Print this post Print this post

The Uppity White Folks Manifesto, Part 3:
Medicare for All Plus Slurs

1,588 words

Part 3 of 3, Part 1 here, Part 2 here

If you are ready for white identity politics but not ready for the ethnostate, that means that you are committed to a form of multiculturalism that works for your people, the founding stock of your nation: Hungarians in Hungary, Frenchmen in France, Swedes in Sweden, white Americans in America, etc. But how do we get there from here?

The first step is to articulate a clear goal: a state that secures a homeland for your people. That means, at minimum, two things: (1) demographic policies to maintain a supermajority and (2) making your language and culture normative, even for outsiders. The next step is to put together a winning political coalition to gain the power needed to enact these policies. However, that might prove surprisingly easy. It may be as simple as giving the people what they already want.

A very large chunk of the electorate in most white countries is “populist.” Populists have two main traits. First, they are somewhat socially conservative and patriotic. Second, they want an interventionist state to protect the interests of the working and middle classes from the elites. Thus they favor social safety nets and barriers to economic globalization.

Our ruling elites want the exact opposite: social liberalism and globalism, including economic globalization, which enriches the elites by allowing them access to cheap labor through both immigration and offshoring.

You can buy Greg Johnson’s White Identity Politics here.

The current political system is perfectly calibrated to maintain the illusion of democracy while consistently not giving the people what they want: social conservatism and the interventionist state. Instead, the political system reliably gives the elites more of what they want: social liberalism and globalization. This elite consensus is often called “neoliberalism.” Jonathan Bowden described it as a Left-wing oligarchy, a hyper-stratified form of capitalism married to Left-wing identity politics, which is no longer about promoting socialism for the working class. Instead, it is about promoting upward mobility within capitalism for previously marginalized groups.

The people are never given the choice of voting for a platform that gives them exactly what they want: conservatism and the interventionist state. Instead, the center-Left offers an interventionist state combined with social liberalism. The center-Right offers conservatism combined with pro-business policies.

Given this setup, you’d think that as the Left and Right trade power, the people would get at least half of what they want all the time. But somehow it doesn’t work out that way. When the Left is in power, it is more effective at delivering the half of its platform favored by the elites: social liberalism. When the Right is in power, it is more effective at delivering the half of its platform favored by the elites: tax cuts for the rich, free trade, open borders, etc.

A system in which the majority get none of what they want, all the time cannot be seriously described as a democracy.

But as long as the people have the right to vote, we can change this system. Let’s look at some numbers. The populist voting bloc varies from country to country. It also varies depending on how one measures it. A 2015 study of the American electorate by Lee Drutman is highly suggestive. [1] Drutman mapped voters on two axes: their attitudes toward Social Security (a welfare-state measure highly popular among working- and middle-class voters) and immigration (a key trait of globalization).

The populist electorate favored maintaining or increasing Social Security while maintaining or decreasing immigration. This turned out to be 40.3% of the electorate, the single largest bloc. Liberals and Leftists, who favor maintaining or increasing both Social Security and immigration, are 32.9%. Moderates, defined as those who wish to maintain Social Security and immigration at present levels, are 20.5%. “Neoliberals” and free-market conservatives are defined as those who support increasing immigration and lowering Social Security. They constitute just 6.2% of the electorate. Yet their preferences have been consistently triumphing since the late 1980s.

Identitarian populists already have the largest voting bloc on our side: 40.3%. All we need is to win over 10% more of the electorate from liberals and moderates. This should be possible because they want contradictory things: both immigration and Social Security, or, more broadly: both globalization and an interventionist state that promotes the interests of the masses.

But you can’t have both. You can’t have open borders and free trade as well as high wages and the welfare state. Open borders lower wages and overburden the welfare state. Free trade means dismantling barriers to a single global price for labor, which means pauperizing workers in the First World.

The economic consequences of globalization are clear to anyone who knows basic microeconomics. [2] It should be possible to convince moderates and even some liberals and Leftists that they want incompatible things. Then we must force them to choose. If forced to choose, most will choose First-World prosperity and the welfare state over globalization. But we don’t even need to convince the majority of them. Based on Drutman’s poll, we need to convince only one in five liberals and moderates to create a solid electoral majority. We can do that.

You can buy Greg Johnson’s Here’s the Thing here.

I have two caveats about Drutman’s analysis.

