Counter-Currents
2,697 words
The following text is an interview I gave to a reporter. I don’t know if it will be used, but I made it clear that I would publish the full text at Counter-Currents. Now the whole world can quote from it.
White Nationalists need to understand exactly why I think Andrew Yang is important. As far as I am concerned, nothing essential depends on whether he is sincere about his proposals, gets the Democratic nomination, wins the presidency, or can implement his policies—even though I would like all those things to be true. If your first instinct is to splutter out any of those objections, you don’t understand what I am doing here and why such considerations are irrelevant.
I can’t control any of those factors, and neither can any other White Nationalist. What we can do is use Yang as an occasion to inject ideas that are important to White Nationalists into broader popular discussions, which is what I am doing here. As always, the key is to use politicians, not let politicians use us.
1. What are your general thoughts about the Trump administration?
White Nationalists supported Trump because he supported some policies that we also favor, principally immigration restrictions (including the border wall and the Muslim ban), protectionism, and an America first foreign policy. We think these policies are objectively good for the white majority.
I have no doubt that Trump was sincere about these policies when he announced them. He could have won the Republican nomination and the presidency without them. He chose to fight a two-front war against the Democrats and his own party because he thought these issues were important.
But once in the White House, Trump lacked the skills and—let’s be frank—the character and the moral seriousness to keep his promises. The cucking started hot and heavy from the very beginning of his administration. I wrote my “God Emperor No More” essay on April 8, 2017 after the Syria strike.
Trump spent his first two years giving Jews and Republicans whatever they wanted, without first getting what he wanted from them. I didn’t need to read a book on The Art of the Deal to see how stupid that was.
I hoped that the midterm elections were a near-death experience that might have got Trump back on track. But no. We’re still waiting for that executive order on birthright citizenship.
The last straw for most White Nationalists came in the 2019 State of the Union address, when the boomer-con in Trump came out with an ad lib on increasing immigration, as long as it is legal. Then he doubled down on it. “Legal” immigration is a coward’s and a cuck’s—that is to say, a Republican’s—way of talking about immigration, because it is a euphemism for the real problem: non-white immigration.
We need immigration restrictions because most immigrants, legal and illegal, are not white, and as their numbers grow, America will increasingly resemble the Third World countries from which they come. Trump actually referred to these countries as “shitholes.”
But now he is claiming that “our corporations” need more immigrants from “shithole” countries because “it’s good for the economy.” The populists who put Trump in office don’t think the profits of corporations are a good reason to destroy the ethnic composition and harmony of the nation. This is standard Republican talk. As soon as a lot of White Nationalists heard that, they were simply through.
It is not so much that White Nationalists are off the Trump train. The trouble is that Trump is off the Trump train. We didn’t change. He did.
2. Do you feel that Trump has helped to make White Nationalist thought more mainstream?
Trump made the discussion of some of our issues more mainstream, and indirectly he opened the way to more mainstream discussion of our more fundamental ideas, if only because the Left wanted to stigmatize Trump by trotting out some of his more extreme supporters.
Even though Trump has been a disappointment as a President, he made important—and permanent—metapolitical gains.
First of all, he broke the Republican gentlemen’s agreement to never broach populist measures like immigration restriction and protectionism.
Second, Trump helped reorient political debate in America away from the false and superficial opposition between Republicans and Democrats to the deeper issues of nationalism and populism versus globalism and elitism. The American people want a socially conservative interventionist state that protects the working and middle classes from globalist oligarchs. Trump offered that synthesis.
The other parties are united by their refusal to give the people what they want. Republicans pay lip service to conservative values. Democrats pay lip service to using the state to defend the people from elites, as well as to fewer wars. But in reality, both parties only deliver what the current oligarchy wants: global capitalism and foreign adventurism combined with ultra-Leftist values. In the end, Trump gave the oligarchs what they want, too. But there will be a new champion of National Populist values, because that is what the people want, they are increasingly aware of it, and they are increasingly convinced that they will only get it by sweeping away the current political establishment.
Third, Trump triggered the Left to drop the mask of sanity. I don’t think the days of civility will ever return. White Americans are increasingly aware that the Left doesn’t simply hate Trump. The Left hates them and their values and wishes to replace them with non-whites. Democracy involves different groups in society trading power. That is really possible only if the different groups regard their rivals as part of the same overall people. White Americans are increasingly aware that the Left is not “their people.” It is a coalition of non-whites and alienated, non-typical whites, united by hatred of the white majority. There will come a time—perhaps in 2020, perhaps in 2024—when white Americans will not cede power to the Left, no matter what the outcome of the election. That means that American democracy is broken. The Democrats broke it. But Trump was the trigger.
3. Do those in the White Nationalist and far-Right movement feel that President Trump supports them, after recent comments claiming that the movement is small?
No serious White Nationalist was under the illusion that Trump supported us. He used to support ideas that we supported. But those ideas stopped far short of White Nationalism.
As for his comment that our movement is small and full of problems, that is indeed true. We have a lot of problematic people because American civilization is collapsing, and white men are the primary victims. We have lots of people who are alienated and unemployed. We have lots of people from broken homes, fractured by the drugs, alcohol, and drama of selfish and degenerate parents. We have lots of people with drug and alcohol problems and personality disorders of their own. We have lots of people who are willing to lash out violently against the system that has betrayed them.
We had rather hoped that President Trump might help these problem people, by tackling globalization, immigration, the opioid crisis, and other maladies afflicting white America. But he’s turned his back on us.
However, as long as white dispossession continues—as long as whites see their communities declining because of diversity and their living standards destroyed by globalization and immigration, all to a din of anti-white hate coming from the mainstream media and academia—our numbers will only grow. White dispossession due to immigration and globalization is the primary force driving the rise of National Populism in every white country. White Nationalists are not causing this wave. But we are going to surf it to power and influence.
The closer an election is, the more important small groups of people become—especially highly energetic, motivated, and creative groups. Our movement was even smaller in 2016, when we were Trump’s most ardent supporters and the scourge of the cuckservatives. But we didn’t just post memes and arguments. We also voted, encouraged other people to vote, and worked to counter voter fraud. Trump won by a razor-thin margin: 107,000 votes in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. He knows very well how important our efforts were in the last forty-eight hours of the campaign to flip those states. He won’t win again without us.
4. What are your thoughts on candidate Andrew Yang, and has there been a general shift from those in the movement beginning to support him for President? If so, when did people first begin to support him, and how often do you encounter mentions of Yang online?
Andrew Yang seems like an intelligent and sincere guy. He is not white, but he is the only Democrat who opposes anti-white identity politics. He is also the only Democrat who has talked about the problems afflicting white America. I will vote for him in the Democratic primary, and I will vote for him as President if he goes up against Trump.
