Project 2025

[Gori the Grey]

So, I've started reading it.

Project 2025 | Presidential Transition Project

Presidential Transition Project The 2025 Presidential Transition Project paves the way for an effective conservative Administration based on four pillars.

www.project2025.org

I'm not necessarily committing to reading it through. It's over 900 pages.

But if anyone wants to join me in a book-club-type endeavor, let me know. We'll set a pace that's agreeable to the participants. Read the chapters that people are most interested in.

I read the forward. It's 17 pages long. It has the now-infamous passage on pornography/transgenderism.

The big overall framing is that in the 70s everything sucked, but then Reagan came and fixed everything, helped by the Heritage Foundation's Mandate for America. Now also everything sucks, so "the next conservative President" guided by this manual, will fix everything again. (That's how they say it. It of course has to mean Trump, but they don't use his name)

Everything sucks now because inflation, drug overdose deaths, transgenderism and China.

But it boils down to two problems: elites and China.

Boy, they do not like elites! (Dude writing it's a Ph.D.)

There's lots to unpack, but I think I might start with the note that the forward ends on:

The next conservative president will enter office on January 20, 2025, with a simple choice: greatness or failure. It
will be a daunting test, but no more so than every generation of Americans has
faced and passed.
The Conservative Promise represents the best e!ort of the conservative movement
in 2023—and the next conservative President’s last opportunity to save
our republic.

Every generation of Americans has faced and passed the test, but we're now at the point of likely complete failure. It's weird to me that they can have so positive a view of how America has always faced its problems in the past, but there's a significant likelihood that we will somehow utterly fail ("last opportunity") relative to whatever our present set of problems are (inflation, drug overdose deaths, transgenderism and China).

I learned we're living through "the Great Awokening." But also that the Great Awokening is a totalitarian cult.

Oh, maybe the most interesting thing. They go on and on about how the bureaucratic state has arisen because Congress just wants to delegate authority to agencies. They say the right way to fix this is for Congress to go back to exerting direct oversight over all regulations. But they super-quick concede that that's not going to happen, so they move straight to the President issuing executive orders. It's interesting how little trust they have in conservatives in Congress, and how much they just crave an authoritarian leader.

 

[Cutlass]

It's just fascists laundry lists of culture war crap and crony capitalism.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Yes.

Though one thing that surprised me is that they lumped corporate leaders in with the "elites."

Alternately I can post the juicy parts. But then it will be me determining what counts as juicy:

The late 70s were marked by the "predatory deviancy of the cultural elites"

They categorize themselves as "the real people"

They want the following words stricken from every piece of US legislation

This starts with deleting the terms
sexual orientation and gender identity (“SOGI”), diversity, equity, and inclusion
(“DEI”), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive,
abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term used
to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights out of every federal rule,
agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists.

Big Tech "preys on children" to get them "addicted to their apps."

Dobbs is "just the beginning"

Let’s be clear: The most egregious regulations promulgated by the current
Administration come from one place: the Oval O"ce. The President cannot hide
behind the agencies; as his many executive orders make clear, his is the responsibility
for the regulations that threaten American communities, schools, and
families.

But the solution is our guy doing it instead. (And I looked it up: Trump issued 220 executive orders, Biden 139)

President should "handcuff the bureaucracy"

They use the term "ordered liberty" a number of times. It basically seems to mean "liberty to do what you want within the constraints we set" But it just struck me as an odd locution. I guess it's because they can't commit to . . . just . . . liberty.

The elites think they're better than the parents at a high-school football game in Waco.

The elites like open borders because it keeps their own housekeepers, landscapers and busboys cheap.

They say that workers have "missed out on raises for two generations" (but that would include several R administrations, incl even Reagan)

This one's kind of nutty:

Our Constitution grants
each of us the liberty to do not what we want, but what we ought

 

[Cutlass]

Yes.

Though one thing that surprised me is that they lumped corporate leaders in with the "elites."

Which is funny, coming from the elites themselves.

But "elites" is the buzzword of the day. Because you can't let the sheeple know that a vote for the GQP is a vote for Wall St alone. Otherwise they might not vote for Wall St.

 

[sophie]

Also, as crezth noted in another thread, contrast the Heritage Institute's plans for Trump's second term with this:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1809384004728000619

The stakes are very different for some people than others.

 

[Zardnaar]

View attachment 695619

Also, as crezth noted in another thread, contrast the Heritage Institute's plans for Trump's second term with this:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1809384004728000619

The stakes are very different for some people than others.

But but but but sides are the same!!!. Disingenuous stupid crap ymmv.

I haven't read it but seen it's contents with page references for the quotes.

 

[Gori the Grey]

In responding to Hayes, dead domain misses the key point, I think, @sophie, as I suspect you know. (you're sophie now! Thank God. I always had to spell schlaufuchs letter by letter).

People get around to things when they do. It took me, of all people, to get a thread on it here, for instance, even though we've been talking about it in various threads for months (as to be fair to him, so has Hayes). The "second revolution, bloodless if the left lets it be" made people perk up in a way that the existence of a 900-page policy statement just is never going to. What's problematic about Hayes' post is not when it came (or at least not just that) but what in P25 it targets.

The problem with the P25 paragraph on pornography is not that they want to "ban pornography." As I mentioned in a previous post, that's part of a a motte and bailey tactic. Instead, they're trying to equate discussion of transgenderism with child pornography, that if one creates documents regarding gender dysphoria, it's equivalent to kiddie porn. They're counting on a backlash against banning porn. When it comes, what they mean to do is backtrack to the premise in their paragraph and say, "Well at least kiddie porn, right?" and people to say "of course kiddie porn should be banned!" and for them to say "well, then, just like we said, the "omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children" that should be banned." And then enough people saying "oh, yeah."

Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender
ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot
inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual
liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its
purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product
is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime.
Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should
be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed
as registered sex o!enders. And telecommunications and technology firms that
facilitate its spread should be shuttered.

With all that said, "P25 wants to ban pornography" is among the ways we should be attacking the document. They do use that phrase. In no uncertain terms. And one can perhaps use American's attitudes on this matter possibly to kill the whole thing with that single stone.

 

[Gori the Grey]

So I've been further mulling the bit about government agencies.

In principle, I can understand their point: unelected people are making rules Americans have to abide by.

I think there is sufficient check on this in the form of Congressional oversight. Congress passes a law mandating safe drinking water, must not contain carcinogens A, B and C (known carcinogens at the time of the bill's passage). A new carcinogen D is discovered. EPA starts banning D also. Congress learns about that. They can call the water experts in and say "why have you started banning D?" They say, "here are the studies showing D is also a carcinogen." Congress says "fine, carry on." Overzealous bureaucrat at EPA doesn't like the taste of E in water, starts banning E. Congress calls EPA in. "Why have you started banning E?" EPA has no good answer, "Stop banning E." If they need to they can even pass a law explicitly stopping EPA from banning E.

Life is complex We're well served by having area experts in charge of specific parts of it. This is not saying that an (elite) EPA water regulator is better than a parent going to watch a high school football game in Waco TX (their example of a "real person") That EPA expert is just better educated about what makes for safe water than the parent at the football game.

But what gives away the game is that they profess to a constitutional respect for the legislative branch. But since they know that voting in people who would take these matters seriously is not likely and would involve hard work, they just say "ok, let's give it all to one guy to decide all this." That's no longer the principled pose that you copped.

