The BQ

We live in an age of great inequality. In fact, some economist think America may have greater inequality now than at any time in human history. Americans don’t think about it too much, as generations of indoctrination about class envy have made questioning such things seem un-American. That and the middle-class may be swamped with debt, but they have all the trappings of prosperity. Even poor people in this country are fat. People tend to worry about how much the rich man has, only when their bellies are growling.

Few people on the Dissident Right have much to say about economics. The main reason, obviously, is that demographics and multiculturalism take up most of the space. A big part of the aesthetic is ignoring the trivial things like tax policy, in order to remain focused on the bigger topics that are assiduously ignored by our rulers. That and the subject is full of libertarian hucksters, peddling apologies for globalism and the billionaire class. They have framed the topic in such a way that it is impossible to say anything meaningful.

Progressives in American and Leftists in Europe have always argued that inequality is immoral on its face. They may not use that phrasing, but that is the underlying assumption behind their arguments for taxing the rich and redistributing wealth. Perhaps that can be debated, but there’s little doubt that great inequality brings with it great social and political change. A society with relatively small differences in wealth, where there is economic equilibrium, is unlikely to lurch into unrest or reckless adventures.

When Henry VIII ascended the throne in 1509, he became king of a country that could be described as a three-legged stool. The Church held 25-30% of the land in the country and had a monopoly on moral authority. The aristocracy, including the king, held an equal amount of land, but had a monopoly on secular authority. The rest of the land was owned by the commoners and petty nobles, who had the advantage of numbers. The result was a balance of power between the three key elements of English society.

Henry is best known for his serial adultery and his habit of having wives sent to the gallows, but his biggest contribution is the destruction of the Church as a force in British political and economic life. The Acts of Supremacy, passed in 1534, recognized the King’s status as head of the church in England and, with the Act in Restraint of Appeals in 1532, abolished the right of appeal to Rome. The king had effectively assumed the moral authority that had once been the monopoly of the Catholic Church

This was made possible by the oldest of political tactics. When Henry seized Church lands, he used these to buy support from other nobles, as well as large land holders who also sat in Parliament. Naturally, Parliament was strongly in favor of not only seizing Church lands, but supporting their good friend, the King, in his efforts to assert his authority over the Church. When he seized Church lands, the crown ended the economic power of the Church and used the proceeds to assume the moral authority of the Church.

This had a radical effect on the politics and culture of England. Hilaire Belloc argued in The Servile State that it was this reorganization of capital in England that gave birth to capitalism. In this case, capital was land. When land was distributed between the people, the state and the church, the concentrated use of capital was impossible. Once the crown and nobility seized the property of the Church, capital was for the first time concentrated in a small number of hands. This allowed the propertied class to dominate English society.

This was clear after Henry VIII died. A dozen years of turmoil followed his death. Edward VI never made it to adulthood. Lady Jane Grey was queen for nine days until Mary I, with support of the nobles, deposed her. Bloody Mary made it five years before dying and then began the reign of Elizabeth I. This also corresponded with the birth of the British Empire. Whether or not any of this would have happened if Henry had not sacked the Church is debatable, but it is clear that the change in English economic order was an inflection point.

Another example is what happened to the Roman Republic after the defeat of Corinth and Carthage. The Republic had been at war with both city-states, off and on, for over a century. In 146 BC, the Romans finally defeated and destroyed Carthage and then provoked a war with the Greeks. They defeated the Greeks at Corinth, destroying the city and its population. The male population was killed and the females and children were sold into slavery. Rome was the undisputed power in the Mediterranean.

Something else happened. Those slaves that poured into the Republic from the conquered lands first ended up in the hands of the wealthiest landowners. This influx of cheap labor allowed the large land holders to replace their native labor, which flowed into the cities, not having anywhere else to go. The small landowners suddenly found themselves at a disadvantage, as the larger landowners had an army of slaves to work their land. The result was a great economic re-ordering of the Roman Republic.

It is not an accident that this sudden change in political and economic of fortune changed the nature of the Republic. The constant campaigning created a class of soldier that was more loyal to his general than to the Republic. The turning over of large tracts of land to slave farming resulted in a new problem, slave revolts. The Servile Wars, the Social War and two civil wars dominated the Late Republic. It has this title because the Republic came to an end with Julius Caesar and the founding of the Roman Empire under Octavian.

The relevance of all this to our age should be obvious to those who have been following what is going on with our tech oligarchs. A generation ago, Progressive arguments about taxing the rich had no salience, because no one had any real fear of the rich. That and they were not so rich as to feel alien to the rest of us. Today, the billionaire class feels like they are from another planet and more important, they are a real threat. They are advocating for policies that promise to dissolve the ties that bind the nation together.

A popular issue on the Dissident Right is that the old framing of politics, based on the blank slate and egalitarianism, is no longer relevant. Race and demographics are what will define politics going forward. That’s true, but none of that will matter if the West is going to succumb to what amounts to techno-feudalism, where a relatively small number of oligarchs control not only capital, but information. Addressing the threat to free speech means addressing what may be the ultimate red pill, the Billionaire Question.

In order to address the BQ, the Dissident Right is going to have to break free from the old moral paradigm with regards to class, inequality and economics. The fact is, no one will care if Mark Zuckerberg drowns in his bathtub, other than his mail order wife. The same is true of Jeff Bezos. The things that the vast bulk of Americans care about don’t depend on getting cheap stuff on-line at Amazon. The billionaire class is no more essential to society than any other luxury good. They are tolerable unless they become a burden.

That’s going to be hard for our side and it is going to be even more difficult for the sort of people attracted to the Oaf Keepers or the PoofBerries. That’s the effect of a few generations of telling people that it is un-American to think ill of the rich. Even so, part of breaking free from the old thinking will be adopting a new brand of economics, along with tackling the realities of demographics. You can be pro-white all you like, but that’s of no use if you’re a serf living on the modern version of a feudal estate, run by an oligarch.

165 thoughts on “The BQ

  1. Customarily, Americans have engaged in less class envy than any other people on earth. Why? Because, once upon a time, the American dream was real – and any man had the opportunity to become wealthy if he kept his nose to the grindstone, stayed out of trouble, and came up with a way to build a better mousetrap.

    Those days are long-gone. The uber-wealthy today seek to become rich, and when they do, they promptly pull up the ladder of success behind them. That is why entrepreneurs with small firms tend to favor free minds and free markets, whereas large corporations and their leaders tend to be more-comfortable with big government and all that it entails.

    The “Billionaire Question,” as Zman so succinctly puts it, is the age-old problem of what society should do about men who have so much wealth that they can buy anything and so much power that they can do anything.

    George Soros is a perfect case in point. He is a billionaire many times over, one of the world’s richest men. Not content with growing old on the golf course or holding a fishing pole in his hand Soros is a committed (even fanatical) ideologue who seeks to remake the world along the lines he and his ideological fellow travelers find attractive.

    Soros, being the extremely wealthy and powerful man that he is, does not plan on asking anyone’s permission to do what he wants – he’s just doing it. And if you and yours don’t like it, well, you’d best stand aside or risk being flattened by the “steamroller of progress” the billionaire claims he is driving.
    That’s what you get when you let a sociopath accumulate that much wealth and that much power.

    So really, Zman ought to call this not only the “billionaire problem,” but the “sociopath problem” as well – because that’s what we’re dealing with here.

    Common sense suggests some things to ponder. If we – the ordinary people of this earth – plan to preserve and protect any of our rights to political and social self-determination, we’d best think of the problems above. Allowing individuals – many of whom have malignant psychological and social pathologies which are hazardous to others – to amass great wealth and also great power – is a dangerous thing to do. Such men, as the Soros example seems to prove, will not feel themselves bound by the laws, traditions, customs and rules which restrain ordinary men.