Yang appeared right around the time Trump announced his final betrayal on immigration. Many White Nationalists immediately shifted their support to him. Yang memes became omnipresent overnight. Generally speaking, those White Nationalists who fully embrace National Populism immediately saw Yang’s appeal. Those who still retain residual elements of mainstream conservatism—especially the ideology of “free market”’ economics—are skeptical of Yang. But they will come around in the end.
5. What are your thoughts on Yang’s Universal Basic Income proposal?
I have been an advocate of Universal Basic Income (UBI), and more broadly Social Credit economics, since 2011. See my essay “Money for Nothing.” I have also been an advocate of debt repudiation. See “Thoughts on Debt Repudiation.”
A Universal Basic Income is an excellent idea for several reasons.
First, it is a way of creating money and putting it in the hands of consumers that bypasses two vast and parasitic categories of middlemen: banks, which charge interest, and social welfare bureaucracies.
Second, it is a way of dealing with the consequences of automation. When machines put people out of work, they can’t be allowed to starve. Besides, somebody has to buy and use the products of automation. We can automate production, but not consumption. The whole point of the economy, after all, is to provide goods and services for people.
Third, it would be good for the arts and culture. It would free people from basic material necessity to pursue educational and creative activities.
The knee-jerk reaction of those schooled in the ideological pseudo-science of “free market” economics, namely that a UBI would cause “inflation” is highly dubious. (See my essay “The Austrian Economic Apocalypse?“)
To make a UBI work, however, we would have to make some important changes in our present society.
First, the best way to fund a UBI is not to raise the money by taxes or borrowing, but for the state simply to create money out of nothing. We need to move to a pure fiat currency that is entirely decommoditized, i.e., a currency no longer subject to interest, inflation, or deflation—perhaps even a currency that cannot be saved.
Second, the UBI should not just be a safety net for people put out of work by mechanization. The overriding goal of public policy should be to promote scientific and technological advancement to put us all out of work. Our aim should be the Star Trek economy, in which material scarcity has been abolished by technology. See my essay “Technological Utopianism and Ethnic Nationalism.”
Third, creating a UBI would necessitate limits to immigration, both legal and illegal. We cannot give a UBI to the entire planet. Our country is already being flooded by people looking for free stuff.
Fourth, a society with a UBI will have to create conditions in which leisure promotes self-cultivation, not self-destruction. It would have to address the problem of highly addictive and destructive habits—not just alcohol and drugs, but also pornography and videogaming—otherwise a UBI will simply enable large numbers of people to waste their lives. We will also have to give people more positive things to do with their leisure by improving education, giving subsidies to edifying forms of high culture, and encouraging public spiritedness over private hedonism.
6. Are White Nationalists legitimately supporting Yang, or is this just rhetoric online on sites like Jab and 4chan?
I think that quite a few White Nationalists sincerely support Yang because he has better policies than anyone else in the race. Others support him just as a protest, because they are heartily sick of Trump. If America is going to hell, they figure, why not America going to hell plus a thousand dollars a month? Others are just enjoying the Yang memes and the new sense of excitement, purpose, and unity Yang has brought us.
7. For those who do support Yang, how do they respond to his statements that he rejects support from White Nationalists?
Of course he rejects our support. Yang is probably sincerely anti-racist, while we would prefer to live in a society in which there are no Andrew Yangs at all. But generally speaking, White Nationalists find Asians to be the most agreeable non-white group in our society. This is a movement full of anime fanatics, with a fringe of rice burners. Many of them would welcome our new Asian overlord.
Beyond that, we are genuinely pragmatic. We supported Trump despite his obvious faults, because he coincided with our interests. Now that Yang looks like he will advance our interests, we’re Democrats. Now the Democrats really are “the real racists.”
Yang might not like us. But here’s the thing. He will still cash our checks, and he can’t prevent us from arguing for the merits of his proposals, voting for him, and encouraging others to vote for him. Whether he likes it or not, White Nationalists might put him in the White House.
8. Are those in the White Nationalist and far-Right movement feeling more emboldened than ever before?
In a word, yes.
Long-term demographic trends are ominous. As I argue in The White Nationalist Manifesto, if we do nothing—if we do not implement White Nationalist policies—the white race will go extinct. That concentrates the mind wonderfully. That imparts urgency and moral seriousness to our cause. But white extinction is a couple centuries away. So we also have some time to maneuver and turn things around.
Moreover, medium-term demographic and political trends are working in our favor. As Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin argue in National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy, the rise of National Populism is being fueled by four deep-seated trends that are not going to abate any time soon: distrust of the establishment, destruction of communities by immigration, the decline of white working class and middle-class living standards due to globalization, and the breakdown of people’s alignments with existing political parties.
Eatwell and Goodwin actually argue that the only way we will get beyond National Populism is if established parties adopt National Populist policies. Which means that the days of globalist hegemony are over, and the future belongs to competing forms of National Populism. That is an environment in which White Nationalists will flourish.
The primary cause of rising white racial consciousness is not White Nationalists like me. Instead, people are waking up in response to objective events—because diversity causes conflict and globalization causes deprivation. Once people wake up, White Nationalists try to deepen their understanding of why these processes are taking place and offer workable political alternatives. But even if we were completely censored and deplatformed, racial polarization and social breakdown will continue to rise until we abandon multiculturalism and globalization and adopt National Populist ideas.
White Nationalists win every honest debate, because truth is on our side. Censorship and deplatforming won’t stop us, because to do that, you’d have to shut down the Internet, and the global economy depends upon it. Immigration and globalization are pushing more people in our direction all the time, and the establishment keeps doubling down on the same failed policies. And now, with the rise of Andrew Yang, American White Nationalists have a new cause around which to unite our warring tribes. White Nationalists have good reason to feel more emboldened than ever.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
65 comments
Inflation isn’t a rise in prices, it’s the creation of money out of thin air. The system that we have now basically. Except it’s (((the banks))) who create money out of thin air, create the boom/bust cycle then get bailed out by the government. If money is no concern, why not make it $5 thousand per month? This Yang stuff is just a way to deal with Trump failing his base.
Why not $5million? There is no free lunch. You are correct re inflation, which is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. Rising prices just reflect changes in supply and/or demand. Some people at this site badly need to read Rothbard, THE MYSTERY OF BANKING and “The Case Against the Fed”.
I am astounded, as I often am, at the coherence and fluency of thought, in this transcript of an oral interview.
There’s nothing astounding in substance; it’s just recent history and common sense. But the answers are very clear, without the usual hems and haw and tergiversations.
Yes, the Ancient Greeks said they would give up slavery once the wheels turned by themselves. We’re almost there and instead of seeing as the fulfillment of the dream of the ages, we’re acting like it’s horrible; something that gets in the way of “Capitalism”. And at this rate, we’re likely to turn it into an utter disaster that insists joblessness if people’s fault and they deserve to die out on the streets. As ever, the People perish for Lack of Vision.
