Democracy Collapses As The Debt Bubble Pops

by Brett Stevens on April 16, 2018

Socialism, like eating the seed corn, sounds good in the moment but sews misery for the future. The seed corn refers to the grain that one sets aside to seed the fields next year; during a long winter, when food is scarce, it is tempting to dip into this, but it means that in the next winter, there will be even less to eat.

Conservatives saw equality as ridiculous because it was conjectural. Egalitarianism takes the form of a begging-the-question fallacy: “If we make everyone equal by social engineering, we will end conflict, tolerate differences, and achieve Utopia.” Like all emotional outbursts, it ends in tragedy when the opposite happens.

The reason for this confusion goes back to cause and effect. Every effect has one cause, but until some time passes, we do not know what the effects of any cause are, since it can have many. Most of human history consists of a series of actions taken by people, and then their effects, which is why we study it to learn the likely effects of our acts.

With egalitarianism, however, cause and effect are one. We assume that by enforcing equality, we make equality, when in fact the missing step is what is required to make that equality happen. Even equality of legal rights requires us to ignore the fact that some people are career criminals and others innocent victims.

Equality also represents a path like those horrible 80s movies where a character tells one lie, then another to cover the first, then a string of lies that can only end in an apocalypse for their lives. When we say we are equal, and results are unequal, we have to either admit we were wrong or double down. We double down every time.

In this way, human vanity and pretense get the best of us. We state that what we want is true, mainly just to advance our social standing. This traps us in a lie, so we must force the lie to be real, which in the process destroys that which we were hoping to safeguard, namely our people. It is a mental trap like addiction. “Just this once…”

When a civilization elects to have equality, it has signed its death warrant, and the next stop — after years of decline in order but increase in wealth and power — is third world status. It will just drop off the radar of history as things fall apart, and it cannot do what is necessary to be relevant.

There is no sadder cliché than an adventurer moving through previously unexplored jungle and finding the remnants of a great civilization. What took them out? They lost direction, and tried to manage their people by bribing them with equality, which ended in suicide of the society. Nothing but ruins persist.

In the modern West, we went down the path of equality and really picked up the pace after WWII ended our only opposition and the fall of the Soviet Union took out our only competition. Now, we thought, the good life began, and so we allowed unions, Leftists, special interests, and identity politics to take over.

As it turns out, this was a Roman Holiday. We ate the seed corn, drank the seed grape, and now we are heading into complete bankruptcy because the voters — yes, you: you approved this, at least a statistical majority of you did — chose free stuff now over health and sanity later.

Our first clue is seeing once prosperous states enter a tax-and-spend death spiral, where the more they owe, the more they take from their citizens, until the citizens flee:

Illinois is losing its promise as a land of opportunity. Government debt and dysfunction contribute to a weak housing market and a stagnant jobs climate. State and local governments face enormous pension and other obligations. Taxes have risen sharply; many Illinois politicians say they must rise more.

People are fleeing. Last year’s net loss: 33,703.

The cycle can continue for awhile while the money is good, but over time, it means that those who achieve anything will see it taken away and wasted. The politicians cannot stop it; they fear lowering pensions or defaulting because this makes whoever is in office look bad. As a result, they pass the buck, every time.

The states cannot face the reality that not only do they lack the money, but they never had the money. Pensions that fully vest at twenty years and pay close to the full amount of the highest salary an employee earns were victories for unions, who would have shut down police and fire otherwise and watched the cities burn.

However, even if the states had dumped all of their available money into these funds, there was no way to make it work. A number of employees “double-dip,” or put in twenty years in one post and twenty in another, retiring with two full salaries or nearly that amount.

The state cannot afford to pay for up to seventy years of salary — since many live into their 90s or beyond — for twenty years of work. It doubly cannot afford to pay it twice. Had there been any honesty in the original calculations, the obvious impossibility of this would have been obvious.

However, unions have government protection, and the voters need their police especially as diversity and breakdown of the family cause ever more deranged crime, so the states gave in. Now many of them are facing the same death spiral, which is that they are paying out more than they ever had, and will have to default.

Witness the pension crisis in liberal Oregon, where obligations far exceed receipts and even paying off part of this debt will sink other vital programs:

Oregon — like many other states and cities, including New Jersey, Kentucky and Connecticut — is caught in a fiscal squeeze of its own making. Its economy is growing, but the cost of its state-run pension system is growing faster. More government workers are retiring, including more than 2,000, like Dr. Robertson, who get pensions exceeding $100,000 a year.

The state is not the most profligate pension payer in America, but its spiraling costs are notable in part because Oregon enjoys a reputation for fiscal discipline. Its experience shows how faulty financial decisions by states can eventually swamp local communities.

…Oregon’s Public Employees Retirement System has told cities, counties, school districts and other local entities to contribute more to keep the system afloat. They can neither negotiate nor raise local taxes fast enough to keep up. As a result, pensions are crowding out other spending. Essential services are slashed.

This is part of the death spiral. As states cut services to focus on their ballooning debt, things like police and firefighters are some of the first to go. Schools, too, are able to do less. Infrastructure is forgotten, as is investment in the future. This turns once-prosperous places into ghettos just like the Soviet Union.

Democracy allows voters to decide to spend money with no accountability. The vote is secret, and those who made the choice are never called upon to defend it or pay for it. Even more, they can elect for a bankruptcy that will come due after the likely end of their lives, leaving externalized cost for future generations.

It would be one thing if it were the states. The large cities are swamped with debt, as is the federal government. Not surprisingly, most citizens have done the same. It is the sign of a dying empire: no one believes in tomorrow enough to sacrifice greed today.

Luckily, this crisis will mean the end of many things. This is the “Berlin 1945 moment” for modern democracy. Affirmative action and other non-value-producing sunk costs will die. All social services will perish, probably taking with them public schools.

While this seems like a crisis, and it will be because of the loss of value of our currency in international trade, it means that we are pruning the dead wood. We never could afford these pensions, or all the Leftist social welfare programs that take up 60% of our budgets, so now reality is going to inform us of this fact.

From the dust and ashes of the collapse of Leftist society will come a new, more realistic order. Many losses will occur, and many people will be bankrupted. Destruction will be vast. This however is not nature taking revenge on us; it is the nature of mathematics, correcting for our illusions. Turns out we needed the seed corn after all.

Distributism Fails For The Same Reason That Socialism Does

by Brett Stevens on March 19, 2018

Cucking is a state of mind. When we live in a Leftist time, where most of what we hear from others repeats the dogma of our era at us in innovative new ways, most people just want to get along with the rest of the group, which creates a massive market for ideas that seem to be “different.”

Invariably these ideas break away from the mold on the surface but are structurally identical to the dominant paradigm. They appear to be new or different, but boil down to the same options we have known for ages, or worse, produce the conditions of those same options without it being apparent that this would happen.

The stress of being outsiders to the mainstream drives us in a perpetual search for a compromise position in the hopes that then we can be “normies” and still keep some vestiges of our beliefs. That was what drove Conservatism, Inc. toward neoconservatism back in the 1960s, and even further back, made it accept the welfare state.

As people look for alternatives to both capitalism and socialism, distributism appears in more conversations. It seems like it has the advantages of socialism, without being socialism. Is this true? As Varg Vikernes would say, “Let’s find out!”

Distributism grew out of a Catholic doctrine that it is better for the wealthy to independently support the less wealthy than it is for the state to intervene. A philosophy advanced by Trad-Caths Hillaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton, distributism combines formalized charity with union-style worker ownership:

Put simply, the principle of subsidiarity rests on the assumption that the rights of small communities—e.g., families or neighborhoods—should not be violated by the intervention of larger communities—e.g., the state or centralized bureaucracies.

…Unlike the socialists, the distributists were not advocating the redistribution of “wealth” per se, though they believed that this would be one of the results of distributism. Instead, and the difference is crucial, they were advocating the redistribution of the means of production to as many people as possible. Belloc and the distributists drew the vital connection between the freedom of labor and its relationship with the other factors of production—i.e., land, capital, and the entrepreneurial spirit. The more that labor is divorced from the other factors of production the more it is enslaved to the will of powers beyond its control. In an ideal world every man would own the land on which, and the tools with which, he worked. In an ideal world he would control his own destiny by having control over the means to his livelihood. For Belloc, this was the most important economic freedom, the freedom beside which all other economic freedoms are relatively trivial. If a man has this freedom he will not so easily succumb to encroachments upon his other freedoms.

…In practical terms, the following would all be distributist solutions to current problems: policies that establish a favorable climate for the establishment and subsequent thriving of small businesses; policies that discourage mergers, takeovers and monopolies; policies that allow for the break-up of monopolies or larger companies into smaller businesses; policies that encourage producers’ cooperatives; policies that privatize nationalized industries; policies that bring real political power closer to the family by decentralizing power from central government to local government, from big government to small government.

Distributism sets up a few contradictory goals for itself: freedom, decentralization, and yet, redistribution of the means of production much as socialists advocated. Like other hybrid systems, it is searching for holy grail that will satisfy both Left and Right.

Chesterton made it clear that he had objections to both decentralized and laissez faire economic systems, which he saw as impediments to traditional life:

Chesterton’s “distributist” project tried to chart a middle course (but not “Third Way”!) between laissez faire capitalism on the one side and state socialism on the other. The problem with the former, as Chesterton wrote in The Outline of Sanity 10 years after the Russian Revolution, was that “The practical tendency of all trade and business today is towards big commercial combinations, often more imperial, more impersonal, more international than many a communist commonwealth.” While of the alternative, Chesterton said, “the point about Communism is that it only reforms the pickpocket by forbidding pockets.”