    Do we allow men to amass unlimited wealth, but then restrict their power to use it to control others or the political process – or vice versa?

    These and similar questions are above my pay grade, but they will have to be answered sooner or later, if we hope to remain free and able to determine the respective courses of our own lives. The future men like Soros have planned for us has little to do with prosperity and even less to do with freedom – save their own, of course.

  2. It is difficult to criticize the ‘actual’ rich since most of us are at least richer than some others who see us as ‘the rich’. If your sneakers are better than the other guy’s, then you are to be despised?? That’s what is seem to be.

    So if you have absolutely nothing, you can criticize the rich for not being as lazy and stupid as you are, lest you might just HAVE something to your name.

    Our duty is to do as well as well can with what we have to work with. Expecting others to subsidize your sorry ass life is just not on. The Dems work it as hard as they can, but it’s a hollow game and no one can win it. They are continually losing with their race and envy tactics.

    We have to tolerate each other or we will be nothing before long.

  3. Good post, although it’s premise is that the monetary system currently in use, stays in use.

    This won’t happen.

    We are on the cusp of the old order (in many areas/things) giving way to the new order and the elephant in the room is the manner (econ system) we all organize/trade with.

    This current $IMF system is soon to end and the path that has led mankind here will result in all currencies floating against each other and more importantly, against a separate savers circuit consisting of only physical gold wealth assets.

    What is wrong with this system, and all before it, is that we lend in the same thing we denominate credit in.

    The so called 3 functions of money: SoV, Moe, Unit of account.
    Who dictated money has to be or do all 3 functions? No one. And it doesn’t. Currencies work fine for credit and unit of account. Some useless, timeless physical object saved outside the monetary system can work well as SoV and for 1000’s of years, man kind has found Gold to be that thing.

    People and organizations will save in Gold and spend in currency. Currencies will be free to expand or shrink, according to each zone’s need but no more gold credit (XAU, comex, LBMA, futures etc etc), will ensure that those who want/need to save, can simply buy the wealth asset, gold (physical) and save it. With the whole world now saving in Gold, it’s value will mostly continually rise, absent some huge huge disaster, war etc that required significant rebuilding.

    This new system is inevitable and on it’s way for over 50 years now.

    I know you’ve seen me post a couple times before and I assume you think this is nonsense, which is fine. I just wish you’d try to debunk it in any way cause no one has been able to do so for over 20 years now that these thoughts have been around in the open on the internet.

    fofoa.blogspot.com

  4. The simplest, easiest, least disruptive solution is to start applying antitrust law to tech monopolies.
    Having 10 mini-Googles also helps solve our corporate-enforced ban on badthink. Since one would imagine that at least some of them would try to differentiate themselves by being free speech-friendly.
    That might or might not be enough. I mean, would 10 micro-Zucks be more or less odious than a single mega-Zuck?
    But we should at give that a shot before trying anything else more radical.

  5. Excellent article on something rarely touched on in alt-right circles which generally focuses on HBD related topics.

    What our side needs is a modern day equivalent of Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” that explains this stuff. It’s not hard to understand but like you say it will be difficult for many raised on the notion that one mustn’t think ill of the rich. But we need to. If we don’t we’re doomed.

    We have to confront the shot callers behind all of this social and ethnic engineering and put a stop to it. I suspect if we do, a lot of the pressing ethnic and financial issues will resolve themselves in time. .

    I also think we can convince the Oath Keepers and the Lost Ones. They already know the country is seriously screwed up and there are powerful behind it all. It’s just a matter of pointing these people out and what they are supporting.

    Z is right also in that if these people were all to drown no one would miss them or the services they provide.

  6. Being on the right, I have never historically had much sympathy for the masses. Was just not my nature constitutionally. However the situation we’re in seems to put me right there with a pitchfork in one hand and a torch in the other.

    This is a weird feeling but as z argues one I perhaps should consider more deeply on issues beyond the obvious cultural revolution stuff.

    Anyway the one big upside of all this common man stuff is it’s a GREAT wedge against the left. For now they are still wearing the clothes of the communist revolutionary. Their utter contempt for the working class is one of their most awkwardly vulnerable areas.

    When arguing with leftists I have played this “you hate the poor” card and it makes them squirm more than just about anything else because unlike me and I suspect many on the right who are quite comfortable with overt hierarchy, this goes to the heart of their self identity.

    So does contempt for their cherished but ridiculous notion they are brave rebels against the dominant ideology and political structure.

    So we should take this sort of post seriously, if only for the political bazooka it arms us with.

  7. Wew this dumb cunt is so far out of touch with reality it’s mind blowing. Mrs. Side-O-Beef blames Bernie and his Gibsmedat Xirs not endorsing her immediately after she screwed him out of the primaries, for her loss. LOL

  8. >> A popular issue on the Dissident Right is that the old framing of politics, based on the blank slate and egalitarianism, is no longer relevant. Race and demographics are what will define politics going forward.

    I think it’s too early to make this case. Yes, in the past 10-15 years the Democratic party has veered left off the freeway, purged its moderates, lost its voice on matters economic, and allowed itself to become a political party that, above all else, stood in opposition to white males. This created the political vacuum into which the Dissident Right poured. It’s sheer insanity for a white male to be a Democrat in 2017.

    But the Democrats still control the media and the messaging. They can always come back, much like Bill Clinton brought the Democrats back from the brink in the 90s.

    I don’t think the Democratic party is capable of nominating a white person right now. Obama is quietly pushing Deval Patrick for 2020. Corey Booker is waiting in the wings. Tom Perez will likely make a run at it. All three of these guys are articulate and smart enough to stay moderate on messaging and focus on jobs and economics. If the Democrats are able to attract working class white males back into the fold then they will retake lost ground. Let’s hope they can’t.

    • Owen;

      What is the “just price” concept_? If it means what something ‘ought’ to cost, it’s hardly new. Price controls have been a feature of empires in trouble since the Roman’s day.

      • It’s a bit more than price control. It touches on ethics as well as economics. That’s the “just” part of it. I suppose justice depends on who’s dishing it out and what they believe in. Then again I tend to be cynical. I figure if we’re going to talk about feudalism, might as well dust off a few related concepts and give them a once over.

        • the term you are looking for, to describe “just price” is “empty shelves and starving people”. venezuela has “just prices” because that’s all that remains in the stores — price tags.

  9. The parallels between the greed and decadence of the 2nd and 1st centuries B.C. Republican Rome and our own situation is spot on. I have been patiently trying for years to get people to stop thinking about parallels between the US and the decline of the Roman Empire. It is a false comparison. We’re still a Republic and we’re behaving in much the same way as did the earlier, rotting Roman Republic. And when the Republic comes apart, God knows what will follow.

    • No, just as the Roman Republic did not suddenly end with Julius Caesar but gradually, for several generations before him, the American Republic ended in 1861, then it took 80 years to lock all the gates. The revolutionaries were inside, the defenders outside. Break into one gate and the Empire absorbs you and becomes stronger for it, like new blood. That is all Reagan did in the end. Adjust tax policy and anything else all we like, they will complain and benefit at the same time. The only thing that keeps the beast functioning is the man who wants to make things work, an instinct which all good men share. Catch 22.

      • When the Roman senate left Rome prior to the entrance of Julius Caesar, the Republic was over. From then on, although there was a pretense of senatorial authority for a while, everyone knew that the emperor made the laws. By the end of the second century A.D., even the pretense was brushed aside.

    • what follows is the true American empire. I see china in the role of Carthage with Anthony Hopkins playing Hannibal.