A couple of points on your support of Andrew Yang:
You claim to merely be using Yang as a vehicle by which to inject an idea you support – UBI – into the pool of mainstream thought. This would be an acceptable position to take were one living in a vacuum, however we must ask ourselves what the price we pay by going down this route: we would hand over control of the executive branch of government to the Democrats.
I realize we live in the world of the “two party, Jew party, queer party” system, but one of those parties is far, far worse than the other. The Democrats have crossed the Rubicon into Clown World and made their alliances with the minorities, misfits and degenerates. The Republicans are the only party even ostensibly aligned with White interests.
The strategy going forward should be two-fold: keeping the Democrats out of power by any means necessary and building real-world networks of people so that when the shit finally hits the fan, the movement has a hope of building something from the ashes. Democrats in power will only accelerate this slide into oblivion, and if they get their wish of destroying what’s left of the nation, Whites better be ready for what comes (and at the moment, they certainly are not).
We are never going to get anywhere by aligning ourselves with the GOP as you are doing.
The GOP takes whites for granted as they betray our ethnic interests. The party needs to be destroyed utterly, and a new genuine National Populist party needs to rise from the ashes.
Yes, I understand the revolting and ultimately one-sided nature of such an alliance, and I am not suggesting anything of the sort. It is merely a tactic to buy time enough to get organized for what is to come.
While the Republicans do their best to distance themselves from White Nationalism the Democrats have clearly made it their mission to destroy Whiteness per se .
This is clearly a case of getting behind the lesser evil, and I would strongly suggest not lending any credence to candidates that fly the Democrat colors – Yang, Gabbard, etc.
Yang is going no where fast except in the digital ghetto and in some overactive imaginations. I really hope that nobody is giving Yang money or doing real work for him.
Bernie Sanders is the only populist candidate in the race with credibility. If the choice ultimately comes down to Sanders or Trump, given what I know now I think that Sanders would be the best, lesser evil choice for the mean white person given Sanders support for a populist program that unlike Yang’s is actually credible and attainable. If the choice comes down to any other Democrat or Trump, Trump and the GOP, despite all of their failures, betrayals and support for anti-white policies, may still end up being the lesser evil. It won’t be clear which party has nominated the lesser evil for some time yet.
What idiocy! (((Sanders)))? That illiterate Marxist hypocrite with a criminal wife would put the US into a permanent depression. That would be great for working White people. Oh yeah. I wonder … what kind of people are you? Where do you people come from or live? Are you all brainwashed twenty-somethings with no real world experience who support WN because you’re sick of being bullied by nonwhites – instead of supporting it because we wish to preserve our race and extend its civilizational achievements into the far future? This movement is not a joke, nor one for the fickle or fainthearted.
The Trump economy is the best of my life. Undeniably, it is the best since the late 90s (which was a pure internet-frenzy bubble combined with some legit growth mainly due to a huge Clintonian post-Cold War defense drawdown). I am enraged at Trump’s mostly stupid and ill-considered support for legal immigration (but why not give the man the benefit of the doubt, that he speaks off the cuff without any deep policy understanding?). But that should not blind us to his real achievements – esp in putting lots of White men back to work. Where’s the gratitude??! And we should trade this great capitalist economy for the socialist mass poverty of Sanders? Does no one remember the Cold War? Can no one see the massive differences in poverty and prosperity between such great Sandersite economies as North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Maoist China, etc etc, as compared to South Korea, Hong Kong, state capitalist China, West Germany, etc?
It looks like unseriousness about populism, which means unseriousness about helping the mean white person with his very real struggles in the economic domain of life, while fighting the last war and treating preaching to the choir like it’s a stroke of genius.
I realized a long time ago that real irony in these circles the last few years is that the vast majority of the people in them who think they’re trafficking in clever satire and irony don’t know what irony is.
When you think you’re having fun but look like a fool, and the only one who doesn’t realize it is you and other people behaving like fools, it’s a good example of actual irony.
Trump, for all his failings, has promised neither a) “open borders”, as have many Democrats; nor b) some kind of amnesty for illegal aliens, as have ALL the Democrats, in one form or another (except maybe Yang; I have to check on this); nor c) any type of “reparations” for Negro slavery, as have several Democrats; nor d) any type of gun ban, something supported to varying extents by every Democrat. This quadrafecta of “non-negatives” alone earns him our votes.
There is no argument at all against the assertion that Trump is the lesser evil compared to ANY Democrat. What has Trump done that is so bad from a pro-White perspective? Unless one is a hardcore Jew hater (as opposed to most pro-Whites, who are merely JQ-realists), and hate Trump for being more pro-Israel than Obama, our anger with him is over what he has failed to do. I expected more on immigration, but otherwise, he has been pretty much what I expected. Who could possibly think Hillary would have been better?
Exactly. The GOP exists to give money and power to rich people and Jews. Nothing can be achieved by any longer trying to work within it. Trump proves that . Genuine conservatism is revolutionary and only possible outside the GOP
Why do you say it is “knee-jerk” to suppose that injecting $250+ billion into households won’t cause inflation? If the money is not raised through taxation or debt, then it will have to be printed. If increases in the quantity of money without corresponding increases in the quantity of goods doesn’t cause inflation, then what does?
The basic question is: where does this money come from? He’ll either have to raise taxes, which is politically unpopular, and defeats the purpose of the UBI since that money would have been spent anyway (on investment to create jobs, not just on consumer goods), increase the national debt which threatens to downgrade our bond rating and increase interest rates putting us on course to a debt spiral, or print money. And if you don’t think printing money and injecting it into the economy causes inflation, then why not demand UBI payments of $100,000 a month? Let’s all get rich!
We have had trillions of dollars of “quantitative easing” since 2008 without hyperinflation. I think that refutes the simple idea that increasing the quantity of money other things being equal leads automatically to inflation.
It has led to inflation – in the stock market. The fed has been purchasing long-term bonds from companies since 2009 and all of that money went into equities. Why do you think the stock market has been on a bull run since early 2009, when we weren’t even in the trough of the last recession? Stock prices are forward looking but unemployment remained high for years after the start of the bull run.
For now the US dollar is by far the largest global reserve currency, mostly because other countries have been forced, owing to US military and economic dominance, to use it for buying and selling crude oil in the international markets.
Roughly 80% of all existing U.S. dollars currently circulate or are parked abroad. To the extent its reserve status remains somewhat intact, severe inflation in the domestic economy will likely be averted.
But this situation is fast eroding, as the Chinese Yuan and IMF Special Drawing Rights are gaining traction. It’s unwise, of course, to hazard a precise prediction as to when exactly massive sums of US dollars will begin flooding back into the US, but when this does occur, the dollar’s century-long ongoing devaluation via excessive printing ( or digitization, in our era ) will accelerate.
QE may not “automatically” or immediately lead to hyperinflation, but it is not irrational to fear that at some point the effects of excessive increases in the supply of abstract usurious debt money will be disastrous.
