A Functioning Patchwork

Spandrell consistently posts some of the most thought provoking content on the internet.  In his most recent post he ties together early soviet communism, modern day cultural Marxism, and the important concept of loyalty tests.  Is rule by a priestly bureaucracy really the best we can do?  In bureaucratic rule, loyalty becomes so important the vows of celibacy are necessary to prove loyalty.  The problem with priestly bureaucracies is that they lose the incentive to innovate, or even have any respect for objective truth.  To understand how a society based upon testimonial truth might be constructed it may be helpful to analyze one small example.

The lobster industry of Maine has been practicing sustainable fishing for years.  The industry has managed to increase the number of lobsters caught to record levels.  This did not happen because of laissez faire capitalism, nor by bureaucratic communism.  The secret to the lobster industry’s success is rule of law—in this case a system of regulations.  Lobsterman must wait years to get a license.  There are no open borders at the entrance of the lobster industry.  Female lobsters with eggs must be marked and returned to the ocean.  Lobsters under or over a certain size must also be returned unharmed.

The laws regarding lobster fishinghave prevented a tragedy of the commons in which each fisherman seeks to maximize his own profit by catching all that he can.  The result of a complete absence of cooperation among lobsterman would be a collapse of the industry due to over-fishing.  Another factor, which probably helps the industry to succeed, is that the lobstermen are all New Englanders.  They follow the rules, and they will snitch on cheaters.  They are a tough bunch and they have their own culture.

The lobster industry should be an example to so called conservatives that a well regulated marketplace does not need to be a totalitarian nightmare.  Each member of the patchwork is a profit seeking entity.  Lobstermen have been developing better traps, more fuel-efficient boats, and methods of harvesting further from shore.  Greed actually is good.  The industry serves as an example to liberals that government ownership of an industry is far from ideal.  The keys to the success of a patchwork are a healthy incentive structure for each patch, and a method of ensuring cooperation between the patches.  The profit motive provides the incentive, while cooperation is always the tricky part.

To govern a healthy society it helps to have:

Rule of law (accountability)

Racial and cultural cohesion

Restricted entry into the society, market, or county

Punishment or exile for those who imperil the commons

Freedom by itself does not produce a health society.  In fact that’s bass ackwards.  Liberty is the fruit of a high trust society under accountable rule of law.

Equality does not happen just because people scream and protest.  Social mobility increases, and class differences decrease when excessive profit is slowly ground away by competition in a marketplace.

Our goal on the new right is to crush both liberalism and conservatism, as most people understand the concepts.

A purpose beyond race and identity

A recent comment over at Zman’s blog seemed to be well liked, so I shall add a few more thoughts.  First the comment:

“The cloud people are all but invisible to some folks out here in flyover land. From a struggling mid sized town in East Kentucky perspective, the cloud people don’t seem important at first. Walmart has done more damage to the community than Mexicans. Highway project after highway project (bypassing the bypass route of the old bypass route), have destroyed more small businesses than Jews. Consolidated schools have destroyed more small towns than blacks. White people are not having children for numerous reasons, but when the community schools are gone, it is just one more pita to deal with.

The ironic thing is that a majority of people in these towns will favor the Wal-Mart (cheap stuff), highway project (muh jobs), and giant mega-school in the middle of nowhere (for the children). Of course the cloud people profit from all of the above. Some in the Alt Right like too say that economics do not matter, but we need a message that resonates with people.”

I have no interest in ranting against Walmart–I shop there too.  I am interested in thinking about the way we live today, and the fact that both left and right are unhappy with the arrangement.  Any criticism of globalism or crony capitalism always meets cry’s of  “muh free markets!” from the right, and “communism now!” from the left.    Neither left nor right are addressing the loss of social trust occurring in the west.

Walmart’s success involves economies of scale, but Walmart has historically engaged in aggressive price discrimination.  Even those rare purchasers who can buy goods in greater quantities than Walmart may not get a price per item as low as Walmart.  Supplier contracts are abused to create supplier monopolies, but the left today has no interest in trust busting.

Much of America is in decline, middle class jobs seem scarce, and boarded up store fronts are prevalent in much of small town America.  People who live in these towns will eagerly support any government initiative that seems like it might offer opportunity.  The little southern Illinois town of Tamms supported a nearby supermax prison a few years back.   The people there probably thought that new stores and restaurant would follow, but all of the development occurred near Interstate 57 several miles away.

