The Week: Chairman Yang Is The Most Radical 2020 Candidate

You think?

Why do you think we love him? It is Yang and Tulsi who is good on foreign policy and a bunch of Boomer throwbacks and unlikable party hacks running in the Democratic field. He towers above Blompf and his competition who don’t have a clue about anything that is going on:

“Yang foresees that artificially intelligent software and robots will soon be better at a great many jobs that humans have traditionally done. The jobs that remain will either be beyond the cognitive capacity of most human beings or will be exceptionally non-remunerative. The economy, in the process of becoming more efficient at serving human desires, will drive an increasing proportion of humanity permanently off the road not merely to prosperity but even to subsistence. When he has finished laying out his case, Yang admits that a friend told him he should retitle his book, “We’re F—ed.”

And yet, surprisingly, Yang is relatively upbeat about our society’s ability to respond to the challenge — if we act quickly. The last third of the book focuses on solutions, the most important of which is a guaranteed Universal Basic Income. Paying everyone a minimal level of sustenance would prevent large numbers of people from falling into absolute penury, and facilitate their continued employment in jobs that would otherwise be insufficiently remunerative. He goes on to propose a host of further transformations to health care, education, and other sectors of society, all under the rubric of building “human capitalism.”

But there’s a disconnect between that term and the system Yang actually describes. If we are really on the verge of an era where machines will be able to replace a large proportion of humanity in any remunerative activity, then economics as we traditionally understand it will no longer be useful for modeling much of society. Yang recognizes this to a degree, inasmuch as he talks about the importance of social credits and time banks and other new means of exchange other than money to facilitate human interaction and cooperative activity in the new era. But these would exist alongside a market-driven process for deploying capital in ever more efficient ways. We won’t quite be in a Star Trek post-scarcity world. But we will be in a position where a large — and growing — segment of the citizenry will at best be consumers without ever being producers in an economic sense. And their ability to continue to be consumers will depend on the good will and sense of solidarity manifested by those who continue to produce.

What kind of politics would such a world engender? It’s not likely to be a democratic one — and between the lines of Yang’s book he seems to recognize that fact. Yang’s solutions involve a substantial restructuring of the American economy without massive central planning. …”

The near post-scarcity world that Yang is warning about and celebrating isn’t Star Trek. It is closer to Caprica which depicts virtual reality, automation and robotics.

How can you dislike this man?

This is already far better than the 2016 campaign. Yang is polarizing the electorate along smart/dumb lines. Elon Musk is right that we have to maintain human supremacy now.

Yang is campaigning as a hologram!

We want Yang and Tulsi and Elon and Sophia to seize control of the White House from Blompf and push all of these dumb Boomer conservatives aside and start creating the Silicon Reich.*

*lighten up humorless progressive scolds

If we can just get Yang on that debate stage with Blompf in 2020, it is over. It will be such a blowout that Blompf will lose states like Georgia, Mississippi and Texas.

Note: The welfare carols during the Yang Dynasty are going to be EPIC. It cracks me up just thinking about where this is going. We’ve already got Nicholas Cage on board.

About Hunter Wallace 12387 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. The extreme complexity brought about by looking at making new types of currency like social credit will bring about a certain amount of decentralization, no matter that a DC tapeworm oversees the program. AI would make monitoring alternative currencies easier, but not perfect, because the ramifications of the currencies and how they might be used or exchanged wouldn’t be yet understood. Eliminating the false scarcity that’s built into all economic systems would also be a new wrinkle that would be difficult to control. If you can’t price control, can’t artificially set values, then you can’t force the peasant herd into the usual consumerist corrals.

    If Yang isn’t successful, at least he’s bringing out the idea that we need guaranteed income to subsidize workers when the jobs are permanently taken away. Don’t forget that it’s not, as the writer of the article incorrectly suggests, lower-status jobs that will mainly be affected. AI beats doctors at diagnosis every time, as Yang alludes to above. Robot surgeons aren’t far behind. All social strata are going to take a hit from the automation of the workplace.

  2. Most radical in relation to the Washington consensus, but the most moderate in relation to the actual American electorate.

      • I actually respect your continued unconventional but also highly original and innovative thinking about culture and metapolitics….you “get” it and the kinds of things we need to do to save the historic American Nations (those of European descent)

  3. A Yang vs. Trump debate would be so epic. Yang would literally be toying with him while not even trying.

    Trump like every other politician is just used to canned BS responses to everything. Remember how terrible he was in the debates? He only got through it because Hillary was so unlikable.

    Trump’s whole routine was only funny when he was attacking conservatives. Every since he got on their plantation he has become a complete dullard. Trump is terrible as a spokesman for conservatism – he comes off like a total retard. His blow-hard routine only worked with a populist campign when he was an unknown with no record.

  4. I’m going to say it here and now: with that video of Fallon and a robot, ‘singing’- we need a Human Bill of Rights, to keep the Blood/AI barrier intact, or we ARE going to be led by the godless, into thinking robots have ‘souls’ and are ‘humans;’ just as we foolishly began to think that Negroids were just like us, and then allowed them to vote, be on our stages, sing our greatest musical works, and then breed our own European distinctives away.

    We are acting like God, determining life and death (abortion, organ transplant) determining sex (SRS, HRT, multiple ‘genders’), and all the rest. Yang’s constructs appear to be humane, and actually concerned about the living, breathing, ‘diversity’ of race and culture, and merely wanting to equalize a falsely constructed field of economic scarcity, and rule of the few (Jew) over the many (white) with a slave class thrown in for propagandistic purposes (non-Whites).

    If AI/Robotics are allowed to be shaped, colored (why was Sophia = WISDOM= the prime name for God, white, for instance?!?) and normativized, we enter the HELL of SciFi Atheista, where all evils are encouraged. Because pretty soon, EVERY Robot will be saying, ‘I’m sorry, Hal, I can’t let you do that.’
    Whatever it might be- even to turn the damn things off (think of your smart phone’s constant surveillance mode!)

    • @Fr. John, Don’t be naive. The (((elites))) already use the United States Bill of Rights as kosher toilet paper. How can you believe that they would recognize and enforce a “Human Bill of Rights?”

  5. hunter just sounds like an obama slurper now. a braindead zombie.

    oh, this guy i know zero about, he’s so wonderful! can’t do anything wrong! it will be unicorns and rainbows! i never heard of this guy 3 months ago, now i realize he’s the white knight in shining armor i’ve been waiting my whole life for. be still, my beating heart!

    what do chairman yang’s balls taste like, hunter? you’ve been licking them clean for months.

    • Yang is merely an evangelist.

      The only thing he has done is raise awareness about big changes that are coming to our economy. I spend a lot of time thinking about the future and a big flaw in the way people like you think about politics and economics is your failure to account for technological change

Comments are closed.