$12 K per year is not enough to free anyone from having to work, be productive, saving more than he consumes, and otherwise focusing on life’s bare necessities. As commenter OMC asks, if we say that monetary inflation does not lead to price inflation, then why limit the monthly freedom dividend, as Yang terms it, to $1K? Why not $100K minimum? If there is a limit, how does one even determine it?
This is standard Austrian economics.
I have an alternative explanation for why dollar creation has not led to inflation. Inflation is what happens when a currency is treated as a commodity and its value declines. But what if currency is decommodified, i.e., what if it becomes a pure medium of exchange with no secondary market or price (interest)? Would such a currency be inflation proof? Is the US dollar being treated as, in effect, a decommodified medium of global exchange, valuable simply because it is always accepted as a medium of exchange?
I develop these thoughts here: https://counter-currents.com/2014/10/the-austrian-economic-apocalypse/
Yang says openly that he wants to enter politics because he is afraid that his fellow Chinese tribesmen will become hated in America as the US-China rivalry will only increase in the future.
To achieve this goal, of ethnically interested self-promotion, he has put forward this “Caesar’s -Free Grain Dole 2.0” which of course it is certain to arouse interest and propel him on the national stage.
Caesar introduced his dole (43 BC) for similar reasons. Caesar understood that the “Republic was not coming back” (just as the factories from China are not now coming back, for that stiff tariffs on imports would need to be introduced, Trump be damned) and that the path forward was that of the autocratic state of dictators and emperors.
And that because the very basis of the democratic Roman Republic (yes it was a fully functional democracy even by modern standards) had disappeared. It disappeared gradually over the period of a century as Rome expanded greatly in the 2nd and 1st century BC (sort of globalization) and the basis of the Republic, the financially independent and proud Roman citizen-farmers-soldier each working a small plot of land and rising a family, all went bankrupt and unemployed because they were unable to compete with the cheap grain brought now from North-Africa and Egypt, and also unable to compete with the large-consolidated pieces of land ‘latifundia’ owned by the Roman aristocrats and worked with the nearly-disposable slaves (cheap-labour) brought into Italy in large numbers by those successful expansionists wars.
The masses of now unemployed Roman citizens, all with voting rights and thus albeit dirty-poor still very important politically, were wandering through Italy with their families (if they had one, demography began to drop as well, reaching crisis proportions by the late 1st century BC) or were filling the city of Rome and living from begging or odd jobs. The Republic collapsed in series of with civil wars in the 1st century BC and that in no small measure because of the large numbers of unemployed citizens with little to lose and willing to create mayhem and do plunder.
Caesar understood that something needs to be done, at least to avoid the periodic collapse of the state, and introduced the Yang-1000 solution for the proles.
Yang is a smart political entrepreneur. He is not addressing at all the last 40 years of betrayal of the nation by the elites which have brought to despair the white working class…. The outsourcing of the American jobs and industries to the cheap-labour of Asia and which, combined with importing into US dozens of millions of cheap-labour immigrants, collapsed the job-market, created unemployment, drove down the wages and created a crappy “Walmart”-type of economy which sells Chinese trinkets, etc…..No, forget about that, the cause is not in the past but in the future ! Yang has decided to offer to the proles the ‘free-dole-grain’ solution and, skillfully, to avoid addressing the cause and project the cause of the present problems in the would be “automated SF future”, not in the nation wrecking policies of the last 40 years. He want the the present system be preserved, it can’t be rolled back to the pre-globalization state, but compensatory measure have to be introduced otherwise it will blow up as the late Roman Republic.
But nothing ever will make the laws of economy disappear. They did not disappear in the Roman world as Caesar introduced his free grain dole and the Roman republic faded away into the absolute rule of the emperors. It merely created a politically docile-imbecile underclass which will drugged itself into oblivion. Since they did not have strong drugs as fentanyl and videogames back in the Roman times, the emperors and the Roman aristocracy had also to provide ‘games’-circuses- in addition to bread so as this class of politically dead people to remain sedated and pass their lives away.
Well encapsulated. I have read enough to know that you are correct, but your summary is stRiki-Eikingly good.
Are those in the White Nationalist and far-Right movement feeling more emboldened than ever before?
In a word, Yes, says Greg Johnson. In a word, Yes, says Richard Edmonds.
.
Good job, as usual.
Where I’m from we used to call the shitty Kawasaki and Suzuki bikes of the 70s and 80s “rice burners.” Never thought of it as a mixing thing.
Shitty? Not so sure about Suzuki, they seem to be more into making roadworthy light (motocross-like) bikes and scooters (including giant ones). They are fine for the intended tasks.
However, Kamasaki, Honda, and Yamaha all make and have made very good big bikes. The best in the world.
Credit where credit is due.
In the meantime. Harley-Davidson has been on life support of one kind or another for years … and in making types that are plainly inspired by Japanese designs … and in moving jobs away from the U.S.A.
As for UBI, Russel Crowe was widely ridiculed, to paraphrase, instead of the bank bailouts, why not just give everyone a million dollars?
However, his error was only because, like me, he recalls the true definitions of billion (ten to the twelfth), and trillion (ten to the eighteenth).
I checked his calculation, it was correct.
Can forgive Americans for deriding him on it, since the are used to and have enforced the incorrect usage, but those from other places simply displayed their ignorance of primary school arithmetic.
I don’t know, fiat currency works as long as the continuous bubble of overpopulation, and over-exploitation of resources continues, and a population of people capable of co-ordinating it (mainly white and east-asian) remains, and resources remain.
Fiat money collapses at any point people lose confidence in it. I am not an economist, but know more of economics than some who are.
How was the current hyper-inflation in Venezuala set off?
I am sure that some in the U.S.A. and their supporters did it.
The mechanism, though, was to create shortages (or the illusion of shortages).
In a short time, fiat currency was in free-fall.
I am sure the ‘Bolivarian’ govt. has many talented economists on their side, but they were unable to stop the process.
The rise of Andrew Yang? You’re joking, right?
He’s going nowhere. He may be a Ron Paul type who speaks to future politics, but he won’t clear double digits in the Dem primary.
In terms of AI, robotics and trans-humanism – it does require a response, namely total or near-total bans. Yang doesn’t want a total ban, he wants to march right up to “the point of no return” and then shield humanity with a new bureau.
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/regulating-ai-emerging-technologies/
Do you like the track record of the IAEA in stopping the spread of nuclear weapons? Then you’ll love your new robotic overlords!
In fact, what Andrew Yang is worried about is hordes of angry people – why are they going to be angry? Their ability to feed their families ruined by robots. What are these angry people going to do that Andrew Yang is so fearful of? Establish the type of government we want. That is what the $12,000 per year IS MEANT TO FORESTALL – OUR TYPE OF GOVERNMENT!
Duh!
In the real world, no one actually supports Andrew Yang in this movement; it is the “insiders” trying to push it on the rank-and-file. This push, thankfully, is failing.
The vacuum that the collapse of the Alt Right left in its wake is best filled by a peaceful, honorable, respectful campaign for Partition – the actual mechanism to get your “racial divorce” and get the white nation that one supposes white nationalists are fighting for. Or is it to happen by magic?
#YangGang2020
The pro-White case for the universal basic income is as follows:
1. Elimination of the parasitic, self-serving, left-wing welfare bureaucracy
2. Welfare babies would become financial burdens rather than assets, reducing alien underclass birth-rates disproportionately
3. More time and energy to spend with family, friends and community, increasing White birth-rates and social capital
4. More time and energy to form tight-groups, engage in nationalist activism and self-improvement, reduce ex-workers stake in the system, facilitate the creation of pro-White fight clubs
5. Whites are more likely to discover nationalism in their free time than at work, especially if they are economically freed from wage-slavery
6. Reduce urban sprawl by decreasing the financial incentive to work in the city and encourage healthier, less expensive rural living
7. Reduce business revenue (less income for consumerism, higher prices lower demand), increase business costs (more worker turnover, fewer hours worked, less employment, de-stigmatise NEETism, lower human capital, higher wages, better conditions) and reduce tax revenue for the anti-White state
8. Incentivise economic migrants to leave and disincentivise more from coming by lowering GDP
9. Higher taxes to fund the basic income deter skilled aliens from immigrating and encourage their emigration, increasing White predominance and further reducing GDP and tax revenue
10. As taxes increase to fund the basic income, reducing your working hours or quitting altogether to live on it becomes a more attractive option, weakening the anti-White state, the consumer economy and the institution of wage-slavery
11. Harden public attitudes toward immigration, soften them toward deportation, increase public support for nationalism and force politicians to tighten citizenship
12. Make low-skilled immigration more costly economically and politically
13. Increase political autonomy and expression by preventing greedy employers and commie snitches from ruining nationalists financially
14. Disproportionately discourage female labour force participation, reward housewives and reduce the burden on non-welfare mothers, raising White birth-rates
15. Weaken anti-White state brainwashing by reducing university attendance and enabling more homeschooling
16. Encourage paternalism to reduce publicly-funded vice like drug use/obesity
17. Undermine anti-White unions and left-wing parties by reducing labour force participation and working-poverty
Would universal basic income even work? Would not prices simply inflate to account for the increased cash being spent? You would have to engage in some sort of price fixing and then be on the road to a command economy more or less like the Soviet Union, wouldn’t you? Would not it have to be combined with Medicare for all? I like the idea, but I don’t think it would have much practical impact.
Like I said, we’ve had trillions in bailouts for banks since 2008 without inflation. So whatever causes inflation, it is more complicated than just increasing the money supply faster than goods and services. That might be sufficient for inflation in Zimbabwe and Venezuela. But it does not necessarily translate into inflation here.
Sellers don’t have the super-power of raising prices just because they think they can. If they did, then we would have to discard basic microeconomic theory.
Yang says he would finance the UBI with a 10 percent value-added tax on production, which is foolish, because that money gets spent by the producers (on R&D, new factories, stores – i.e. on jobs – and on financial assets, which help the economy and middle class savers who own mutual funds and Roth IRAs). He wants to siphon investment spending, which creates new industries and jobs, into consumer spending, which uses up resources. If producers pass the cost of this 10 percent tax on to the consumer, that will be no different than if the $1000 UBI payment was financed via money printing. Either way their check will lose value.
A VAT tax is a bad idea. The wokest way to fund UBI is simply to create money out of nothing. No taxation. No borrowing. The state needs to take the power to create money away from banks.
Then the same thing would happen to consumer goods that happened to the stock market after the Federal Reserve began purchasing MBS’s and long-term debt from financial companies. The stock market went on a bull run in the middle of a deep recession, even before unemployment peaked, because the financial companies poured their new cash into equities.
The UBI checks would be worth less and less every month.
Money cannot be created out of nothing. That must lead to inflation (which temporarily would get exported, due to global dollar hegemony, but eventually would lead to a global dollar collapse, and then the inflation would boomerang home, and destroy tens of millions of the lives of the best people in society).
I think a UBI is a terrible idea. I am actually shocked and surprised at how sheerly utopian you sound, as though none of the last century’s worth of conservative and libertarian scholarship has any value or useful insights into the character of men under different forms of political economy. UBI would simply create an even larger class of useless eaters than the one private sector taxpayers like me already have to support.
Of course, this assumes that we have shut off mass immigration to ensure it is even minimally affordable. How’s that long time WN goal working out so far? Here’s an idea, similar to how I have been arguing for 30 years with loony open border libertarians. When I say, parroting Milton Friedman, that we can’t have open borders and a welfare state, and they respond by saying, OK, let’s eliminate the welfare state, I counter-respond by saying, “Great! You eliminate the welfare state first, then we can argue over open borders.”
You end mass immigration first – then we can debate UBI (because without the former, the latter does not even pass the prima facie plausibility test, so any further discussion is a waste of time).
That said, by far the best way, from a WN view, to fund a UBI is via steep progressive income taxation. This is so for at least two and maybe more reasons. The higher up the national income ladder we move beyond the top 10% threshold, we find 1) more cosmopolitanite/globalist/anti-nationalist sentiment, as well as 2) more Jews, and 3) more professional class parasites and financial manipulators (ie, persons whose wealth is tied to manipulating laws and general political rent-seeking, rather than the core economic productivity upon which a UBI must rest to be viable). Of course, there is much overlap between 1, 2 & 3.
@Lord Shang ‘Money cannot he created out of nothing. That would lead to hyper inflation..’
Money is actually created out of nothing right now. Most Western nations have handed the privilege of creating their money supply (and the profit, or ‘seigniorage’ that goes with it) to private banking corporations. The banks create new money each time they issue a loan, which is why the money you’ve saved at your bank doesn’t disappear when the bank makes a loan to someone else.
So this new money is created out of nothing, but it does *represent* something. That something is the future earning capacity of the borrower. Inflation isn’t rampant today because the amount of new money loaned into existence is limited by the productive capacity of us, the borrowers.
The problem I have with UBI isn’t the underlying SoCred or MMT stuff about how new money is/could be created. That’s all correct as far as I can see. My main issue is that UBI money will be spent by consumers on imported electronic bric a brac, whereas the nation could – alternatively – be using that spending power to do nation building work, or directing it to communities to fix crumbling infrastructure or institutions.
A UBI might also be inflationary in some circumstances, but spending ‘national credit’ into existence on productive capacity would not be.
And at the end of the day, would you rather pay someone to do nothing, or for working on something for the public good? As Lenin said, ‘He who is not working, does not eat’.