  10. One correction, the vast bulk of Americans do rely on Amazon (though “rely” is too strong a word). As of 2017 there are 80M Prime Memberships in effect. As many of those are household memberships, I’d argue that most Americans get something from Amazon on a regular basis.

    I agree with the argument that we’re all serfs living on a feudal lord’s estate. The difference is now we can’t physically access the Lord’s House with pitchforks and torches.

    • If there were 85 flavors of Amazon though, no one would notice. That’s the issue. Amazon has become a monopolist.

      • Right, and what I find interesting is that the USG has prevented competitors to Amazon from consolidating to fight back. Look at the failure of the Staples/Office Max merger several years ago.

    • Only part of the reliance on Amazon is due to convenience. I’d posit a bigger factor by far has been Whites ceding public space to all the others. When my kids were young I took them to amusement parks and museums and water parks and various other group activities. Today? Any large public attraction, even if it employ an entrance fee to attempt to control the dusky hordes, is over-run with them. Fecal matter in all public pools. Negro riots and shootings at any “community” carnival.

      I’ve never been the biggest shopper but I now dread having to go out to buy anything – even the grocery stores are a test of my limited endurance. Being out numbered 10-1, listening to the babel of tongues, fending off intrusions into personal space, being assailed olifactorily as well as aurally and visually . . . not my idea of fun. I loathe Bezos, but I’ll choose Amazon every time.

      • Very well said… I’ve avoided all public “amusements” for many years for the same reason. With one exception: local farmer’s markets are predictably mostly white and family friendly. Other places which used to rival Amazon and would get my business (namely Walmart) are just overwhelming with the flora and fauna of the uncivilized races and I refuse to go there at all now.

        If it’s any consolation to you, this condition will not persist forever. The Christian Bible prophesies an end to our distress of the alien invasion–the hordes WILL be removed. All we have to do is remember our God and obey him once again. Don’t worry if that sounds impossible, He will one day (soon) cause us to do that. Everything is going according to plan.

        • Because *we* don’t enjoy keeping company with the “beasts of the field”. So we separate from them. And yes, sometimes that means “ceding” public spaces. What is the alternative other than physically and violently removing them from our land? Not humanly possible now…

          So we’ll wait on our God. He will remove them. Wait and see.

  11. Except that feudalism came about because land became more valuable than money. And that personal relationships about how that land got managed mattered more than again – money. The feudal system eschewed trade and travel for doing everything locally. The Amazon of that era only delivered once a year. It was called the trade fair.

    I could see a robot economy where raw materials would matter more than money but we’re not quite there yet.

    I’m not sure how you solve the instabilities of the economy. I think some of these things are built into the rules of the game and are emergent types of phenomena. Maybe you can change the rules to solve the instabilities? Economic is basically a game.

    • people now always bag on the feudal system, but i suspect the peasants were pretty happy with it. for a start, other than harvest time the pace of work life seems pretty relaxed.

    • Feudalism grew out of the Villa system in the late Roman Empire. Large land owners had slaves and peasants working their lands. Over time, those slaves simply became peasants, tied to the land. The landowners, for the sake or protection, organized their own security and their own political systems. I’ll note that the feudal system was not native to Britain. It was brought over with William the Conqueror.

    • “Economic is basically a game”
      it looks like a game because of the plethora of rules..
      whether it’s zoning laws, banking regulations, or evolved systems like healthcare and welfare subsidies, the “rules” create opportunity and encouragement to “hack” the system. Gaming the system becomes a necessary remedy to the loss of freedom that we live under.
      A more free, less regulated economic system would create more opportunities for new things, disruptive business models, etc.
      I wouldn’t recommend “changing the rules”; I would recommend doing away with many of them.

      During WWII when there were wage and price controls, large corporations started offering Health Insurance to their workers, as a way to “hack” the set of regulations then in effect. Just one example of the “economic games” that have been played throughout history. Change that rule (wage & price controls) and the entire environment changes.

  12. Who are the billionares loyal to? Each other and anyone that helps them make money – regardless of where that it is.

    Their loyalty is to the global market, not to their neighbors in the next zip code. This is a bitter pill to swallow, but its becoming more alarmingly true. They have no loyalty to the cultures that created them. This is why they promote the agenda of degenerates who are willing to fill their pockets.

    Currently, billionaires and the companies they run are taking what used to be our greatest value – capitalism – and stomping on it. In some cases they use the government and in others they do it themselves.

    We already see just how dangerous it is for a few companies to control the media. Perhaps google, Faceberg, and Amazon have learned those lessons.

    What’s the use of capitalism and free speech if 3 companies dictate what and how that will occur? Free speech is an incredible thing, but we are dealing with people who don’t care about free speech.

    They are willing however to use it and then get rid of it once they’ve attained power. Ironically, for all their Hitler ravings, they are doing exactly what he did when he became chancellor.

  13. Anti-white politics has to stay to keep the BQ at bay. Bank on them staying the course unless someone in the Mossad decides to start picking off globalists. The chances they will be harmed by Congress is nil due to lavish donations.

  14. The idea was based, I assert, on the Fundamental Theorems of Welfare Economics. Greatly over-simplified – 1) market outcomes are optimal and 2) you can solve fairness concerns from #1 with cash transfers.

    When applied to international trade, you get some pernicious ideas. For example, Kevin Williamson’s assertion that communities destroyed in order to allow us to have really cheap T-shirts get what they deserve follows from #1. The follow-on idea that, if machinists really cannot train themselves to become graphic designers or poets, we can write them disability checks for the rest of their lives and everything will be ok comes from #2.

    Economics is powerful and generates useful predictions in a lot of areas. But, oh my God, what it does to a civilization!

    • Yes, Capitalism is a wonderful servant but a fearful master. It is a fantastic system for producing large amounts of consumer goods, but it is not sufficient to be the primary organizing principle in a society. AnCaps like Kevin Williamson are at least as detached from reality as Commies, possibly more so.

  15. To an extent, we’re still reaping the “rewards” of mid-20th Century totalitarianism. Just as Hitler’s horrific persecution of the Jews in the name of Race made race an unmentionable topic for sixty years, the Communists horrific persecution of the wealthy and middle classes in the name of Egalitarianism has made inequality a radioactive topic, at least on the normie Right and moderate Left. Given this history, it’s not surprising that the most untouchable people in our society are wealthy Jews, who get to play both sides of the street.

    If this society is ever going to recover (a big if) we are going to have to finally get over the Twentieth Century, to realize that you can be cognizant of race without being a Nazi, and concerned about overly great inequality without being a Communist. The rise of the dissident Right over the last ten years is a sign that this hopeful development might finally be happening.

    • You don’t have to be a Nazi. Only be prepared to be treated like one. That’s why we should defend them.

      • If by “defend” them, you mean support their right to free speech, I agree completely. As for real Nazism, I’m afraid that the Nazis would call me a Slav Untermenschen, and I can’t really get behind the idea of mass murder, even of people I hate – I’ll leave that to the Commies. But certainly, the modern idea, held even by many who should know better, that the Nazis were an ultimate moral evil, while the Communists were just agrarian reformers who occasionally got a bit too exuberant, is nonsense.

        • By defending Nazis I mean just that. Defending their right to express themselves in public. If they are successfully silenced we are next. They already put us and the Nazis on an equal plane. Nothing is going to change that. Nothing.

  16. Breaking the Roman Church in England opened the way for the rise of the English middle class.

    The influx of slave labor into Rome did the opposite and ultimately destroyed the Roman middle class. It ended the days of the yeoman Roman farmer / citizen / soldier.

    In both cases, the working middle class actively participated in government and the military creating a sustainable form of representative government – as well as a wealthy empire. When the Left seeks to destroy the middle class through taxes, regulations, corporatism, globalism, and every other scheme they can lay hands on, it is an attempt to break down the resistance to their form of dictatorship.