A huge percentage of US GDP is government funded indirectly if not directly.   Most of the growth sectors of the economy (health care, education, etc.) involve government funds.  The Reagan era rallying cry of less government and more individualism does not resonate as it once did.  People may not support big governments, but they do not trust big business.  Huge cuts in health and education spending will be needed to prevent insolvency,  but helping the private sector will not necessarily bring back middle America.  The west is lurching toward a plantation economy similar to what is seen in much of South America.   The new right needs to present an alternative.


What is referred to as globalism has historic roots, which go back at least as far as the English civil wars of the 1600’s.  Globalism today has certain characteristics:

American hegemony

Petro-dollar/fiat currency

The desire to spread democracy

Globalism has passed through four phases in the last 100 years or so:

Pre-globalism           (From the end of the Spanish-American War to the end of WWII.)

Globalism 1.0          Post WWII to 1972

Globalism 2.0          1972 to 1996

Globalism 3.0          1996 to the present

William Jennings Bryan figures prominently as the most important ideological figure in early Globalism.  Bryan opposed imperialism, yet he had favored America’s entry into the Spanish American War.  Bryan believed in spreading democracy to the world, yet he railed against American empire.

Bryan is regarded as one of the most brilliant orators of his time.  His candidacies for US president coincided with a period of history in which the US was transitioning from an agrarian frontier nation to an industrial power with considerable military might.  In his cross of gold speech, Bryan asserted that European powers should  not, and in fact could not influence the US currency.

“If they say bimetallism is good, but that we cannot have it until other nations help us, we reply, that instead of having a gold standard because England has, we will restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States has it. If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we will fight them to the uttermost.”

William Jennings Bryan was a populist, but his ideology parted ways with the earlier populism of Andrew Jackson.  Bryan’s focus was on trying to find a world leadership role for the increasingly powerful USA which fit his morals.  Bryan’s speeches and writings foreshadowed the early globalist ideology expressed in the famous Time Magazine article American Malvern.

Bryan lost his bids for the presidency.  William McKinley’s pragmatism won out and the Philippines became a US territory.  The US simply did not yet have the military or economic power to implement Bryan’s agenda in 1900.  His ideas remain some of the most important for those of us interested in the history of globalism.  This blog post will be revised.

Chip Board Boxes


The California wildfires have given the conspiracy minded folks something to talk about.  Images like the one above show houses burned to a crisp while nearby pine trees survived.  Since pine trees are flammable, what happened?  Did an alien microwave death ray smite the houses while leaving the trees?

A more likely explanation is that modern houses are made out of flammable crap.  A typical house today consists of OSB walls covered with vinyl siding under an asphalt roof.   In other words wood chips covered by petrochemicals–what could possibly go wrong?

A more interesting question is what kind of society would choose to build houses like this?  There was a time when the more affluent would build houses out of brick or stone.  Horrific fires in the mid 1800’s nearly leveled cities like St. Louis and Chicago.  A trend toward building  housing which would potentially last for hundreds of years existed, and then this trend was abandoned.

Of course we live in a consumer society in which people think short term.  Preaching that we should think of our posterity seems pointless.  A more useful inquiry is an analysis of the incentives which have brought about such a consumer society.

The loss of community is a primary source of the problem.  An individual who buys a house in suburban Atlanta may enjoy twenty years of appreciation on that property before diversity threatens the property value.   There is no point in buying a house which is built to last 300 years when the neighborhood is gone in thirty.  You will not be leaving your house to your heirs.

The FIRE (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) drives much of the political system in the USA.  A creditor does not care about the house once the loan is paid, and a typical house mortgage lasts thirty years.  All of the political and business incentives are to build and destroy everything about every thirty to forty years.



A Cleaner Shirt–Passivism revisited

Moldbug’s concept of passivism is one of his least understood.   Passivism means that a simple procedure is required to gain power.


  1. Become worthy
  2. Accept power
  3. Rule

At first glance, the procedure seems absurdly simplistic.  Are you saying that all I need to do is sit around and blog post in order to rule a country?  Passivism also means that one who desires authority must reject any claims to authority.  This assertion rubs many folks on the Alt Right the wrong way since it would seem to mean that all public activism is pointless.  Moldbug observed that the demonstrations of the 1960’s were actually a victory lap for the left.  The political left had already assumed power (De Facto), by gaining control of almost all of the institutions that matter.  (Courts, Media, Universities)  The ability to stage unruly public demonstrations simply formalized the fact that they were assuming power.  (De Jure)  The few remaining nominally right wing institutions (police, military) failed to prevent lawlessness in the streets.

Let us consider these two objections in order.  Of course, we must do more than internet activity to rule a country.  A more detailed procedure might read:

  1. Become worthy

1a. Be seen as worthy by people that matter.

  1. Accept power
  2. Rule

Who matters?  The common people like me do not matter much.  A reactionary does not seek a peasant’s revolt.  Occasionally a charismatic individual or group is able to gather enough popular support to motivate torches and pitchforks.  The problem with a peasant’s revolt against the problems caused by leftism is that the peasants will demand even more leftism as the fix.  We are hungry.  We want better health care!  Give us stuff!

If commoners do not matter then perhaps, the military is the solution.  All power comes out of the barrel of a gun after all, but military organizations are highly hierarchical.  The subject of why soldiers obey orders at all, and how they choose whom to obey is one on which a great deal of ink has been spilled.  It is unlikely that a successful military coup would occur unless at least a few higher officers were involved.

People that matter are only those who have the ability to grant the transfer of power, or facilitate others to transfer power.  In some societies, the only people that matter are those who command the guns—North Korea comes to mind.  Fear, coercion, or intimidation is powerful motivation.  In the west, power is usually a bit more subtle.  Good governments are those that provide transparency and consistency.  The west is a lower trust society than it was in 1960; however, the west is still a better place to do business than most of the world.

I need to buy a new bar for my chainsaw.  I may choose to buy it online from either Wal-Mart site to store, Amazon, or Ebay.  If I chose to buy the bar from any of those three, I am actually purchasing the bar from a vendor, who has been granted the privilege of selling in that online space.  Even Wal-Mart is not really the seller—I just get the bar through Wally’s website and distribution network.  Wal-Mart, Ebay, or Amazon is actually selling governance.  These online giants have created a set of rules for participating in a marketplace, and a means for redressing grievances if transactions do not go as expected.  Ebay in a sense is doing a better job governing than most of the US court system.  I will choose to get my chain saw parts through the governing body that seems to offer the lowest total transaction cost.  (Time, money, hassle)

Global capital functions in a similar manner.  No sane billionaire invests billions in Zimbabwe. The cost of labor and land in Zimbabwe may be low, but the overall cost there is high.  Governments such as the EU or USG offer a better overall deal.  The US dollar has often been referred to as the cleanest dirty shirt in the drawer.  Global crony capitalism has many flaws, but still offers a good return on investment.  Moneyed and powerful people will not support an alternative to globalism until the alternative is seen as being a lower cost option.  This could be done by creating a system, which offers transactions that are more truthful.  Stamping out corruption, creating a better court system, and using stable fiscal and monetary policy, are all means of increasing transparency.  The other option is less appealing—raise the cost of the status quo.  (As the IRA did in Ireland)

The second objection, that passivism means abstaining from all public activism, is in the process of resolving itself.  A major Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, VA did not go as well as the organizers had hoped.  Most of the key figures in the Alt Right have taken on a slightly different tone post C-Ville.  Public events will still take place, but certain of the more inflammatory symbols are discouraged.  Participants are told to obey all state and local laws to the letter.  Protests are geared toward raising awareness of the threat to heritage, hearth, and home.  Unlike the militia movement of the 1970’s, who ran about with guns, and even robbed a bank on one occasion, today’s Alt Right is trying to appear worthy.  Critics may say that the Alt Right does not have all the answers, but remember that no governing body needs to be perfect.  We just need to be slightly cleaner dirty shirt than USG.

Who’s WE Sucka?

I enjoy picking on cuckservatives because it is so easy to wrap them up in logical contradictions.  When discussing politics with a cuck I often hear responses like, “All we need to do is follow the constitution.” Perhaps the cuck will say, “We should have a free market for health care.”  Statements like this ignore the simple political reality that there must be some WE which agrees with this point of view.

When discussing Hans Herman Hoppe’s work on the Daily Shoa, Curt Doolittle mentioned that a fundamental question of ethics is, “Why don’t I kill you and take your stuff?”  Such a statement might seem silly at first, but consider the origins of law.  A law proceeds from a gentleman’s agreement, and law is enforced with various physical punishment.  When two cave men met a few thousand years ago, you can bet that each of them thought, “I can kill this guy and take his stuff.”   At some point, they learned not to kill each other and law was born.

A high trust society is possible because of a system in which no one, not even the King, is above the law.  Cucks simply take this high trust framework for granted.  Visiting rural Baja California is an interesting experience.  Far from major towns enterprising fellows sell gasoline in plastic milk jugs.  What a great free market system!  What octane rating is it?  Has it been diluted with wood alcohol?  The transaction takes place far from the law, and it is buyer beware.  Much of the world economy consists of this style of bazaar economics in which haggling is expected, quality is questionable, and transparency is completely absent.

Transparency in politics is damaged when one side refuses to play by the rules.  Conservatives tolerated the gay marriage initiative because they thought, “Live and let live.”  A conservative could justify a pro-gay marriage position based upon libertarian principles.  Such a cuck should not be too surprised then when the other side, which proclaimed a desire to live and let live, then asserts a right to be married at the cuck’s church.  The situation is analogous to the buyer who agrees to buy a quart of milk only to discover that it is diluted with cat piss.

The first three words of the constitution are “We the People.”   What happens when there is no longer a we?  Judicial activism is a glaring example of this.  A law may clearly state that freed men of color may be citizens, but a judge comes to power and simply declares that this means that any baby born on US soil is a citizen.  There is no longer a we in most of the west.  A high trust society no longer exists when various factions decide that they are above the law and act to work around the law with any bit of power that they can acquire.

Black’s will vote for more social programs by a 90% margin.  There is no argument based upon law that will convince them otherwise.  A black person who gains power, whether in business or government, will typically act in his own interest and act to subvert the law.  Waves of immigrants are flooding to the west at this moment.  These people do not consider themselves to be part of the we.  The immigrants will often be from parts of the world where the low trust bazaar economy is typical.  The end result will be a low trust political system.

A question often debated in white nationalist circles is, “Are Jewish people white?”  The question seems absurd when asked about European Jews since they are from Europe.  The real question which should be asked of any person, or any ethnicity is, “Are you part of the we?”  In the case of Jews, a large percentage consider themselves to be a minority apart from the rest of society.  These Jews caused a disruption to the system of law and trust in the west as they gained power in the 1950’ and 1960’s.  Liberals have always been around in the west.  The American Board of Massachusetts was a religious organization which sought to school the Indians and otherwise improve their quality of life in the early 1800’s.   The abolitionist movement was certainly one of the left wing movements of its time, but the abolitionists sought to make changes to the law.  The temperance movement of the twentieth century also came from a Puritan background, but they also sought changes in law.  The temperance movement, and the female suffrage movement, were both successful in making legal changes to the constitution.

What has changed since the 1960’s is that the left learned that they can gain power through media, academia, and the arts.  This power is then used to subvert the law rather than change it.  No constitutional changes were made to allow tranny bathrooms.  A system has been put in place where political goods are offered for sale in the marketplace.  (Propaganda in the media)  Few of these goods are advertised truthfully.   The cucks need to get it through their thick skulls that the constitution and law in general do not matter.  Law is based upon the agreement to honor it.  When one side agrees to honor the law while another side’s mentality is, “I want to take your stuff”, the law is rendered impotent.

Considering all of the above it is possible to answer the question, “Are Jews white?”  The answer is maybe.  A Jew is white if he chooses to think of himself as white.  Does he consider himself part of the we?  For many Jews the answer may be no.

Moldbug and Wood Stoves

Cuckservatives have an amazing ability to tell themselves pretty white lies.  The conservative movement has long claimed to favor the rule of law, while simultaneously claiming to be against regulations.  Which is it?  A regulation is simply a rule—in other words a law for all practical purposes.   In the case of many regulations the congress simply empowers an agency to create all the regulatory details of a law.