See also:
http://www.jamesrobertson.com/book/creatingnewmoney.pdf
.
This is all well said. I like the idea of paying people to do public works projects. But one could still implement a UBI.
The loans created by banks are not money. That is credit creation, which is an asset for the bank. Deposit creation is money creation because that is a liability that is drawn from bank reserves. Social Credit cultists don’t understand the basics of money if they treat bank loans – credit – as money.
Credit is money.
@ OMC. ‘The loans created by banks are not money. This is credit creation..’
If it spends like money, then it is money for all practical purposes.
Credit is created by private banks as loans and destroyed when the principal component of the loan is repaid (the usury component is another story..). Money creatded by the state can be spent into circulation and destroyed by taxing it out of the economy.
There is no practical difference between the two, except (1) the profit which comes from creating new money currently goes to private banking corporations instead of the nation’s citizens. This is, without exaggeration, the greatest swindle in the history of capitalism’s many swindles; and (2) new money loaned by commercial banks tends to be directed by market forces, so whatever is currently profitable will attract funding. This isn’t always healthy, as in Australia where we now have a real estate ponzi situation sucking investment away from tech innovation and other healthy investments.
For a detailed explanation of money creation, have a look at ‘Creating New Money’ by Huber and Robertson. Available here in PDF form for free..
http://www.jamesrobertson.com/book/creatingnewmoney.pdf
,
I remember reading, years and years ago (I’m 70+) about how the farmers in Germany were wiped out from 1918 to 1933, by foreclosures from the big banks. The foreclosures caused farms to shut down that had been in the family for 200 – 500 years. THAT was what caused the farmers and other German citizens to turn their back on the ‘arrests of bankers and their families’ starting in 1933 onwards. I also read that Chancellor Hitler closed the national bank and began printing money through his new government at that time, and it worked. Sorry if this sounds hazy, it was a long time ago, and I don’t remember the book name. But, can that be done now? Without the ‘arrest of the bankers and their families’ of course — that didn’t end well.
Inflation is caused by too much money chasing too few goods and services – not the creation in money supply itself. The unspoken ancillary of UBI is that it be covered by the far greater productivity of an automated society dominated by AI (Yang has sought to make this connection, though perhaps ineffectively).
The unsaid and concealed truth of modern economics is that potentially a very small employed portion of the human population could (say a few hundred million people with aid of mass robotics and AI) can provide all the reasonable requirements of the whole human population without any further assistance from the remainder of that population.
They have been predicting this since the early 20th century but now the technology is such that it really would be possible.
However the true challenge is a revolutionary change in the social system. I call it the ‘Morlock problem’ – what does this small portion of the population gain from supporting this grand nation of eloi? Modern capitalism itself completely prevents any solution immediately out of its sick, self-serving principles, and a completely inappropriate response I feel may have damned and destroyed communism and socialism before it.
That is the real challenge of this age, finding a solution to this problem which has never existed before in known history,
As life becomes easier, culture and institutions like marriage and family have to become stronger — more normative, more edifying, less tolerant — or morals, culture, and the race itself will degenerate. Otherwise, we will look back on an irrational world filled with pointless suffering and labors with nostalgia, because at least it forced some human beings to be tough, creative, and virtuous.
It would be a farce if all the striving and suffering of human history ended up with nothing but a world of fat consumers in sweatpants, riding around on mobility scooters.
The penultimate stage of the revolution will be to outsource the outsourcers: to replace the captains of industry with bright young MBAs from Bangalore who will work for far less. The savings will be distributed as social dividends. The last stage of automation should be the replacement of the oligarchs with machines — cash machines, from which we draw our UBIs.
Yes, I realize that, but the difference is that the bailouts have not entered the general circulation. There has been a ghastly inflation in the wares of the Davos types—fine art, stock market, high end real estate. These people are not competing with us for carrots at the supermarket. When middlemen realize they can jack up the price of necessities five fold without a drop in sales, won’t they?
Inflation =/= price rises
Deflation =/= price decreases
Every time milk goes up, that is not inflation. Every time orange juice goes down, that is not deflation.
If you have inflation or deflation, that means that the value of money either rises or falls. It makes no sense to say that inflation can be isolated in certain sectors of the economy. There is not Davos money, that is inflated, and Joe Sixpack money, which is not. Money is completely fungible. Which means that if there were dollar inflation in the last decade, it would be manifest in across the board monetary devaluation.
When did middlemen get the superpower to jack up prices at will without a drop in sales?
Actually, if you listen to the latest kunslercast with David stockman, he discusses the inflation of the assets! Just this thing—we must have tapped into the radio waves.
Greg, QE did not cause massive inflation for two reasons. (1) QE represents an increase in the monetary base, which is not the same thing as the money supply. The money supply contracted in 2010 as the monetary base (reserve creation) was increasing, because trillions in dollar denominated financial assets like repos and Eurodollars became worthless . Imagine if you have your cash parked in money market accounts like commerical paper or euro dollars, and these become worthless because the borrower can’t pay the loan back. Then the value of your “cash equivalent” holdings decreases. M2 and M3 both declined in 2010 and their growth was modest afterwards. If more money is leaving the system because M3 is declining, that counterbalances all of the new reserves created by central banks. (2) As I said, the only major price increases during the recession were in equities. What do you suppose drove the bull market that began in March 2009 which was almost a year before the trough of the recession, and years before the economy surpassed anemic levels of growth? The only explanation is that financial companies parked their QE funds into the market. Financial companies don’t want to hold a lot of cash, so they put it in cash equivalents or equities. They weren’t going to spend it on real assets in a deep recession, and when stock prices are climbing at a steady pace you hold on to them. This has nothing to do with the dollar being treated as a commodity.
On printing money, inflation, UBI’s and the Job Guarantee.
http://www.jobguarantee.org/
.
Has anyone here read Yang’s book on UBI?
The War on Normal People: The Truth About America’s Disappearing Jobs and Why Universal Basic Income Is Our Future
Worth looking at?
I am going to review it in April.
Supporting UBI can (imo) work in a transitionary sense. But the final consequences of free support (in whichever shape) is dysgenic. And dysgenics always lead to… well, what we see today.
“final consequences of free support (in whichever shape) is dysgenic. ”
It is dysgenic in the long term, generations, not the case here….In our case it a compensatory measure devised to prop the system, to save it from itself. The system which has emerged in the last 30-40 years of globalization. It aims to take out the steam out of the nationalist-populist revolt that we see all over the Western world.
In France the Gilets Jaunes battling the Macron-regime are the former French working class who has been marginalized economically and socially by last 40 years of globalization. The very white French nation, you hardly see a single non-whites among them. The ‘French de souche’ except their white-French elites who live in the rich metropolitan ares (which have benefited from globalization) and who live in those urban-centers surrounded by the their colored servants whom they have brought from the third-world, and whom they coddle with the ‘anti-racist’ (anti white-French) ideology.