…For Chesterton, ownership is a self-evident good, which therefore shouldn’t be abolished but widely distributed. Similarly, profit is a good thing, in fact too good a thing not to be shared. Accordingly, what Chesterton took issue with in the then-current defense of capitalism was that it was a “defense of keeping most men in wage dependence; that is, keeping most men without capital.” This conviction compelled Chesterton to lambast big business (which backfired when big chain of news stands refused to sell G.K.’s weekly); to monitor and oppose mergers; to advocate independent proprietorship; and to pronounce on every possible occasion that “small is beautiful”.

…Take a rural example: I have a friend who has made a significant amount of money, with which he has purchased a farm. But instead of working the land for him, the worker keeping the pigs will run the business with my friend, will co-farm, and will then share the profits.

With that excellent example, we see the ideal of distributism: everyone owns a business of some kind or another and receives the profits from it. This modifies the socialist ideal of workers as shareholders in a collective business by splitting that business up and making them, essentially, sole owners of a business that is then partially owned by the larger business.

In a factory, Joe the worker would own a business of making electrical harnesses and take home half of the profits of those harnesses when installed in a car made on that line (assuming that we can factor in a profit to a part of a larger object). On a farm, Jane would own a pig-keeping business, and share the profits with the owner.

While this sounds like a nice theory, we must apply the test that every conservative uses when a “new” idea crops up: if this idea is so great, why did it not turn out this way? Was the idea unknown, given that we have centuries of workers as shareholders? Or was there a reason it was rejected?

Let us look at Jane. Jane receives land on which she can raise her pigs, and presumably a source of food for them in the vegetable waste produced by the farm. She benefits from the structures on that land. What percentage, then, should she receive of the profit, given that the farm owner could hire someone to keep the pigs and take full profits?

The brutal answer from the markets: she takes as much as a worker would take, possibly a little more, but not a whole heck of a lot more, because her competition — unless distributism is every bit as much enforced at the point of a gun as Communism — is what it would take to hire another worker.

Where distributism shines, in my view, is that it is not a union. Unions are collective reward schemes: the worst worker gets rewarded alongside the best worker simply for being part of the union, and the union is not responsive to the market but to an audience of workers, none of whom are competent at starting or running businesses.

On the other hand, for distributism to work, it will require us to divide up property by some kind of force, and then use force to ensure that shares are higher than wages, which then penalizes those who own farms in a method similar to the wealth transfer and collectivization we know from the Left.

This returns us to the Leftist goal of social engineering, or changing the rules by which we survive from those of nature to those that fit what humans want to believe, and throws us into the spiral of enforcing against reality and against our people so that we can pursue a Utopian goal of progress.

In other words, distributism may be a hybrid, but it is more Leftist than Right.

Capitalism receives a good deal of negative critique. The same power that crushed the Soviet Union also made a wasteland of fast food, strip clubs, mediocre high-priced products, corporate jobs of infinite tedium, environmental crises, commuting for hours to avoid living in a ghetto, and a negative effect on our souls where we become not just materialistic, in the sense of seeing the world as if material objects were all that mattered, but also bourgeois, or Nietzschean last men oblivious to everything but their own material comfort, convenience, wealth, social status, and power. We have become tyrants in a world that reduces everything to jobs, buying, selling, and usury.

But was that capitalism? Can we claim that it is capitalism that opens borders and pays welfare to people who then go purchase lowest common denominator products? It makes no sense, either, to blame capitalism for the maze of rules, entitlements, and legal threats that turn corporations from merely self-interested into selfish, or self-interested to the exclusion of all other values. Nor could we credibly blame capitalism for the effects of diversity, anti-discrimination law, wealth redistribution, and wars for democracy.

If capitalism has an epithet, it will be “last man standing,” because every other economic system has wrecked things more. Outright socialism turns people into zombies; even mild Euro-socialism, which is essentially a market driven welfare state, seems to take the heart out of people, make them into meek soyboys, and then so wreck their spirits that they no longer reproduce at replacement rates. Capitalism at least focuses on possibilities and a can-do attitude, where socialism turns daily life into an obsession over other people: do they have enough, are they all happy, even if they are mostly illogical and often self-destructive.

The Left hates capitalism because it is a form of sorting. If nature has a fundamental process, it is sorting, or the recognition that we cannot in advance plan for every possibility of interaction between a planned design and reality. Imagine designing cars: to sit at a table and consider every situation that the car will be in over its lifespan requires processing power and time that does not exist. Mathematically, that dog will not hunt, and in information science terms, it creates the possibility of lock up or permanent loop. Nature came up with an alternative, which is to make many variations on an idea and see which of them hits all of the functions it needs to; this list of functions, taken in parallel, defines the next iteration of the idea. This system always works, and capitalism implements by testing after the event by looking to what survives and thrives; socialism and every other economic system tests before based on predictions, which cannot plan for every possibility and therefore become increasingly unrealistic as they iterate.

Sorting leads to hierarchy, just like standards. If your society is designed around the high jump, the highest jumper is your king and the runners up are your aristocrats, generals, business leaders, reverends, and police. If you remove those standards, then everyone gets to be king for a day whenever they say or do something that delights the crowd, and you get celebrities out of those who delight the crowd the most.

Mob rule however enforces a downward motion in quality. It rewards those who specialize in the trivial. Over time, the people who thrive become the thoughtless, vapid, and insincere, and then society takes on those traits. Without natural selection and a strong morality, human societies self-destruct, time after time.

Distributism does not address this issue. No matter how it is initially intended to be implemented, it will end up with a centralized authority for managing the economy much like socialism; over time, this will behave like a union, subsidizing the weak along with the rest. Over time, those weaker people will predominate because life for them is easier and more certain than for those who are more ambitious.

If we had to describe distributism historically, we would say that it was feudalism for everyone, except that instead of paying rent to his lord, the serf shares profits with the lord. At least, until the lord realizes he can hire someone for a fifth of what he is profit-sharing with the serf, which would cause distributism to revert to capitalism very quickly.

It is beyond doubt that G.K. Chesteron and Hillaire Belloc were very intelligent men. They have each done very great things. Distributism is not one of them.

Socialism Always Leads To Death

So way back in once-upon-a-time time there was this ruthlessly efficient, intellectually brilliant and immensely profitable corporation called General Electric. They saw the barriers holding back human progress and making our lives nasty, brutish and short. They saw opportunity and proceeded to go awesomely rip-ass on those limitations to human greatness.

Here are some of the truffles that these capitalist piggies dug up.

In the century following the Civil War, a handful of technologies revolutionized daily existence. The lightbulb extended the day, electric appliances eased domestic drudgery, and power stations made them all run. The jet engine collapsed distance, as, in other ways, did radio and television. X-ray machines allowed doctors to peer inside the body, vacuum tubes became the brains of early computers, and industrial plastics found their way into everything. All those technologies were either invented or commercialized by General Electric Co.

So GE banked good will, admiration, and aw, hell. They just flat-out raked in the clams! They were everything you would expect from a corporation personally co-founded by Thomas Alva Edison. Show ’em what they win, Dom pardo.

For most of its 126-year history, GE has exemplified the fecundity and might of corporate capitalism. It manufactured consumer products and industrial machinery, powered commercial airliners and nuclear submarines, produced radar altimeters and romantic comedies. It won Nobel Prizes and helped win world wars. And it did it all lucratively, rewarding investors through recessions, technological disruption, and the late 20th century collapse of American manufacturing.

Like any great institution in Amerika, GE was a ripe target for social convergence. It could not be allowed to exist as a counterexample to the narrative. It could not build an edifice competitive athwart The Cathedral. Most of this occurred under the malign stewardship of recently deposed CEO, Jeffrey Immelt.

The shift accelerates GE’s leadership transition as Flannery, under pressure from activist shareholder Trian Fund Management, seeks to reverse this year’s biggest stock drop on the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Under the new boss, GE has said it will sell its fleet of corporate jets and unload its industrial-products operation to ABB Ltd. Flannery is expected to outline his plans for GE’s portfolio of businesses next month.

And why was Immelt unceremoniously shown the way to a safe, fun-filled retirement? The battle damage assessment follows below.

The company had to be bailed out in 2008 by the federal government and Warren Buffett, and across the 16-year tenure of recently departed Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Immelt its stock was the worst performer in the Dow Jones industrial average.

So how did this happen to such a great industrial titan of capitalism and the American Way? Well, they turned Amerikan instead of American. Under Immelt, they went from being a leading contractor in the military-industrial complex to essentially colluding with political leadership to the extent that they really worked more for the government than for any base of private sector customers. They are now so divorced from the actual market where American consumers buy things that they’ve recently sold off their lightbulb division to China. They have predictably found it hard to do business in America when they no longer sell things to actual Americans.

At first, GE survived its transition from capitalism to corporate fascism fairly well. They could shut down plants, fire American work forces and stop inventing anything that DoD didn’t bankroll the R&D on by making up the difference via financialization. GE Finance and Capitol more than made up the difference. Between 1981 to 2001 GE used tax loop-holes to arbitrage between lower US rental rates on capital and then build its facilities in coutries with much lower corporate tax rates than the United States. GE grew from a $14Bn company in 1981 to a $400Bn in 2001.

But then in the 2000s, The Visigoth Holiday in the capital markets ran out of beer. Idiot executive Jeffrey Immelt decided GE could make up the difference by buying up an entertainment conglomerate, fly-by-night financial firms and as much of the medical technology market as he could lay hands on. The latter two sets of acquisitions came to figure in GE’s current dilapidation and Detroiting.

In 2008, the financial acquisitions turned into fit that hit the shan. GE underperformed its estimates by $700Bn. When the capital markets temporarily froze, Immelt was forced to go hat-in-hand to the rest of Wall Street. Warren Buffett decided the company still had enough capital assets to be worth buying into and personally bought a $3Bn share. This proped things up enough for Immelt to live to be stupid on another day.

Then came Obamacare and GE’s involvement in the medical technology business made them a prime player. Like most prime players under Barack Obama, GE and Immelt were sold a bill of fascist goods. As the head of President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, Immelt thought he would always have the inside information on what Barack Obama would allow capitalists to still build.

In particular, GE is a major player in several industries that President Obama has been promoting as part of his administration’s cocksure embrace of industrial policy. With over $100 billion in direct subsidies and tax credits already devoted to green technology, President Obama is convinced that America’s economic future depends on the ability of U.S. firms to compete and succeed in the solar panel, wind harnessing, and battery and other energy storage technologies. Concerning those industries, the president said: “Countries like China are moving even faster… I’m not going to settle for a situation where the United States comes in second place or third place or fourth place in what will be the most important economic engine of the future.”

By 2014, GE had to admit rather sheepishly that progressive neo-fascist corporate subinfuedation to government wasn’t helping the good old bottom line. Here’s what Obamacare did for GE‘s then-dwindling portion of America’s industrial base.

Asked at the meeting about Obamacare’s impact on the company’s earnings, Immelt responded, “I think there’s still a lot of uncertainty in health care and we’ll just have to see that over time.” The company’s health care unit, which produces medical and biopharmaceutical technologies and which grew in 2013, showed losses in revenues, segment profits, margins and orders in the first quarter of 2014. The Daily Caller has reported extensively on Obamacare’s damage to the medical device and technology industry. By February, the health-care law had already cost 33,000 jobs in the industry and 132,000 more were expected, according to a report from an industry trade group.

Just how much did Immelt personally invest himself and his corporation in The Democratic Party’s version of HitLARPing? He describes what being Amerika’s version of Hugo Boss meant to him in a letter to GE shareholders.

[W]e are going through more than a cycle. The global economy, and capitalism, will be ‘reset’ in several important ways. The interaction between government and business will change forever. In a reset economy, the government will be a regulator; and also an industry policy champion, a financier, and a key partner.

It obviously didn’t work. It never works. It never will work. Socialism only leads to death. In the case of GE, it will end up in a sort of twilight un-death. Nobody with an investing brain will look favorably upon GE when they evaluate near to mid-term fundamentals. They will keep getting hammered with downgrades. But they will never quite die. To quote an old Eagles lyric, “they stab it with their steely knives but they just can’t kill the beast.”

Like an the Russian oligarchs after the collapse of the CCCP they still hold assets that are too vital to liquidate or disperse without great upheaval. Almost every helicopter the US Army flies carries a GE engine. Most of the commercial jets in US Civil Aviation fleets are similarly equipped. Outside of Turbomecca de Espana, and absent the workforce at GE, most of the jet engine industry would end up where GE’s lightbulb patents now reside: China.

So GE drags along as a corporation. Similar to how post-communist Russia dragged along until Putin set about cleaning up the wreckage. It is still a viable asset play for investors who want to buy a steak when the price per share collapses below the book value of GE’s capital assets. Warren Buffett or Elon Musk can always use an empty MRI factory for something. GE will thus maintain a coma-victim’s pulse in the capital markets. So maybe Socialism won’t completely lead to GE’s death, but it has certainly brought about this once great corporation’s senescence. Perhaps its mighty and famous founder, Thomas Edison, now spins rapidly in his grave.

Neo-Nazism Is Whites-Only Socialism

Socialists, like all Leftists, worship equality. They believe the State is a family. They believe you absolutely cannot have society without socialism. Anyone who disagrees is nothing but a stoned Libertardian who doesn’t realize flush toilets would be impossible without common infrastructure to dispose of the wastes. People who live in society’s family, on the other hand, can lead the Life of Julia.

But wait. This was Barack Obama. This was socialism that catered to minorities and brought in more minorities. It subsidized the importation of inferior people and therefore got inferior outcomes. Heck, if stocked with moron, affirmative-action pozzoids, Wall Street could even blow up the housing market or something. Put them in charge and major energy companies will immediately steal their employee pension funds and lie about their earnings to boost the CEO’s compensation package. Get too many of those people in charge of the government, and they’ll start pointless, unwinnable wars in countries that have virtually nothing to do with America’s national security intrests. And you don’t really even want them in Congress either. They’ll keep asking NASA scientists where on Mars the US astronauts put up the flag.

Now if you’ve read this paragraph and followed the links, you may well notice that it subtly inverts a common meme you’ll read on one of these websites. Two of the villains in the paragraph above were pozzoid poachers of the worst order. But what of the other three examples? Ken Lay, Ken Lewis, Jamie Dimon and The Bush Cuck Dynasty are all nasty in a common way. They also share a common nastiness with Barack Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee. All five sets of malefactors share the common malady despite the politcally correct !DIVERSITY! of their skin pigmentations. All five examples I’ve cited are at least somewhat incentivized by ideologies that feature large government intervention in markets to improve outcomes. In other words, it’s the introduction of the negative incentivization implicit to socialism that leads every person I’ve mentioned above to do or say remarkably evil things.

To describe things further, the problem with any sort of system where the government takes resources from some people and uses them to benefit the tribe, the order, the race, the umma or whatever, is one of moral hazard. Moral hazard occurs when people recognize that they are able to mine the system, tribe, corporation, nation or whatever we are discussing for benefits without putting any skin in the game. They get membership in the collective without having to pay for it and then start receiving “Lebensraum,” entitlements, artificially inflated stock options or any other collective benefit paid for with the taxes, property or blood of other individuals in the group. This invariably gets abused. This ability to parasite off the system invariably allows the worms to multiply and to eat the beautiful and complex higher-order organism.

The problem here is that many people, even those supposedly on the Alt-Right, believe that socialism involves nothing more than publicly governed, owned or financed property. This is not accurate. Socialism is an ideology that argues that people are entitled to use and enjoy this property regardless of whether they are required to do anything to earn that right. There is some inherent characteristic that allows them a special right to inflict The Tragedy of The Commons on others without concern for the societal outcome. The typical Communist version of this is that a member of The Proletariat gets to do this as redress for past slights or depredations. They even have a potemkin Theory of Surplus Value to accuse anyone who expects them to get a job and support themselves of being an exploiter.

Civic Nationalists subscribe to The Magic Dirt Theory. Get plopped out in the right country and you get all the benefits of that country. You can even directly and deliberately insult that nation like Lt Rapone or Colin Kaepernick and still get all the rights, benefits and privileges of a heroic Combat Rifleman who got an arm and leg shot off back in The Tet Offensive.

Credentialists argue that getting the piece of paper from the right University and knowing all the right people allows you to take over a corporation and run it like Ken Lay, or more recently, Heather Bresch. Again, neither of these individuals has to contribute, they have the right papers so they get to be CEO and rape it for what the futhermucker is worth.

In case of White National Socialists, the entitlement mentality is no different. They are !WHITE! Maybe even genetically white enough to pass as Shuan King. Therefore, they actually expect to receive that Platinum White Privilege Visa Card in the mail that Mr. King hypocritically and dishonestly accuses them of walking around with and using to get unfair benefits. National Socialism, as practiced under the auspices the White Nationalist Movement; is simply dishonest socialist entitlement based on racial characteristics. It’s still a one-way ticket to hell. Hitler’s Berlin ended up just like Democratic Party Detroit. Both were governed by Socialists. Both wound up in ruins. The means vary. The result doesn’t. Socialism leads to death.

And I get the case for preferring white cultures to others. I get that not just because of the fact that I’m corusucatingly white like the undershirts in a Tide commercial. White culture gave us this:

Euclidean geometry. Parabolic geometry. Hyperbolic geometry. Projective geometry. Differential geometry. Calculus: Limits, continuity, differentiation, integration. Physical chemistry. Organic chemistry. Biochemistry. Classical mechanics. The indeterminacy principle. The wave equation. The Parthenon. The Anabasis. Air conditioning. Number theory. Romanesque architecture. Gothic architecture. Information theory. Entropy. Enthalpy. Every symphony ever written. Pierre Auguste Renoir. The twelve-tone scale. The mathematics behind it, twelfth root of two and all that. S-p hybrid bonding orbitals. The Bohr-Sommerfeld atom. The purine-pyrimidine structure of the DNA ladder. Single-sideband radio. All other radio. Dentistry. The internal-combustion engine. Turbojets. Turbofans. Doppler beam-sharpening. Penicillin. Airplanes. Surgery. The mammogram. The Pill. The condom. Polio vaccine. The integrated circuit. The computer. Football. Computational fluid dynamics. Tensors. The Constitution. Euripides, Sophocles, Aristophanes, Aeschylus, Homer, Hesiod. Glass. Rubber. Nylon. Roads. Buildings. Elvis. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. (OK, that’s nerve gas, and maybe we didn’t really need it.) Silicone. The automobile. Really weird stuff, like clathrates, Buckyballs, and rotaxanes. The Bible. Bug spray. Diffie-Hellman, public-key cryptography, and RSA. Et cetera.

Let #BLM go off in the woods and live without that stuff for a month because #CulturalAppropriation. White culture is why you use a functional toilet instead of a cat box or a hole in the ground. White Pride, without a pestilential background of hatred towards the other, is understandable, logical and should be cultivated in all of our children.

Staving off White Genocide, promoting White Pride, celebrating various white cultures and keeping the successful and positive traditions of all of these societies alive should be an unquestioned good that people of good will should actively pursue. You can protect yourself, respect yourself, continue your kind and elevate them yeah, verily to the stars without any sense of entitlement. The sense of entitlement is not what made the White Race great. We didn’t take over and redefine the planet as a Great Society Program. Socialism is not the key to accomplishing this goal. Whitewashing the tragedy of the commons will not somehow make it less tragic. Socialism can only lead to death in the end.

Eurasia Does Not Hold Answers For The West

It is often said on the Right that places like Poland, Russia and Hungary offer the Alt Right an example of how to resist Cultural Marxism. There is truth to this, but the truth is only partial.

Although these countries are safer places to live because of their defiance of globalist interests, specifically its mania for multiculturalism, they also show us that the way to resist Cultural Marxism is clear to them in ways it cannot be clear to us. We have gone down a different path, and the solution we need is different from what Eurasia needs.

Eastern Europe has not experienced the caste revolt that makes our problem in the West so intractable. Eurasian nations are not in a revolutionary state. They are in a disordered state, but their proles do not have the privilege and financial backing that they do here. Nor do the financial interests benefit as much from riling them up as they would in the West. Their plebs are not weaponized and driven by the possibility of success as ours are. In this sense, they are not so much Right-wing as not infected with the Leftism that comes with wealth and the inevitably ensuing caste revolt.

We suffer from the intersection of low caste, high wealth, and influence. Our plebs have deceived us into giving them the crumbs from underneath our tables, and we have deceived ourselves into believing that they can be just as wise and capable as our naturally higher caste people. They have proclaimed: “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” and they have cut off our heads for buying it. With our success came new challenges, the most radical of which is the caste revolt sponsored by Leftism, individualism and solipsism.

Eurasia has never really ever been first world, and thus has not grown wary of success. They have not suffered the tragedy of the commons, caused by too few leaders of distinction or too many followers of indistinction. The comforts of a thriving civilization have not brought them too much zeal and too much distraction. Eurasia, just like Asia, has only become wealthy because they had close alliance with European nations, which even though they are in decline, are still living off of the advancements of their technological inventions, which is why most people do not realize that we are in decline. When it comes to technological advancement of civilization Eurasians contributed almost nothing compared to Europeans. Particularly German- and English-speaking Europeans created all of this stuff, but then it came to rule them.

Eurasia has not been plagued by diversity hysteria the way Europe has. We have grown comfortable with our powers, but we have transferred that comfort to those who cannot control their appetites for greater comforts or luxuries. We gave our people equal rights and they spent those rights on porn, cigarettes, beer and donuts, so to speak. These are the problems encountered only by successful civilizations, and since we are more successful than Eurasia, we encounter problems that are baffling to them.

The West suffers because they have peaked and allowed themselves to grow soft. They have also forgotten how they became successful. It suffers under the dual burden of being wealthy, and therefore attracting parasites, and the intense labor required to keep a complex society functioning. We have exhausted ourselves by making a paradise that ultimately our proles and foreigners will get to enjoy, and this sickens the Western soul and makes people despairing, since there is no future that they can believe in. The good news is that the West can save itself because it has only itself to blame for its predicament.

To reverse our corruption by success, we can fix ourselves by mentally ejecting the notion of equality from our lives. This requires noticing that all people have a degree of ability; this includes both responsibility and comforts. Some can have many comforts available, but not give into them, and still perform their responsibilities. Recognizing what one can and should have is necessary for proper order to be achieved and maintained. Each of us has a nature, and we should endeavor to know our nature in order to know our place in the order. This is the essence of natural law: there is a hierarchy which is not inherent in the sense of being forced upon us like gravity, but innate in that if we can perceive it, we can gain efficiency and quality by adhering to it, much like noticing any opportunity or threat that is not immediately visible.

We also must know the nature of those less able to make wise long term decisions. This is why libertarianism is not a solution: when we give liberty to those who will make poor decisions, their resentment only grows when their decisions impact them. Libertarianism would only make sense if genetics were a myth. Libertarians are natural liberals who deny genetics, and deny Darwinism. We should instead have authority over those who are incapable of making wise decisions, and place them in positions where their decisions have less of an impact on society. Without hierarchy, the lower echelons dominate the others, but these levels of society are the least aware, insightful and competent, and so our fortunes fall, where the meaner social climate of Eurasia allows the stronger to dominate the weak.

The West will restore itself by cleansing the bad and restoring good people into positions of absolute authority. To do this democracy needs to be abolished and Leftists need to be exiled to the failing civilizations that are the ultimate end results of their ideas. Groups with recognizable distinctions need to be peaceably separated. We need to seek out leadership types who have minds open to these ideas, and to convince them that these ideas are the best way forward.

This requires us facing full-on what it means to do away with equality. Different groups create different types of order, and different castes within those groups have different degrees of understanding to those ends as well. We must have Monarchs, Dukes, Marqueses, Earls, Viscounts, and Barons composed of our wisest and most competent people. Distinctions where they exist, must be recognized and people sorted according to them, because this is the only way that we can restore beauty, truth and goodness to complement the nature that surrounds us.

Civilization is an order within the greater order that is nature, thus it should also include Darwinism and other important aspects of the natural world. This means we also need to end socialism, which only serves to dumb us down, and make us less capable of providing for our own needs. All people will be placed in positions in society, if there is no position for them, they get to be with nature, or another place that might accept them.

Right now, many on the Right look to Eastern Europe and see that it does not share our problems, and figure that the West should emulate it, or that disaffected Westerners should flee to Eurasia. In reality, this is comparing apples to oranges, and will lead only to failure. The path to our success is clear, and awaits only the time where we summon enough intestinal fortitude to own our problems and make the changes that banish them.

Is America Coming Apart? By Patrick J. Buchanan

Is America Coming Apart?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Flying home from London, where the subject of formal debate on the 70th anniversary of World War II had been whether Winston Churchill was a liability or asset to the Free World, one arrives in the middle of a far more acrimonious national debate right here in the United States.

At issue: Should Barack Obama be allowed to address tens of millions of American children, inside their classrooms, during school hours?

Conservative talk-show hosts saw a White House scheme to turn public schools into indoctrination centers where the socialist ideology of Obama would be spoon-fed to captive audiences of children forced to listen to Big Brother—and then do assignments on his sermon.

The liberal commentariat raged about right-wing paranoia.

Yet Byron York of The Washington Examiner dug back to 1991 to discover that, when George H.W. Bush went to Alice Deal Junior High to speak to America’s school kids, the left lost it. [When Bush spoke to students, Democrats investigated, held hearings, September 9, 2009]

“The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props,” railed The Washington Post. [TV Technique 101 With George Bush; Private Company Produces Coverage of D.C. School Visit, By John E. Yang and Lynda Richardson,  The Washington Post, October 2, 1991|]Education Secretary Lamar Alexander was called before a House committee. The National Education Association denounced Bush. And Congress ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate.

Obama’s actual speech proved about as controversial as a Nancy Reagan appeal to eighth-graders to “Just say no!” to drugs.

Yet, the episode reveals the poisoned character of our politics.

We saw it earlier on display in August, when the crowds that came out for town hall meetings to oppose Obama’s health care plans were called “thugs,” “fascists,” “racists” and “evil-mongers” by national Democrats.

We see it as Rep. Joe Wilson shouts, “You lie!” at the president during his address to a joint session of Congress.

We seem not only to disagree with each other more than ever, but to have come almost to detest one another. Politically, culturally, racially, we seem ever ready to go for each others’ throats.

One half of America sees abortion as the annual slaughter of a million unborn. The other half regards the right-to-life movement as tyrannical and sexist.

Proponents of gay marriage see its adversaries as homophobic bigots. Opponents see its champions as seeking to elevate unnatural and immoral relationships to the sacred state of traditional marriage.

The question invites itself. In what sense are we one nation and one people anymore? For what is a nation if not a people of a common ancestry, faith, culture and language, who worship the same God, revere the same heroes, cherish the same history, celebrate the same holidays, and share the same music, poetry, art and literature?

Yet, today, Mexican-Americans celebrate Cinco de Mayo, a skirmish in a French-Mexican war about which most Americans know nothing, which took place the same year as two of the bloodiest battles of our own Civil War: Antietam and Fredericksburg.

Christmas and Easter, the great holidays of Christendom, once united Americans in joy. Now we fight over whether they should even be mentioned, let alone celebrated, in our public schools.

Where we used to have classical, pop, country & Western and jazz music, now we have varieties tailored to specific generations, races and ethnic groups. Even our music seems designed to subdivide us.

One part of America loves her history, another reviles it as racist, imperialist and genocidal. Old heroes like Columbus, Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee are replaced by Dr. King and Cesar Chavez.

But the old holidays, heroes and icons endure, as the new have yet to put down roots in a recalcitrant Middle America.

We are not only more divided than ever on politics, faith and morality, but along the lines of class and ethnicity. Those who opposed Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court and stood by Sgt. Crowley in the face-off with Harvard’s Henry Louis Gates were called racists. But this time they did not back down. They threw the same vile word right back in the face of their accusers, and Barack Obama.

Consider but a few issues on which Americans have lately been bitterly divided: school prayer, the Ten Commandments, evolution, the death penalty, abortion, homosexuality, assisted suicide, affirmative action, busing, the Confederate battle flag, the Duke rape case, Terri Schiavo, Iraq, amnesty, torture.

Now it is death panels, global warming, “birthers” and socialism. If a married couple disagreed as broadly and deeply as Americans do on such basic issues, they would have divorced and gone their separate ways long ago. What is it that still holds us together?

The European-Christian core of the country that once defined us is shrinking, as Christianity fades, the birth rate falls and Third World immigration surges. Globalism dissolves the economic bonds, while the cacophony of multiculturalism displaces the old American culture.

“E pluribus unum”—out of many, one—was the national motto the men of ’76 settled upon. One sees the pluribus. But where is the unum? One sees the diversity. But where is the unity?

Is America, too, breaking up?


Patrick J. Buchanan needs no introduction to VDARE.COM readers; his book State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, can be ordered from His latest book is Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, reviewed here by Paul Craig Roberts.