A specific example may serve to illustrate the point.  A few years ago, my wife, a dedicated Glen Beck listener, informed me with horror that the EPA was creating new regulations which would outlaw all wood burning stoves.  Whether this is a bad thing or not is beside the point—I like clean air as much as the next guy.  She and Glen were more or less correct.  The EPA enacted new regulations in 2015.  These will be phased in over a five-year period and will dramatically reduce the amount of particulate (smoke) that a wood stove may legally emit.  These new rules probably will force a few companies to close their doors for good.

Consider the situation from the point of view of a small wood stove manufacturer.  Perhaps you do not like the new rules.  Whom should you approach with your concerns?  The EPA is not going to be very receptive.  You may choose to call or write your congressman, but congress no longer control the little details of law.  Your congressman is not going to be able to take regulatory power from the EPA once it is granted.  Perhaps you contact the media and try to raise awareness of your plight.  Well done sir!  You are petitioning the King.  As Mencious Moldbug pointed out, you could always petition the King even before all this freedumb and democracy stuff started.

When conservatives say they want to end regulations, but they want the rule of law they sound silly.  What conservatives should state is that they want rule of law that is accountable.  For law to be accountable some hierarchy must exist.   The present system in the USA is rule of think tanks, universities, bureaucracies, and media.  This system is not very hierarchical or accountable.  Conservatives are complaining about rule by Moldbug’s cathedral, but they do not recognize the nature of their complaint.

Conservative always lose because freedumb is their highest value.  A society governed by whomever is most successful at manipulating the masses is not likely to be a society governed by rational analysis of the problems.  I the case of wood stoves it might seem reasonable to ban them outright in Los Angeles, while permitting use in rural Montana.  This solution is not possible in a system where demotism means that a crisis must always be created, and then a blanket solution applied to fix it.

Trump’s Master Plan–Strategic Bankruptcy

Donald Trump may have a master plan for saving the country, or he may not.  Phase 1 of Trump’s plan will be to consolidate power.  His best course of action will be to emulate Ronald Reagan’s fiscal irresponsibility.  While some remember Reagan as a great conservative, federal deficits soared to unprecedented levels under his administration.  Reagan had two primary goals and he achieved them both.  His first goal was to lower all marginal tax rates and simplify the tax code.  His other goal was to rebuild the US military.  Reagan seldom had full congressional support for these measures, and the media fought him every step of the way.  To overcome congressional opposition Reagan simply bought cooperation with deficit spending.  Congressmen may make noise about balanced budgets, but they all love to spend money on their constituents.  Reagan’s deficits were strategic.  He ensured cooperation with the parts of his program that mattered to him, and he felt that economic growth would make all the spending irrelevant overall.  Things did not work out quite so rosy, but the Soviet Union did come apart.

Donald Trump is no Regan, but he may elect to use a similar strategy.  Trump does not care so much about abortion, tax policy, or military spending as many so-called conservatives.  Trump’s main issues seem to be border security, and favorable trade deals.  Neither of these issues are popular with congress, and the media hates the idea of an America first policy.  This does not matter to Trump—he will buy cooperation.  Already there are rumors of a massive infrastructure spending bill in his first 100 days.   This bill will do very little to put Americans to work.  Public works projects just do not employ many people compared to the old days, and projects take forever to leave the planning stage.  All this spending will buy cooperation from key members of congress who are eager to reward their friends with a big pork dinner.  Trump will also use military spending and tax cuts to buy cooperation.  These measures will be fiscally irresponsible in the extreme, and will place stress on an already shaky financial system.  Trump will not care.

Trump will use all the cooperation that he buys to build a real border wall.  He will also act to create what amounts to a security state favorable to most Americans.  Deportations of illegals will begin and this step is critical to the overall plan.  Trump will also seek to delegitimatize the media, and weaken their power.  His judicial appointments will also help to secure his power for the next important phase.  He will seek to obtain a great relationship with the FBI and military.  He will build friendships with state and local law enforcement.  When he senses that the time is right, Trump will collapse the system.

The idea that Trump will use spending to build cooperation should not be controversial.  Whether Trump intends to cause or allow an economic collapse is highly speculative.  (Larping) Consider that Donald Trump is no stranger to bankruptcy.   He has used bankruptcy to successfully defend and rebuild his business empire.  Trump does not share the same sky is falling, woe is me, the world is ending, attitude about business failure that is common in the media.  Donald Trump is likely to use the economic collapse to save the county.  Bankruptcy is beautiful and deflation is divine.

People who are what Rush Limbaugh calls low information voters think of rich people as if they had huge vaults full of money, when the truly rich are considered to be rich because of the market value of their assets.  This market value fluctuates, and many of the wealthiest people in the world also hold a great deal of debt.  As long as their assets can generate enough revenue to keep paying on the debt these people and institutions remain rich.  As soon as the checks start to bounce, an entire empire can come to its knees quickly.

Consider the case of an Iowa corn farmer who owns 1000 acres of prime farmland free and clear.  If the land is worth $8000 per acre, this farmer holds 8 million worth of land, and perhaps has another $100,000 or so in the bank.  If the price of corn and the price of land collapse so that his farms are only worth $500,000 instead of 8 million he really does not care.  This farmer, who may lead a very middle class lifestyle, has simply moved sideways down the asset deflation bubble as it pops.

A corporate farm may also own 1000 acres, but the land will almost certainly be paid for with borrowed money.  In a major economic downturn, the corporate farm is instantly bankrupt and those 1000 acres will be offered for sale by the court at a fire sale price.   The popping of the asset inflation bubble will be painful for many people in addition to all the large corporations, but the end result will be affordable family formation and a healthy society.

Asset inflation has been one of the most destructive forces damaging American families, and it has been tolerated since the 1970’s.  The price of a house in a non-inflated economy will remain fairly stable, but housing prices in the USA have been steadily rising.  While homeowners typically see this as a good thing and have been known to consider their houses as speculative investments, rising asset prices kill the middle class.  Health care, education, transportation, and food have all been inflated to absurd levels.  When section 8 housing vouchers pay for a $1000 per month apartment, a middle-class family needs to spend $1500 per month to stay in a nice area.  White people choose not to have kids.  Society gradually degrades.

While Trump is a wealthy man, he has middle class sensibilities.  Lion of the Blogosphere has observed that Trump has 1950’s values.  Since Trump understands the real estate market as well as anyone, he will not be intimidated into another TARP.  The big banks will fall.  Asset prices will fall, but those assets will become productive once more since the cost of operating farms, factories, and stores will be so much more reasonable.  America will be much stronger and better post collapse.  The key to making all this happen is for Trump to have very strong political control of law enforcement, the judiciary, and the military.  Even if the dollar collapses a new currency, perhaps based on gold, could be created.  Instead of bailing out the big banks, Trump may choose to bail out the holders of CDs, checking accounts, small businesses, and farms.  These people, who may see the prices of their houses fall by 50% or more will suddenly feel rich.  These people will rebuild the country.

The Unlikely Origins of the Alt-Right

The movement known as the alt-right or new-right has origins that are cultural, intellectual, and economic.  In general, alt-right thinkers tend to be younger than either conservatives or leftists.  The most important cultural influence on the alt-right was the 1990’s cartoon comedy South Park.  The main characters in this television cartoon were four boys who struggled to understand various absurdities in the world around them.   Most of these problems were usually caused by the politically correct attitudes of the adults in their lives. South Park’s comedy did not showcase all of the ideas that have become part of the alt-right sphere, but the show was the beginning of a youth revolt against political correctness.

Vice Presidential hopeful Dan Quayle famously challenged the wisdom of encouraging single motherhood by mentioning the TV sitcom Murphy Brown.  Quayle’s remarks were not well received by the electorate.   The writers of South Park have mercilessly ridiculed the notion that single motherhood is a net positive for society by creating a character, Eric Cartman, who is the sociopathic son of a single mom.  In one episode young Cartman’s anti-social tendencies become so severe that his care is handed off to a series of super nannies.  Only a male father figure, Cesar Milan from the television show Dog Whisperer, could correct young Eric’s misbehavior.  At the end of the episode when Cesar Milan leaves, Cartman’s single mom reverts to form and once more encourages his misbehavior.

By 1995 the political left had successfully built a highly successful coalition of the fringes which included the most vocal individuals in the LGBT community.   The 1960’s counter-culture had been largely successful in its revolt against traditionalism to such an extent that there were few lifestyle choices left which were not accepted by the general public.  Traditional conservatives who attempted to resist cultural movement left were often seen as out of touch and absurdly old-fashioned, or at least they were portrayed this way by major media outlets.  The writers of South Park typically attacked the left by being even more outrageous and offensive than the leftists were.  In one episode the school’s class gerbil is tragically lost in the colon of a teacher’s gay lover.  When the gerbil, Lemiwinks, is finally rescued the boys are overjoyed.   It seems certain that many parents were shocked to discover that there actually is such a thing as a sexual fetish involving gerbils.

