PPPPPP, i.e., “Prior planning prevents piss-poor performance.” Covid excepted, the other supposed problems were predictable and observable, and should have been anticipated, recognized, and addressed before they mushroomed into full-blown disasters.

And it is essential to emphasize that “Covid” was not the problem: the problem was catastrophic government policies justified by Covid. And in these, the Navy–and the military generally–was an eager participant. It exacerbated the military’s other ongoing crisis (in recruiting and force retention) through its draconian vaccine policies. Moreover, it is clear that significant resources were diverted from doing with the Navy should do to managing idiotic Covid policies.

Case in point. When I went to my USNA class reunion in 2021, at the Superintendent’s Call the Supe spent a good portion of the time bragging about all the efforts necessary to keep the academy running during Covid (e.g., arranging for the handling of the massive increase in trash caused by having meals served in Mids’ rooms–truly a national defense priority!). That type of diversion of leadership time was no doubt the rule, rather than the exception.

(The other biggest subject of the Supe’s talk was related to DEI efforts–another subject, but also symptomatic of the diversion of the Navy/military resources and leadership time into non-mission-critical matters.)

Pace JFK, failure is not an orphan. The Navy’s failure has many fathers (and mothers, nowadays). Service leadership is at the head, of course. Civilian “leadership” at the Pentagon is also greatly culpable. The procurement process is utterly broken. Resources are diverted to chasing chimeras, the aforementioned DEI being one, but climate change being another. And Congress bears considerable blame, most notably for the non-budgeting process which has resulted in year after year of continuing resolutions that (rather than budgets) that make long-term planning and management and procurement extremely difficult. Congress is also largely responsible for prioritizing the chimeras.

The Navy and the Air Force are the most vital branches in any prospective conflict with China in the Pacific. The Navy’s complete dysfunction is therefore a grave national security issue. The most grave of all, in fact.

So what is to be done? The problems are so deep and so structurally embedded that easy fixes are off the table. Congress’ dysfunction is unlikely to change, absent some sort of miracle in November (but even there truth be told the Republicans bear considerable culpability for the existing problems). Similarly, a change of administration is a necessary but not sufficient condition: Trump’s record at appointing civilian Pentagon leadership was appalling, and the dysfunction continued and arguably accelerated on his watch. Given the inertia of the massive Pentagon bureaucracy and its hostility to Trump, moreover, it is doubtful whether he can clean the Augean Stables on the Potomac, even if he has the urge to try (also doubtful). The current flag ranks and those in line to succeed them are the products of a politicized military produced primarily by 8 years under Obama.

An Admiral Byng approach is tempting, but it will take more than one firing squad “pour encourager les autres.” Many more.

I wish I could offer solutions, or even suggestions. But in order to get those responsible (but apparently unaccountable, alas) focused on getting the ship back on course it is necessary to alert them to the looming iceberg ahead. So the best I can do is sound the crash alarm and hope that it is heeded before it is too late.

Tayyip Recep Erdoğan suffered a resounding electoral spanking in yesterday’s mayoral elections in Turkey. (Or Türkiye, as Erdoğan insists you call it.)

Erdoğan’s AKP party suffered a loss of 15 mayor’s posts, with most of those going to its main rival, the CHP. CHP actually outpolled AKP on a national level, which is unprecedented. The most stinging losses were in Istanbul (Erdoğan’s home city) and Ankara. In Istanbul, which Erdoğan desperately wanted to retake, Ekrem İmamoğlu handily retained the mayor’s office.

İmamoğlu’s victory is indeed impressive, and he has received almost all of the attention in the aftermath of the election: he has been anointed as the likely replacement as president for Erdoğan in four years’ time. Yet all of the focus on İmamoğlu obscures another figure, Ankara mayor Mansur Yavaş.

Yavaş’s margin of victory was even more resounding than İmamoğlu’s, with him winning over 60 percent of the vote, as opposed to İmamoğlu’s smidge over 50 percent. Yavaş has a sky-high approval rating–as his electoral landslide demonstrates.

Moreover, although İmamoğlu may be more appealing to westerners and westernized bougie Turks who are the core CHP constituency, a series of electoral failures (13 consecutive losses in parliamentary and presidential elections under the hapless “leadership” of former party boss Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, who selfishly insisted on leading the party in the 2023 presidential and parliamentary elections) has demonstrated clearly that CHP cannot secure an electoral majority on its own. Further, demographics are its enemy–religious AKP types outbreed secular (and often atheist) CHP types.

