The Authoritarian Handbook–II.

Posted on by
Reply

Editor’s Note: The pamphlet “The Authoritarian Handbook” survives only in scraps. I first learned of it while in graduate school in the 1980s. It was not to be found in major libraries or research collections. After much desultory searching, I found a package containing parts of the pamphlet in a barn/used book-store south of Cambridge, MD, on the Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake.

Editor’s Note: It has been impossible to identify the authors whose names appear on the title-page. This leads me to think that they are pseudonyms. They appear to have read a great deal in various areas of knowledge. As will be clear from other sections, they seem to know the life of soldiers, fugitives, and prisoners. They lived in troubled times of war, revolution, and social and economic upheaval.

Authoritarianism Past. 

If one seeks an “authoritarian handbook,” one has only to open a history book to any page.  Virtually all governments of the past were “authoritarian.”  There were kingdoms and empires.  Yes, the “Classical” Greeks invented, “Democracy,” but they also invented Oligarchy and Tyranny.[1]  The Roman Republic died in the bloody strife of men avid for personal power.  Then the Many gave way to the One, the “first among equals,” the Emperor. 

Later in Europe, and elsewhere in the world, there were kings who were “despotic” and kings who were “benevolent” or “enlightened.”  There were emperors in China, and Japan, and Inca Peru.  All were supreme rulers who were determined to defend their prerogatives.  There were “republics,” again.  In Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Venice, the term “republic” really signified an oligarchy that had escaped royal control.  All ruled with an iron fist. 

What were the parts of this “iron fist”?  There were aristocrats and bureaucrats; soldiers, priests, and informers. 

There were “subjects”—how expressive of the reality!—rather than “citizens.”  Subjects have duties; citizens have rights. 

This a key part of Authoritarianism.  Men need food and shelter.  They need safety, both of the economic sort and the law-and-order sort.  These are the material even animal, essentials of human life.  They may aspire to other, basically emotional, things once these essentials are achieved: community, a higher place in that community, and even a quest for a larger purpose in life.  But the animal, material needs are essential and primary.[2]  Without them, nothing else is possible.  Hence, these will always lie at the heart of any politics, whether it be “liberal” or “illiberal” or “authoritarian.”    

You will notice that we say nothing about Freedom.  Rarely do men crave actual Freedom.  History tells us of great revolts from below against the ruling classes.  The list always includes the “Servile Wars” of the Roman Republic, the peasant uprisings of the Late Middle Ages in England and France,[3] and the revolts of urban workers such as the “Ciompi” in Florence.  Then there are the many slave revolts in the Caribbean, with Haiti taking pride of place.  All of these revolts sprang from intense human misery that had finally been pushed beyond the point of tolerance.  Rents or labor requirements had been raised significantly by Medieval land owners, or piece-work wages reduced by urban employers.  Mere survival appeared threatened for many people.  Under these conditions, they revolted.  Aspirations to something like what political theorists of the present-day label “individual rights” or “freedom” had little to nothing to do with the revolts. 

[1] The Athenians put to death the suicidally melancholy public nuisance Socrates.  No one grieved, outside of his small group of followers. 

[2] Editor’s Note.  The authors here seem to anticipate the theories of Abraham Maslow by twenty to thirty years.  See: Abraham Maslow, Motivation and Personality (1954). 

[3] Editor’s Note: The “Jacquerie” (1358) and “Wat Tyler’s Rebellion” 91381).    

The Authoritarian Handbook–I.

Posted on by
Reply

           Excerpt from “The Authoritarian Handbook,” by Lewis Galleani and Irwin Kern (1922). 

            What are some hallmarks of an Authoritarian regime? 

First, a “President for Life.”

Second, a cowed judiciary.

Third, a legislature with a pro-government majority engineered by a combination of the disfranchisement of a part of the population and urban political “machines” based on government patronage.

Fourth, a government bureaucracy eating away at the prerogatives of the legislature and the courts.

Fifth, an idealization of the simple and honest life found in rural populations, in contrast to the depravity of the big cities.

Sixth, the justification of radical departures from traditional policies by the invocation of “crisis” and “necessity knows no law.”

Seventh, in a severe crisis, the imprisonment without trial of alleged “enemies of the nation.” 

How This Might End.

Posted on by
Reply

            TRIGGER WARNING: This is just ignorance-based opinion, but it is firmly-held ignorance-based opinion. 

            Historically, the peoples of the Middle East have been pretty spineless and malleable.[1]  The Persians showed up, and people “Medized.”  The Greeks under that lunatic Alexander showed up, and people “Hellenized.”  The Romans showed up and it turns out that they had also kinda “Hellenized,” so people “Romanized.”  The Roman Empire become Christian, so people “Christianized.”  The Arabs-actually-from-Arabia showed up and people slowly abandoned Christianity and “Islamized.”[2]  Most recently, “Authoritarian” governments with tools borrowed from the West showed up.[3]  People “Authoritarianized.”  Someday, these places may “Democratize.”  Don’t hold your breath. 

            At least in modern times, the people of the Middle East aren’t a military people.  The armies of the Middle East haven’t been very good.[4]  This is explained by cultural factors, rather than being somehow genetic.  The enlisted men come from the peasantry, while the officers come from the idle rich.  The latter despise the former and don’t take their responsibilities seriously.[5]  HOWEVER, there is a very tough strand of fanaticism in Middle Eastern societies that is willing to fight to the last civilian, no matter how difficult the circumstances.  This trait has been on display in the Iran-Iraq War, the civil war in Iraq triggered by the American invasion, and the wars by Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel.  They just keep going no matter how hard the enemy pounds on them, no matter how many obvious defeats they suffer.  The current regime governing Iran may be cut from this same cloth. 

            Iran has engaged in massive, sustained deception while pursuing nuclear weapons for several decades.  So did Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea.  Iran has been under severe economic sanction, off and on, for a long time.  Even when they make agreements, they don’t keep them.  Cyber-attacks, assassinations, and bombing don’t stop them.  They just sweep up the debris, cart off the bodies, and start work again. 

The outcome of “Trump’s War,” as the very cosmopolitan American media likes to refer to it, depends in part, on two things. 

First, Trump ordered the war, but the American military is waging the war.  How are they doing?  Iran’s air defenses have been largely destroyed.  Its ballistic missile and drone forces have been badly degraded, although not totally eliminated.  Its naval forces have been badly battered, with any vessels that could be used for laying mines in the sea lanes a primary target for attack.  Undoubtedly, American aircraft are relentlessly hunting any remaining missile forces and they are closely watching the long southern coastline of Iraq.  How far inland they have to watch depends on the effective range of whatever missile forces remain in Iran’s possession. 

Once these dangers are reduced to a tolerable level, then convoying of tankers can begin.  There would still need to be constant vigilance against Iran playing possum for a while, then starting to move new missiles down within range of the sea lanes.  Can land-based American aircraft in the Gulf States handle this mission?  In any event, the longer the war goes on, the more damaged Iran will suffer.  Maybe Iran will opt for a deal. 

Second, Donald Trump is a deal-maker.  He disliked the Obama administration’s deal with Iran,[6] so he tore it up in his first administration.  He put pressure on Iran to make a better deal.  Iran wouldn’t deal.  Joe Biden tried to revive the old agreement.  Iran wouldn’t deal.  In his second administration, Trump pressured Iran to make a deal.  Iran wouldn’t deal.  Trump joined Israel’s attack on the nuclear program.  Iran still wouldn’t deal, although they engaged in limited talks.  Trump launched the current attack.  He’s still looking for a deal. 

            What about “regime change”?  Trump doesn’t really want a US-imposed regime change.  No de-Bathification catastrophe on his watch.[7]  It’s difficult for Westerners to imagine that anyone in Iran supports this crazy, murderous dictatorship.  There is a good chance that many Iranians actually do support it, or fear the bloodshed of a civil war.  So, when Trump says he wants “regime change,” he really means “I want the regime to change” its behavior and course.  At least, that’s what he’ll claim afterward. 

What if he gets a deal?  Maximally or ideally, its terms should include no nuclear programs, no ballistic missiles, no support for proxies, no support for Russia in Ukraine, and co-operation with the United States on oil exports to China.  Minimally, its terms should be no nuclear programs.  No one can or should trust Iran to keep to any agreement.  There will have to be intrusive safeguards. 

What does Iran get?  An end to the bombing.  Maybe some sanctions relief depending on how much they change their behavior.  International inspectors all over the nuclear sites (broadly conceived) like a duck on a June-bug. 

What if Trump can’t get a deal?  Then finish up the bombing to clear the Straits of Hormuz, declare victory, and leave.  If Iran refuses a deal, the US can always come back and “mow the grass” (as Israel puts it) whenever necessary.  That’s cold, but a viable policy. 

For some time now, the United States has faced a loose coalition[8] of enemies: Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China.  American forces could defeat most (and maybe all) of them in a straight fight.  A war with any one of them would risk bringing all of them into a war, like a pack of wolves ganging up on an elk. The United States might have a hard time defeating all of them in a general war without going nuclear somewhere.  Now one of the coalition has been badly battered.  What are the larger implications of this short, brutal war? 

[1] Guy waving his arm at the back of the room: “What about all the gruesome stuff in the Old Testament?  That bastard Saul, for example.” 

[2] See the amusing anecdote about white silk socks in Robert Graves, Good-bye to All That. 

[3] Some are monarchical, some are republican; some are secular, some are Islamist.  All have secret police, information-control, and a “deep state” network of public and private power; sometimes they have a false-front and rigged representation of “the People.”    

[4] See: the Arab wars against Israel, the Iran-Iraq War, “Operation Desert Storm.”  

[5] After humiliating defeat at the hands of Israel in the “Six Days War” of 1967, the Egyptians asked the Soviet Union for help.  Russian military advisers told the leaders of the Egyptian Army to change course “or we are someone else finding to do job you are not doing, and you are maybe misfortunately getting shot, Da?”  The Egyptian Army then performed well in the October 1973 war.  After a while Henry Kissinger worked his magic and Egypt gave the Russkies the boot.  Egyptian soldiers then slid back into the comfortable old ways. 

[6] So did many other Republicans.  That’s why the agreement never became a treaty ratified by the Senate. 

[7] There’s been much discussion of the IRGC and the Basij paramilitaries as supporters of the regime.  There hasn’t been as much discussion of the Iranian Army.  If Israel does enough damage to the IRGC and the Basij, the army might be in a position to impose a change of course on the regime. 

[8] Germany, Italy, and Japan fought the Second World War as a loose coalition.  They all lost badly in the end.  They caused a lot of problems before they surrendered. 

My Weekly Reader 21 March 2026.

Posted on by
1

            Zionism is nationalism for Jews in places where Jews aren’t allowed to assimilate.  It began in the late Nineteenth Century and drew most of its followers from the anti-Semitic states of Eastern Europe.[1]  For the most part, Eastern European Jews preferred to emigrate to Western Europe or—best of all—the United States.  After the First World War, American immigration restrictions choked down on Eastern European immigrants of all varieties.  The Depression had much the same effect on Western Europe.  Then Hitler came to power in Germany.  Suddenly, British-ruled Palestine began to look attractive.  The British government “recognized” a Jewish Agency as the spokesman for the “Yishuv,” the Jews in Palestine. 

            Then came the Second World War.  Jewish emigration from Nazi-ruled Europe slowed to the occasional droplet.  Early German victories forced Britain to play offense from its back foot.  To this end, Britain had two “intelligence” organizations with a special interest in Nazi Europe.  The Special Operations Executive (S.O.E.) fomented and supported resistance in occupied countries.  MI-9 tried to rescue the crews of downed British planes.  At first, they concentrated their work in Western Europe.  By 1944, they both had an interest in Eastern Europe. 

            While there were lots of agent candidates who knew Western Europe and its languages, equivalent people who were familiar with eastern Europe were thin on the ground.  Where to find people who could pass anonymously in Hungary, Rumania, Czechoslovakia, or Yugoslavia?   After a while, it occurred to someone that British Palestine had a bunch.  Here, the Jewish Agency had begun to learn of the Holocaust and wanted to know what might be done to help the besieged Jews.[2]  S.O.E., MI-9, and the Jewish Agency collaborated in recruiting 250 male and female volunteers; approving 150 of them for training; and sending 37 behind German lines.  They would be parachuted into Eastern Europe, where they would work with resistance movements, set up evasion lines for downed aircrew, and investigate the situation of the Jews. 

            By Spring 1944, the situation in the region had become highly unstable.  A revolt against the puppet-government of Slovakia was about to begin.  Traditional conservative nationalists struggled with fascists for control of Hungary.  The Red Army had made a dramatic advance westward in Spring and early Summer 1944.  If the Germans were pinned down by the Red Army, their allies in Hungary and Slovakia might be toppled.  Or not. 

            Most of the 37 parachuted in between March and September 1944.  Some fought with the Slovaks and some with the Yugoslav partisans, while some went to Budapest at the moment of the German coup to put the fascist Arrow Cross in power.  Twelve were captured and seven of these were executed.[3]  None of them accomplished their original missions.  Nevertheless, the effort has inspired interest.[4]  Why? 

            Perhaps because how we live our lives is more important than what we accomplish in them?  Courage and self-sacrifice are recurring themes in the world’s art, literature, and myth. 

[1] The Russian Empire, which then included most of Poland; Rumania; and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Subsequently, Poland and Hungary became independent states. 

[2] See: Walter Laqueur, The Terrible Secret (1980) on the Yishuv’s incomprehension of the Holocaust. 

[3] Of the seven who were executed, the most famous is Hanna Szenes, a sort of Jewish Noor Inayat Khan. 

[4] Amos Ettinger, Blind Jump (1992); Judith Baumel-Schwartz, Perfect Heroes (2010); Taviva Ofer, Haviva Reick (2014); Matti Friedman, Out of the Sky (2026).   

The Argument Against War with Iran.

Posted on by
Reply

            Let’s leave aside the reflexive “If Donald Trump does it, then it must be the wrong thing,” response of many people.[1]  What are real arguments against attacking Iran?   

            War with Iran might be smacking a hornet’s nest with a stick.  Iran isn’t much of a threat to the United States at the moment.  Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons; Iran’s vast stock of ballistic missiles only have the range to hit our regional allies or the US Navy in the northern Indian Ocean, not the heartland.  Iran made no significant response to the Israeli and American killing of its head terrorist, General Qassim Suleimani (2020), or to their attacks on nuclear sites in Summer 2026.  Nor did they do anything to support the Hamas fight inside Gaza or Hezbollah after the Israeli “pager” attack. 

These were limited attacks.  Iran’s rulers could see a huge attack, when combined with the mass protest demonstrations of recent months, and calls for regime change, as a mortal threat to the Islamic revolution.  This combination of threats could tip the regime over the edge into a wide ranging counter-attack.  This might combine attacks on American bases in the Middle East (and on the friendly governments that host those bases), a new “tanker war” to close the Straits of Hormuz oil-shipping lanes, and terrorism abroad.[2]  In short, we should be afraid, very afraid. 

            “Regime change” is going to be hard to do and the effort would have an uncertain  outcome.  On the one hand, airpower has been oversold from when it was just a twinkle in the eyes of Billy Mitchell and Arthur “Bomber” Harris.  The Second World War offers abundant proof that strategic bombing alone, whether of the “carpet” or “precision” variant, isn’t enough to win a war against a determined opponent.  Successfully attacking key Iranian nuclear sites in Summer 2025 didn’t budge the regime.  Do we want to commit ground forces to finish the job? 

On the other hand, Iraq (2003), Egypt (2011-2012), Libya (2011).  The United States intervened in all these places to change the regime.  Each adventure ended badly.  Foreign countries are just as complex societies as our own.  They are just as full of factions, conflicts, ambitions, and hatreds.  Dictatorships tend to repress these forces, while—alas—democracy allows them full play.  What if we pitch Iran from tyranny into civil war? 

            The Iranians have said that they will agree to never pursue nuclear weapons.  Why not take the win?  Declare victory and negotiate a mutually satisfactory form of words.  That form of words would include an Iranian commitment to never pursue nuclear weapons; to close its nuclear weapons sites (Fordo, Isfahan, Natanz); and to commit to not enrich uranium beyond a low level; all of it under close international supervision.[3]   

We should not run grave risks for very uncertain outcomes. 

This isn’t to say that we should do nothing.  The regime is unpopular with many Iranians.  The US can covertly support selected dissidents in hopes that Iran will have a better revolution. 

[1] It’s an understandable response, but not entirely correct. 

[2] The threat is not to be sneezed at.  It has been credibly alleged that Iran inspired the bombing of the US Marine and French Foreign Legion barracks in Beirut, the US Air Force residence in Saudi Arabia, and Jewish sites in Argentina.  See: Anthony H. Cordesman, The Iran-Iraq war and Western Security, 1984–1987: Strategic Implications and Policy Options (1987); James Risen and Jane Perlez, “Terrorism and Iran: Washington’s Policy Performs a Delicate Balancing Act,” The New York Times, 23 June 2001; and Daniel Politi, “Argentine Court Says Iran Was Behind Israeli Embassy and Jewish Center Attacks,” The New York Times, 12 April 2024. 

[3] See: Nicholas Kristof, “The Folly of Attacking Iran,” NYT, 1 March 2026. 

The Argument for War with Iran.

Posted on by
Reply

            Currently, 89 percent of world energy use comes from high-carbon sources like oil.[1]  Whenever the “green transition” comes to energy, it won’t be for a long time yet. 

            Until then, the world economy runs on oil.  World prosperity runs on oil.  The economic, social, and political effects of supply disruptions and/or price spikes can be very great.[2]  Stepping back a bit, the economic crisis of the 1930s wrecked political democracy in Germany, nearly wrecked it in France and the United States, and subjected it to great stress in Great Britain.  What did we get from that? 

            The Middle East is one of the several great centers of oil and natural gas production in the world.  Whatever one thinks of the people running the carbon-producing countries of that region, peace and political stability in that region are much to be desired.  There is no hiving it off from the rest of the world economy.  The world has a single global oil market.  What happens in one oil producing region affects the price everywhere. 

            Since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, Iran has been a Shi’ite theocratic dictatorship.  It has been anti-Western, anti-Sunni Muslim, anti-Israel.  For historical reasons, it has been especially anti-American.[3]  It has long pursued nuclear weapons, built a huge arsenal of missiles, and created proxy military groups in the Middle East.[4]  Taken all together, for many years Iran has been the creator and sustainer of many aspects of a multi-layered regional crisis.  A nuclear-armed Iran could destroy Israel, hold all the oil states hostage, and deter the US from putting its forces at risk in the region.  It posed a mortal threat to regional stability and the world economy. 

            But what to do about it?  President Obama did a deal with Iran.  The agreement offered Iran relief from international economic sanctions in exchange for a time-limited reduction in its nuclear effort.  It did not permanently end Iran’s nuclear program, nor limit its ballistic missiles, nor restrain Iranian proxies.  President Trump withdrew from the executive agreement, and re-imposed economic sanctions.  He also ordered the killing of Iran’s head terrorist as a warning shot.  President Biden tried to revive the Obama agreement, but the Iranians refused to play ball.  They drove ahead with their nuclear program, while winding-up and arming up Hamas in Gaza.  The latter effort spilled over in October 2023. 

            In Summer 2025, with Trump president once again, the United States and Israel launched a joint attack that badly damaged Iran’s nuclear program.  Trump offered to negotiate.  He wanted Iran’s nuclear effort permanently stopped, but he scaled back the demands on the missiles and the proxies.  Those negotiations dragged on.  The Iranians wanted the nukes and—apparently—believed that they could get the Americans bogged down in talks. 

            The Islamic Revolution has mismanaged the economy for decades.  Many younger people reject the state’s strict social rules.  Demonstrations have broken out again and again. 

            Trump made them an offer they shouldn’t have refused.  Maybe the regime will fall. 

[1] See: Global Energy Tracker | Council on Foreign Relations 

[2] See: 1970s energy crisis – Wikipedia  This is a useful introduction to some events and their effects, but barely scratches the surface. 

[3] In 1953, an Anglo-American engineered coup put the Shah back in power.  The Shah pursued a socially-disruptive modernization of the country while also stomping all over any sign of dissent.  Throughout this process, the Americans turned a blind eye to the abuses and rising discontent. 

[4] In Syria, in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Gaza, and in Yemen. 

Netanyahu.

Posted on by
Reply

            Benjamin Netanyahu was born with the State of Israel.  He was born in Tel Aviv in 1949, the son of the brilliant Revisionist Zionist fanatic Benzion Netanyahu.  He spent much of his youth in the United States,[1] then returned to Israel for military service.  No shirker he: Netanyahu spent five years in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), much of it in combat with the special forces.[2]  Then back to the United States to pursue a degree in Architecture at M.I.T.[3]  He eventually received the BA, plus an MA in Management.[4] 

            Netanyahu made a rapid ascent in politics.  One way and another, he had a lot of connections in Israel.  In 1984, those connections, brains, a familiarity with the United States, and a really good war record led to his appointment as Israel’s representative to the United Nations.  Back in the US, he gave good interview to television reporters.  In 1988 he entered parliament (the Knesset); in 1993 he won the leadership of the Likud party; in 1996 he became prime minister.  In 1999, voters gave Likud, and Netanyahu with it, the heave. 

            Since then, Netanyahu’s career has been linked to Gaza and the West Bank.  He got a cabinet position when Likud regained a majority, then, in 2005, resigned when Ariel Sharon ordered an end to the occupation of Gaza.  Hamas soon evicted the Palestinian Authority from Gaza, creating a radical anti-Israel and pro-Iran bastion on the border.  In 2009, as Israeli voters confronted these harsh new conditions, Netanyahu returned as Prime Minister.  Since then, he has campaigned for a regional alliance with Sunni Arab states to contain (at the least) Iran.  At the same time, however, he has had to juggle the rivalry between the Palestinian Authority (governing the West Bank) and Hamas.  In the case of Hamas, he has allowed Qatar to send millions of dollars in aid to Gaza.  He’s also had to bargain with the tiny, far-right parties who make his parliamentary majority possible.  This has forced (or allowed) him to permit expanding settlements in Arab territory on the West Bank.  He had a lot of irons in the fire. 

            Perhaps his skill at managing those irons made him complacent.  Iran had armed and advised clients all around Israel’s borders.  Hamas in Gaza, but also Hezbollah in Lebanon,[5] and the Assad regime in Syria, and the Houthis in Yemen.  In any event, on 7 October 2023 Hamas launched a devastating surprise attack that killed 1,200 Israelis and captured a couple hundred others before the Hamas troops scuttled back into Gaza.  There they hid among the Palestinian civilians in anticipation of an Israeli counter-attack.  They may also have expected Netanyahu to have been tossed out of power after this disaster.  They may have expected Hezbollah and even Iran to have joined in the war.  But Netanyahu refused to resign.   He was inventive, ruthless, and brave as a special forces soldier.  Now he’s that again.  He held onto power, while launching a “savage war of peace” against Hamas, then Hezbollah, and then Iran. 

            Now Gaza lies in ruins with scores of thousands dead.  The architect, the special forces soldier, and—for the moment—the dominant force in the Middle East. 

[1] He didn’t much like the American culture of the 1960s.  It was fun at the time, but he may have a point.  He doesn’t think much of recent American presidents.  Who would: three adolescents, a dotard, and a feral child. 

[2] So, no bone spurs, no asthma, no “politically viable,” no Air National Guard.  More like JFK and Bob Kerry. 

[3] Look at the realities, develop a vision, work to make it real. 

[4] His studies were interrupted by a return to the IDF during the 1973 war.  Must have been interesting sharing a dorm room with him.   

[5] To the point that the country might better be called Hezbollanon. 

Epstein first and last time.

Posted on by
Reply

            Born into a “working-class” family in Brooklyn, Jeffrey Epstein (1953-2019) escaped from that social identity.[1]  He went to college, but never finished; he got a job teaching at an elite prep school in New York, but got the boot for “poor performance” after two years; one of the parents saw something in the young math teacher and hired him at an investment bank, but in 1980, he was “asked to leave;” and in 1981 he started his own business managing rich peoples’ money.  So far, this looks like failing upward on a grand scale. 

            Epstein both enjoyed and was very skilled at networking.  Patrons and customers included Alan “Ace” Greenberg, Leon Black, and Leslie Wexner.  Social contacts included Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump (long before he became president), among other luminaries.  Money and power (and invulnerability) often run together in modern America. 

            Along the way, Epstein encountered Ghislaine Maxwell.[2]  She became his long-time companion.  She also facilitated his pursuit of psychologically-vulnerable girls.  Many were in the 14-17 years-old range.  He had a home in Manhattan, another in Palm Beach, an island in the U.S. Virgin Islands, a private jet, and a glittering life-style.  Those assets helped dazzle the girls.  Epstein allegedly shared the girls with some of his friends. 

            Certainly by the early 1990s, Epstein was exploiting young women.  He seems to have exercised a measure of discretion.  Then, in 2005, the Palm Beach police received a report that Epstein had assaulted a 14-year-old girl.  The police investigated and found many more cases, the FBI became involved (crossing state lines), but prosecutors settled for a plea bargain in 2008.  Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution in return for an 18-month sentence served under conditions that would have made a Mafia don envious.  In addition, the FBI halted its investigation and granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators.” 

            No sooner was Epstein out of the slammer than he was back to his old tricks.  Angry victims then started filing civil law-suits.[3]  The Miami Herald got wind of the story and ran an expose in 2018; in July 2019, federal officers arrested Epstein.  Prosecutors charged him with sex-trafficking, which is a lot more serious than soliciting prostitution.  Confined to the federal Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan, Epstein committed suicide on the night of 9-10 August 2019.  All this barely scratches the surface of the story. 

            It’s a lurid story, but why is there so much continuing interest in it?  First of all, Epstein had claimed that he had dirt on important people.[4]  Speculation on the nature of that “dirt” centers on sex with minors and the use of illegal drugs.  Speculation on the collection of that “dirt” centers on reports of hidden cameras and sound systems. 

            Second, the circumstances of his suicide stink.  The night of Epstein’s death, his cell-mate was transferred; the two guards failed to make prescribed welfare checks every 30 minutes and later tried to doctor the records; and both cameras outside his cell malfunctioned.[5] 

            Putting One and Two together, some people believe that Epstein was “suicided” to keep him from talking to investigators or from the witness stand.  The FBI searched his homes and offices, carting away masses of material.  Much of that material has not been released. 

First, what’s in the “Epstein files”?  All told, the evidence gathered by the FBI totals “300 gigabytes of data, plus other media.”  At a minimum, they contain the flight logs for his plane (listing passengers, departure point and destinations, and dates of travel); his “black books” (apparently containing names of contacts for a guy who made it his business to know a lot of people); and his court records.  It seems to have been supposed that they would also include secret recordings of people in compromising situations.  However, on 27 July 2025, the Department of Justice announced that “no credible evidence [has been] found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions. We did not uncover evidence that could predicate [i.e. serve as a justification for] an investigation against uncharged third parties.” 

            Second, who’s named in the “Epstein list”?  All sorts of people.  He had little black books that listed the names of people with whom he had a connection, or sometimes not.[6]  In short, no log of who did what with whom. 

            Conspiracy theories sprang up almost immediately after Epstein’s death.[7]  The flash reaction to the news of Epstein’s death showed that 42 percent of Americans believed that he had been killed to shut him up and another 29 percent didn’t want to rush to judgement.  The belief that Epstein had been murdered soon reached a majority.[8]  The conspiracy theories probably piggy-backed on the earlier “PizzaGate” conspiracy theory.[9] 

Then attention focused on the seized materials.  When running for president in 2024, Donald Trump promised to release the “Epstein files” and the “Epstein list” if elected.[10]  Then he didn’t.  This provoked a very strong reaction among some of those who had supported him. 

            Was there a conspiracy?  Well, apparently both the guards are still alive.  No unsolved hit-and-run, no “I never knew he was using drugs” fentanyl in the tuna salad, no heart attack during a routine colonoscopy, no botched stick-up in a Mom-and-Pop that ended in gunfire.  No tying-off loose ends.[11] 

            The take-aways here are two-fold.  On the one hand, many people believe that at least some rich or politically powerful people indulge in depraved behavior.  On the other hand, many people believe that “they all stick together to protect each other.”  Again, the belief that money, power, and invulnerability run together has a strong hold on many Americans.  This can’t be good for American democracy.  But how to fix it?  How to retore trust? 

[1] “Jeffrey Epstein’s secrets,” The Week, 5 September 2025, p. 11. 

[2] See: Ghislaine Maxwell – Wikipedia.  On her father, Robert Maxwell, see: Robert Maxwell – Wikipedia. 

[3] Virginia Roberts Giuffre (2015); Sarah Ransome (2017). 

[4] James B. Stewart, “The Day Jeffrey Epstein Told Me He Had Dirt on Powerful People,” NYT, August 12, 2019. 

[5] Ali Watkins, Danielle Ivory, Christina Goldbaum, “Inmate 76318-054: The Last Days of Jeffrey Epstein, NYT, 17 August 2019. 

[6] An annotated-by-journalists version of one such book can be read here.  https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/jeffrey-epstein-high-society-contacts.html 

[7] Michael Gold, Jonah Engel Bromwich, “Epstein Conspiracies: De Blasio, and Others Join Speculation,” NYT, August 12, 2019; “New poll suggests 45% of Americans believe Jeffrey Epstein conspiracy theories,” Yahoo News, 26 November 2019. 

[8] “Americans Say Murder More Likely Than Suicide in Epstein Case,” Rasmussen Reports, 14 August 2019; “Most Now Think Epstein Was Murdered,” Rasmussen Reports, 9 January 2020.  

[9] Cecilia Kang and Sheera Frenkel, “’PizzaGate’ Conspiracy Theory Thrives Anew in the TikTok Era,” NYT, 27 June 2020. 

[10] Alexandra Hutzler, “What Trump has said about Jeffrey Epstein over the years, including on 2024 campaign trail, ABC News, July 17, 2025. 

[11] The conspiratorial mindset spread by Hollywood films: Shooter (4/8) Movie CLIP – Mister Rate’s Advice (2007) HD 

American Opinion on the Deportations in Summer 2025.

Posted on by
Reply

The country is deeply divided over the Trump administration’s treatment of illegal immigrants.  There doesn’t seem to be much resistance this time to closing down the Southern border.  The gap opens over what to do about the illegal immigrants who entered the country before the border got shut down.  Do all or most of them get to stay?  Do they all get deported without regard to how long they’ve been here or what role they now play in the economy? 

In June 2025, 52 percent of Americans supported deporting illegal immigrants.  The partisan divide was stark, but also revealing on minority positions within each party.  Those approving deportations included 90 percent of Republicans, but also 20 percent of Democrats.[1]  

Almost as many Americans (49 percent) said that President Trump had crossed some boundary of reasonableness in his sweeps and arrests. Thus, 50 percent of Americans disapproved of President Trump dispatching National Guard and even Marine units to Los Angeles to cow disorderly demonstrators protesting Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers conducting sweeps for illegal immigrants.  Only a third (35 percent) of Americans approved of the deployment of military forces to deal with a civil policing matter.[2]    

If you desire the end, then you must desire also the means.  Either essentially half of Americans desire the end, but don’t want the reality of it shoved in their faces OR their desire for the end is purely rhetorical.  Hard to tell which is true.  Some of each?  Apparently, President Trump desires the end and accepts—even relishes–the means. 

The Republican opponents of deportation may largely represent businesses that depend upon illegal immigrants because many Americans have never known what hard work for low pay is really like.  The Democratic supporters of deportations provide a warning shot—if any more were needed after the election—of the fragility of the party’s coalition.

The 80 percent of Democrats who oppose deporting illegal immigrants doubtless have a variety of motives.  The illegals toil in vital sectors of the economy where the Native-born don’t want to work.  The illegals are in flight from Hell-hole countries (of which there are a great many).  They are just trying to make better lives.  Immigration is what made America great!  Ideally, there shouldn’t be any immigration restrictions at all, except for identifiable terrorists and criminals.  Broadly, on many issues, Democrats are cosmopolitans (citizens of the world and concerned for their fellow citizens) and Republicans are parochial (American citizens and concerned for their fellow citizens).  It will be difficult to reconcile those two positions. 

            In September 2025, the Supreme Court lifted a stay by a federal judge in California that had stopped Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from using ethnicity and language as partial grounds for stopping and detaining suspected illegal immigrants.  Some ethnicity and language communities in California “braced” for impact.  One apologist for the government argued that “[M]ost undocumented migrants in Los Angeles are Latino…”[3]  Fine, but most Latinos in Los Angeles are not “undocumented migrants.”  They still are subject to stops and detentions and “show us your papers.” 

[1] Reuters/Ipsos poll reported in “Poll Watch,” The Week, 27 June 2025, p. 17.

[2] Reuters/Ipsos poll reported in “Poll Watch,” The Week, 27 June 2025, p. 17. 

[3] The Week’s summary of Andrew McCarthy’s statement in National Review, in “Trump sends ICE into Chicago and Boston,” The Week, 19 September 2025, p. 4. 

Default Looms.

Posted on by
Reply

            Government deficits are covered by borrowing.  The government issues I.O.U.s in the form of Treasury bonds and other paper.  The borrowing gets added to the existing government debt.  The interest paid on that debt then becomes a current government expenditure.  It’s the same as paying for the Department of Defense or Social Security or air-traffic control. For may decades, the “Big Three” of US government outlays has been Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and Defense.  (Together they accounted for about two-thirds of all federal spending.) 

            Then came Covid and shut-downs that threatened the economy.  Government, under both the Trump and Biden administrations, stepped up to the plate (or trough, if you’re a Paleo-Finance person).  Vast sums were paid out to “stimulate” the economy.  The total national debt now stands at more than $36 trillion. 

Inflation followed during the Biden administration.  Administration spokespeople down-played the price rises as long as they could.  Eventually, an election loomed.  The enraging effect on consumers and borrowers became too great to ignore.  The Federal Reserve Bank raised interest rates to choke off the inflation before it became really serious. 

            One effect (but not the only one) came in the borrowing costs paid by the government to entice lenders.  In 2024, interest payments by the federal government reached $881 billion.  Interest on the debt rudely shouldered its way past Defense as the third largest government expenditure.[1]  “But Wait!  There’s More!”  President Trump’s “Bigly Beautiful [Budget] Bill” has been projected to add $3 trillion to the debt by 2035.  Then the effect of tariffs on the economy is uncertain.  Economists expect the levies on imports to push up prices and slow the economy.  That would generate less revenue, perhaps less than the income from the tariffs. 

            Panicky warnings appeared in the media.  At some point, there could be a flight from US Treasuries by investors (including foreign governments that hold dollars) who doubt the value of promises to pay at least the interest.  The Federal Reserve Bank would have to raise interest rates much higher to rent the money to cover the interest on the debt or to finance current deficits.  Furthermore, government borrowing could crowd-out private sector borrowers who want the money to invest in productive activities.  That would drag on the economy, to put it mildly. 

            Is there a way out of this dilemma?  Yes.  It will require acting on both sides of the problem.  On the one hand, it means tax increases.  On the other hand, it means spending cuts. 

            Tax who and by how much?  The net worth (assets, not income) of the five richest Americans comes to about $1 trillion.[2]  The net worth of the next ten comes to about $1.1 trillion.  But income is what the government mostly taxes.  That’s much less than net worth. 

            Cut what and by how much?  To go where the money is, it means cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Defense, and Interest on the debt. 

            Both taxation and spending cuts will have to reach pretty far down into the ranks of the American middle class.  It will be hard to find politicians to vote for that.  The alternative is for ordinary American to suddenly abandon their “put it on the credit card” approach to citizenship.  Won’t happen.  Default looms.  After that, the International Monetary Fund will impose reforms. 

[1] “National debt: Why Congress no longer cares,” The Week, 6 June 2025, p. 17. 

[2] List of wealthiest Americans by net worth – Wikipedia