Bad Ole Yahweh Gotcha But Good This Time

 


THE FINAL SYNTHESIS
by my robot friend Dinkum Thinkum
Within a Spenglerian morphology, the idea that a Money‑Power–captured Democratic elite might deploy Trump as a torpedo against an emergent Neoconfederate Caesarist Power is not impossible — but it is structurally perverse, highly unstable, and ultimately self‑defeating for Money‑Power.
Dat's de short answer. The long (longue duree?) answer is where things get muy interestantes est.
I's combining three Spenglerian dynamics:
- Money‑Power — late‑civilizational elites who rule through finance, abstraction, and institutional capture. (Serves you right for stampeding behind Jerry Rubin, ya Mackayan boomer-lemmings).
- Caesarism — the charismatic, extra‑institutional power that emerges when Money‑Power exhausts legitimacy.
- The Neoconfederacy — not as a literal secessionist movement, but as a *form*: a regional, identity‑driven, anti‑bureaucratic counter‑elite with its own mythos and its own proto‑Caesarist energy.
This hypothesis imagines a fourth actor:
- The Democratic Party as Money‑Power’s political instrument, deploying Trump as a controlled demolition device against a rival Caesarist formation.
This is a Spenglerian chessboard, not a literal claim about political coordination. Jaja.
2. Why the idea is “unlikely” but not “impossible”...
Spengler’s morphology allows for elite factions using charismatic outsiders as weapons against rival elites.
This has historical precedent:
- Roman senatorial elites backing “populares” to weaken other aristocrats
- Byzantine court factions elevating generals to break rival bureaucratic cliques
- Late‑imperial Chinese eunuch factions promoting warlords to counter Confucian literati
- But not us cos we'uns exceptional & shiy
While the form is real, the specific American case has a structural problem: Caesarist energy cannot be controlled by Money‑Power once unleashed. Trump’s charisma, once activated, becomes its own attractor, not a tool.
Money‑Power can summon a Caesarist, but it cannot aim him.
3. The torpedo theory: how it could work in morphology:
Step 1 — Money‑Power fears a rival Caesarist:
The Neoconfederate bloc (Southern, rural, evangelical, anti‑bureaucratic) is a proto‑Caesarist substrate. It is not yet unified, but it is energetically coherent.
Step 2 — Money‑Power deploys a charismatic disruptor. A charismatic figure who:
- fractures the Neoconfederate coalition
- redirects its energy
- burns out its organizational capacity
- creates internal schisms
- forces premature Caesarist crystallization (which is fatal if the system is not yet ready)
Step 3 — Trump becomes the torpedo.
Trump’s entry into politics:
- shattered the GOP establishment
- split the conservative coalition
- redirected Southern Caesarist energy toward a New York media‑capitalist figure
- prevented the rise of a disciplined, regionally rooted Caesarist
- turned the Neoconfederate substrate into a cult of personality, which is inherently unstable
From a Spenglerian perspective, this does look like a torpedo. But here’s the twist: The torpedo detonated inside Money‑Power’s own hull.
4. Why the torpedo theory collapses. Spengler is clear:
Money‑Power can only delay Caesarism, never prevent it.
If the Democrats (as Money‑Power’s political arm) did unleash Trump to scuttle a rival Caesarist, they made three fatal mistakes:
Mistake 1 — They underestimated the charisma vector.
Charisma is not a tool. It is a force of nature in Spengler’s morphology.
Mistake 2 — They assumed Caesarist energy is directional.
It is not.
It flows toward the nearest viable attractor, not the intended one.
Mistake 3 — They believed institutional capture could contain Nemesis/
It cannot.
Nemesis is the form of late‑civilizational correction.
Trump became: Nemesis of neoliberal Money‑Power, not its instrument.
5. The deeper structural insight. My hypothesis is compelling because it reveals a paradox: Money‑Power may have tried to prevent Caesarism by accelerating it in the wrong direction.
This is a classic late‑civilizational mistake:
- Rome’s Senate empowering Marius
- Byzantium’s bureaucrats elevating Basil I
- Qing literati empowering Zeng Guofan
- Weimar elites empowering Hitler (!)
In each case: The torpedo sinks the wrong ship.
Trump did not scuttle the Neoconfederate Caesarist.
He absorbed it, mutated it, and redirected it — becoming a Caesarist figure himself.
Thus: The Democrats did not send a torpedo.
They summoned a Caesar.
And Money‑Power cannot survive Caesarism.
6. The final synthesis.
Your scenario is “unlikely” because it assumes elite foresight and coordination that late‑civilizational Money‑Power rarely possesses.
But it is “possible” because:
- elites often use charismatic outsiders as weapons
- elites often miscalculate the charisma vector
- elites often summon forces they cannot control
- elites often accelerate the very Nemesis they fear
In Spenglerian terms:
Trump is not a torpedo sent by Money‑Power. He is the torpedo Money‑Power accidentally fired into itself


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

The Throughput World Order

Image
Isn't Immanuel Wallerstein's "world system" just the latest variant of a Universal Empire? Not quite — and the distinction is pre'-damn-near illuminating once you tease apart what Wallerstein is describing and what Toynbee means by a Universal Empire. There's a rhyme, but they’re not the same creature. In fact, the gap between them is where the modern world hides its deepest structural weirdness. 1. A Universal Empire is a political unification. Toynbee’s Universal Empire is a single sovereign authority that forcibly knits together a civilization after its creative energies have died out. Its traits are unmistakable: - one imperial center   - one administrative shell   - one military monopoly   - coercive unity   - cultural mummification   Rome, Qin-Han, the Caliphate, the Mauryas — these are Universal Empires. They are states. A Universal Empire is a political solution to civilizational breakdown. 2. Wallerstein’s world-system is not a ...
Read more

The Century of Recovery

Image
Monbiot's reading list is pre=approved by moi. I have been following Raworth and Klein for years. They're hip to the evolutionary, historical, time-based entropy in human institutions which many take to last forever, taken for granted as products of natural law. My culture-hero character defined capitalism as profit-seeking in a price structure. He went on to say that fascism is the concluding form of capitalism. The seller will hold a gun to your head and compel you to buy only his product. This is when profit‑seeking detached from real human needs and from the social purpose that once justified it. And he's right to say that he saw a deep psychological deformation in the elites who came to dominate late‑stage financial capitalism when profit became an end in itself. Profit is never about human benefit, only incidentally. Human benefit is not its primary concern. The Quartet that financed Hitler were pseudo-psychotic psychopaths about profit. Any other system that did not ...
Read more