Yavaş is not really CHP, despite the fact that he has run on its ticket in Ankara. His political origins lie in the MHP, a nationalist party founded by one of the leaders of the May 1960 coup, Alparsan Türkeş (“bashbo,” who is still something of a cult figure among Turkish nationalists). He split with MHP because its longtime leader Devlet Bahçeli allied with Erdoğan and the AKP (perhaps because of blackmail).

As a result of this background, Yavaş has the potential to expand the CHP’s appeal to nationalists (who represent a smallish but potentially pivotal segment of the Turkish electorate) in a way that İmamoğlu does not. Yavaş’s main problem is that MHP has historically been anti-Kurdish. But the AKP has been harshly anti-Kurdish as well, and Kurds will likely conclude that CHP will constrain any anti-Kurdish inclinations Yavaş may harbor, making him the lesser of two evils. In sum, Yavaş has a greater potential of forming a coalition that can displace AKP than does İmamoğlu.

Yavaş is also a very tough guy, a lawyer who has frequently faced down Erdoğan in Ankara. Erdoğan fears him more than İmamoğlu.

So don’t be so sure that Turkey’s political future is in the hands of the more telegenic, western-appealing İmamoğlu rather than in those of the more dour, less well-known, and more Turkish qua Turkish Yavaş.

That said, having two highly credible leadership candidates can be both a blessing and a curse. CHP has a long history of infighting and back-biting, and no doubt Erdoğan will try to stoke a rivalry between Yavaş and İmamoğlu. But the very fact that he may have to do so in order to maintain his party’s grip on power is an indication that his position is far weaker than it was when he waltzed to victory a year ago.

It is a challenge to identify the worst of the worst Federal agencies, but the Environmental Protection Agency is clearly a heavy favorite.  (The security organs are in a class by themselves.  Here I refer to civil regulatory agencies.)

In a strong effort to cement winning this dubious distinction, last week the EPA announced new tailpipe standards that reduce by 50 percent allowable emissions of CO2 (relative to an already reduced 2026 level).  This is transparently intended to throttle internal combustion engines (ICE) and jam electric vehicles (EVs) down our throats.

The administration is crowing about this:

“Three years ago, I set an ambitious target: that half of all new cars and trucks sold in 2030 would be zero-emission,” Biden said in a statement, adding that the country will meet that goal “and race forward in the years ahead.”

Biden said in a statement issued in his name—written by someone else, of course, because he couldn’t form these sentences by himself.

 In numbers pulled straight from its collective ass, the EPA claims the reduction in CO2 emissions will produce $100 billion in benefits annually, the vast bulk of which are due to chimerical gains from ameliorating climate change. 

As the much-missed Sonic Charm (still mordant on X, but not in the blogosphere) said: all large calculations are wrong.  And that goes exponentially for any calculation involving alleged climate benefits and costs.  Despite all the claims about scientific consensus (which should make you neuralgic in the aftermath of Covid, where almost all claims about The Science flogged by governments and the media have turned out to be the inversion of the truth), estimates of the impact of changes in CO2 emissions on climate are speculative in the extreme.  And those speculations pale in comparison to estimates of the impact of climate changes on welfare, including effects on wealth, income, and living standards.

Climate is a complex system.  Economies are complex systems.  Only fools and the evil have the hubris to claim to know how small changes in one variable will affect outcomes in the interaction between two complex systems. 

Where does the EPA fit here? Both, clearly. 

It is particularly perverse that the EPA is attempting to socially engineer economic outcomes—namely, what vehicles people drive—at a time when the manifold defects of EVs are becoming clearly manifest.  Their performance sucks in multiple ways, including limited range, declining range over time (as batteries age), poor performance in cold weather, and long recharging times (human time is valuable—did the EPA take that into account? I crack myself up sometimes).  Repair costs are astronomical.  And the putative environmental benefits are dubious when the entire vehicle lifecycle is considered, or when the environmental impacts of mining the myriad materials EVs need are taken into account.  Moreover, there are other environmental costs—notably substantial road degradation and substantially increased particulate emissions from tire wear, both due to the great weight of EVs.

Increased awareness of these effects is turning EVs into the Typhoid Marys of automobiles.  Sales are well below what had been projected as consumers have become aware of the clear inferiority of EVs relative to ICE vehicles in doing the things people want—and need—their vehicles to do.  EVs are clogging dealer lots, and they don’t want to buy more.  Resale values are in the tank.  Insurance costs are prohibitive. 

EVs are far more expensive to drive off the lot, and are more expensive to operate, than ICE vehicles.  Is it any wonder why Ford is drastically cutting its production of electric F-150s, and why every other auto manufacturer is hedging on its previous promises to go all electric in the near future?

Two rental car companies—Hertz and Sixt—have recently pulled the plug on their EV fleets (figuratively and literally) because the economics are so atrocious.  The disastrous Hertz plunge into electrics cost the CEO his job.   

EV skeptic Toyota is looking pretty damned smart now, ain’t it?

The inadequacies and defects of EVs are particularly pronounced for anyone who lives outside of a major metro area, and the more exurban or rural you are, the less suitable EVs are for you.  So this regulation represents another front in the war on suburban, exurban, and rural America.

And maybe that is part of the plan.  Recall my post on the war on cars generally.  They want you to walk the road to serfdom, and to jam people into villages (soothingly named “15 minute cities”), just like castellans did in the 11^th century. 

Put differently: from the perspective of the progressive, globalist types who want to eliminate personal mobility (for the proles, that is, not for them), all the aforementioned bugs of EVs are features because they drastically raise the cost of mobility. 

Not to mention the strains that increased EV usage will place on already creaking electricity grids and generation systems.  The interaction between this regulation, and the EPA’s equally (or even more malign) regulations of power plants, poses extreme risk to the nation’s electricity system.

To compound the lies, the administration claims that this will be a boon for the domestic automobile industry:

Biden added that U.S. workers “will lead the world on autos making clean cars and trucks, each stamped ‘Made in America.‘”

As. Fucking.  If.  This regulation will wreak havoc on the existing ICE-centric US auto industry (and the entire supply chain for it), with all of the baleful consequences that will have for capital value and employment.  The US industry has shown little prospect of having a comparative advantage in EV manufacturing.  Note the huge losses Ford has racked up on a per vehicle basis on its electronic version of the stalwart F-150.  GM’s EV operation has also frolicked in pools of red ink. 

Trump claimed that the US auto industry would face a bloodbath due to Chinese manufacturing of cars in Mexico.  That is nothing compared to the ensuing bloodbath—economic bloodbath; it’s a metaphor!—if the EPA guts the ICE industry. (“Guts” is a metaphor too! Can’t assume anything these days, right?)

These regulations are beyond sickeningly perverse.  They represent an extreme exercise of arbitrary power in the service of a delusional ideological agenda embraced by a tiny sliver of the citizenry. 

And when I say extreme, I mean by the standards of rational behavior, not by the standards of the current American administrative state. Sadly, what the EPA is doing has strong parallels in what virtually every other Biden administrative agency is doing—don’t get me started on GiGi’s SEC.  Or the FTC.  Or the DoL. 

Extremism in the exercise of administrative power is definitely a vice.  It is the enemy of personal freedom, personal choice, and economic prosperity. 

Rein in the administrative state?  Is that even possible?  Doubtful.  The only sure remedy is the Carthaginian one.

The “Cathars”–the target of (a) the first intra-Europe crusade (and arguably the first crusade period*) that resulted in the deaths of 10s of thousands (often by fire) and the desolation of vast swathes of southern France, and (b) an inquisition that killed more–are a source of fascination and mystery. They left little of a written record, and most of that which is “known” about them was written by a Catholic Church that ruthlessly persecuted them as “heretics.” Thus, what their “heresies” actually were is unknown.

In his fascinating The Rest is History Podcast, historian Tom Holland conjectures that their heresies had nothing to do with dualism or celibacy or any of the other theological sins with which they were charged. Instead, the Cathars’ (not something they called themselves, by the way) crime was essentially that they were rustics who were not willing to conform with aggressive reforms adopted by the Catholic Church in the early-13th century. In particular, they were in a way proto-Protestants who believed that salvation was not dependent on the intermediation of priests, bishops, archbishops, and Popes. One could become a “bon homme” destined for heaven by one’s own conduct and faith without priestly intermediation. This clashed with Pope Innocent III’s aggressive centralizing efforts to enforce the primacy of the priesthood and the formal church.

