Never apologize

Here’s a picture from an Islamic magazine I recently came across. Study it well.


The Muslims never apologize for their beliefs. The question is, what do the vast majority of non-religious westerners actually believe in? “Tolerance”, “Multiculturalism”, and “Gender equality” are slogans and not beliefs. Social justice lunatics, however, believe in these slogans as passionately as Muslims revere Islam. When these lunatics speak about feminism and diversity, it isn’t from a position of rationality or empiricism, but religious fervor. Nobody expects feminists to prove that “rape culture” exists no more than anyone expects rational proof that diversity contributes anything meaningful to society. These loony doctrines are uttered as articles of faith and society embraces them as such.

I recall a conversation with my liberal sister years ago where I observed how universities were predominantly liberal. My observation immediately left a sour taste in her mouth. This is because to her mind leftist doctrines are the only sound beliefs/values a person must hold. Left-wing ideology must never be identified as such because that would reduce it to the same level as Conservatism, Christianity, and Nationalism. This is the equivalent of telling a religious Muslim (or Christian – if any still exist) that their religion isn’t the only true religion out there and that other faiths are equally valid.

If we are to win the culture war on the ground level, we must first arm ourselves with faith before engaging our enemies. Jesus said: “For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed,” (Luke 9:26). We have nothing to be ashamed about.

Posted in Christianity, conservative values, Cultural Marxism, Feminism, Islam, Rape Culture, Western Values, White nationalism | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Zoe Lofgren and the H-1B Question

Following a request from Robert Stark, I’ve decided to write about H-1B visas. Obviously, I’m naturally appalled when foreigners take American jobs. I also know employers are full of shit when they contend that there’s a dearth of skilled workers; that’s why we should prevent them from using an imaginary STEM shortage as a pretext to import cheap foreigners.

Fortunately, at least a few politicians are attempting to reform the H-1B system. As outlined in a recent bill proposed by Silicon Valley Democrat, Zoe Lofgren, the H-1B’s current lottery process would be discarded in favor of granting H-1Bs to employers who offer the highest salaries. Other proposals entail eliminating visa quotas for specific countries, instead awarding H-1Bs on a first-come first-served basis.

Regarding the first proposal, I wholeheartedly support forcing employers to pay higher salaries in order to access H-1Bs; it just might reduce (somewhat) the business community’s insatiable thirst for cheap labor. As far as eliminating quotas is concerned, I’m not too keen on a first-come first-served policy that allows “market forces” to dictate the direction of H-1Bs. Needless to say, we should generally be skeptical of proposals emanating from Silicon Valley.

Ultimately, people should not attack H-1Bs, specifically. They should instead challenge an economic system where Americans are increasingly expendable. We should use the H-1B controversy as an opportunity to jump-start a long overdue conversation about American employers’ obligations to their employees. Well, when they’re actually hiring employees, and not armies of temps and “independent contractors.” To reverse this horrifying course, we need to remind business leaders that they actually live in a society.

Jokes aside, once we reform our political economy for the better, computer programmer Paul will have no more cause to fear Pajeet. Otherwise, narrowly focusing on H-1Bs will just result in more selective protectionism.

Posted in American Pathologies, Asia, China, Economics, Immigration, India | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Winston Churchill on Land Monopoly

While I’ve long been passionate about economics, reading Michael Hudson’s Killing the Host was such an eye opener that it fundamentally changed the way I view our political economy. Specifically, it made me ponder why certain rentier elites – especially landlords – reap large rewards for essentially doing nothing; or, even worse, actively harming society.

As a Bay Area resident, I’ve seen the harmful effects of landlordism firsthand. Unfortunately, when discussing the housing crisis, many people tend to reduce it to a simple supply and demand problem. However, I’ve recently started to question just why landlords can raise rents so high in the first place. After conducting some research, I stumbled upon an old 1909 speech by none other than Winston Churchill. In his address, Churchill denounces land monopolies, arguing that they are uniquely harmful.

Per Hudson, we already know that unduly paying landlords weakens economies by reducing demand for goods and services. We also know that landlords do not legitimately earn their income, and that rising land values owe more to public investments and general prosperity than a landlord’s own efforts (as demonstrated by increased rents in New York). However, what makes Churchill’s speech worth reading is how he reveals that, beyond public infrastructure spending, any economic improvements will be used a pretext to hike rents. Churchill says:

If there is a rise in wages, rents are able to move forward, because the workers can afford to pay a little more…Some years ago in London there was a toll bar on a bridge across the Thames, and all the working people who lived on the south side of the river had to pay a daily toll of one penny for going and return- 5 6 ing from their work. The spectacle of these poor people thus mulcted of so large a proportion of their earnings offended the public conscience, and agitation was set on foot, municipal authorities were roused, and at the cost of the taxpayers, the bridge was freed and the toll removed. All those people who used the bridge were saved sixpence a week, but within a very short time rents on the south side of the river were found to have risen about sixpence a week, or the amount of the toll which had been remitted!

As Churchill’s analysis demonstrates, even if labor movements such as Fight For 15 get their way and a $15 minimum wage becomes the law of the land, it may all be in vain. How useful is an extra $3 an hour if rents continue to rise accordingly? To be absolutely clear, I support higher wages and improved job security for American workers; but unless landlords and other FIRE sector parasites are kept in check, most people won’t be able to truly take advantage of any (modest) wage gains.

That’s why I feel that many economic progressives make a mistake by focusing too much on employee vs employer struggles. In some sense, this is understandable: most people have to work, and everyone has some horror story about an incompetent or abusive boss. However, while agitating for better workplace dynamics is vital, we must remain cognizant of the negative role landlords play. If you speak with the average Bay Area denizen, the most common grievance you’ll hear is that there’s little affordable housing. Therefore, those who purport to fight for the common man should spend more time addressing common concerns.

On the flip side, even Randroids have compelling reasons to challenge landlords. Whether or not one considers private property rights sacrosanct, it’s blatantly obvious that landlordism is bad for business. Churchill says:

The manufacturer proposing to start a new industry, proposing to erect a great factory offering employment to thousands of hands, is made to pay such a price for his land that the purchase price hangs around the neck of his whole business, hampering his competitive power in every market, clogging him far more than any foreign tariff in his export competition, and the land price strikes down through the profits of the manufacturer on to the wages of the worker.

Just think of how many more jobs productive capitalists could create if they didn’t have to shell out money for rent, health plans for employees, and other deflationary payments to the FIRE sector. Significantly reducing rents would also free up a lot more income for people to spend on goods and services – allowing both working grunts and entrepreneurs to come out ahead. Therefore, I think there’s great potential to forge strong political coalitions with a platform of curtailing landlords’ power.

Honestly, what’s not to like?

Posted in conservative values, Economics, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Scattered Thoughts on Political Violence

Well, it looks like I’m late to the party (as usual), but I figured I’d share some brief thoughts on Richard Spencer getting punched. Having read different takes on the attack, I am most inclined to agree with the one offered by far left academic Freddie deBoer.

At times, I wonder if there’s any real point in having these discussions. As deBoer rightly points out, every political tribe found some way to spin this incident to reinforce their narratives. Of course, it’s no surprise that the United States is an intractably polarized society, so expecting people to find common ground is a Sisyphean task.

With that said, lefties who are celebrating these Antifa attacks might want to temper their enthusiasm a bit. As Hunter Wallace and Matt Parrott have remarked, now might not be a great time for the left to start a violent war. After all, leftists are always denouncing the white right’s heart of darkness, penchant for gun ownership, and tradition of hateful violence. So, their strategy is to then pick a fight with these hateful gun lovers?

Sort of reminds me of that scene in The Dark Knight where Lucius Fox calmly dissuades a Wayne Enterprise executive from attempting to blackmail Bruce Wayne – a secret vigilante who kicks the crap out of violent criminals. No, I’m not at all trying to compare alt righters to superheroes like Batman, but you get the point.

It’s also worth noting that these kinds of Antifa attacks are mainly launched in large urban areas where liberals and leftists already dominate the political and cultural landscape. Something tells me most Antifas wouldn’t have the temerity to pull off these stunts in rural, gun owning white enclaves.

Speaking of whiteness, what makes me uneasy about this whole “is it okay to punch Nazis?” debate is that cultural leftists have a very liberal definition of what constitutes nazism. To be fair, I can understand the intense hostility towards actual, avowed Nazis; the Nazi Party’s track record speaks for itself. However, I’ve come to conclude that any white person who deviates too much from liberal orthodoxy on race and immigration risks getting tarred with that label.

Take the supposed Fascist-in-chief, for example. Liberals and leftists alike are fond of comparing Trump to Hitler due to his inflammatory statements about Mexicans and Muslims. But let’s break his statements down a bit. When Trump spoke of Mexico sending rapists, he was referring to immigrants coming from south of the border. Correct me if I’m wrong, but he did not call for mass deportations of Latino Americans or their ethnic cleansing. Regarding Muslims, banning immigration from seven Muslim majority countries – which, tellingly, doesn’t include Saudi Arabia – is understandably controversial. However, he has not signaled any intent to ethnically cleanse American born Muslims.

Still, that doesn’t stop the left from seeing Trump as ushering in the fourth reich. Since leftists don’t have a narrowly tailored definition of “Nazi,” any white person who looks at immigration and demographic change askance is suspect in their eyes. How long until white Trump voters – most of whom know nothing about the alt right – critical of immigration become legitimate punching targets? Finally, since I like to gratuitously claim that cultural leftists are the true global minority, it’s worth saying that if Trump is a fascist, then most of the world is fascist!

That aside, I won’t tell lefties and Antifas that they shouldn’t punch Nazis, real or otherwise. If they believe that it’s okay to assault those who espouse repugnant views, that’s their prerogative. However, they then forfeit the right to cry foul whenever one of their own is violently attacked. That’s why, while I am firmly against violence, I have no sympathy for, say, the Antifas who were stabbed in Sacramento back in June.

I’ll end this post by using a football analogy, even though it’s my least favorite sport. Whenever the quarterback is in the pocket, he’s afforded certain protections. Defensive players cannot perform even slightly late hits, and must take care when tackling the quarterback. However, the second the quarterback leaves the pocket and tries to scramble, defensive players can treat him like just another running back.

While admittedly a strained analogy, I view political violence in a similar fashion. So long as one is not engaging in violent behavior that isn’t self-defense or inciting violence – and yes, there is a big difference between directly inciting violence and saying something offensive that provokes violent reactions – he should not have to fear physical assault; but the second one leaves the pocket and starts throwing punches out of the blue, he should be, within reason, fair game. In other words, while we shouldn’t cry for Antifas when they’re violently attacked, I also don’t think one should be able to shoot an Antifa just because of a thrown punch .

Make of that what you will.

Posted in American Pathologies, Cultural Marxism, Immigration, Politics, Race, Racism, Subversion, Tribalism, White nationalism, Wimpy Whites | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Review: Rigged by Dean Baker



Download it for free here.

So, after a bit of a break from the blog and political economy, I’m back with another one of my economics book reviews! This time, I’ll be reviewing Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer by Dean Baker. While not quite on the same level as Michael Hudson, Baker is a very impressive economist in his own right. He, along with Hudson, was one of the few economists to get the housing bubble right. Baker is also not afraid to go against the grain and slay sacred cows, conservative and liberal alike. Whether he’s mocking liberals’ praise of Bill Clinton’s budget surpluses or pillorying conservative fiscal hawks, Baker demolishes conventional wisdom in a witty and accessible manner.

Most importantly, he advances an argument that is usually anathema to his fellow progressives, namely that the market can be a force for good. As Baker notes, most progressives tend to be suspicious of, if not downright hostile towards the market. They see the market (ie. untrammeled capitalism) as producing gross inequality, which necessitates government intervention. Meanwhile, the Randroid and National Review crowds insist that government intervention is an unjust imposition on free enterprise; we should curtail rules and regulations and let our brilliant job creators go about their business.

As Baker convincingly asserts, both sides are wrong: rules and regulations are what make the market. That’s why, rather than soaring inequality being an inevitable (if bemoaned) outcome of market capitalism, America’s current inequality was caused by deliberate policies designed to redistribute income upward. With thorough documentation and trenchant analysis, Baker convincingly demonstrates that we need to stop viewing the market as some law of God or nature.

Granted, those already familiar with Dean Baker’s work won’t find many new insights in Rigged that aren’t present in his older books such as The Conservative Nanny State. Nevertheless, in an era of surging anger and populism, Rigged vindicates many of our frustrations with the current economic order. If you think that certain wealthy individuals get paid way more than they deserve, you’re right! By analyzing the pay of highly compensated professionals (doctors, dentists, lawyers), CEOs, and intellectual property holders, Baker demolishes the notion that America’s winners deserve every last bit of their income. Once again, I’ll break this post down into various bolded sections. Here goes! I’ll begin with professionals.

Professional Protectionism

A common line from neoliberals, libertarians, and other economic sociopaths is that today’s “losers” in the global economy simply need to acquire more skills. If only they had the intelligence and discipline to properly educate themselves, they could get ahead. On the flip side, highly compensated professionals such as doctors, dentists, and lawyers are deserving winners reaping their just rewards. We can’t punish hard work and success, can we?

Actually, we can, if by “punish” you mean curtail these professionals’ rents. Just to review, economic rent is any income or pricing not tied to labor or production costs – a nice way of saying such income is unearned. While Michael Hudson focuses primarily on passive rentier income in the forms of land rent and capital gains, Baker zeroes in on rents that arise from market imperfections and anticompetitive behavior. In other words, while highly paid professionals are certainly not lazy and are much more active than the likes of landlords – and, unlike landlords, they actually provide necessary services (well, some of them) – they nevertheless make a lot more than they should, and certainly a lot more than their counterparts in other 1st world countries.

The secret of their success is that they essentially function as a cartel; they use their power and influence to reduce competition. Not only do they artificially limit their supply through various licensing restrictions, but they even monopolize certain services that lesser paid professionals in the same field are fully capable of performing. Baker writes:

Doctors are able to maintain such high salaries in large part because of measures that protect them from competition. We have limits on the number of people who go to medical school and on the number of foreign medical school graduates who can enter U.S. residency programs, the completion of which is a requirement for practicing medicine in the United States. State laws also limit the extent to which nurse practitioners and other healthcare professionals can perform tasks, such as prescribing medicine, that might limit the demand for doctors.

Protectionist barriers limit competition among other highly paid professions as well. Dentists cannot practice their field in the United States unless they graduated from an accredited dental school in the United States or, recently, Canada. State rules limit the extent to which dental hygienists can perform tasks like cleaning teeth without the supervision of a dentist. State bar exams limit the number of people who can practice law, sometimes sharply curtailing the supply of attorneys by making the exam more difficult.

Some may wonder why I’m gratuitously bolding everything with the word “state.” The reason is because I want to make it abundantly clear just how much government policies shape the economy. As Baker says, no “economic rule states that doctors, dentists, lawyers, and other professionals at the top of the pay ladder should be protected from the wage-depressing effects of globalization.”

Memo to the meritocrats: even those who do possess “marketable skills” would be priced out – or at the very least have their salaries significantly reduced – if we lived in a truly competitive free market. After all, there are hundreds of millions of bright, diligent people all over the world, and most of them would gladly do the jobs American professionals do for significantly lower salaries – what liberals and Conservatism Inc hacks call “doing the jobs Americans won’t do” when it’s low-wage immigrants displacing native workers. Of course, the difference between affluent professionals and despondent working class people in ex-industrial towns or cities like Detroit is that the former have the political and social clout to safeguard their interests.

Now, many people would insist that these rules and regulations are necessary to ensure safety and quality. To a certain extent, they have a point, since most of us would rather be treated by Dr. Hibbert than Dr. Nick.


Others might argue that due to the high debts these professionals incur while pursuing their education, they’re entitled to a big payday. Nevertheless, as Baker has argued on countless occasions, markets don’t care about rationalizations. Protectionism and government intervention by other names are still protectionism and government intervention.

Indeed, the most important takeaway from this section is that the economic effects of globalization on workers were/are politically determined. If America wanted to, it could devise new agreements designed to get as many cheap and qualified foreign professionals as possible. Regulations could also be relaxed to allow nurses, dental hygienists, and paralegals to perform more tasks. As Baker clarifies, this isn’t a matter of vindictively picking on the happy and successful; subjecting American professionals to market discipline would translate into significant savings for regular people.

So too would reigning in exorbitant executive pay.

Writing Their Own Paychecks

The rents they collect notwithstanding, doctors and dentists have nothing on the modern American CEO, who always seems to get paid handsomely even when he drives his company into the ground. As Baker remarks, this isn’t supposed to happen. For most workers, companies are always looking for ways to reduce labor costs and increase efficiency. I can also guarantee you that regular workers who royally screwed up at their jobs wouldn’t depart with generous compensation packages.

So what gives? With all the rhetoric you hear about “shareholder value maximization” and the modern corporation’s “fiduciary obligation” to shareholders – idiotic and dangerous notions, to be sure, but that’s for another time – why aren’t these esteemed shareholders bringing overpaid and incompetent CEOs to heel?

In reality, regular shareholders don’t wield much influence. Baker writes:

Stockholders are a diffuse group of individuals and institutions, most with little direct stake in the running of the company since the dividends and capital gains are a small portion of their income. Organizing among shareholders to improve corporate practices and to change top management has high transaction costs, and so it is far easier for shareholders to simply sell the stock of a company if they are unhappy with its performance. In this environment, top management will often have effective control over the running of a company.

Predictably, when left to their own devices, top managers such as CEOs effectively get to write their own paychecks. Long story short, CEO compensation is ultimately approved by members of the board, who seldom reject proposed CEO pay packages. The main reason boards seldom deny CEOs play money is because directors often owe their very positions to CEOs, and one doesn’t bite the hand that feeds him; especially when directors get paid six figure salaries to attend around 6-12 meetings a year. Unsurprisingly, there aren’t meaningful incentives to subject CEOs to market discipline, which means that rents comprise a significant percentage of CEO pay (which, should go without saying, is much higher in the US than other 1st world countries).

Aside from siphoning off income that could instead benefit shareholders and even regular workers, what makes comically high CEO pay especially toxic is the “trickle down” effect of raising executive salaries at hospitals, nonprofits, and educational institutions. After all, they can reasonably claim that they deserve their large paychecks since they can always work in the private sector. To make matters worse, because nonprofit organizations are tax-exempt, the high incomes of non-profit profiteers are directly subsidized by US taxpayers. Even obvious business endeavors such as college athletic programs enjoy tax-exempt status. As Baker comments, it would be akin to making university-owned hotel chains tax deductible. There is absolutely no reason why we should have to subsidize the salary of Alabama’s football coach. 

Fortunately, thanks to the magic of the market, there are ways to bring these executives’ salaries down to earth. Since limited liability corporations (LLCs) are legal entities – that is, creations of Big Government – that are subject to rules and regulations, then the rules of corporate governance can be restructured to ensure that top managers can’t just grab the loot and run.

For nonprofits, bringing executive pay down to earth is much more straightforward: if nonprofits want tax exemptions, they have to limit executive pay to reasonable levels. Simple as that. Of course, this doesn’t mean that nonprofits are prohibited from paying their executives whatever they want; they just can’t do so at our expense. Unfortunately, until these reforms are enacted, they still can and do.

However, all of that being said, nobody profits at our expense like Big Pharma and other intellectual property holders.

Hidden Monopolies

We all know that piracy is bad. As a typical American who grew up watching movies, I was bombarded by messages – FBI warnings threatening $250,000 fines for copyright violations, and ominous sounding movie theater ads asserting that malevolent pirates harm creative workers – meant to convey that copyright offenders aren’t much better than muggers who rob old ladies. Sure, many Americans don’t exactly heed these warnings and pleas, at least if the enduring popularity of Pirate Bay is any indication. Nevertheless, most Americans still take copyright laws for granted and see them as a natural part of the economy.

However, it turns out that copyright laws are yet another creation of Big Government. The government essentially grants copyright holders an exclusive right to sell a product, and penalizes anyone else who distributes said product without permission. Put another way, the government gives copyright holders a monopoly. Yes, a monopoly. One can argue that copyrights – and their cousin, patents – are necessary to incentivize creative work (they’re not, but more on that later). One can even claim that diligent creative workers deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labor in the form of intellectual property claims. Yet again, markets don’t care about rationalizations; a monopoly by another name is still a monopoly.

These government granted monopolies are what enable predators such as Mylan to charge insane amounts for EpiPens that contain around $1 worth of epinephrine. Patents also give Big Pharma perverse incentives to push various drugs – sometimes of dubious quality – on the market, knowing that they can charge monopoly prices. Just to put this all in perspective, high intellectual property charges are the equivalent of tariffs around 1000%.

To compound matters, IP monopolies have their own negative “trickle down” and ripple effects. All the time and money squandered on copyright and patent litigation alone represent significant economic waste. According to Baker, there are even “patent trolls” – companies whose sole purpose is to push patent claims against profitable companies. Not to mention that large corporate giants can use their arsenal of copyrights and patents to frustrate, delay, and at times eliminate would-be competitors. And since the government continues to strengthen and lengthen these protections, even going so far as to force third parties to enforce copyright laws, this form of rent-seeking will only get worse.

Yet you will almost never see ardent “free trade” proponents denounce this form of government intervention in the economy. Indeed, their inability and/or unwillingness to condemn such infringement on free enterprise is rather telling. It’s almost as if these cocktail conservatives only care about the wants of the wealthy.

But anyway, we all know that the game is rigged, and that there’s socialism for the rich and capitalism for the rest. We get that the current way of doing things is inimical to the long-term health of American society. What, then, can we do without going to the other extreme and crippling genuine job creators?

Rigging the Market in Our Favor

Obviously, we cannot just immediately throw open the doors to foreign professionals, restructure corporate governance, and abolish patents and copyrights. We need to make sure that our professionals are competent, that better forms of corporate governance are developed, and that there remain sufficient incentives to pursue creative work.

In the case of professionals, there’s no reason why market discipline must compromise high standards. By establishing a global accreditation process and mandating that foreign professionals meet various qualifications, we can substantially lower expenses for the average person while ensuring that we’re not at the mercy of a Dr. Nick or Lionel Hutz. After all, we demand safety and quality (with flaws, obviously) when it comes to various imported goods; we can do the same for doctors, dentists, and other professionals.

For CEOs – the most overpaid professionals of them all – corporate governance can be regulated by the government to curtail exploding CEO pay. For example, the government could enact a law stipulating that directors lose their stipend in the event that shareholders vote no on any proposed CEO pay package. As Baker says, directors might then think twice about handing tens of millions to incompetent CEOs. To complement the stick with the carrot, directors who reject exorbitant CEO pay packages could share in half of the money originally intended for the CEO. Not a bad way to reform corporate governance without unduly interfering with business. 

Likewise, there are alternatives to America’s broken intellectual property laws. For starters, there is always the option of publicly funding research in advance, which to some extent is already done through public agencies like the National Institutes of Health. Companies could also be incentivized to accept shorter and weaker patents in exchange for R&D tax credits. Similarly, as an alternative to copyrights, individuals and institutions could receive tax credits for supporting creative work.

Anyway, if this section seems a bit truncated and disorganized, it’s simply because I’m not a policy wonk; it’s not my style. Nevertheless, these are just a few alternatives to our current rent-seeking system, and we might as well give at least some of them a shot. Otherwise, we’ll keep getting price gouged in a tollbooth economy.


To be clear, Dean Baker analyzes a lot more than professionals’ pay, CEOs, and intellectual property rents. Nevertheless, the reason why I focus on these topics is because it’s important to refute the pernicious myth that people are paid what they’re worth. Besides being a pure tautology, this myth is the foundation of America’s 3rd worldish inequality, which is primarily justified by the belief that one’s financial status reflects character.

Both bootstrapping conservatives and liberal meritocrats embrace this notion. Conservatives regard the poor as weak excuses for humans who don’t deserve to eat, while liberal strivers take the current structure of the market for granted because they consider themselves deserving winners. On the flip side, many genuine economic progressives also take the market for granted, only they think the government should tax the wealthy to fund a stronger social safety net.

As Baker has long argued, this is a losing formula for those who actually care about economic justice. By taking the market at face value, albeit grudgingly, progressives buy into economic conservatives’ frame. This allows neoliberals to claim that any attempts to mitigate the effects of inequality penalize enterprising winners and reward losers – and we all know that Americans hate losers.

Therefore, even though I’m generally suspicious of the business community and support a large government role in the economy, Baker makes a convincing case that the market can be used in progressive ways to benefit “losers.” By reforming intellectual property laws and forcing high-earning professionals to join the rest of us in the wonderful world of global competition, society stands to save hundreds of billions annually. These savings would reverse some of the effects of debt deflation, and help stimulate some real demand in the economy.

Even better, this approach can resonate with the majority of Americans. While most Americans – especially white Americans – support capitalism, they are nevertheless rankled by what they correctly see as a rigged game. Courtesy of Dean Baker and his myriad proposals, we can reform the game – one in which the refs aren’t on the take. Similar to tackling the FIRE economy, we only lack the political will to do what is necessary.


Disclaimer: Before anyone reads this post and concludes that I’ve transformed into some ardent open borders supporter and globalist in 2017, nothing could be further from the truth. Just to be crystal clear, my views on immigration have not fundamentally changed.

However, the fact of the matter is that most immigrants are cheap and low-skilled. Consequently, while many regular American workers have borne the brunt of globalization – which, to be clear, entails a lot more than immigration – their affluent counterparts have remained mostly unscathed.

One of my goals is to makes these elites share some of this economic pain. Forcing affluent professionals to endure globalization’s deleterious effects could play a big part in engendering the political will necessary to effectively challenge neoliberalism as a whole. As Baker has argued in some of his previous books, if the 1% were the only class thriving in today’s economy, there would be virtually no support for our current system. However, between the 1% and supposed 99% resides a class of comfortable professionals who by and large embrace our meritocratic status quo; if they can make it, why can’t you?

By making things uncomfortable for these smug strivers, they would have fewer reasons to buy into the current paradigm, and might actually develop some empathy for regular working people. Then, with a real 99% polarized against the 1%, we may just see some real unrest and demands for change.

What do you think?

Posted in American Pathologies, conservative values, Economics, Immigration, Politics, Subversion | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Where do we stand regarding freedom of speech?

Most of us are aware on some level that societal values invariably shape a nation’s legislature and also determine how legislature is interpreted and enforced. Many look to their governments as the guarantor for free speech without understanding the nature of this guarantee. Leftists believe that so long as the state serves this function, free speech exists and the matter is closed. My concern isn’t government, but rather, the society lodged beneath it. Caste based discrimination is illegal in India but still widely practiced. The law insists it is wrong, but India’s laws are an inheritance left behind by a far superior civilization. These laws are largely ignored simply because Indian society (an oxymoron) remains indifferent. Free speech became enshrined in Western legislature primarily because individual freedom was perceived as being one of Western civilization’s defining values. These values originated in Western societies, and not in their governments.

This line of thought should guide our inquiry into the status of free speech in the modern west. The question we should ask is not how governments are (or aren’t) nurturing free speech, but rather how is society performing this function. If free speech isn’t tolerated by society, then it exists on borrowed time. Liberals have nothing to fear as their worldview is now the dominant paradigm in western culture. If an individual’s views align with liberal thinking then they have little to fear. They will be lauded as being ‘brave’ and ‘progressive’ even when such views are as mainstream as apple pie.

Those who voice opinions that run contrary to liberal/globalist values will eventually realize that the number of avenues available for self expression are rapidly collapsing. Thanks to social media, private conversations are seldom private. People are exposed for merely holding contrarian views and often face the prospect of losing their jobs. One cannot express contrarian views at work due to female dominated HR departments. One cannot express one’s views in public lest a butthurt feminist in earshot decides to rally her fellow losers on social media. The alternative right blogger millennial woes was recently outed and hounded for his ‘deviant’ views. Why was it so necessary to unmask this blogger who, in the grand scheme of things, is a nobody? He wasn’t inciting violence nor was he engaging in it himself.

We are gradually heading towards a soft style authoritarianism similar to that of Singapore. Liberals have discovered the power of financially crippling their opponents as an effective tactic in silencing dissent. The Singapore government routinely uses its courts to bankrupt opponents and liberals (ever the enemies of free speech) are routinely engaged in getting dissenters fired from their jobs on behalf of their globalist puppeteers. It matters little if legislature tolerates freedom of speech when individuals in society refuse to honor it on the atomic level. Free speech is rendered an empty slogan when there are no practical avenues available to exercise it.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Second Part of Robert Stark’s Interview

Happy New Year all! I know that I haven’t been as active on the blog lately, but I have not been idle. For now, I’m going to post the second part of my latest appearance on Robert Stark’s show. This segment revolved more around economics, which is more up my alley than the first half of the show. And speaking of economics, I actually have been working on another book review involving economic issues. Stay tuned!