First, elections are naturally fought on more than just two issues. But if you were to poll the electorate on their attitudes toward the welfare state and free trade, or government healthcare and political correctness, or environmental regulations and interventionist foreign policy, you would find roughly the same breakdowns. Populists want a strong welfare state plus less free trade. They want government healthcare and less political correctness. They want a cleaner environment and an America-first foreign policy. In sum, populists want nationalism, patriotism, and social conservatism plus an interventionist state that looks out for the majority.

Second, Drutman’s issues — Social Security and immigration — can be analyzed purely in economic populist terms. But, as Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin argue in National Populism, economics is not the sole force driving the rise of national populism. Today’s populists don’t oppose immigration simply because it lowers wages. They also oppose it for identitarian reasons. Immigration is changing their homelands beyond recognition. It is endangering the future of their nations. Thus they want it stopped. Identity, moreover, is not just a contributing factor in modern populism. For many, it is the decisive factor. Indeed, many people would prefer to preserve their national identity and sovereignty even if it makes them less prosperous. By emphasizing identity as well as economics, an identitarian populist movement can appeal to more people and also motivate them to sacrifice economically for its cause.

What would an American identitarian populist movement offer the Right? Patriotism. Social conservatism. An end to political correctness. An America-first foreign policy, which means fewer wars. It would not offer the Right more libertarian economics (including open borders) and neoconservative global interventionism. But those views are unpopular even on the Right.

What would an American populist movement offer the center and the Left? State intervention in the economy, including a welfare state, to help the working and middle classes. Environmentalism. Massive spending on education, infrastructure, and research and development, including space exploration. An America-first foreign policy, which means fewer wars. It would not offer the Left open borders, political correctness, and anti-white identity politics. But those are not all that popular even on the Left. In short, identitarian populism would give the Left “Medicare for all plus slurs,” a phrase that was coined as a parody but sounds like a platform to me.

The free-market Right has long used immigration as a cynical weapon against the welfare state. You can’t have open borders and a functioning welfare state. An identitarian populist movement should use the welfare state as a cynical weapon against immigration and neoliberalism more broadly.

Conventional free-market Rightists reject a Scandinavian-style welfare state in America because they fear it would become a fiscal black hole. From a populist point of view, that would be a virtue. A new raft of highly popular entitlements could be used to suck dry centers of elite power: the military-industrial complex, big business, and academia.

One could fund a welfare state through tariffs on foreign manufactured goods and confiscatory taxation of the super-rich, especially those who made their fortunes through outsourcing and open borders. An insatiable welfare state could be used to defund foreign aid, interventions, and wars. It could also gobble up subsidies to higher education. Finally, to keep such a welfare state sustainable, a nation would have to close its borders and repatriate tens of millions of illegal immigrants. That’s a plan worth trusting.

This is just a sketch of how an identitarian populist movement could mobilize tens of millions of uppity white Americans who think some form of white identity politics is necessary and moral, even though they are not ready to consider more radical White Nationalist positions like the ethnostate. But these people are still rejected by the political establishment, which holds that identity politics for whites — and only whites — is simply immoral.

Tens of millions of white Americans have no political representation. They increasingly understand that the political system is not just designed to ignore them but to replace them. They are angry and searching for alternatives. This presents an enormous opportunity to talented and ambitious political outsiders. Whoever mobilizes these millions will write the next chapter in the history of American populism.

If you want to support Counter-Currents, please send us a donation by going to our Entropy page and selecting “send paid chat.” Entropy allows you to donate any amount from $3 and up. All comments will be read and discussed in the next episode of Counter-Currents Radio, which airs every weekend on DLive.

Don’t forget to sign up for the twice-monthly email Counter-Currents Newsletter for exclusive content, offers, and news.

Notes

[1] Lee Drutman, “What Donald Trump Gets About the Electorate,” Vox, August 18, 2015.

[2] For more on this, see my essay “The End of Globalization” in Truth, Justice, & a Nice White Country (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2015).

 

8 Comments

  1. nineofclubs
    Posted December 17, 2020 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

    A great piece.

    In 2019, the Democratic Audit UK group published an article which made a similar point: Citizens with economically left-wing and culturally right-wing views vote less – and are less satisfied with politics. They are also politically orphaned, with no political parties representing this position in 8 out of 16 European countries surveyed in 2006.

    https://www.democraticaudit.com/2019/11/15/citizens-with-economically-left-wing-and-culturally-right-wing-views-vote-less-and-are-less-satisfied-with-politics/

    .