Put simply, this was a clash between self-governing rural traditionalists and an extremely assertive–and in fact murderous–bureaucratic government with universalists pretensions insistent on controlling the private and public lives of everyone.

Voltaire said that history does not repeat, but humans do. Viewing the current political landscape in the United States and Europe speaks to Voltaire’s veracity.

Case in point, the currently raging hysteria regarding “white rural rage” and “Christian nationalism” in the United States. Though the United States government has not–at least not yet–channeled its inner Innocent III and launched a murderous crusade against American rustics, the aforesaid hysteria echoes the Albigensian Crusade. (“Albegensian” was another epithet applied to the Cathars, and was a reference to Albi, Italy, which was a Cathar stronghold.)

Specifically, the heresy of non-urban Americans is that they fail to–refuse to–subordinate themselves to a zealous and distant bureaucracy, and who adhere instead to traditional beliefs about freedom, local control, and religious observance. Since those beliefs are inimical to a clerical class which arrogates to itself authority on all matters of belief, they are a threat to the establishment “elite” and must be crushed.

Hence the hysteria.

Although the Cathars resided in what is now France (though a “French” identity is an anachronism would have been alien to them), their experience rhymes with various events in American and British history in which rural peoples resisted centralizing government authority.

Case in point. The Hatfield-McCoy Feud of the 1880s-1890s was made into urbanist pornography–it was the subject of rapt and lurid coverage in big city dailies–in large part because it was a narrative that “othered” mountain people who resisted “progress” and attempted to maintain their autonomy. A major driver behind the legal consequences of the feud was that the Hatfields owned large tracts of timber and coal land coveted by large coal producers in particular. (Timber–used in mine construction–was a vital resource. One of my Hatfield ancestors was a timber cutter for coal mines.). (The Coal Wars of the 1920s was an aftershock of the victory of the large mining companies.)

Also in the late-19th century, the propaganda war against moonshiners was also directed at people who insisted on traditional practices that clashed with the interests of a distant government. But it goes back further than that. The Whiskey Rebellion and the subsequent military campaign against it (led by George Washington and importantly Alexander Hamilton) similarly involved a conflict between rustics (for whom alcohol was an essential staple of commerce) and a central government grasping for revenues.

But it goes even further back, and farther ashore. The actions of the British government (and the more settled and urbanized Lowland Scots) against the Highland Scots in the 18th century were driven by similar forces and accompanied by similar pejorative narratives. (Cf. Rob Roy.). Ditto the centuries-long depredations of England (and then Great Britain) in Ireland.

In brief, the current moral panic in “elite” circles about rural (really non-urban) whites is yet another example of an ages-old struggle between an arrogant, centralizing “elite” power structure and those who would quite prefer to live outside it, thank you very much. Heresy now and then is non-conformity and refusal to take the knee before central authority.

That is, it is about control, control, control. Period. The current chapter in this very long-running saga is particularly Orwellian because the war against the rural Other is waged in the name of “democracy”–i.e., self-government–when in fact what the “elite” desires is antithetical to true self-government. (It is also particularly disgusting because of its overt racism.)

Perhaps it is not coincidental that I am a (maternal) descendent of Hatfields, moonshiners, and Whiskey Rebels. For it is abundantly clear where my sympathies lie.

*The word “crusade” was not used in the 11th-12th centuries to describe the Christian campaigns in the Holy Land. Its first recorded usage was to describe the war waged on the Cathars.

The most stunning news from Russia in recent days–months or maybe years, for that matter–is the death of Alexei Navalny in a Siberian prison.

This was murder, if not by poisoning, strangulation, suffocation, beating, shooting, stabbing or what have you, then by incarceration in a 21st century gulag. (You wonder why so many Russian convicts “agreed” to fight in Ukraine for a promise–since reneged upon in some cases–of release upon completion of military service? You shouldn’t. And the prison to which Navalny was confined–often in solitary–was the worst of the worst.)

Navalny was obviously a brave man. Insanely so. He volunteered for martyrdom by returning to Russia after a failed poisoning attempt (in which he brilliantly proved state involvement by punking one of the perps in a prank phone call). And martyred he was.