    • I’d agree on England, in so far as the idea of a middle-class is only possible in a capitalist system of some sort. That means you need a free flow of labor, as well as limits on the concentration of wealth. Feudalism does not permit the rise of a middle-class as capital is restricted to land and concentrated in the hands of the few.

      I’ll note that the slow obliteration of the middle-class through immigration, trade and technology suggests that the bourgeoisie are not the bulwark of liberty that many have claimed.

      • I agree that a small freeholder class (yeoman) =/ middle class.

        I’m not a blood and soil guy, but my conclusion formed over the last decade or so is that a society with few ties to the land will not be a stable and long-lasting one. Middle class suburbanites have proven fickle and defeatist. Though there have been exceptions, they have not been willing to fight for neighborhoods, schools, churches… their culture.

        The fighters among the middle class people I know are willing to spend all of their surplus then go into debt to keep their children from falling out of the managerial class. They would rather painfully and shamefully contort themselves to ape the manners and speech of the cloud than proudly fight for their liberty.

        Apologies for the dark cloud today. I spent the last two weekends in the bubble and came away more pessimistic than ever.

        • you are only pessimistic because you want to control history’s arc. focus on you and yours, be their Noah 🙂 imagine how much worse your — and their — position would be if you had a 90 IQ. you were given gifts by the creator, use them!

        • Trying to tie politics to landed interest has been tried many times.

          The Greeks did so, but we’re undone by Pericles in 431 BC with his strategy to only confront Sparta with the Athenian navy. The balance was taken away from the hoplite class and delivered to the thetes, who made up the naval class and had theretofore been the lowest class in Athens.

          If you want to blame the ensuing age of demagogues on anyone, blame it on Pericles.

        • I agree with you, unless you and your family live in an area for decades maybe longer and are expected to be there for generations, its not your home

          Suburbs are inherently alienating and for the most part dilute community. There hasn’t of late been any place someone would call home.

          Worse, even US nationals moving around chasing money quickly destroys community. If everyone has only been somewhere for a few years , its not a community

          Migration, even fully legal native interstate migration is a bad thing on its face.

          Throw in mass foreign migration and you’ve created a situation where there is nothing worth fighting for , Who wants to fight for Mom and dad each pull 40 hours and I don’t know my neighbors ?

          The innocence of the suburbs and the fake rural land gains of the past are a dead letter.

          Also the political situation is such that political measures don’t work very well, we are near the end of options having come down to relentless primary campaigns and loud mouth quasi outsiders like Trump

          If this doesn’t work, its going to have to be force and I can fully understand why people are reluctant, no one wants to be Crispius Attucks for one and if/when it happens, the current civilization is gone

          worse, the people that want a new civilization don’t know how to rule, and its not “lead” its not “govern” its outright rule, by force

          They decide and you either comply, leave or die

          Given this group barely has an ideology, they have a long way to go.

          Given that I can understand the Cathedral’s confidence, they seem to think the fix seems too daunting and so laziness wins the day and nothing changes

      • Z – Not sure I understand your last sentence. I would argue that the slow obliteration of the middle-class is going hand-in-hand with the slow obliteration of liberty.

      • Feudalism DOES permit the rise of a middle-class; the history of medieval Europe demonstrates this. The lords found themselves with surplus wealth well before the rise of true “national kings” who could happily expend surplus on large-scale war in the cause of “national greatness”; thus emerged trading towns, then revived cities, then overseas trade, etc. This is all known by anyone who received a secondary school education prior to about 1980.

        When the economics of feudalism outrun the ancient logic of the system, that’s when the trouble starts: The landowners aren’t happy in the castle anymore, they buy nice houses in the exciting new cities and towns that the market in surplus goods has created, and thus start their career as the “cosmopolitan” rich, while delegating the management of their lands to ‘technocrats’, men who know how things are done and who accept salaries to see that wealth continues to flow from the traditional arrangement.

        The “legitimacy” of the owners no longer has connection to the ancient compact, which was an exchange of protection and security for labor and production. Their “ownership” decays into a legal principle, as opposed to a moral principle. that is, the “exchange” has ceased to operate.

        And in the meantime, we find the origins of the two faces of the middle-class, one kind of good, one kind of bad: The entrepreneurial middle class serving the elite in the cities and towns, and the managerial middle class feasting off the laborers with their whips and their contracts in the countryside.

        When feudalism decayed, the entrepreneurial middle class in the cities and towns discovered that they could make money off each other, and on the system of trade; they didn’t need the elite any more. On the other hand the managerial types, the ones fudging the books and carrying the whips in the wealth-producing hinterlands, were out of a job. They were the natural candidates for the rising bureaucracy that became necessary as kings took over the ordinary civic responsibilities of the nobles. Or something like that…

        So, my point is this: give us about 1,000 years under the system shaping up, and we’ll have a new bourgeoisie, after passing through all the phases of slavery and peonage and general despair for ordinary people. There is a light ahead.

  17. What’s to stop the rich from arming themselves? No, seriously — the English nobles in Henry VIII’s time and the generals of the Late Republic were both the richest men in the land, AND the best armed (men were loyal to Caesar, at least in part, because he actually paid them, and as for Henry’s nobles, both he and his father (and descendants) were always fighting against “illegal retaining”). If our way of thinking changes, so too might theirs.. I’m pretty sure Blackwater (or Xe or whatever they call themselves now) will take Zuckerberg’s money as easily as they will take the government’s. What’s going to stop the, the Posse Comitatus Act? I’m all for stomping the Billionaire Class, but we can’t overlook stuff like this.

    • Ex-soldiers who are merely there for the check are unreliable. They are no longer in a military environment and subject to military law/discipline. Furthermore, it is just a job to them and they will only risk themselves to a point. The same holds true, BTW, for the Federal police agencies. Those people are mostly timeservers and careerists at heart. You can put a Fed in a ninja suit but he, she, or it is still just a bureaucrat.

      Having said that, our side is amazingly short of sturdy frontiersmen as well. There are lots of angry old guys.

      • What if Zuckerberg et al simply buy themselves a security service? I’m not so much thinking about the pitchfork-wielding masses storming a compound in Silicon Valley; I mean, what if Faceberg BUYS Blackwater (or equivalent)? We’ve already outsourced speech policing to them; why not actual policing? It sounds like the plot of “RoboCop” at this point, but as more and more states get ready to go bankrupt… if I had $1B or so in the bank, I’d be tooling up. “Civilian defense” is a major growth industry.

        • Right now they would have to import the security services you mentioned. Maybe that’s what they’re doing.

          • Very interesting and thanks for pointing this out. It’s quite a nice little club in DC, if you can join it.

          • “..Erik Prince, the guy that owns Blackwater…”

            Wrong. Erik Prince was forced to sell Blackwater at a loss to bankers. They told him they’d ruin him if he didn’t sell. Guess who it was that bought Blackwater…just take a wild guess. Don;t want the Goy to get too much power.

        • Just doing some arithmetic, MZ could hire 2,000 soldiers and pay them 100k a year, and it would cost him 200 million a year. That’s like me hiring a lawn service. At that kind of pay he could get top personnel and 100k a year buys a lot of loyalty.

      • “Our side” is short on frontiersmen because there is not much physical frontier left. The new frontiers are in science, technology, and culture (or lack of culture, depending on your perspective).

  18. Yup! The first thing we should do is limit professional athletes to 7 times the average pay in the sport. Movie and TV actors, once someone has starred in three movies or a full season of TV they are stupid rich. Let someone else have a chance in the next movie or show. Misic. Enough of the same artists, Two hits is enough, then you are retired. There are millions of musicians who don’t make enough to pay the bills. Authors, a fraction of one percent make all the money. Network newscasters and commentators get rich while the local station has lots of people who want more, rotate the positions. On facebook and twitter young hot girls can make a living by posting pictures of themselves in bikini’s during their travels. The unfairness! Send visitors to some random site of another person who needs the traffic.

    The handicapper general will need plenary powers.

        • No my argument is people don’t mind inequality of talent, or effort, or looks, or the rewards that go with that. The hidden appeal of resenting inequality of wealth is everyone assumes that efforts to reduce it will mean government agents taking away wealth from them that has and spending it on them that don’t. If excess wealth taxes had to be earmarked for aid to Africa or something that you could not possibly benefit from, I contend that your enthusiasm for equalizing wealth it would be much less.

          Of course if someone gains wealth through government grants of monopoly protections or outright subsidies (like Tesla and Wall Street), there is good cause to resent the transfer of money by force from unconnected people to people plugged into the power structure. The solution is not to take away wealth from everyone who has it but to prevent governmental favors to connected businesses.

          • Exactly. You can’t advantage one group without simultaneously disadvantaging someone else, at the very least the taxpayer.

    • Ignored the fact that MLB is a govt sanctioned monopoly. Libertarians see what they want to see when they want to see it, and vice versa.

  19. People don’t think ill of the rich if they think they can join them someday. If economic conditions suggest that joining the rich is impossible, the grumbling begins.

  20. Z, I’m a big fan, though I’m not sure I’m convinced on this issue. It’s seems like you’re commingling 2 things, extreme wealth and the social instability it generates (which I don’t dispute, and is a real and serious problem) and control of information. The latter it seems to me is a temporary issue, and would be better solved by turning the information oligarchs on each other than reinforcing political control.

    Not everyone who is striving to enter the Billionaire class is on the same side. And there are a lot of ideas out there, still in the formative stages, which will shake the current oligarchies to their roots. If you have a chance to hear the big plans of the movers and shakers in the blockchain world, and some of the other ‘elephant hunting’ ideas in the tech space, the grip that the big 3 social media players have on information seems much more tenuous than it does from the sidelines.

    ICO’s (the unregulated Bitcoin equivalent of an IPO) have out paced Venture Capital this year. It’s also attracted a lot of quacks and cheats, but many of the projects getting funded are very real and represent a meaningful reduction in the authority of the ruling classes. The people involved have no interest in going back to things as they were, and the distribution of information is a part of that. The long term economic impact of things like that simply can’t be ignored.

    Facts are in the end, more durable than any effort to control them. They can’t reliably be ‘hidden’ or ‘eliminated’ on anything more than a temporary basis. And though it’s less obvious, the tech oligarchs are fighting a rear guard action every bit as much as the media is. If they’re smart, and I think some of them are clearly smarter than others, they will learn to live with a big safe smaller portion of the pie based on their specific expertise, than try to very tenuously keep hold of it all to themselves.

    Empires fall. Empires built on ‘managing the truth’ fall faster. If you look back on this moment a few years from now I think it will seem very different than the current landscape.

    • Tom;
      I sure hope you’re right, but can the tech guys you speak of evade politico-economic pressure/sanctions from/by the oligarchs_?

      You know they’re gonna try. History is full of examples of those who, having climbed the ladder, work all the levers to pull it up after themselves.

      • This is exactly what the Silicon Valley elites are doing, destroying the ladder(society) that enabled them to become richer than god and cut the rest of us off at the knees.

        Look at the policies they support in terms of education, immigration, labor, etc. They are all hostile to the average American and even most high IQ Americans because they import foreigners to destroy their wages.

        It’s a defacto war and most alt-righters don’t see it. They see the Babu’s and wetbacks but not the hand that is making it happen.

        • they even fukked over their own engineers, by having secret agreements not to hire each other’s employees. and the poor beta schlubs still worship at the temple of the psychopathetic god Zukes

  21. Zman’s opening line:
    “We live in an age of great inequality”

    Darwinism doesn’t work unless there’s inequality;
    Basic inequalities in an individual’s genetic makeup, in their abilities, strengths and weaknesses, inequalities in their individual outcomes, that’s what drives darwinian selection. If every individual in a species is “equal”, there will be no way to differentiate them, no way to select something better so the species can evolve.
    Inequality must be celebrated, it is the only way for progress to go forward.

    “A society with relatively small differences in wealth, where there is economic equilibrium, is unlikely to lurch into unrest or reckless adventures.”
    And it is also unlikely to lurch into economic progress either. Is that a good trade-off? rampant “economic equality”, coupled with zero economic development? Did Cuba or Yemen, or any of the dozens of other places with overwhelming “equality” accomplish anything?

      • I’m not enthralled by Darwinism, but it does seem to be the operating principle of the workings of the universe. Natural selection is great.. unless you’re the one selected against, never to survive and reproduce.
        Social Darwinism … “poor people are poor because they’re lesser beings” is a terrible thing; I would prefer a more christian view that all of us are equal in the eyes of G-d, but that aint’t the way things work. Meanwhile, too many on the alt-right are promoting “race realism”, which may be true, but is none-the-less Darwinism… it’s no way to win friends or influence people.

        • I was a double major in biology and chemistry and took double the required number of credit hours for my biology degree. Evolution is full of surprises and can’t be predicted. Nothing to celebrate.

        • we are all equal in the eyes of god, unfortunately that has no bearing on things here on Earth.

          “The world is full o’ complainers. An’ the fact is, nothin’ comes with a guarantee. Now I don’t care if you’re the pope of Rome, President of the United States or Man of the Year; somethin’ can all go wrong. Now go on ahead, y’know, complain, tell your problems to your neighbor, ask for help, ‘n watch him fly. Now, in Russia, they got it mapped out so that everyone pulls for everyone else… that’s the theory, anyway. But what I know about is Texas, an’ down here… you’re on your own.”

    • This is all BS and quite beside the point. OK, so you have a doctrine you are applying. Zman is not quibbling with natural differences leading to unequal outcomes: His point, as I see it, is that the natural progression of a society, by way of the expression of natural ability and talent, is corrupted and stunted by gigantic differences in wealth, differences entirely divorced from natural differences in ability, and which of course translate into gigantic differences in power. By your reasoning men like Spartacus had no business revolting against the potentates of his age; maybe he and men like him were the cause of the economic lethargy of the ancient world!

      There is no correlation between Darwinism and the fact that a handful of oligarchs now control the earth. That’s a revealed crisis in the system and biology has nothing to do with it. As to the worship of “economic growth”, well, you’ll have to forgive me, hard-core communist that I am, but the race between the oligarchs to be the first to get to 100 billion bores me as I stare at my school tax bill, due at the end of the month, my penalty for owning a home.

      Yasser Arafat, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez – to name three examples – died as extremely – rich men. By your criteria they should have had (we must hope, all being rigid Darwinians) hundreds of progeny to carry that superiority in their genes forward into the new and improved future.

      Another point: We like to reject the inanity of the “climate change” rain-dance types, and with reason: They’re idiots. Well, I’m starting to wonder if “our team”, if there is such a thing, isn’t struggling with its own sciolist rain-dance, that of “evolutionary biology”. We know it’s there, that it works itself out through large slabs of time, and that it permits some insight into the present that is missed by those who refuse to notice. That said, we don’t know what logic it follows; it may be that the cockroach is the winner in the end. We do know this: Human evolution has led to where we are now. And it’s not a good place by any criteria, if survival is the thing.

  22. Tax policy that is geared toward capitalization instead of production is the force behind the creation of the tech class, and even if they were on an even playing field, it would still be more attractive to gamble on the stock market than invest in producing goods.

    Until that can be addressed in a way that doesn’t chase all the money to Singapore, fighting on grounds that attracts allies among the wealthy – especially the old wealth that came from work and not over credentialized managerial systems – is the beset way to get the handicaps removed so that people can compete as individuals instead of being actively oppressed to fight historically inaccurate myths of oppression.

    But what can’t be lost in the debate is how hard the left is fighting to own that third leg – moral authority – through force and coercion, trannies and all. Democrats are now attempting to use Catholicism as a disqualification, with little to no pushback from the GOPeanuts. Pope Francis is doing everything he can to replace Catholic Doctrine with Liberation Theology.

    And the Dissident Right is missing a golden opportunity to stand in defense of the root of Western Civilization, Judeo-Christian ideology and belief, choosing instead the paganism that hasn’t been practiced in centuries because it asks nothing of the followers.

    Yes, it is easier to be a jester than a prophet. Mockery is all well and good, but it’s only going to be effective for so long until an alternative – even one that is a return to a proven system – will be necessary.

    Jordan Peterson is getting so much attention because whether he did so purposefully or not, he is reminding people of the power and wisdom of the Bible stories, and now well it helped to order society on multiple levels.

    I would hate to see tens of millions of people potential allies turn away from the opportunity to rid ourselves of our Progressive masters because the primary alternative so far lacks both a direction and a easily rallied behind, common cultural thread that isn’t bogged down in blood and soil.

    The Crusades aren’t a bad template for what we seek, if we can find a leader that truly lives as he speaks. Attacking the enemies of the West – both at home against the Progs and Commies, as well as shoveling Islam back into he desert to kill itself off – is a cause that already has a huge following, but we need a Charlemagne to rally the people behind the banner.

    That will provide the moral authority to be able to both rally the people and effectively threaten the monied classes into at least pretending to stay in line with the prevailing morality, including protecting and supporting your own nation first instead of always being on the side of the cloud.

    • “the root of Western Civilization, Judeo-Christian ideology and belief”

      Where the hell do you come up with this nonsense?

      The Phrase “Judeo-Christian” would have been totally alien to any Christian Minister or well-educated laity until it was fabricated about a century ago. The Civilization of West is a creation of Greco-Roman civilization. It has nothing to do with a bunch of Talmud Parsers.

      • Gravity would have been an alien concept to the Romans, were they not subject to it? But that aside, the phrase ‘Judeo-Christian’ came about as the relevance of both the Old and New Testaments in the formation of what has come to be known as Western Civilization were recognized, specifically to give credit where it was due (before that, the Church didn’t recognize Jews as being more than Christ killers.

        The idea that the west is Greco-Roman is historically laughable. Rome transferred it’s culture to Constantinople, and the Church took over the formation of the west around 400 A.D. It was the repository of knowledge and provided the third leg Z references by ordering society and behavior on the principles and stories of the Bible.

        The Holy Roman Empire, all the French monarchs, and both the formation of the Anglican empire and Protestant Reformation were all structured on the Bible as the source of morality. They didn’t live as they preached, but they did preach, and pray, and expect their citizens/subjects to follow the examples and guidance of the Bible – a Jewish and Christian Bible.

        How you can consider that influence as nonsense is a testament to your being painfully ignorant or living in a fantasy world.

        • The phrase “Judeo-Christian” did not become part of the vernacular in the US until after WW2, when the Jews showed up. There was no “Judeo-Christ,” please stop.

          • The West was referred to as “Christendom” in every pre-20th century book I’ve read. Jewish contribution to the West was almost nil until very late.

          • Other than Jesus and the Apostles being Jewish, right? And Jewish contributions to music and philosophy. And Columbus being from a Jewish family.

            Look, I’m as annoyed in most of my dealings with Jews as the next guy, especially Jewish Progs. The whining and the constant claims of victimhood and self righteousness is enough to make a guy want to avoid being around Jews as a rule.

            But the influence is real, a wide variety of organizations and even this nation were founded to be ‘new Israelites’, and the Old Testament is a source of wisdom that has fed our culture immensely.

  23. Break up the tech oligopolies. Eliminate 501c3 type nonprofits. Tax churches and schools, even public schools. Treat them as the private corporations that they really are. Pass a law saying forty percent of university foundation monies are public property over a certain point, say 300 million, and that their properties are subject to taxation by their local communities.

    • Doc;
      Vehemently agree about seizing the U’s (and NGOs’) endowments. Use the money to liquidate the debt or to actually fund Social Security. Sorta like the French did during their revolution.

      I see the US universities & NGO’s as today’s equivalant to the Roman Catholic Church in the late Middle Ages. The French revolutionaries weren’t wrong to call the Church of Rome ‘the dead hand that never dies, only inherits’. IOW, it was gradually strangling the French economy, tying up all the capital, in order to enrich a trans-national, self-serving, elite (i.e. the various Italian Renaissance Popes, their mistresses and their many, many retainers).

      This left the French state to have to borrow money to conduct its business. It was needing to deal with a debt crisis that lead Louis XVI to call the Parliament that became the instrument of the early French Revolution. Had Louis emulated Henry VIII and solved his debt problem the way Henry did, the history of Europe would have taken a very different turn, IMHO.

      I doubt that Henry started out to do what he eventually did. I believe he wanted to fight some war or other but was broke. He looked around, saw where the money was, realized that Luther et.al. had succeed in making the Roman Church odious in N Europe and seized the chance. And he had the example of the various Protestant rulers on the continent right in front of him.

      By odious I mean that the Roman Church had forfeited the moral authority that was its long-term protection by mulcting the North through various pretty-transparent schemes, literally in order to build St. Peter’s in Rome. Very fortunately the Progs. have succeeded in making the U’s increasingly odious. No Luther is likely needed.*

      Not only are the U’s (& NGOs) the citadels of PC, they are a key nexus in the parallel Prog economy that never produces, only consumes. Cut them down to size and the entire project becomes much more feasible. Parallel to the Roman Church accumulating lands through bequests from the Christian pious in the Middle Ages, the U’s and NGO’ accumulate endowment funds through bequests from the Prog pious. And, under current laws, the U’s and NGOs never die.

      These endowment funds are invested, giving the collective Prog enterprise considerable hidden power on Wall Street and in corporate boardrooms. This hidden investment committee power (plus various Clinton Inc shakedown schemes) may be the key to the otherwise baffling sudden appearance of PC BS everywhere in Corporate America during the Clinton I years. I knew for a fact that it was happening via board pressure by I had no idea *why* it was happening because it made no business sense.

      *Could Trump be today’s Luther_? 😉

      • If people who own second homes and farms are forced to make up the difference for not taxing primary homes, you’d better plan on seeing a lot of abandoned properties.

        • as for second homes, tough titties.

          with regards to farms, I don’t know how it is in your part of the world, but where I live “farms” are measured in square miles. and they are not taxed at residential rates

          don’t worry though, there is 0% chance of real taxation levels ever going down (before the big reset, that is).

    • Please explain how taxing public schools, which are the property of the state, accomplishes anything. I can definitely see getting rid of teachers unions (and all other public sector unions) as being beneficial. I can sign on with all your other points as they are.

    • Canada taxes mineral rights separately from land. A lot of farmers lost their mineral rights during the depression, they couldn’t pay the tax and they reverted to the government. Oil companies in the US have had a free ride.

  24. I’m prepared to be open minded on the subject.

    Porter at kakisticracy talks about how Denmark and the us are both comparable places to live in terms of standard of living. Compare that to many African nations (Botswana is an obvious one) with extremely free markets.

    So if the racial issue is solved (and inevitably, along with it, the feminist issue) we can have this economic argument; like we used to before racial politics swallowed our entire culture whole.

    I’ve thought about this issue in terms of finance. It is difficult to believe the value to the economy bears any relationship to the remuneration offered. But I have no understanding of the issues involved and would you trust the current elites with the power to.truly interrogate the matter and sensibly regulate it? I wouldn’t.

  25. of all the writers/activists on the dissident right, you come closest to my own views…we have to be pro-white AND anti-rich, anti-corporate…because anti-white multiculturalism and mass immigration are being pushed on us by the rich and powerful

    • There is and always has been a fundamental problem with too much wealth accumulation in too few hands. The connections between money and power are as old as humans and Inseparable from them.

      I don’t really have a problem with rich people living whatever Lifestyles they want. I only have a problem with them influencing policy that affects me, and they do this constantly and ruthlessly.

      Once they have wealth they use power to try to keep and expand their wealth, forming associations with other wealthy people to decide the best course of action in their interests and not ours. We call these associations the Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, Davis, and so on.

      So if anyone ever needed a list of oligarchs who are the most troublesome, membership lists and attendance lists are available publicly.

  26. Where do I sign to spill Billiotard Blood? I don’t want their wealth, I just want them scared to death and walking on eggshells.

    • Some of them already are. Zuckerberg is notorious in these parts for being extremely paranoid and security-minded. All of the Silicon Valley titans are to an extent (as are any high level execs really), but Zuck takes it to the next level.

      From buying up adjacent properties (and annoying his neighbors in Palo Alto), to having a crazy large security detail 24/7….

      Something is just off with the guy.

      • What’s off with him is that his entire operation is a scam, as Zero Hedge explained today. No one is clicking through his ads and customers aren’t getting what they paid for. Moreover, he stole the whole idea from the Winklevoss twins. Finally, he’s a bad guy with a guilty conscience so he thinks he’s going to be attacked for the stuff he’s done.

        It’s hilarious he thinks the likes of Wackenhut security or some other outfit of drunks earning more booze money will protect him. He’s more likely to be defended by his mail order bride.

  27. Over at Steve Sailer’s there was a comment that an expat in Chile made. That HAITIANS are swarming into Chile and the Chileans have no real defense (I scratched off Chile as my last-ditch bolt-hole).

    An overlooked issue among the Dissidents is that the MEN must be tough and scary enough to deter mass Third World immigrants. For sure, White women will ALWAYS invite immavaders as one giant shit test; UNLESS the men are scary enough that there is no real reason for “lets you and him fight.” Which is the favorite past-time of women, period.

    This fits into economics in that men must be “flat” enough so that there are no great social hierarchies but also scary and violent enough to both create anarchy and violence that deters immavaders but also keeps Oligarchs from amassing too much influence and power.

    What I am getting at is that Oligarchs like Buffett or Zuckerberg (Buffett is arguably even worse) should be in FEAR of ordinary Joes and scary things ordinary Joes could do to them at any moment should they get ticked off. The only leveler is fear; and we should work hard to destroy the oligarchs root and branch.

    • Depends on the oligarch, I think. The Russian robber-barons seem to be doing a reasonable job of keeping the hordes off their patch, and I’d rather have one of them behind me in a street fight than Zuckerberg.

    • a very good point there, whiskey…one issue steve sailer often brings up is that one reason it is still easy for most mexicans to have a good life (easier than it is here in america) is that the mexicans have enuf chaos and disorder in mexico so that property values do not appreciate too much…and so therefore the rich and powerful and corporations do not spend as much money on bribing the politicians to let them strangle mexico with regulations…so the mex’s can live without too many building codes etc…a cheaper life…that is what we need…really, american society is too controlled by the rich and powerful…and the way to get them off our backs is to make america less worthwhile for the rich…

      • you seem to be advocating making America into (even more of) a 3rd world shit hole. might not be your intent, but that’s how it sounds to me.

      • How much time do you spend in Mexico? Do you do much business w/ Mexico? Because I do, and I have no idea what you’re talking about when you say it’s still easier for Mexicans to have a good life, (easier than it is here than in America), are you just basing this on property values & regulations?

          • Well, there’s definitely plenty of worn out, syphilitic whores to be had cheaply, South of the border. I can’t argue against that. Also, lots of homes made of cardboard & found plywood, built upon mounds of garbage & rubble, filled w/ Mestizos living the good life. Sure, there’s tons of cartel violence, child rape, extreme poverty, but housing regulations are nothing like here in the oppressive US.

    • Why do you think running away to a foreign country is a solution? You will simply be followed. If more people stayed and fought their way through difficult problems, we wouldn’t have so many. This doesn’t necessarily mean violence, but it does require courage.

      I know I’m a keyboard warrior, but I don’t see another option.

  28. “Few people on the Dissident Right have much to say about Economics”? Really? What do you think was the issue of the Tea Party? Crushing government debt can bring down the entire edifice, which is why they took to the town square. While I’m at it, quit picking on the Oath Keepers. I’m relying on them to resist orders to confiscate arms when the SHTF.

    • The Tea Party was not on the right at all, let alone the dissident right. It was an egalitarian anti-government-debt faction.

      • The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street had, as their primary goal, pretty much the same thing: reducing the power of the bankers and ending the torrents of subsidies to them from the middle class.

        The positioning of the two factions as left and right and their subduction by two political parties was a superb example of divide and conquer.

    • The Tea Party wasn’t strictly a “rightist” movement, it was mostly a “Republican,” movement, and one that was easily co-opted by grifters and ultimately went nowhere. As for those fat, “Civic Nationalist,” or whatever BS cuckoldry crap they call themselves, The OafKeepers, I wouldn’t trust them to guard me against gingivitis. One of their “esteemed” members attacked a white American citizen at a statue protest, grabbing him around the neck, because his sign offended some Hispanic kid, that I don’t think was even a legal, not that even matters. Gross Boomer LARPing with no loyalty to actual Americans. Just like McIness & the Proud Boys, or current day Conservatism.

  29. Henry is best known for his serial adultery and his habit of having wives sent to the gallows

    Rather, the block and the axeman. The six go: divorced, beheaded, died; divorced, beheaded, survived.

  30. A society with relatively small differences in wealth, where there is economic equilibrium, is unlikely to lurch into unrest or reckless adventures.

    Hmmm. The Swedes were pretty equal and they thought “Hey, let’s import half the third world and see what happens!”

    • Indeed. It only takes a few politically influential elites to completely destabilize a society from the top down. Monetary inequality is only one dimension. Having said that, the first rule of politics is to punish your enemies and reward your allies. Whether or not it is prudent to wage a political class war, it will become increasingly politically imperative now that elite opinion is de facto genocidal.

      • sweden is getting *exactly* what they deserve. the world will get along perfectly fine without any swedes left. just don’t let the sit-down-pee’rs into this country. make them fight and die on their own land.

        • One could easily say as much about Americans or any other country for that mater. All white nations are on the same trajectory, so too with Israel for that matter. But this observation is not constructive. It’s schadenfreude masturbation.

  31. “Few people on the Dissident Right have much to say about economics.”

    I think this is a big concern. I still believe that armed conflict is the only way for our problems to be resolved and that is just going to introduce problems we’ve never faced before. Most petty chieftains on the dissident right hide behind a cult of personality. Some may be intelligent in some ways but ignorant in many important areas. Plus, I don’t believe they will really be instrumental in restructuring our society because that will be done locally and it will involve some sort of domination by killers. I don’t mean that in a murderous way. I just mean that their are going to be skirmishes, maybe even battles. The winners of those battles will be viewed as the natural leaders because it will take a firm hand to ward off anarchy and form a functional social nucleus. And the times will make the man. They may be a native Napoleon that will have the imagination to enforce an entirely new code on a group of people.

    What worries me is what will be money in the brave new world? And where are those that have enough financial and economic acumen and understanding that they will be able to convince others to use a new currency? Most superficial understanding leans toward precious metals as a group’s currency. There will be a shortage of gold and silver among the survivors, which will usher in a period of barter, since any precious metals will be overpriced until the economy stabilizes. I know there used to be intelligent men that understood this and could articulate it. I learned much from a folksy investment counselor and author named Richard Kelley Hoskins. But, he is getting on in years. Most financial advisors now just focus on stocks, recommending mutual funds to spread out the risk and to get their commissions. Those that graduate in finance or economics are jokes. They have only ever been exposed to usury economies. If we do not throw off those chains and start our new nation by outlawing such theft we will just be slaves again in 70 years. One of the things Hoskins spoke of was functional money. He gave examples like wooden tallies in England that were used after the jews had been expelled in the 13th century and were allowed to leave with most of the floating supply of gold and silver from the kingdom. He also spoke about Colonial scrip, which was a paper that the colonies used when England restricted imports and exports prior to the Revolution. Both wooden tallies and scrip had the advantage in that they were cheap and plentiful, unlike gold and silver. The trick was to allow them to be used to pay all taxes. By being necessary to pay taxes they had an intrinsic value. The trick was to determine how much was needed each cycle and tax any excess out of the system to avoid inflation.

    I read several dissident right authors and would be leaders. Many seem to know about politics, current events, history, and have strong opinions about what makes for a functional and successful nation. However, their understanding of monetary policy seems to be abysmal. They, like fascists and communists, just think that they will take over the existing economy and that it will run itself. Unfortunately, the existing economy got us into the mess we are in and is for shit. Sure, this is due to political interference in the economy, interest bearing currency, and those that have enriched themselves at the expense of the people. No doubt. But, after the SHTF, monetary policy, reliable food supplies, and protection of land and people will be 3 major concerns that any leaders we have will have to be successful at. Let’s hope there are some charismatic and wise people out there that men will want to follow.

    • There is plenty of knowledge of economics and economic theory and practice in the old school libertarian circles. The old libertarian party is built on a platform of economic Liberty with economic theory to back it up. Lew Rockwell, mises Institute, Murray Rothbard, Hans Hermann Hoppe… Most of you haven’t read these gents but I have. Old school Libertarians believe the foundation of human society and human interaction with one another is primarily economic in nature and so their theory is built on a platform of economic Liberty.

  32. wealth tax time. take all their money away then kick them out of the country. each and every one (looking at you kock brothers).

    • The BQ may resolve itself through antritrust breakup or much increased competition. This is what Trump supporters would like to see.

        • and it’s nutless cucks like these two that keep the current dysfunctional mess in place. take the red pill boys, you just might grow a pair. or head on over to NRO with your brethren in cuckery…

          • The red pill is not a suppository; and if you think it is, you can head on over to The Daily KOS with your brethren in quackery. A vacationVenezuela beckons – they wanted free shit from rich people too.

            If you are drowning in debt, saddled down with payments on a palatial home, a brand new Beemer on an 8 year power lease, and maxed out credit cards and lines of credit at the bank – welp, the bank and the billionaires and the Jooos didn’t do that to ya, sport.

            You did it to yourself. In fact, if you borrowed money without the intent to pay it back, and thought you could just walk away and stick some other slob with the consequences of your stupidity – you deserve to live in the ghetto or a dumpster.

            Oligarchs, tyrants, and nobles are a fact of life. That is how the human animal rolls. And – because 75% of homo saps are animals and uneducable f-tards – if you did away with the 1% you have today, you’d probably have a meaner, nastier 0.01% tomorrow.

          • “… In fact, if you borrowed money without the intent to pay it back…”

            Hey, we just want the same deal the bankers got. Zero interest we know of $16 trillion and someone looking at public documents years ago said it was $28 Trillion.

            They buy the whole economy with essentially zero interest loans and then tell us we’re slackers for not having so much free shit as them.

          • Well, Sam- it should be intuitively obvious to you that there is no such thing as free shit. And ya might wanna crack a history book: those bankers will get their when the economy tanks. They jump out of windows and stuff. So yeah – you ARE getting the same deal they get in the end. You’re just getting it before they do and to be honest – it serves ya both right.
            Buy metals, boys.

          • “…Well, Sam- it should be intuitively obvious to you that there is no such thing as free shit…”

            You’re wrong there is free shit. Example. Financiers with clout borrow money and take over old line manufacturing concern with no debt. Making paper. Charge huge fees to company for…consulting, raid pension funds, lower wages, fire lots of people and work the rest into the ground. Romney did this and many others. A lot of these companies had their people thrown out of work and the whole plant moved to China. More free shot for the bankers. It’s free shit. How you can see it any other way is beside me.

            I don’t believe the world is fair but there’s limits to what should be proper and equitable to the “not free shit” people.

    • We have a wealth tax, that falls squarely on the middle class–the property tax. The middle class holds a much higher proportion of their wealth in real estate than do the wealthy or the poor.

      It is very hard to justify an income tax of one-third or more, when accumulated wealth is hardly taxed at all. Once again, the middle class depends on heavily taxed income for economic survival. The wealthy depend on already accumulated, and lightly taxed, assets.

      • this is partly our fault. We buy houses well in excess of what is advisable. No more than 25-30% of your annual income should be going to housing. THe middle class have been conditioned to think like middle class: that your house is an investment. It’s not – it’s a place to live, cheaply if you pay it off.

        I recommend everyone read Mr. Money Mustache. Despite him being a raging Leftist cuck, he has good advice. We need to re-calibrate our spending and lifestyle choices so we can stop giving our wealth to the government in the form of taxes. If you spend more, you need to make more and this means higher taxes.

        • You do realize that you still owe property taxes if you pay it off AND they can still confiscate it from you if you fall too far behind. Name one thing like that the wealthy have to deal with.

          • Save perhaps for the very wealthy, no American really owns his home. Everyone rents, in one form or another. The working class guy who has an apartment and pays rent is derided for being a simpleton who can’t manage or accumulate wealth, but how is that doctor or dentist on the other side of town really any different, except perhaps in degree? These upper-middle class and upper-class people “own” their homes to the extent that they can make their mortgage payments on time and can pay their property taxes. Fail to do those things, and that doctor or dentist is going to find out pretty darned quick who actually “owns” whom!

      • :…It is very hard to justify an income tax of one-third or more, when accumulated wealth is hardly taxed at all…”

        They don’t pay near that. Remember they mostly pay capital gains tax which is half or so the taxes we pay. Let them pay the exact same tax rate and index it to inflation. Maybe we would get a break.

        • the rich used to put a ton of money into muni bonds which mostly had 0% tax rate (on their interest). not sure if they still do that, with so many municipalities being tits up financially.

          • Municipalities are most often run by the dull witted people of the left who love government work. IT IS THEY who squandered their resources and over-paid themselves. Gave their brethren huge benefit packs and high wages. Now they are broke and many not getting their pensions. Thanks to the leftist stupidity and greed.

            Long time conservative run communities and states have no such problems.

      • The U.S. had a wealth tax in the past, it turned everyone into liars. I favor a confiscatory estate tax. The Mars family, and seventeen other dynasties, have spent $500,000,000 since 1994 lobbying against it, and spreading misleading information. It is the least costly to administrate, reduces inequality, and could raise substantial revenue. Why should workers’ pay 28% of their wages so Paris Hilton doesn’t have to work? And when Karl McHungus starts killing off billionaires, it might serve a social purpose.

Comments are closed.