The most controversial aspect of alternative right politics is the frank discussion of racial differences.  South Park followed conventional thinking by portraying the races as equals; however, the show did not avoid racial controversy.   In an episode titles With Apologies to Jesse Jackson, the Reverend Jackson is portrayed as greedy and arrogant man who insists that others kiss his buttocks.  The same episode features repeated use of the most terrible of words—nigger.

Traditional conservatives did not know what to think about South Park.  The show was crude, vulgar, and highly offensive.   Liberals were confused by the show.  The left had become accustomed to being the most edgy and controversial ones in society, yet here was an element of popular culture that was even more extreme than they were, and it was critical of them.  South Park represents the earliest stage of what has become a generational revolt against political correctness.  Today’s alt-right features an endless parade of cartoon characters such as smug green frogs and offensive jokes which are shared on social media.  While the alt-right remains edgy and offensive, it would be a mistake to think that there are no intellectual roots to the movement.

The alternative right would not be possible without the internet.   The movement represents the beginning of an age of digital philosophers. When most laymen are asked to share something about philosophy they will share something vague such as, “I think all people should be happy.”  Actual philosophy at its most fundamental level is all about logic.  Logic is a means of testing a system of assertions for truth or falsehood.  Computer scientists and electronics engineers think of logic as a means of using electronic switches to sort binary numbers.  A table that maps the input states of a digital system to corresponding output states is called a truth table.   The fact that modern computers run on philosophy would come as no surprise to a young Jewish computer programmer named Curtis Yarvin.

Yarvin turned his analytical mind to the study of old books and created a blog called Unqualified Reservations.  Using the pseudonym, Mencious Moldbug,  Yarvin began to intellectually eviscerate both classical liberals (conservatives), and socialists.   He drew upon sources such as Thomas Carlyle, and Thomas Hobbs, to point out that democracy as it is presently conceived simply cannot work. Neither South Park nor Curtis Yarvin would truly be considered part of the Alt-Right today, but each had important influence.

Another digital philosopher of considerable importance is F. Roger Devlin.  Devlin’s book, Sexual Utopia in Power, introduced thousands to the concept that female sexuality is hypergamous while male sexuality is polygynous.  A blogger known as Roissy in DC used Devlin’s concepts along with his own irreverent humor to revolutionize the way that young men approached their relationships with women.   What later became known as the manosphere of the internet began as the simple realization that much of what young men are taught is little more than pretty lies.  Once young men began to question the lies that they had been taught about sexuality, many began to question the conventional wisdom regarding race realism, nutrition, and political matters.

While the man generally credited with coining the phrase alternative right, Richard Spencer, is a visionary and dreamer, most of the alt-right is intellectually analytical rather than ideological.  There simply is no such thing as alt-rightism.  Important figures in the alt-right include Greg Johnson (philosopher), F. Roger Devlin (philosopher), Mike Enoch (computer programmer), Curt Doolittle (philosopher), Curtis Yarvin (computer programmer), Nick Land (philosopher), and many more.  The alt-right was created on the internet and would not be possible without the internet.  The movement consists of hundreds of analytical thinkers who do not agree on much other than the simple fact that  today’s political left and right are both wrong. The internet has created the greatest intellectual free for all since Plato and Aristotle lived in Athens.

Race realism is matter that is often discussed in alt-right circles, yet the movement is much different than the white nationalist movement of thirty years ago.  The most popular white nationalist writer of all time is probably William Luther Pierce, who wrote a book called the Turner Diaries.  Another book written by Pierce, titled Hunter, featured a Batman-like electronics genius protagonist.   The book has an absurdly improbable plot that involves the loner hero and his beautiful girlfriend embarking upon a campaign of violence against Jews and other minorities.  Fiction such as the works of Pierce has tended to inspire violent losers on occasion.  One militia group known as the Order engaged in bank robberies; a man named Glen Miller attacked a Kansas Synagogue, and it is possible that Timothy McVey was influenced by this old school white nationalism.

