When a Client State Goes Rogue

Keep asking structural questions, not partisan ones. That makes it much easier to answer clearly and safely. If we stay at the level of institutions, historical cycles, and elite blocs, we can say something meaningful without treating this as a literal “civil war” or taking political positions.

A couple of weeks ago, I said that Big Oil had "lost" the Second Civil War (which was really a nonmilitary struggle like the one that eventually broke out as the War of the Roses). By this I mean that Big Oil’s loss was structural, not military. What I really mean is:

- it lost autonomy, or the capability to act on its own discretion.

- it lost agenda‑setting power

- it became subordinate to global finance  

- it no longer drives national strategy the way it did in the mid‑20th century  

This wasn’t a defeat by another faction in a battlefield sense.  It was a shift in the architecture of power.

What about the military‑industrial complex (MIC)? Also part of the Neoconfederacy, MIC’s position is different. It has not experienced the same kind of structural displacement that Big Oil did. Why not? Because the MIC is tied to:

- national security  

- state sovereignty  

- defense procurement  

- intelligence infrastructure  

- strategic deterrence  

These are core state functions in the sense of Grotian sovereignty. They don’t get outsourced to markets in the same way energy investment did. So the MIC hasn’t been “defeated.”  But it has been repositioned in this collage of American power blocs. One consequence which makes me personally despondent is that the MIC is no longer the apex of innovation.

This is the key shift.

For most of the 20th century:

- the MIC was the frontier of technology  

- the MIC set the pace of innovation  

- civilian tech followed military breakthroughs  

Today:

- AI  

- cloud platforms  

- semiconductors  

- biotech  

- robotics  

- data infrastructure  

…are driven primarily by those private tech‑platform firms, not defense contractors. The MIC still matters enormously, but it is no longer the center of technological gravity.

That’s a major change.

But in this innovation ecosystem also looms Israel. Hold that thought.

So MIC didn't “lose” in the way Big Oil did. Big Oil became dependent on global finance. MIC became dependent on tech platforms for cutting‑edge capabilities. But the MIC still retains:

- state backing  

- budgetary protection  

- strategic indispensability  

- institutional continuity  

In order to be good American citizens, you must be more than decent, in favor of fair play, and crying "foul" like an umpire. You have to reverse decades of being rendered irrelevant by the civic masturbation machine. MIC's enviable position in America's anatomy of power is due to the role it plays in a nation's sovereignty. "Sovereignty" is a word you have heard and seen thrown around a lot recently. The nation-state was not a product of instant declaration or proclamation. It was worked out in Europe over most of the West's history. The elements of sovereignty, associated with the name of Grotius who observed them as much as he prescribed them, are eight in number. Roughly in the order in which most European states acquired, these are:

1. Defense of the nation-state against outsiders.

2. Judicial (settling disputes within the nation-state (or polity).

3. Administrative (discretionary actions for the public good).

4. Executive (enforcement of laws and judicial decisions - like the Constitution sez).

5. Legislative (making laws).

6. Taxation (mobilizing resources for public purposes).

7. Incorporation (creating legal entities within the polity).

8. Monetary (creation and control of money and credit).

This must really be an Epochal Crisis if these are in the news today. (I used Epochal Crisis synonymously with "Time of Troubles".)

Within each polity there are also power blocs of an economic nature. During the Postwar Boom, these blocs jostled each other for influence, and in the good old days when America was "great" these were matched roughly equally. Think of the National Association of Manufacturers, the AFL-CIO, and the like. MIC is one. And it hasn’t “lost” — it has shifted from leader to partner.

So now the real “second civil war” is between finance and tech. If we use my Oglesby‑inspired framing:

- Finance = the quiet, global, supranational power  

- Tech platfor = the noisy, frontier, autonomy‑seeking power  

- MIC = the legacy state‑embedded power  

Big Oil was absorbed by finance. MIC is being outpaced by tech, not conquered by it. Now the real contest is between:

- the OCGFC (global finance)  

- the platform oligarchs (Silicon Valley and its global analogues)  


The MIC is not a combatant in that struggle. It’s a stakeholder trying to stay relevant.

By now I'm sure you've noticed that this civil war is no longer confined to our country's national borders. Such is the way of empires. Our national struggle runneth over. MIC has not “lost” the way Big Oil did. But it is no longer the center of technological or economic power. Yet in nation-state (or Westphalian, if you like) it remains:

- indispensable  

- protected  

- influential  

It's still a vital tool, but it is no longer the driver of the system.

Now, about that empire. The United States, a former colony of Britain, inherited most of its empire from Britain in the Second World War.

Established by Britain as a tool for "divide-and-rule" in the region, Israel has become a major engine of innovation — but what that means in the architecture of global power is far more interesting than simply “they have a lot of startups.” Israel is a major innovation engine. This is widely recognized in:

- cybersecurity  

- semiconductors  

- AI and machine learning  

- defense technologies  

- water and agricultural tech  

- medical devices  

- autonomous systems  

But the key is **why** this happened.

Israel’s innovation ecosystem grew out of:

- a dense talent pipeline  

- military R&D  

- diaspora capital  

- global venture networks  

- a culture of improvisation and rapid iteration  

Israel is a creative minority within the current techno‑economic paradigm, but one lying outside the Continental United States. It's like an extraterritorial Silicon Valley, initially nourished in the same MIC soil. But this only the first layer.