Here's their starting premises:

The term Administrative State refers to the policymaking work done by the
bureaucracies of all the federal government’s departments, agencies, and millions
of employees. Under Article I of the Constitution, “All legislative Powers herein
granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of
a Senate and a House of Representatives.” That is, federal law is enacted only by
elected legislators in both houses of Congress.
This exclusive authority was part of the Framers’ doctrine of “separated powers.”
They not only split the federal government’s legislative, executive, and judicial
powers into di!erent branches. They also gave each branch checks over the others.
Under our Constitution, the legislative branch—Congress—is far and away the most
powerful and, correspondingly, the most accountable to the people.
In recent decades, members of the House and Senate discovered that if they give
away that power to the Article II branch of government, they can also deny responsibility
for its actions. So today in Washington, most policy is no longer set by Congress
at all, but by the Administrative State

The right fix to this? Get Congress to step up to its duties, right?

Nope. Oh, that would be ideal. But we can't wait for that. Instead, let's
"give away that power to the Article II branch of government," but just in the form of one omniscient President, rather than a bunch of faceless agencies.

 

[uppi]

They use the term "ordered liberty" a number of times. It basically seems to mean "liberty to do what you want within the constraints we set" But it just struck me as an odd locution. I guess it's because they can't commit to . . . just . . . liberty.

It might be a reference to or influenced by Ordoliberalism without the dirty term "liberal" in it.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Thanks for that, uppi. I suspect it's not that. I suspect it is "people should be free to do whatever they want within the limits that have been ordered by the Christian God." I'll look for evidence of my suspicion as I read on.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Tech "preys on children" to get them "addicted to their apps."

This part is actually true.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Big Tech "preys on children" to get them "addicted to their apps."

This part is actually 100% true.

I've worked as a programmer in the slot machine industry so I have a lot of experience with how gambling machines work and the scientifically optimized ways they are designed to turn you into an addict. And I can tell you that the current video game market, especially the notionally "free to play" and mobile games, but really anything else that uses microtransactions and loot boxes are based on quite literally the same playbook of techniques that are used for slot machines in a casino.

In both cases the goal is not to drain you of your money quickly but to slowly condition you to see the game as a harmless dopamine trip while at the same time conditioning you to require said dopamine trip in order to feel normal. All with the aim of turning you into an addict that can than be milked for money long term.

In fact, when it comes to games there were even some high profile legal cases in the EU where these practices were called out as gambling but managed to skirt by only because while they fit literally every point of the definition the tokens you get could not get exchanged for real money making it technically not gambling.

And in some EU countries loot boxes and these other practices are in fact banned or age restricted precisely because of what I am talking about.

But it's not just in video games that you see this. You can see the same techniques, a be it in a more disguised form at work in social media sites like facebook or tik tok as well. There they use user engagement and "likes" as effectively a addiction building currency based off notional human appreciation. It's kind of disgusting really. And why I avoid traditional social media.

Basically every time you hear the term "driving engagement" that's industry speak for trying to turn users into addicts. And that is unsurprising given that a lot of the same people cross pollinate throughout these fields in the tech industry.

It's just one of those things that once you know what to look for you can't unsee it.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Further reflection has helped me answer one of my own earlier questions.

What does the "predatory deviancy of the cultural elites" in the 1970s refer to? Homosexuality.

Stonewall was in 1969. The Gay Pride movement gathered steam all through the 70s.

The Forward to Project 2025, then, basically characterizes homosexuals predatory deviants.

This makes their "two analogous cultural moments" overall framing even more exact.

Three of the four present menaces we face are inflation, the transgender ideology, and China
Three of the four we faced in 1980 were stagflation, gay people demanding civil rights, and Russia.

This in turn provides some support for a pet theory of mine that what particularly drives the right is how they lost the social battle regarding homosexuality. Not just that the majority gradually came to support gay rights, but that the moral high ground was switched around on them. When homosexuality was conceived as a sinful behavior, they had the moral high ground, insofar at the majority approached such matters from a Judeo-Christian perspective. As it came to be widely understood as a sexual orientation, then being accepting of people with that orientation (versus not) became the moral high ground. They of course hate that they've lost the specific battle; they most hate that they are now regarded as having the morally inferior position.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

This part is actually 100% true.

I've worked as a programmer in the slot machine industry so I have a lot of experience with how gambling machines work and the scientifically optimized ways they are designed to turn you into an addict.