Most people on the alt-right today dislike discussions of violent fantasy.   Those individuals that do engage in such wild speculations are often accused of LARPing (live action role playing), and are subjected to a bit of teasing.  The one thing that today’s alt right does have in common with the earlier white nationalist movement is that they have been left behind by the economy.  Until the 1990s it was possible for most college educated young people to avoid dealing with racial issues by avoiding the matter geographically.  Forty years of deficit spending combined with an open door immigration policy have brought about a severe decline in the American standard of living even as the economy has steadily grown as measured by gross domestic product.  A young college graduate today cannot afford a house in the suburbs, and cannot avoid racial matters for this reason.  In a sense all young Americans have been turned into losers by policies that enrich a globalist elite.  A generation of smart young people who made straight A’s in school and often work more than seventy hours per week at two different jobs are looking for answers.  An entire generation is asking, “What happened?”, and more importantly, “Cui Bono?”   As they seek answers many are discovering that William Pierce was not so far off of the mark after all, but today’s alt-right is about trying to forge a positive movement forward instead of a violent negative reaction.

Rethinking Foreign Aid

As we progress from libertarian or old right points of view many of us wind up advocating for policies that we would never have considered before.    One example is higher minimum wage laws.  Randall Parker has called for higher minimum wages because they would reduce the incentive to hire cheap foreign labor.  Another previously unthinkable position is a massive foreign aid budget.

It is often remarked that the great struggle of our time is nationalism vs. globalism.  A more nuanced view is that we have evolved globalism 3.0 over the last sixty years.  Globalism 1.0 was the Marshall Plan and American hegemony.  Globalism 2.0 was the post Nixon era after the gold standard was removed and Chinese trade was opened.  As the American consumer was finally tapped out Globalism 3.0 evolved; huge numbers of third world consumers were imported into the US and other western countries.

Steve Sailer once remarked that the whole immigration debacle is really about toilet paper in a sense.  Imagine that you are on the board of directors of a company like Georgia Pacific that makes consumer goods.  Every quarter you read reports in which you target 10% revenue growth over last year.  How does a company which manufactures commodities create growth?  Americans will only poop so much and the market for toilet paper is fairly stable.  Under Globalism 2.0 the great dream was to sell American consumer goods overseas in massive quantities.   During the 1980’s corporate leaders dreamed of all the people of India and China becoming American style consumers or debt serfs, but the growth in the international markets proved unsatisfactory.  Once a system has been built upon ever expanding mountains of debt it must continue to expand or die.  Debt fueled growth is the goal of globalist policy instead of concerns about the living standards of people.    The people in the designated shitting streets of India don’t buy enough toilet paper, so we must bring them to the west where they will adopt the consumer lifestyle.

People on the old right often carry on quite a bit about tax policy and moan about costs to the taxpayers.   Under globalism 3.0 taxes don’t matter very much and the inner city dindus of Detroit are a resource.   Money can be created in nearly infinite quantities through deficit spending and is distributed through social programs.   The dindi are the ideal members of society under globalism 3.0 as they spend every dime that they obtain; meanwhile wage inflation is held in check by importing low wage workers.  Asset inflation of stocks and real estate benefits the wealthy while everyone else is slowly impoverished.

An alternative policy would be to buy off the globalists in order to save countries in the west.  Since taxes no longer matter and we can make money out of thin air, consider sending the helicopter money overseas.   Massive spending on underclass ghettos overseas would stimulate consumer demand there instead of here, and give the globalists the revenue growth they so desperately need.    To  LARP a bit we could even pay underclass people in western counties to leave and then continue to give them money after they leave as an incentive to stay away.    Americans have traditionally been opposed to foreign aid spending, but they don’t seem to object to massive welfare spending for foreigners who have stepped foot on American soil.  What’s the difference?   Is it not better to give a trillion dollars to Mexcans in Mexico as an incentive to keep them in Mexico?   The (((globalists)))  certainly don’t care as long as they get their money.

A better policy than massive foreign aid would be a sound money policy and balanced budget.  This would kill globalism, and collapse asset prices.  Make America affordable again!   Even Trump does not have enough guts and charisma to balance the budget, so massive foreign aid, like a twenty dollar minimum wage, becomes an attractive idea in this screwed up inverted world.