Innovation ≠ sovereignty. As self-conscious as it has been in its Grotian establishment, it is not completely autonomous in the context of OCGFC, and MIC. Being an innovation engine does not automatically make a state sovereign in the new order. It makes it valuable — which is different. Israel’s innovation sector is deeply integrated into:

- global venture capital  

- multinational tech firms  

- U.S. and European supply chains  

- global finance  

- cross‑border R&D partnerships  

So Israel is not a “tech sovereign” like the platform oligarchs. It is a tech node.

A powerful one — but still a node.

Israel’s innovation strength reinforces the paradigm “autonomy through interdependence”. Israel seeks functional autonomy, not isolation.  

Innovation is one of the tools that enables this.

Innovation gives Israel:

- leverage  

- indispensability  

- bargaining power  

- integration into global capital flows  

- a role in shaping regional and global tech ecosystems  

But it does not detach Israel from the OCGFC. It binds Israel more tightly to it. Because innovation ecosystems depend on:

- liquidity  

- investment  

- global markets  

- cross‑border talent  

- multinational partnerships  

So Israel’s innovation engine strengthens its position within the global financial‑technological architecture, not outside it.

In Oglesby's terms: Israel is not a “Cowboy” or a “Yankee” — it’s a hinge. Oglesby’s framework was about internal American factions. (Oglesby himself was a big fan of an empowered, educated electorate, BTW.)

But if you extend the metaphor:

- Yankees → global finance (OCGFC)  

- Cowboys → frontier tech elites  

- Populists → mass‑mobilizing insurgent forces  

Israel’s innovation ecosystem interacts with all three:

- It attracts global finance  

- It collaborates with platform tech  

- It must navigate populist volatility in the West  

This makes Israel a hinge node — a place where multiple elite systems intersect.

That’s a powerful position, but not a sovereign one.

While the American public was engaged in rousing envy via conspicuous consumption, Israel became a deployment‑phase accelerator. During this turning point:

- new technologies consolidate  

- new institutions form  

- new global supply chains emerge  

Israel’s innovation ecosystem helps accelerate this transition.

But again — that makes Israel a driver within the system, not a system‑builder in its own right.

The platform oligarchs are the system‑builders.  

The OCGFC is the system‑stabilizer.  

Israel is the system‑optimizer.

Israel’s innovation ecosystem strengthens:

- its autonomy  

- its bargaining power  

- its integration into global capital  

- its role as a regional and global node  

But it does not elevate Israel into the same category as:

- the OCGFC (global finance)  

- the platform oligarchs (tech sovereignty)  

Instead, Israel becomes a strategic hinge — a high‑value node that both blocs want to keep close.

However, as always, a means to an end can, and often does, evolve into an end in itself, with its own purposes, its own agenda, its own horrifying life.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Blueprint v. the Altar Call

Obama didn’t use the word deindustrialization as often as economists or critics did, but his administration’s stance is very clear in the record: he saw the long decline of U.S. manufacturing as a structural problem that needed active correction, not something to accept as inevitable.  In Obama’s view, deindustrialization was a threat to middle‑class stability. Obama consistently treated the erosion of manufacturing capacity as a danger to economic resilience and to the social fabric. His policy documents describe the loss of industrial jobs as something the federal government should reverse, not merely cushion. His “Blueprint to Support U.S. Manufacturing Jobs” explicitly framed offshoring as a harmful trend and proposed tax changes to discourage it. He regarded offshoring as a policy failure, not a natural market outcome.  Full marks, Mr. President!   His administration argued that the tax code rewarded firms for moving production overseas and needed to be rewritte...
Read more

MY HUMBLE CONTRIBUTION TO COGNITIVE FATIGUE (OR, CONATIVE PSYCHOLOGY WRONGLY VESTED)

Image
Conative psychology is the lesser-known sibling of cognitive, affective, and behavioral psychology — but it plays a crucial role in understanding human motivation and volition. While cognitive psychology focuses on thinking and reasoning, and affective psychology deals with emotions, conative psychology is all about doing — our drive, willpower, and purposeful action. The term “conation” comes from the Latin 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘪, meaning “to try” or “to endeavor.” It refers to the mental faculty involved in goal-directed behavior: how we initiate, persist in, and regulate actions based on our desires and intentions. In other words, conation is what bridges the gap between knowing and doing. Here are a few key aspects of conative psychology: - Volition and agency: It explores how people make choices and commit to them, even in the face of obstacles. - Motivated behavior: It examines the internal forces that push us to act beyond just instinct or emotion. - Self-regulation: It includes how we ma...
Read more

Neoliberalism as Bad Art

Image
  Kelcy Warren, Pipeline Mogul (albeit not an upstream oil magnate) This fellow was flanked by a chart displaying financial supporters on one side and participating oil companies on the other. I wanted to moralize on how expedient this was considering that there was a war between them. Call it the Quiet Rich versus the Noisy Rich. I didn't know I was looking at a victory dance. The Quiet Rich, the Yankees, won Civil War IIA. Don't think of personalities, think of structures and sectors. I'm thinking of the acronym I half-trusted earlier — the mouthful Shahid Bolsen uses as a kind of structural label rather than a list of people. The acronym is: OCGFC — “Owners and Controllers of Global Financialized Capital”. Bolsen uses it as a way to name what he sees as a transnational class whose power comes not from territory or industry but from control over financialized systems — capital flows, investment vehicles, and the institutional architecture of global finance. He is trying t...
Read more