I also remember video poker companies getting into trouble for rigged displays. They were fair in terms of odds, but they programmed losing hands to replace lower cards with face cards so it "felt" like a good hand.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Thanks for that, uppi. I suspect it's not that. I suspect it is "people should be free to do whatever they want within the limits that have been ordered by the Christian God." I'll look for evidence of my suspicion as I read on.

The politicians themselves don't live within those constraints.

 

[Gori the Grey]

They do not, Valka. I probably won't be able to help myself from pointing out hypocrisies as I go. I already have pointed out that the author who rages against those horrible "elites" is himself an elite, at least in terms of education.

And I know I'm going to have something else to say (probably lots of things, but I already know of one) about how religion figures into all of this.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

I also remember video poker companies getting into trouble for rigged displays. They were fair in terms of odds, but they programmed losing hands to replace lower cards with face cards so it "felt" like a good hand.

That is the downfall of video poker. You can't manipulate the deck.

Slot machines on the other hand you can. Back when I worked on slot machines we had good statisticians who could produce exactly the results you describe and more (like for example making sure you get a near miss instead of a loss) in order to induce that that "almost there" effect. And they could do this just by manipulating the reels on the machine so as to keep things 100 fair and compliant. Combine that with the right music and just the right timing on the reels slowing down and bouncing (courtesy of yours truly) and you can't not spin again.

Seriously, like, it genuinely felt like I was working in a lab cooking up drugs at some point. And the best part is it was all made in unity.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Chapter 1 is on the White House Office.

It lets me say something I was going to say anyway, based just on what I'd heard about P25 (sounds like an easier version of P-90X).

One part of this group's angle is knowing about Trump 1) that he doesn't have any actual policy commitments and 2) that he's lazy.

What they're trying to do is dump their agenda in his lap. They'll say "oh your supporters will love this" and he'll say "ok, go ahead and do it."

The document is kind of interesting. The group has a secondary goal of just educating people on the workings of government, and this lays out a lot of the personnel who report directly to the president. But when they describe a particular role--say Deputy Chief of Staff for Management and Operations--they say

This individual therefore needs to be meticulous and ideally should possess
a great deal of command-and-control experience.

and you just know they've got a particular person they're hoping to get into that slot. "And guess what, Mr. President, we have a person who is meticulous and has command-and-control experience right over here. What a stroke of luck!"

Anyway, mostly it describes how these offices work in neutral terms. But, for example, of Chief White House Counsel, they say

should be deeply committed to the President’s agenda and
see their role as helping to accomplish the agenda through problem solving and
advocacy. They should not erect roadblocks out of an abundance of caution; rather,
they should o"er practical legal advice on how to promote the President’s agenda
within the bounds of the law.

Eastman is a part of the team that put this whole document together, so I'm thinking that's who they have in mind for that spot.

Fewer juicy things in this chapter than in the forward.

20 Pages. Worth it for the glimpse into how various positions within the White House operate.

 

[Narz]

and you just know they've got a particular person they're hoping to get into that slot. "And guess what, Mr. President, we have a person who is meticulous and has command-and-control experience right over here. What a stroke of luck!"

Trump is a perfect cover for someone like that.

He's the ultimate distraction device, the man of our time really.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

should be deeply committed to the President’s agenda and
see their role as helping to accomplish the agenda through problem solving and
advocacy. They should not erect roadblocks out of an abundance of caution; rather,
they should o"er practical legal advice on how to promote the President’s agenda
within the bounds of the law.

To be honest that sounds perfectly reasonable. People working as aids to someone who holds a position of power should seek to obey that person, carry out his will and generally do everything within their power to ensure it is done as long as it is within the bounds of the law. As opposed to being obstructionists that put blocks in front of their boss. I don't see anything controversial here. It's just basic staffing. It's how every sensible organization works.

I mean, imagine if I kept telling my boss "no, we are not doing this ticket".