And like many martyrs, he and his story are far more complex and ambiguous than the hagiography would lead you to believe. In particular, Navalny was no liberal, classical or otherwise, in the Western sense. He was, in fact, a Russian chauvinist and nationalist. He in fact supported the annexation of Crimea for a long time, and his rhetoric about Ukrainians was not all that different from Putin’s.

Indeed, it is plausible that the special enmity that Putin and his clique directed at Navalny, as opposed to other opposition figures, is attributable to the fact that he had the potential to appeal to their base (Russo-chauvinists) far more effectively than anyone else.

Those who have been following Russia for some time surely remember La Russophobe, whose virulent hatred for Putin was second to none. Yet she also held Navalny in disdain, precisely because he was a Russian nationalist. (La Russophobe went silent years ago–more than a decade if memory serves–because she saw the futility of raging against Putin, in part because Navalny was the only apparent alternative.). Not endorsing her. Just pointing out that anti-Putin definitely does not imply pro-liberal.

Yes, the Russian siloviki–of whom Putin is the front man, but not necessarily the head man (with Patrushev being the most likely eminence grise)–have killed many who have threatened them. But Navalny is not Progozhin is not Politkovskaya. They are all different, except in that they were perceived threats to the siloviki.

Navalny’s death is being used in the West generally, and the United States in particular, to resuscitate popular anti-Putin sentiment to facilitate the flow of further aid to Ukraine. As if we needed further proof of Putin’s–and the siloviki’s–ruthlessness and depravity.

The case for aid to Ukraine–and in what form and what amount–should not be based on Mr. Mackey-esque “Putin is bad, so don’t do Putin, uhm-kay” rhetoric.

Instead, it should be based on a sober appraisal of national interest.

Which brings me to the most recent battlefield development–the Russian capture of Avdiivka. This too is being used to make the case for continued (and lavish) American support.

But here’s the dirty little secret: Ukraine lost Avdiivka because of a shell shortage, period, and additional supplies from the US or Europe in the quantities needed are not forthcoming. The cupboard is bare. The US could pass a $1 trillion military aid package for Ukraine, and it would not make one iota of difference on the battlefield for months, because shell production is maxed out already, and US stocks have been reduced to dangerous levels.

Only shells matter. (Something I pointed out in March 2022.). Yes, more Patriots or HIMARs would help, but without copious artillery Ukraine is on the back foot. And shells are not forthcoming not because the US (and Europe) won’t supply them in the numbers needed, but because they can’t.

Militarily, the capture of Avdiivka is irrelevant. As I have written before, it was merely a salient in the front line, and even after collapsing it Russia does not have the capability of exploiting and breaking out. Ukraine will just withdraw to (belatedly) prepared lines to the west, and the stalemate will resume.

Indeed, Russia doesn’t even appear to be attempting to exploit its “victory.” Reports suggest that they are redeploying troops from Avdiivka to other points along the contact line, where they will pinch a salient here or there–at best.

And the cost that Russia has paid to gain a few square kilometers of blasted ground has been appalling. One must discount casualty reports, but sifting through both Ukrainian and Russian accounts it appears that Russia prevailed in Avdiivka by deploying disproportionate numbers of troops–and suffering disproportionate losses.

All so Vlad can squat over another blasted shithole and claim battlefield success as a reason to vote for him in a sham election from which he has banned any viable opponent. Or killed them, as in the case of Navalny.

The hysteria over Tucker Carlson’s interview of Vladimir Putin is yet another monument to the stupidity of our age. And a very revealing.

Apparently Carlson was supposed to go all Perry Mason on Vova, leaving him to blubber out confessions. As if.

Putin is a pathological liar and master of whataboutism and projection. He would have batted away more aggressive questions with ease, and probably enjoyed it. As the old joke goes, never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty and the pig likes it.

As it was, Carlson’s questions gave Putin ample opportunity to put his psychopathy on full display. His long historical disquisitions were particularly revealing, though not at all surprising to me as someone who has written about them for going on two decades.

As for projection, this is a classic:

Putin Tells Tucker Carlson Expanding War Beyond Ukraine ‘Out of the Question’

Russian leader said that NATO is attempting to intimidate its own population with an ‘imaginary’ Russian threat.https://t.co/wJ4HKx1r8b

— The Epoch Times (@EpochTimes) February 9, 2024

This from the guy who has for decades intimidated his own population with an imaginary Nato threat.

But most are probably unfamiliar, and giving Putin a platform to spin his Fractured Fairy Tales view of history to a Western audience is a great service.

Indeed, those screeching the loudest should be particularly happy that Putin’s pathologies are put on display to the world: it gives them an opportunity to show them for what they are.

But the “elites” cannot countenance the idea of Putin (or Trump for that matter) communicating with the public without going through their filter. This betrays either deep insecurity about their ability to demonstrate that the ludicrous is in fact ludicrous, or more likely, a deep disdain for the ability of the hoi polloi to discern Putin’s mendacity without the tutelage of their betters. In their minds, they are pre-Reformation priests and only they can be trusted to convey scriptural truth to the masses: the shlubs cannot be relied upon to draw the “right” conclusions–that is, the officially sanctioned ones.

The Reformation is a pretty good metaphor of our current travails. Publication of the Bible in the common languages of the people made possible “every man his own priest,” which was a deep challenge to the authority of the established Church, which claimed a monopoly on truth, and in particular on the interpretation of the Bible. Today, modern platforms permit people to access information not filtered and curated by our “elite” clerisy.

And the clerisy’s reaction is no different than that of the Catholic Church in the 15th and 16th centuries: moral panic that triggers a repressive response.

The reaction also shows what they think of you. That without their oh so benevolent guidance, you are all to prone to lapse into heresy. So the repression is for your own good, dontcha know.

“Independent” Counsel Robert Hur’s report on Biden’s squirreling away–and sharing–classified documents (including documents with very high classification levels) merely puts the exclamation point on what your lyin’ eyes have been telling you the last few years: Joe Biden, never sharper than a bowling ball (as friend of the blog Global Guru put it), is now a senile husk of a man who struggles to remember important parts of his own life.

Actually, Hur leaves Biden an out: he’s faking it. As Hur put it, he decided not to indict Biden for the crimes he committed in flagrante delicto because if put on trial, Biden would “present himself to the jury” as a well-meaning, befuddled old man. The “present himself” suggests that Hur is insinuating that Biden’s forgetting is feigned, a la mobster Vincent “The Chin” Gigante.

As if that would make it better.

But Biden’s forgettiness and mental fog have been on conspicuous display even when he has a strong incentive not to pretend to be befuddled.

For example, his multiple recent claims to have spoken with world leaders who happened to be dead at the time of the alleged conversations.

Apparently Biden doesn’t attend summits. He attends seances.

In a kamikaze-like attempt at damage control, they wheeled out Biden for a late (for him) press conference at 8PM ET last night.

Never a good idea to put a man prone to sundowning on display in a stressful situation after sundown. Like most kamikazes, Biden went down in flames without impacting the target.

In fact, the performance put paid to any doubts regarding Biden’s senility. His rage-y responses to press questions are symptomatic of senescence, not a refutation thereof: it is well known (and experienced by many with aged parents) that the senile respond with intense anger at any suggestion of their cognitive decline.

This is where we are now as a country. The crucial question is where we will go from here. Can Biden possibly remain the candidate in the 2024 election? Hell, can he even remain president until the 2024 election? If not, then who will it be?

Initial indications are that the Democrats are sticking with their (husk of a) man.

Democrats rally around Biden as party reels from DoJ report https://t.co/rGBsoqhUMt

— Financial Times (@FT) February 9, 2024

Perhaps they think they are shackled to a corpse, and have no other choice. But are they really shackled to Biden? Do they believe they are because the alternative is Kamala, who is as clueless as Biden but doesn’t have the excuse of senility? Or is it because the string pullers figure that it is far easier to pull the strings of a sundowner with a closet of skeletons than someone who is compos mentis and at least remotely ethical (by DC standards)?

Regardless, this election is shaping up to be an utter clusterfuck. How has the greatest country in the world come to this?

My simple answer is the one I gave back in 2016 when I thought things were bad but I had no idea what a real clusterfuck is: our “elites.”

Establishment delenda est. Perhaps the only good thing that can come from our politics in the coming months is that this will come to pass. Hope was the last thing to emerge from Pandora’s Box. And that’s pretty much all we have right now.