You don’t want to the take the steam out of the revolt. You want to amplify the tensions and to overthrow the system. You don’t want to lull back the white-proles into disengaging from the political reality and withdraw into playing ‘vidya’ all day long while Yang’s dole takes care of their meagre “free bread”.
“It aims to take out the steam out of the nationalist-populist revolt”
Yes, but that will not necessarily happen. Take for example the point that a UBI can only work if immigration is limited. In general, measures like UBI have a way of spectacularly backfiring. If things really were this easy, it would have be common practise the world over.
PS: When I started computer science in the late 70’s the school found it necessary to distribute a leaflet that told us that we might be contributing to “higher unemployment” by working in the field. Ah..
“Take for example the point that a UBI can only work if immigration is limited. ”
If this is a valid argument (let’s say it is) it will never be implemented. Flooding US further and ending ‘white supremacy’ is an moral imperative for the Left and its anti-white alliance of minorities….but it will serve to distract attention and defuse the angst against the US elites and their policies of outsourcing and deindustrialisation
“In general, measures like UBI have a way of spectacularly backfiring”
As such, “accelerationism” – inducing a backfire- I would support it myself if it were to create such an outcome, but it is not in this vein that it is pushed by Greg and other white-nationalists.
Yes, I agree with that.
Call me closed-minded but I refuse to entertain the notion that White Nationalism can come from outside the white “tribe” and I would consider it folly to vote for an Asian Democrat over a German-Scottish Republican and self-described nationalist on this issue.
“self-described nationalist”
Who cares how Trump self identifies?
Signaling and labels are important. If Trump as a white man makes people comfortable voting for a “nationalist” perhaps they’ll be comfortable voting for a white nationalist down the road.
Well, in that case, Trump is undermining the nationalist label by making people see it as nothing but tax cuts for the rich and pandering to Israel.
Next!
I fear electing a white Republican or conservative will be more likely to make white voters complacent, while riling up the left, as Trump has. Electing a non-white might have the opposite effect, which will work in our favor. For instance, one might recall how ordinary Republican voters were riled up by the prospect of the Obama presidency, and how quick they were to believe in a coming dystopia.
Yang will not implement white nationalism – that is not the point. That will come later…
We might as well get what we can from this stinking system before it eventually implodes, additionally unlike the white candidates Yang has spoken out about issues affecting white people – thrusting those issues into mainstream discourse.
You should view a vote for Yang as a temporary measure, a step on the way to an eventual European American Revolution.
Anyone explicitly talking about white issues gets my vote.
I do not believe in a Universal Basic Income, and I sure do not believe in a ‘fiat currency that cannot be saved”. When you are intent in involving the great American Middle Class in trying to help save the White race, then you have to work with what they understand. And we understand ‘working and saving’. I am here at this site and buying books on White Nationalism to learn the basics, but I believe that what I did in life (working 53 years as an office drone with 2 (unused) college degrees) and saving money for a safe and secure old age is the basis of wisdom of the White race. Certainly our third-world compadres who are storming our gates have rarely, if at all, tried ‘working and saving’. The middle class is already terribly stressed as their neighborhood disappear into a ‘multicultural’ no-man’s land, and they do NOT need to be stressed further with a massive change in their currency and banking system at this time. Yes, I do know — even before I had read your several marvelous essays on the “Jewish problem” — that we in the middle class are being cheated by bankers. But until we get more money, land, and new homes into our lives, no one is going to desert the homes they already have, or say ‘yes’ to a massive restructuring of their money! They (and especially, ME) have worked hard and studied hard how to work with the capitalist system, and while I want desperately to change the racial mess in this country, I see no way to do it without having my hard-earned pennies in the bank, and in Social Security, IRAs and 401Ks, keeping my fridge full and the lights on. I LOVE what I have been reading here, and I want very much to become more active. I’m retired and have time on my hands (though still have at least 10 more books from CC to read!), but I am awaiting orders. Thank you for writing and publishing intelligent messages for this massively-needed movement.
To adapt a proverb, “Scratch a White Nationalist and you’ll find a Republican.” One need only scan this comment section to see how true it can be.
Some wisdom from Evola: “What must be questioned is not the value of this or that economic system, but the value of the economy itself.”
I’m starting to worry that scratching a White nationalist will yield a callow Millennial who doesn’t understand economics, but wants free stuff now, and doesn’t care about the future.
I would not be totally opposed to a UBI in an all-white ethnostate, though it is the height of arrogance to avoid examining centuries’ worth of conservative and libertarian objections to such a piece of socialism. I will wait until Dr. Johnson reviews Yang’s book on UBI (he should simultaneously review the similar book by Charles Murray from the last decade), then I’m going to weigh in on this debate. Although I was always whitepilled (pro-White), from grade school in the 70s until today, I was for a long time an anti-nonwhite-immigration libertarian. I wouldn’t call myself a Libertarian, but only because that ideology too long was associated with “generous” or even open borders immigration. But I studied a lot of free market and anti-socialist theory, and am aware of both the theoretical deficiencies of socialism, as well as the deleterious historical record of every variant of it, from communism to syndicalism to fascism to social democracy to welfare statism. UBI might work in a high-IQ ethnostate, just as social democracy sort of worked in places like Denmark. In a diverse country like the US, it would be a complete disaster, like every other government social program. Who always bears the burdens of these failed government initiatives?
Middle class white people. Always. Name an exception.
And, OBVIOUSLY, without total immigration termination, UBI would be nothing but a magnet for freeloaders from across the world. Has evil Yang talked about reducing or abolishing legal immigration?
The answer to America’s economic problems (which have already been reduced thanks to Trump and the GOP) is old-fashioned conservatism:
1. stop all legal immigration (exception for refugee Whites fleeing Africa)
2. deport all illegal aliens
3. restore laissez-faire capitalism (tax and spending CUTS, deregulation, privatization)
4. abolish the Fed, or at least restrict its inflationist ability; restore the gold standard
5. reduce the size and scope of the Federal Govt’s intrusions into the economy as much as possible
6. general legal and especially tort reform
7. start removing all able-bodied persons from eligibility for any type of welfare.
This would trigger a huge economic boom. UBI would do the opposite (until it precipitated the collapse of the entire economy and nation).
Machines put people out of work – that’s the whole point under the Capitalist ethos of making money by not having to pay people. There’s a lot fewer girls working in the library and supermarket because of machines. It’s accelerating and 40% of the jobs will be gone in a few decades.
Is this the best for Whites? Or humanity? Wrong question. No one ever even asked that until the crisis was upon us. It’s simply the best road from HERE. Maybe machines should have been used to enhance human craftsmanship as the Luddites and Gandhians said? Now that’s really Utopian with guys like you in control, eh? But putting millions out onto the streets, now that’s Practical and exactly what’s going to happen if trends are allowed to continue.
