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.

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 the 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 that 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 is the beginning of the 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 the 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 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.

When speculation is good.

Since 1990 or so most of the world has been in a speculative economy.  Central banks around the world have been expanding the money supply, and asset inflation has been the predictable result.  Almost all students of reaction tend to prefer hard money policies, but all financial speculation is not destructive.

Imagine a large company, Acme Widgets, is owned by an individual.   Suppose that the widget business is highly competitive so that Acme cannot make an excessive profit.  I am defining excessive profit to be that level above the profit level where it is just worth staying in business.  Acme has good revenues and a quality product, but free market competition has kept the price of widgets at such a level  that Acme can pay all the employees and pay the bills, but the profit left over is not exciting.

One fine day the head of Acme’s R&D approaches the owner of Acme with an idea for a new production technology.  If implemented the new machines can cut per widget production cost by 25%.   Mr. Acme knows a great idea when he hears one, but getting all of the special computers and machine tools for the new method will be expensive, and Acme does not have a giant pile of cash on hand.  Since Acme does not have excessive profit it would take forever to save the funds necessary to implement the new technology.   The solution is obvious.  Acme must borrow.   Such borrowing is risky since Acme cannot be certain that the business plan will work.  Competitors may find a way around the patents or develop superior technologies of their own.  If things do not go according to plan Acme will not be able to pay back the loan and may go bankrupt.  Even so it may be worth the risk to the lender provided that Acme has collateral.   So this is the rule:  Speculation that is collateralized may be beneficial. 

I know…  Thanks Mr. Obvious, but consider the kind of corporate debt that is being taken on today.  Many companies are issuing debt in order to buy back shares of their own stock.  While this benefits the shareholders, it does not necessarily improve the company.  Here is the not so obvious dark truth.   The problem with corporate America and large multinational corporations is that the leadership is demotic.  It is fashionable among some to denigrate great industrialists of the past such as Andrew Carnegie, or Cornelius Vanderbilt.  Often referred to as robber barons, men such as these were the sovereign heads of their respective companies.   As such they really did not need to worry too much about a single month’s financial statement and were free to focus on wise long term plans.   Corporate leaders today must obsess over each month end, quarter end, and year end.  The market rules, but when the market consist of a mob of shareholders the market is mob rule.

Today we have a left that demonizes capitalism and the profit motive,  yet it is capitalism that has created new technologies, efficiencies, and has given us the standard of living we enjoy.  Many of those on the right are cheerleaders for multinational corporations regardless of whether the companies in question are engaged in wise or reckless speculation.  It is only when companies are managed by an accountable hierarchy that they have an incentive to avoid reckless speculation.  It is possible for a CEO to act is such a way as to maximize share price in the short term, personally profit from sales of stock options and incentives, and then head for the hills leaving others holding the bag.   Say what you will about the old so called robber barons, but they owned what they built, and they were responsible for their own successes and failures.  Vanderbilt may have even been ruthless, but he never needed TARP.