Posted in Cultural Marxism, Economics, Politics, Subversion, Tribalism | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

A refugee program I can get behind

Facing dire persecution back home, 110 refugees from China have now made a home for themselves in Canada. The newcomers to Canada have received a warm welcome from Canadians everywhere who have once again demonstrated their warm generosity towards victims of foreign persecution.

Read the story here.

Posted in Asia, China, Immigration | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Latest Conversation With Robert Stark

So, I know that I’m rather late on this, but click here to listen to my latest appearance on Robert Stark’s radio program. A large amount of the conversation – which was originally around two hours, and understandably edited/condensed – was out of my purview, but there were some solid insights nonetheless.

Let me know your thoughts in the comments.


Update: So, it turns out that Robert Stark is actually going to upload the rest of the conversation at a later date. Stay tuned.

Posted in Cultural Marxism, Economics, Feminism, Homosexuals, Rape Culture, Subversion, Tribalism | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Hate Crime With a Silver Lining

A recent hate crime incident has been making its rounds on the internet and has provoked an uproar from armchair Samaritans lamenting the end of civilization. An Egyptian born Muslim woman was verbally and physically accosted on the NYC subway by three drunk men. They continued pestering her despite her calls to desist.

Yasmin Seweid, 18, was still shaken by the traumatic train ride as she spoke with CBS2’s Tracee Carrasco…Seweid said no one stopped the men, not even when they tried to tear off her hijab.

She reported the incident to the police and then dutifully took to social media to air her distress. After all, distress lacks legitimacy unless it’s broadcasted to the world via social media. In one of her statements to the press she lamented that while she identifies as a proud American she is dismayed that others don’t recognize her American-ness.

I suppose it is futile to explain to such people that humans are not culturally interchangeable. That no matter how hard she tries, she will never be as American as John Smith; no more than the latter could be Egyptian even if he were born and raised in Egypt.  It would be equally futile to point out that the real villains are not the natives who are inundated with a legion of culturally alien immigrants, but the liberals who import them in bulk. For if whites are intrinsically rotten, then why subject hapless immigrants to the innate perfidy of their hosts? Furthermore, if these characteristics are indeed innate (as leftists love to preach) then isn’t it is a fool’s errand to try and reform whites by ridding them of their ‘racist’ ways?

There are, however, two silver linings – one for us and the other for Ms Seaweed. I was relieved when I learned that nobody interfered in her defense. Men that interfere to protect women in public generally take on a massive and unnecessary risk; and it usually doesn’t end well for them. As contemptible as obsequious internet white knights truly are, white knighting in real life will probably get one killed. Also see here and here. Rescuing women is best left for law enforcement.

It is heartening to see men finally put their own interests before those of the opposite sex; especially since the latter have been doing just that for the past 5 decades.  Women seem genetically incapable of appreciating men’s sacrifices and so men must refrain from protecting women unless they happen to be a close friend or blood relative. Men must collectively communicate to women in no uncertain terms that male protection and provisioning are a part and parcel of patriarchy. That women shouldn’t expect men to make such sacrifices while living in a feminist paradise.

Having said all of this, recall that earlier this year a group of passengers rescued two Muslim women from being accosted on the subway. The difference between the two incidents is obvious – in the latter the ‘assailant’ was working alone. Perhaps liberal paladins only engage the forces of darkness when they outnumber them 5 to 1. As for the unlucky Ms Seaweed, she can draw solace from knowing that she has been formally added to the ever growing pantheon of victims – to be revered and worshiped alongside other victims in accordance with the doctrines of the Liberal religion.

Posted in Cultural Marxism, Feminism, Immigration, Islam, Middle East, Race, Racism, Subversion, Tribalism, White nationalism, Wimpy Whites | Tagged , , , , , , | 6 Comments