  2. Afterthought
    Posted December 18, 2020 at 1:50 am | Permalink

    I applaud the article for understanding that the winning formula cannot be “right wing”; it has to be a movement of racial unity en route to a government of racial unity.

    Even such a splendid movement would never be viable in America as a whole, and hence we have to split the country up.

    Once that happened, we could make use of a slow cleanse and buffer states for non-whites who do not want to live under The Crazy.

    Under no circumstances would the Enemy let us go, so the honorable, peaceful, respectful and logical campaign for Partition would itself build the sinews of the new state and conclude with a general strike and unilateral declaration.

    5 methods for obtaining Partition which can be pursued simultaneously:

    1) a court case challenging Texas v White

    2) a constitutional amendment allowing secession

    3) a convention of states

    4) a senate treaty ceding territory to and establishing terms with a shadow government representing the new nation

    5) an appeal to the UN treaty often used by the Enemy to split up other nations

    After this election is over, in a month or so, it makes sense to establish a Partition party that will run 2 candidates for every office in America; one on its own slate, and one in the GOP primary. If we lose the primary, we torpedo the GOP in November.

    Again, not a right wing party but a pragmatic party of unity that represents Heritage Americans of all stripes.

    4 years we could not afford to waste were wasted on everything from hitler to yang; everything except this winning formula. I am yet optimistic that now, at the midnight hour, we will do what must be done before the jaws close shut forever and the New Religion is enshrined.

  3. Vehmgericht
    Posted December 18, 2020 at 6:43 am | Permalink

    Doctor Johnson is correct to point out that the Good Society it is not simply a matter of political economy (as it used to be called). That is the libertarian delusion, which only produces Machiavellian individuals and a deracinated polity dominated by selfishness and greed.

    A civilisation should have a purpose: the flourishing of its founding ethnos, and a style of artistic and technological endeavour. Such things cannot endure in a culture of decadence and cynicism, so that it is vital to identify and isolate influences and persons that tend towards entropy and chaos.

    Volksgemeinschaft is a dirty word since the Second World War of course, but I wonder if something might be salvaged from the idea, and perhaps those on Counter-Currents knowledgeable on the topic of distrubutism might want to weigh in to enlighten the rest of us?

  4. HamburgerToday
    Posted December 18, 2020 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

    Great essay. Really draws the different strands of ‘dissident politics’ together to see how the mesh (or fail to mesh).

  5. Right_On
    Posted December 18, 2020 at 9:38 pm | Permalink

    Re “Many people would prefer to preserve their national identity and sovereignty even if it makes them less prosperous” :
    A survey taken immediately after the Brexit vote showed that a majority of Brexit supporters realized that leaving the EU would make Britain less prosperous, but they voted for Brexit anyway. I was one of them!

    Re “One could fund a welfare state through . . . confiscatory taxation of the super-rich, especially those who made their fortunes through outsourcing and open borders” :
    Sounds tempting. But doesn’t globalization mean that the rich bastards can now move their HQs to more tax-friendly states?

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted December 19, 2020 at 3:45 am | Permalink

      Yes, they can move. But tariffs also mean that they may no longer be able to sell their products.

  6. Northern Light
    Posted December 18, 2020 at 10:56 pm | Permalink

    Good piece, thank you Greg Johnson for publishing this.

  7. Ijsbeer
    Posted December 20, 2020 at 9:44 am | Permalink

    Basing the policy of a national populist party on this two legged approach, socially & culturally “right wing” , but economically & politically “left wing”, already exists in some European countries.
    Right wing i.e. being conservative, patriotic anti-immigration and anti PC.
    Left wing being pro interventionist state , pro welfare state to constraint globalist elites.

    The most successful Western European party in that regard – to the best of my knowledge – is the one of Flanders : Vlaams Belang [Flemisch Interests (first) ]. Most of the workers have been flipped, to the horror of the labor unions, who are forced to double down on their pro-immigration efforts.
    Last election (in 2019) VB got 19% of the votes , the polls last month gave them above 26%.
    If anything , it proves the GRA (Greg recommended approach) has an enormous potential.
    When the focus lay primary/exclusively on the Right wing topics , the results were 7 to 11%

    Also note, there is a second- -alàs civic- nationalistic party NVA over here with about 21%.
    26 + 21 that is rather close to elites going all the way nuclear.
    They will.
    And so will be the resulting red pilling.

Post a Comment

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.
 
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

*
*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs

    Cynosura

    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics

    Rising

    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Reuben

    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance