Starting with first principles and the scientific method
America First Books
Featuring ebooks that help find a truer path in uncertain times

 

 

HISTORY
REINTERPRETED

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions,
they don't have to worry about the answers."

Thomas Pynchon

 

by William B. Fox
last updated
Friday 24 Feb 2006

Finding a new pespective. Merriwether Lewis' First Glimpse of the Rockies from First Across the Continent by Noah Brooks

 

Overview

In "Critical Issues," we briefly looked at some important trends that are wrecking America today. I explained that I am not describing these issues simply to scare people or add to their worries, but rather to help them accurately diagnose the true nature of America's problems.

After making an accurate diagnosis, our task is then to identify strategies for ourselves and the people we can influence or join forces with in our local communities. Hopefully we can learn how to lead more sane, healthy, prosperous, productive, and effective lives while similtaneously increasing our defenses against misfortune.

In "Resolving Opposing Ideologies," we looked at ways to ideologically untangle confusion over the true nature of policy options.

Our Next Step: Now we have to deal with another major stumbling block. We have to examine how we interpret the past. This is very important, because people usually make policy recommendations for the future based upon the use of some kind of interpretation of past events. Dr. Ralph Raico, in his Mises Institute lecture, emphasized this point when he alluded to Winston Smith's job in the Ministry of Truth in George Orville's novel 1984. Smith scanned old newspapers for content that did not seem to fit Big Brother's current policies and threw them down the memory hole. "He who controls the past controls the present, and he who controls the present controls the future."

In this section I want to provide an overview regarding the way in which each perspective described in my "Resolving Opposing Ideologies" section helps us to start asking some of the right historical questions. These perspectives are summarized again as follows:

a) Environmental top down (also known as authoritarian modern liberalism, liberal fascism, and "neo-Jacobinism," all of which describes what America has become today)
b) Environmental bottom up (also known as contemporary anarcho-libertarianism, this is a "sanitized," non-racialist, non-ethnic version of the American Old Right)
c) Genetic top down (also known as authoritarian racial nationalism, this includes German national socialism and Zionism.)
d) Genetic bottom up (I call this libertarian racial nationalism. This is also known as 19th century classical liberalism, the American Old Right, and Paleo-Conservatism)
e) Mutualism vs. Parasitism (Productive practices vs. criminality. The latter include political corruption, organized crime, and subversion).

 
Environmental
Genetic
Top Down

 

Environmental
Top Down
(Authortarian
Modern Liberalism)
The current official view

Genetic
Top Down
(Authoritarian
Racial Nationalism)
What America supports in Israel
Environmental
Bottom Up
Anarcho-Libertarianism
Highly Selective Old Right
Genetic
Bottom Up
(Libertarian Racial Nationalism)
The real American Old Right
and English Yeoman Tradition

3rd dimension: Mutualism (productive practices) vs. Parasitism (criminality)

Bottom Up

 

Link to the following discussions regarding how each of these perspectives produces a unique interpretation of American historical trends:

a) Environmental top down (liberal or neo-Jacobin fascism, what America has today)
b) Environmental bottom up (anarcho-libertarianism)
c) Genetic top down (authoritarian racial nationalism)
d) Genetic bottom up (libertarian racial nationalism, America's founding ideology)
e) Mutualism vs. Parasitism (Productivity vs. criminality --are criminals winning in America today?)

 

 


MUTUALISM VS PARASITISM

Examining the history of American productivity growth and industrial development

Once upon a time America was admired for being the most productive and innovative country on earth. I think that there is ample evidence that America's leaders today have lost sight of the key success factors that once built America. They certainly are not making a particularly vigorous effort to name names and publicly defend these fundamental elements. Nor are they making a particularly honest effort to educate the public about ways that America has jumped the track and can get back on track.

I believe that there are some well known standards that have been known for centuries that we can apply to understand how America has jumped the track, and what must be done to create a viable, sustainable, competitive society.

For starters, the process of creating real wealth has both quantitative as well as qualitative dimensions that we need to first examine in greater detail.

In the quantitative category, I like the fairly simple conceptual formula used by a business simulation consulting firm called Advanced Competitive Strategies based in Portland, Oregon. It is as follows: Companies gain a competitive advantage when they produce goods that maintain a superior ratio of quality compared to price. To stay in business over the long run in a competitive, free market environment, they must continually strive to increase the relative quality and usefulness of their products, while they must simultaneously strive to reduce the relative prices to consumers. At the same time in order to survive over the long run, they must make an adequate profit in order to meet their living needs, sustain operations, incentivize risk-taking, provide security, and continually reinvest in upscaling technology and operational capabilities.

While this is a very broad and simple formula, I cannot think of any circumstances in any type of society where it does not apply over the long run. It almost seems like an iron law of economics. It seems like every society that comes up with some kind of new political or economic ideology or policy formula that tries to mask or divert the focus away from this underlying reality ultimately pays a terrible price. Societies not only lose competitiveness, but by running red ink, they also hurt certain people and gradually tear down the overall wealth base of the society.

Most of your business and accounting textbooks discuss quantitative analytical measures that judge success by focusing on only part of this overall formula. These typical measures include such measures net profit after tax, return on equity, internal rate of return, and net present value.

These are all no doubt very important measures, but they fail to take into account broader issues. I summarize all of this in my discussion of Automation Economics 101 in my Chapter "Robo Political Economy" in my online ebook "I, Robot Entrepreneur," (also available as a donation ebook with America First Books). I begin by describing how the famous libertarian economics writer Henry Hazlitt reacted to claims made by Franklin D. Roosevelt's wife Eleanor and a number of his economics advisors that America had to hold back installing new automation equipment in certain industries in order to protect American jobs:

In Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt pointed out that while it is true that machines obsolete certain jobs, it is also true that they simultaneously create new jobs elsewhere. They create new jobs designing and tending to the new machinery. They create new jobs distributing the additional goods that are produced. The lower cost of the goods leaves more money in the pocket of the consumer, whose spending creates new jobs elsewhere. The increased profits of the manufacturer creates a greater pool of savings for him to reinvest, either in new plant and equipment, or as general investment capital. The greater number of goods produced at lower costs add more to the physical infrastructure of the society, which in turn helps it to create even better machinery to create even more higher quality goods at even lower costs.
If simply creating human jobs is the only goal, it is true that you can always create or protect more jobs by eliminating machinery and returning society to a more primitive level. The problem is that the jobs are of lower productive quality. The society that has too many of them may eventually be overpowered by more efficient outside predators.
Hazlitt points out that we can create tens of thousands of jobs overnight if we pass a law that requires that all goods carried between Chicago to New York have to be done in Neolithic style --on people's backs. This kind of "make work" would seem ludicrous to most Americans today. Looking back at the 19th century, we can see how it would have been ludicrous to have thwarted automobile-related automation to protect wagon teamster jobs. People fifty years from now will probably think the same thing about any "make work" or "keep job" decisions today to not install robots.
Hazlitt points out how certain emerging industries grew in jobs as they added automation. For example, the auto industry grew from 140,000 people in 1910 to 941,000 people in 1973. Aviation and aircraft parts went from zero in 1900 to 514,000 by 1973. (Hazlitt, page 58). My guess is that the robot industry will also be adding tons of jobs in the decades ahead.
In many ways the whole human "job" concept currently used as an intellectual construct is grossly inadequate. We need to ask deeper questions about the tasks accomplished and the overall "work smarter" quality of the jobs that we are creating. This even became clear to savvy economists well before the 20th century. According to Hazlitt (page 51) "The power capacity already being exerted by the steam engines of the world in existence and working in the year 1887 has been estimated by the Bureau of Statistics in Berlin as equivalent to that of the 200,000,000 horses, representing approximately 1,000,000,000 men; or at least three times the working population of the earth..."
So in other words the machinery of the Industrial Revolution up until 1887 had added job-equivalents of three times the earth's working population compared to an earlier period of, say, the 17th century, and yet in 1887 we continued to see something close to full human employment in both the United States and England. This was despite the fact that the populations of both England and the US more than doubled in the mid-19th century compared to the 18th century.
If the impact of machinery is to eliminate human jobs, there should have been increasingly massive unemployment towards the latter part of the 19th century coinciding with the progression of the Industrial Revolution. Instead, the addition of automation was part of an entrepreneurial environment that continuously added more job-equivalents compared to an earlier era for both machines and for humans.
Perhaps the real job we should focus on in society involves a process of continually innovating and creating better and more effective machines that get more productive work accomplished per worker, as opposed to trying to cocoon ourselves inside a repetitive work routine for fixed wages. Until we build star ships that take us to far galaxies, there will always be plenty of jobs that need to be performed, and even then I would expect the human innovative imagination to reach even further. According to some economic theorists, human needs are insatiable, therefore there may be no limit to the extent that each human worker can be empowered with robot production.
The achievements of workers and industrialists during the 1800's are remarkable given the lack of resources we take for granted today. It is very important for our social issues analysis that we take a closer look at these societies.
America and Britain were the world industrial leaders during the 19th century. They were both on a gold standard during most of this period. Despite economic set-backs of the Napoleonic Wars for Britain, and the Civil War and War of 1812 for the US, there were long stretches in both countries where economic growth rates averaged 5% a year, an amazing feat by late 20th century American and British standards. In Great Britain money actually doubled in value within a century. (I discuss this in more detail in Part One and Part Two of my series of articles about gold.) Average living standards more than doubled by the end of the century. There was no significant government stimulus or intervention in the economies. Except for times of war, there was no central bank or personal or corporate income tax. Total government prior to the War Between the States comprised less than 5% of GDP, compared to over 40% today. The US government raised its revenues from tariffs and land sales. Private industry was able to make massive and continual reinvestments in itself.
These were relatively laissez faire economies with stable monetary conditions that favored competent entrepreneurial calculation. These societies promoted personal savings, a strong work ethic, and a deep sense of personal honor. Most non-black Americans in the early 1800's were of Northern European descent or anthropologically of a Nordic background. The same was true of the elite that controlled the levers of power in banking, media, and industry. Their sense of shared ethnic history, racial pride, and traditions of innovation and individual liberty provided a strong incentive to work honestly and harmoneously with their neighbors without requiring top-down governmental oversight.
Honesty aided rational long term entrepreneurial calculation and teamwork. Private charities, family and community ties, and concern by industrialists for their workers, later denounced by Marxists as "paternalism," provided economic shock absorbers. An emphasis on foresight, delayed gratification, and individual responsibility and initiative helped workers adapt to changing industrial conditions.

One important area where we can start asking the right historical questions is to ask how the Industrial Revolution and capitalism has been unfairly demonized by the left in America's schools and media. I have already mentioned Dr. Thomas J. DiLorenzo's book How Capitalism Saved America, which covers widely held public misconceptions regarding the 19th century. In my robot paper, I also discuss the insightful commentary of Dr. Ralph Raico:

In his lecture, "The Industrial Revolution," Dr. Raico points out that a report to the English Parliament in the early 1800's that helped give rise to the "Dark Satanic Mills" and other "exploitation" propaganda used by Marxists was extremely biased and was based on selective anecdotal evidence. Apparently the Tory party, which had slave-holders, was looking for ways to discredit their political opponents, who consisted of budding industrialists. These industrialists tended to be anti-slavery, so this was the Tory way of saying, "Who are you to criticize us?"
Although serious abuses did in fact take place, as is true in virtually any political and economic system, the Industrial Revolution did a lot for people, particularly those who had lived out in the British countryside. According to some studies, many of these rural people previously had to spend 60% of their income on food just to stay alive, and could rarely afford new clothes. Dr. Raico pointed out that if you do not like the Industrial Revolution, look at places which at that time never had one, such as Ireland during the potato famine of the 1840's (or Calcutta India, for that matter). The same potato blight that hit Ireland also impacted on Scotland, Holland, and Northern Germany, but did not create anywhere near the same economic catastrophe in large part because the people in these other areas had industry to fall back on, whereas constant civil conflict with absentee landholders for centuries in Ireland had discouraged local investment.

From my many years as both as an active real estate broker and active stock broker (I am now an inactive in these areas while working full time as a writer), I have observed hundreds of businesses in all kinds of industries in America. There are two problem areas in particular today that jump out at me as being major problems in our society.

The first area involves greed and dishonesty that has deeply infected all strata of our society. The second area involves the complete inability to make a broad social intepretation of such wealth-building requirements as "providing security" and "reinvestment."

I define greed as deliberately pursuing ones own personal narrow short term gain at the expense of the overall society, particularly in ways that have a long term destructive impact for everyone. An obvious example involving a small business is an entrepreneur who is only concerned about creating a business that is "all hat and no cattle" (as they say in Texas) for the primary purpose of "pumping and dumping" the stock so that he can make millions with his insider holdings, and who can care less whether his company destroys the environment, or whether his company turns out to not be "real" and has to lay off all its workers --thereby dumping intangible career disruption costs on the workers as well as unemployment benefits costs on the taxpayer. Similarly, it can include unions who "pay themselves first" with benefits increases before companies create competitive products, and thereby squeeze out so much of the companies' retained earnings that it can no longer adequately reinvest, innovate, or produce quality, and falls by the wayside. Greed can also include forms of "career greed" in government bureaucracy, such as the politician who knows that the President has no Constitutional authority to invade Iraq on phony WMD pretexts, but fails to take a public stand for fearing he will lose an election. "Career greed" can also include a military officer who knows that slaughtering innocent civilians and engaging in torture may inevitably leak out and do tremendous damage to America's reputation, but in the long run he might be able to escape personal accountability for these actions, whereas in the short run he knows he can gain career points with his superiors by never questioning orders.

In regard to second area, please recollect the formula I stated near the beginning at the article, namely: "At the same time in order to survive and prosper over the long run, [businesses] must make an adequate profit in order to meet their living needs, sustain operations, incentivize risk-taking, provide security, and continually reinvest in upscaling technology and operational capabilities." The problem here is the inability of our government and business leaders to interpret "provide security," and "reinvest in upscaling technology and operational capabilities" on a long term, broader social level. This includes the genetic viewpoints discussed in my "Reconciling Ideological Perspective." "Providing security" includes maintaining a certain level of racial and cultural coherence required to minimize natural forms of racial strife and predatory exploitation. "Reinvestment" includes forms of reinvestment in ones own genetic interests. This includes maintaining a meritocracy where bright white people can afford to have more children rather than getting squeezed out of jobs by affirmative action programs or living under a legal terrorism threat by well funded alien groups such as the ADL and Southern Poverty Law Center for openly espousing various forms of white survivalism. "Reinvestment" also includes rebuilding America's domestic manufacturing base. In his book In Praise of Hard Industries Eamonn Fingleton explains how it is vital to maintain manufacturing at about one third of GDP, as I discuss elsewhere.

Needless to say, our historical analysis of America in the last one hundred years should help us better understand the accumulation of both infectious greed and also social reinvestment disloyalty and short-sightedness in our society.

There is no question in my mind that in the late 19th century, American business leaders as a group took great personal pride in creating real and well-paying jobs for American workers. They were also very proud to help build up American industry.

On an anecdotal level, I recall once hearing on the radio when J. Paul Getty died, that he wanted to be remembered as someone who created jobs for thousands of Americans. Andrew Carnegie wanted to be remembered well as an industrialist long after he was gone and funded universities and created public libraries around the country. Henry Ford, in My Life and Work, takes pride in the fact that he unilaterally offered wages at twice the industry average to his nonunion workers. He intended to continually increase wages while steadily reducing the prices of his cars to consumers. He was also totally dedicated towards helping America lead the world in manufacturing prowess.

A person may question the purity and simplicity of the stated motives of these particular individuals, but no one can question that these kinds of values once set the tone for America. These leaders knew that there is always a generation of young men who lack industry knowledge, experience, and capital to go it on their own right away. They knew that young men need good jobs to be able to marry and get families started, and they were very proud that they could create those jobs for the next generation.

To be sure, there were speculative excesses over railroads, telegraphs, electrical companies, and many other new business areas in the 1800's. There were certainly cases of malfeasance, corruption, and greed, the Robber Baron era serving as a prime example. But nothing compares in scale and magnitude to our bubble stock and real estate markets, runaway corporate and government spending and debt, shriveling industrial base, exploding unregulated derivatives that dwarf the size of the American economy, and a host of indicators of totally reckless, irresponsible, selfish, dishonest, and greedy business leadership in America.

Too many contemporary American business leaders could care less if the up and coming generation of young white men have decent jobs so that they can get married and raise families; in fact, they could care less if they are even white, straight, or for that matter even American. All they care about is offloading their shares of stock on gullible investors once they have been pumped up high enough, and then retiring somewhere comfy and secure. Let the devil take the hindmost.

There are quite a few books that help us understand better role models of productive economic behavior.

If you have the time to peruse them, most of the books offered by the Mises Institute at mises.org provide good basics on how a free enterprise system should work. They also do an excellent job of explaining why we ultimately have to get money out of the hands of central bankers and politicians and return it to where it was throughout most of the 1800's --in the hands of the people.

As mentioned in "Reconciling Opposing Ideologies," I think that for analytical purposes, the best way to go is to use a layer cake approach, where one first thoroughly does his homework to understand how things should work under a reasonably principled and chivalrous free enterprise and free market system advocated by anarcho-libertarians and analyzed by Austrian economists. Then add the next layer which involves the necessary economic distortions required to protect genetic and other vital group and national interests. Then on top of all of this, add the additional unnecessary distortions --which are huge-- that protect special privileges and criminals, to include central bankers and quite a few of our politicians. Don't forget to factor insights from Michael Collins Pipers' Final Judgment and New Jerusalem, Dr. David Duke's My Awakening and Jewish Supremacism, and Wilmot Robertson's The Dispossessed Majority. After doing all of this, you will be surprised how you have developed an economic model that is probably fairly close to reality, and far more accurate than 99% of the macro-economic models promoted by highly paid Wall Street economists and university research departments. And no, they did not teach me this approach at Harvard. (Nonetheless, I am pleased that at least Dr. Stephen Walt, the former Dean of the Kennedy School of Government, has made a good step in the right direction in the report he co-authored with University of Chicago professor titled " ".)

For the last two hundred years automation has been the key to economic growth. The next phase is the mobile robotics revolution, which is well underway. Robotics, incidentally, integrates so many disciplines ranging from computer science to mechanical engineering that many engineering schools require their students to iniate robot projects. Many high schools are adopting a similar attitude to encourage enthusiasm for math and science. Advanced technology is one area America cannot abdicate involvement regardless of the competition or jobs going to Asia. For starters, we cannot afford to wake up some day and find out that foreigners have a million robots of human level intellignece, that are in turn producing millions more robots, and we have nothing to compare.

For savvy people, there will probably still be ways to make a living in advanced technology areas, even if means functioning with within the context of a boutique firm that falls between the cracks of Asian competition. I created my online ebook I, Robot Entrepreneur (the title is a takeoff on Asimov's story "I, Robot;" this is also available as a donation book) as one glimpse of this exciting new area.

I think that myriad business opportunities will spring up in this area much as they did in support of the personal computer. Also, whites as a group tend to be gifted in the realm of technological innovation, so here is an area where they can deal from strength.

Last, but not least, robotics expertise can double to help an individual or oppressed white community defend liberty in support of our second Amendment (as well as ancient Indo-European) right to bear arms. For example, if America suffers a serious breakdown in the future and one needs to go to special lengths to protect ones family and community from alien marauders, the same know-how that goes into making robots can easily be transferred to creating multiple remote camera-operated surveillance systems and other remotely operated improvised items. I only advocate such things for strictly legal, defensive purposes, of course.

In regard to general management practices involved in small business development, I think that In Search of Excellence remains a classic.

One Up on Wall Street by Peter Lynch remains a classic for value investing.

A lot of rightist groups have explored ways to improve labor relations with concepts coming from socialist labor organizers and syndicalists. Often they come from an ideological perspective. I prefer to look at real life examples of relations that have worked.

The lectures of Dr. Murray Rothbard on organized labor at mises.org provide interesting background from a libertarian perspective on unions. He discusses their track record when it comes to the real wealth-building process. Dr. Rothbard taught at Columbia University, and said that it was interesting to observe fellow academics at Columbia who were originally extremely biased towards unions, but after collecting economic statistics began to move in the other direction. They concluded that over time, unions tend to throw sand in the gears of change. In addition, Dr. Murray claimed they tend to be a "war of the working class against the working class," where unions tend to push up wages on aveage about 6% within an industry for those who are in unions, and cause a 3% decline in wages for workers in the same industry who are nonunion. He also noted that unions to thrive best where it is more difficult for employers to resort to competing labor.

Before we become too critical of unions, I believe that we really need to frame the discussion in terms of the iron law of economics. It does not matter if you are with a union or with management, if you are not producing products with a competitive ratio of increasing quality relative to price, you will eventually fall by the wayside. A big problem with certain unions is that they have become too focused on a "pay yourself first" mentality that involves pushing up benefits without first making greater gains in productivity. This has been exacerbated by historical eras such as the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration which we know today was filled with Red sympathizers who encouraged American unions to focus on confrontation tactics rather than shared productivity programs.

To the extent that unions can promote professional standards and help increase productivity among their members, then they can more than pay for themselves. I also believe personally that the threat to unionize or to go on strike helps at the margin to keep certain employers more honest, to include nonunion employers. In addition, unions can help workers remain conscious of the need to protect their interests, which can even include their genetic and cultural interests. I have mentioned elsewhere the case of Dennis Kearney who successfully organized to protect white interests in California in the late 1800's.

An interesting book that describes a very successful approach that involved worker participation with management to cooperate in setting productivity goals as well as rewards is known as Multiple Management is The Power of People by Charles P. McCormick. In this book, he describes his basic business philosophy while the Chairman of the Board and President of McCormick & Company from 1932 to 1955.

Effective Group Problem Solving by Dr. William M. Fox describes proven methods for optimizing grass roots input based upon decades of management research. These methods have been used successfully for a variety of groups, to businesses, nonprofit organizations, and government entities. The book also mentions programs that share productivity gains with workers.


Criminal Studies


American history is very rich in genius-level criminal activity, to include high level political crimes and war crimes.

In my libertarian racial nationalist section, I discuss Gary North's free online ebook Conspiracy in Philadelphia. While North's thesis may take quite a while for many Americans to chew over and digest, the dictatorial excesses described in the King Lincoln archive at www.lewrockwell.com and the accounts of Sherman's war crimes against defenseless civilians in places like Georgia and South Carolina in Sam Dickson's "Shattering the Icon of Abraham Lincoln" should be quite a bit easier to comprehend.

So far I have been talking about openly documented "in your face" historical events. We have not even got to any Jewish conspiracies yet, such as those described in The Creature from Jekyll Island.

In my opinion, along with central bank story behind The Creature from Jekyll Island, the greatest crime story of the 20th century in America is told by Michael Collins Piper in Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy. Here we see how Israel, the Mossad, organized crime, and part of the CIA very likely came together to blow away the President of the United States in broad daylight. The implications are mind-numbing, especially when one considers how the conspirators have never been publicly tried, and major U.S. government officials as well as major national media masters have sustained a cover up for all these years.

If that is not enough to convince you, I recommend The High Priests of War by Michael Collins Piper. Here the "usual suspects" have dragged America into an unprovoked war of aggression over bogus WMD claims on behalf of Israel that ultimately had little or nothing to do with America's significant interests or viable strategic alternatives. This book has been fully reinforced by the recent Harvard study.

When we add in the unspeakably underhanded and evil genetic destruction visited upon hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and Marines as well as hundreds of thousands of innocent Arab civilians from aerosolized depleted uranium munitions, we talking about some extremely serious criminal activity that will haunt America's reputation for generations. (I link to DU web sites in my Critical Issues section).

In terms of historical analysis, our criminal studies should complement our study of the erosion of popular soverignty in American history from the libertarian racial nationalist viewpoint that I mentioned earlier.

Perhaps we can make an analogy using the example of a hypothetical wounded soldier in an unsanitary Civil War field hospital who suffers from a couple of gangraneous limbs. The presence of maggots and other alien infestations on his body would tend to be proportional to the amount of dead flesh, blood poisoning, and other diseases that he suffers from.

Similarly, the degree of criminal infestation in America today is directly proportional to the continual destruction of genuine popular soverignty that I described in my libertarian racial nationalist section. So as we follow American historical developments, we should notice that as one area shows a quantum decrease, the other area shows a quantum rise.

Indeed, my own personal interpretation of American history shows this kind of interactive, confirmatory relationship. It also suggests that effectively cleaning up America will involve ultimately involve something far more radical than simply adding more policemen to certain street corners.

The results of our criminal studies might serve as one more spur for us to work ever harder to overhaul and rebuild America on a racial, ethnic, cultural, and political level from the grassroots. It should also help confirm our awareness of trends that suggest we need to take greater steps to prepare for extremely hard economic and political times ahead.