My straightforward and candid impression from reading this article of Mr. Johnson: Sound and valid overall but a bit too optimistic vis-a-vis the harsh and ever-worsening realities, and seemingly too much unreserved, insouciant, and lavish praising of Andrew Young.
And, incidentally, what is this? “But even if we were completely censored and deplatformed, racial polarization and social breakdown will continue to rise until we abandon multiculturalism and globalization and adopt National Populist ideas.”
Are the two “we” appearing in this sentence referring to the same group of people? If yes, how could “we” get censored and deplatformed while holding high banners of multiculturalism and globalization? If no (which I assume is what the author actually meant), why use the word “we” in the second place? Won’t it sound better and more cogent if the second “we” is replaced by “they”?
It’s wrong to say, like Johnson does, that our (((current system))) of money creation through lending money into existence is effectively the same as “pure” money creation by the state according to some MMT scheme. The debt part is missing from the MMT scenario. That’s decisive because indebtedness determines how money, once created, is spent. Free money will be spent in wanton ways. Money incurred through indebtedness is, admittedly not always but to a large degree, spent with a view on being able to pay it back. It is highly likely that UBI would set in motion an inflationary wave, starting with prices for everyday consumer goods. This wave would work its way through the economy. MMT/UBI then proposes to tax the rich on the other end. In reality the rich always get away while it’s the middle classes that end up being taxed. The capacity of the middle classes to be taxed will soon be exhausted. If the state responds with increased money creation on the UBI side, then it’s difficult to see how hyperinflation would not be the eventual outcome. The point is that politicians always feel the positive effect of money creation well before increased inflation starts to haunt them.
This prediction is reinforced by the political circumstances within which UBI/MMT would be implemented. Even if helped into office by White Nationalists, no less, a Democrat government would always despise them. The true power base consisting of immigrants and atypical whites would demand being served first; Democrats would duly comply. Whether that would occur through UBI or MMT-style work creation schemes targeting low IQ, low-skilled workers would not matter. The inflationary wave would always follow.
Having said that, Johnson should perhaps just be a little bit more thorough in his analysis or even more honest. The entire proposal sounds as if it was born out of desperation. Why not risk hyperinflation if the the richer elements among the middle classes tend to vote liberal anyways? UBI may well have the benefit of providing more nationalist elements of the white working class with some breathing space. If hyperinflation is the eventual outcome, then they may even end up debt free.
You still have to take into account that MMT, at least, is to a large degree being pushed by academics. We all know (((who))) dominates academia, so why are we seeing MMT being pushed? This question leads into conspiracy theory territory but it must be asked. Is it because full blown (((socialism))) is to be ushered in because the (((financial system))) is becoming unmanageable?
On the other hand, MMT/UBI would surely undermine the dollar while the dollar’s status as reserve currency is crucial if the USA is to remain the power base. It all might make sense if a financial crisis is to be engineered first. People will then be so scared that socialism and eventual hyperinflation will become acceptable to them, especially if that leads to debts going up in smoke.
The bull argument might hold that the chosen ones might indeed be loosing control to the forces they have set in motion by instigating uncontrolled third-world mass immigration. If Trumpism is not the answer, then some more creative Jiu-Jitsu is required. Why not take one step beyond UBI and seriously contemplate the chances of survival if the majority is not White anymore? Think of Egypt. Whites in the form of Copts still exist there, even after more than a thousand years of Muslim domination.
Speaking of creating money, we could learn from Guernsey island experience:
1st example: This excerpt came from a little book, A Matter of LIFE or DEBT ,page 97:
Between 1817 and 1820 in the island of Guernsey, they had been suffering the general depression and unemployment that followed the Napoleonic wars. Guernsey’s State debt stood at 19,137 pounds and bore an annual interest charge of 2,390 pounds when its annual revenue was only 3,000 pounds. The island badly needed a new market hall, and its harbor, dikes and roads were in urgent need of repair. An appeal to London was made for a loan but the Government said it had no money to spare. The island’s governor then called a meeting. Was the work urgently needed? he asked. Yes, was the unanimous reply. Had they enough materials on the island, had they plenty of unused labor? Again, the reply was an emphatic yes. All we need, then, is the money, declared the Governor, so we will print it. This was done in the form of special 1-pound State note secured by the revenue-raising capabilities of the new works in the future; the real credit behind the notes lay in the proposed new works, in particular the market hall. The contractors were paid with these notes, which in turn were paid to the workmen and others who supplied the materials, and they were accepted throughout the island by the shops and local banks as being sound money. As new building and repairs were completed, incoming rates, rents, and dock dues went to pay back the currency, which in time, was destroyed.No debts, arose and no long-term interest payments. The hungry unemployed found work and incomes, trade improved, and the entire island began to enjoy a new found prosperity. [end excerpt]
Note the part about currency being destroyed. That’s how inflation is controlled.
Supporting Yang as a meme to get exposure for our ideas is probably wise. However, if Yang were really elected, his UBI might just act as a palliative to put Whites back to sleep and reduce the urgency of populism (even though it would be personally beneficial to those that have lost jobs from doxxing, content creators, etc).
Even neocons like (((David Frum))) are realizing that it’s tactically wise for them to dial back the rate of immigration somewhat, which suggests that getting the left to go in for accelerationism would benefit us. In that vein, we might secretly hope for a Kamala Harris type of Zionist non-White Dem to run against Trump, as she would provide a perfect foil (as a disagreeable Globalist-Zionist), rather than someone like Yang, who might actually temporarily moderate the suffering of Whites in America–allowing them to be lulled back to sleep and thus guaranteeing our eventual demise.
Additionally, prior to Spencer’s alienation of Alt-Lite figures, truly nationalist and pro-White ideas had a decent amount of circulation in Alt-Lite circles, thanks to the Alt-Right’s demonstrated loyalty to Trump. If prominent movement leaders like Greg go all out for Yang, it may reduce our currency and ability to recruit from more mainstream conservative groups. Indeed, Yang is terrible on a few key issues, including gun control and illegal immigration. Perhaps engagement with him on Twitter can change his mind, but I doubt it; if not, it will just muddy the waters further. Certainly recruiting passive supporters is less important than building an active and committed core support group, but still…
There’s one thing you’re missing, unless I misread. Current welfare systems create the perfect circumstance for minorities and people in poverty to have higher fertility rates than White (and also Asian) America.
Currently welfare recipients (majority black) are more or less given incentive to have multiple children, and women are encouraged to have baby daddies to receive child support payments. Andrew Yang wants to scrap the vast majority of welfare systems that currently exist to replace them with the $1000usd/month plan, and honestly I am positive that you would see a near immediate boom (and corresponding bust elsewhere) in the fertility rates of white america, who are finally getting the support needed to have families, while at the same time, families in poorer areas are no longer being subsidized to have families that they can’t afford.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment