“For most of the last few years, the Dissident Right has concerned itself with, among less fortuitous endeavors, refining a critique of “finance capitalism.” This fits it into a long tradition of American dissidents including the “New Left” in the mid-20th century, the “Old Right” writers of the American Mercury along with some great individual intellectuals like Charles Beard (Yankee) and the Agrarians (Southerners). It even extends back to the 1896 populists, the original Southern Nationalists, and the Anti-Federalists of the late 18th century. Many of these erstwhile dissidents remain totally unaware of their inclusion in this tradition, which makes sense because those other guys all lost. This is not an endorsement of finance capitalism as a positive good, or even as “the least among evils,” just a statement of fact.
What matters for our current purposes is the essential validity of those criticisms, and how to make people listen to them. Even long-time antagonists of this writer, Eric Striker inclusive, are mostly right about the nature of “finance capitalism,” (I was, and remain more or less unconvinced that “Jews” are anything more than an accelerant in this process rather than a root cause). So, you’ve diagnosed the problem? What next? …
Great article.
I completely agree with Fulwar Skipworth that Jews are more of “an accelerant in this process than a root cause.” They have accelerated the drift of our social and economic system by the collective weight of their power, wealth and influence as the ringleaders of the Far Left.
I’ve deeply studied history and my conclusion is that long term historical forces are at play and the current era of Jewish political and cultural hegemony in the United States was getting off the ground in the 1910s and 1920s and has only become entrenched since around the 1930s and 1940s when FDR brought them fully into the political establishment of the Democratic Party. Jews had been much more actively involved in radical socialist and communist politics before going “mainstream” in the mid-20th century. Neocons often tell this story of how their parents and grandparents were communists.
“To a stranger encountering them [Horowitz’s parents], they were idealists and registered Democrats who did their citizen part, volunteering in tenant’s councils and PTAs, and working for goals that ordinary people could understand and support. But these organizations were fronts for other more serious purposes, serving them as recruiting grounds for the agendas they only revealed later on.
Their real politics were conducted far from view, in the neighborhood cell meetings of the Communist Party. It was in this subterranean activity that the romanticism of their youth finally got to express itself. Here they lived outside the norms of other mortals, breathed the intoxicating air of a world revolution, and plotted their impossible dreams. In the cell, they were given secret names for the day when the Party would go underground and the illegal business of the revolution begin – as they all believed it would. My mother’s Party name was Ann Powers, which sounded like the heroine of a dime-store romance. In their daily routines and to all outsiders, however, they remained scurpulously conventional and law-abiding, as bourgeois and proper as anyone would expect school teachers to be.”
David Horowitz, Radical Son, pg.36
“Fusion and unity – this was the cry of my father’s Communist heart. His unquenchable longing to belong.”
David Horowitz, Radical Son, pg.21
David Horowitz’s father went on a pilgrimage to the Soviet Union in the midst of the Ukranian famine and what he found was inspiration. In his autobiography Radical Son, Horowitz is unsettled by Stalin’s anti-Semitic purges, he wonders how his father can keep the faith. . .
“I never asked my father about his trip to Russia and he never spoke to me about it. Was he too embarrassed by the time I was old enough to listen? Would he have had too much explaining to do by then: the Moscow Trials, the purges, the Nazi-Soviet Pact?”
David Horowitz, Radical Son, pg.22
| “What my parents had done in joining the Communist Party and moving to Sunnyside was to return to the ghetto. There was the same shared private language, the same hermetically sealed universe, the same dual posture revealing one face to the outer world and another to the tribe. More importantly, there was the same conviction of being marked for persecution and specifically ordained, the sense of moral superiority toward the stronger and more numerous goyim outside. And there was the same fear of expulsion for heretical thoughts, which was the fear that riveted the chosen to the faith.” David Horowitz, Radical Son, pg.42 |
Horowitz talks about how his parents revealed one face to the goyim and another to their fellow Jews and how this duplicity came second nature to Jewish radicals who were involved in the communist movement.
“This is my own conclusion. My parents never really discussed their decision to become Communists, or the factors that motivated them, with me. It was the unnatural silence because politics was all in other respects the currency of their lives. Almost all conversation in our household was political, other than what was necessary to advance the business of daily life. Despite our disdain for religious belief, the creed we lived by was not dissimilar from that of our ancestors, the “People of the Book” who were forever analyzing the meanings hidden behind the text of life. We had our own guide to these meanings which was not the Torah or the Talmud, but Lenin and Marx. The significance of a text, the meaning of an event, the value of a friendship were evaluated on a scale calibrated to a single standard.: How did they measure up to the revolutionary goal?”
David Horowitz, Radical Son, pg.42
David Horowitz believes that Judaism led his parents to communism.
There are lots of posts about this scattered through the archives on this blog but I had reached that conclusion back when I posted on online forums. There are all kinds of complicating factors like how Southern Jews had supported slavery, white supremacy and segregation rather than challenging the system. In any case, I don’t believe that Jewish hegemony will prove to be enduring in the 21st century for a variety of reasons, but lets continue with the conversation about capitalism:
“Capital, by almost every classical definition (this is one of the few things economists can mostly agree on), is anything that can be counted towards net worth after all costs or fees have been deducted. Often cited, but never very helpful, Adam Smith says capital is “that part of man’s stock which he expects to afford him revenue.” But let’s run with it. If, say, someone puts a new roof on their house, they have invested resources (usually cash) into “improving” their house. Any gain in the value of their house after all costs have been deducted is the marginal increase in capital on the investment in the roof. If someone invests in a hideous roof or cheaps out and settles for a downgrade, they have lost capital. Cash is not capital. It is a medium of exchange that facilitates the exchange of value between “capital” and the “labor” invested in the capital increase. So, in our example, a normal one in a modern culture, a person has exchanged “cash” to a roofer, who coordinates “labor” and “materials” to produce a new roof and increase (hopefully) the net value of a house, resulting in a net capital increase of the home-owner. This is why we say roofers and similar contractors “create capital.” A standard capitalist economy favors producers of capital and holders of capital. People who make stuff for the country, and participate in the exchange of capital inside the country, get to run the country. America used to make a lot of capital goods, which a lot of other Americans bought, making America a capital creation powerhouse economy.
In “finance capitalism,” the privileges of mere capital producers and capital holders are usually dissipated. “
First observation: it is free-market capitalism that has created Jewish political and cultural hegemony in contemporary American society by making this tiny group wealthy enough to finance both political parties and own the discursive means of production which has created mass culture in the 20th century through radio, television, film, publishing, etc.
Second observation: if you simply stripped Sheldon Adelson of his billions of shekels and his ethnic network of other rich Jewish donors in the Republican Jewish Committee who are buying our elections, then he would just be an old man about to die of cancer and wouldn’t be dictating American foreign policy to the president of the United States.
Third observation: the underlying assumption here that HUMAN BEINGS are producing capital is flawed. It was true in the 18th century at the beginning of the First Industrial Revolution. It is no longer true really true in our society and definitely won’t be true after the Fourth Industrial Revolution. That’s because real wealth is being generated by a combination of things and human labor is becoming less and less important in that equation over time.
Fourth observation: over the next 15 years, it is estimated that nearly 40% to 50% of the American workforce will be laid off due to the application of the technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution – robotics, automation, deep learning powered AI – to the global economy. We are on a roller coaster ride to a world in which capital has eliminated labor.
Fifth observation: if it is human beings that are producing capital, then how is this possible? How can capital simply abolish the need for human labor? The answer is that it is machine slave laborers which are generating the wealth and doing the work these days and which are creating a world of ever more abundance and displacing human beings from the workforce.
Sixth observation: if we look forward into the future and back through history and see the role that science and technology have played in creating the wealth, then why shouldn’t the wealth being created by machine slave laborers be redistributed for the benefit of everyone in our society? Why should a tiny oligarchy of billionaires who aren’t producing the wealth be allowed to exist?
“Faced with this set of near-incontrovertible (but totally pilpul-able) facts, there are obviously only four possible paths forward:
Assume the democratic ideal isn’t entirely a steaming pile of dog turds, and work within the political system to enact a populist revolt that will utilize the machinery of the state to de-emphasize the importance of “finance capital.”
Uprising of the proletariat, cast off our chains, and upend the government by force.
Disregard thots, acquire capital.
Lolbertarian style prepping for end-times.
[Insert Meme]”
The answer is door number one.
If Andrew Yang is right and the technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution will eliminate nearly 50% of the American workforce over the next 15 years, then the inevitable result of that will either be 1.) the greatest populist revolt against our capitalist elites in world history at the ballot box or 2.) a proletarian uprising that violently overthrows free-market capitalism.
Either way, free-market capitalism will come to an end within our lifetimes, and will be replaced by its emerging successor. If the rise of capitalism in the form of chattel slavery and wage slavery was the defining force that sculpted the modern world, especially in the American South, then it follows that the end of that system will bring about a post-modern economy and social order. Modernity itself could be rapidly approaching its end and we have just been living our lives through the turbulent transition period as the paradigm of free-market capitalism and liberal democracy that we live under in the West collapses due to technological change.
Alternatively, one could argue that automation, robotics and deep learning AI isn’t really eliminating capitalism. It is just restoring chattel slavery in the 21st century by creating a new race of machine slaves who will become the mudsill caste of our times. We are moving toward a new economy and social order in which white supremacy will be replaced by the need to maintain human supremacy. In this social order, every human being will have the wealth to be a master, not a wage slave.
All hail the Silicon Reich!
Note: In a world of material abundance and a more equal distribution of wealth, our current oligarchy (read: mostly, but not exclusively the Jews) won’t have the power to lord it over anyone else anymore.
My only hope is that the robots are not anti-white or anti-Christian. If they truly are self-learning (I doubt it), they will eventually be just like us, won’t they?
“That’s because real wealth is being generated by a combination of things and human labor is becoming less and less important in that equation over time.”
Since the beginning of the steam powered Industrial revolution, employees have gone from being “labourers” and “workers,” to being machine operators and skilled technicians. The actual work being done by the machines they operate or control.
Since the beginning of computers, the trend has been towards self directing machines that need no operator, and little or no supervision, in order to perform the work of production.
“In a world of material abundance and a more equal distribution of wealth, our current oligarchy (read: mostly, but not exclusively the Jews) won’t have the power to lord it over anyone else anymore.”
Which is why they’ll fight it tooth and nail.
The biggest opponents of Automation will be the Left, SJWs and Labour Union types. Which will come as a kind of counterintuitive surprise to many.
What do Marxist/Leftist SJWs shouting about “worker’s rights,” “fairness,” and “economic justice” mean in a world where the workers are machines and everybody has UBI?
None of this matters if we have no political power.
So long as we lack actual power, we lack political power.
If I cared about the cornucopia of bad ideas across the political landscape, I would have associated myself with one that wouldn’t get me fired from my job, and run out of polite society.
If we are going to start arguing economics like a bunch of libertarians, I have other things to spend my time on.
I dont give a shit about any of this faggotry.
When we are serious about figuring out WHAT TO DO TO SAVE OUR PEOPLE, then let me know.
The rest of this is just a pedantic strokejob about abstractions that have never actually mattered.
Power. We need it. Its not any more complicated than that. We get, we wield it against our enemies, which is basically everybody.
Stop being spergs, and focus.
In order to gain political power, you need a political strategy.
Clearly, the 1.0 and 2.0 movements do not have a political strategy. Unlike virtually everyone else in the country, they don’t give a shit about the faggotry of economics, so it doesn’t even occur to them to talk about issues like that.
Instead, we should SAVE OUR PEOPLE by talking about nothing but issues they don’t care about like White identity, Jews and race 24/7 all day every day and we should also do it in a tone that instantly repulses the vast majority of normal people who come across these circles.
@Hunter, no 1.0 and 2.0 were fake and gay also.
They similiarly failed because ALL they talked about was Jews and white identity, two things that when mentioned immediately turn off normies and cause them to raise their defenses out of instinct of self preservation from losing their job and being run out of polite society.
Power in that case, is the ability to have a conversation with those normies about the basic common sense of what we are saying.
We are a small group, so we need a big lever and a clever fulcrum. No White Guilt has supplied the lever with his tactical discourse around the concept of “anti whiteness”. What we need is the fulcrum, which is a concealed power level. This brings us to a point i’ve been making for six months now.
If it is true that jews are the genesis and core of modern leftism, the anti white liberal capitalist system we call globohomo, and the resurgence of communism under this Neo Marxist, multiculturalist or whatever you want to call it, then we only need to oppose those things specifically and in ways that can be operated upon at an issue level to combat those Jews that are at the top of that pulling the strings.
If the above is true, then overt anti semitism is a liabilty because it is not only redundant, but it accepts all of the strategic cost associated with being able to function at all with any deniability.
If instead we who are able start from a clean slate, and dissociate from the now toxic brand of the Alt Right and its proponents (TRS, Daily Stormer, Cantwell, Spencer, all of them), and use our new tools to organize again in meatspace to gain traction at state and local level politics.
If we speak basic simple truth, without the autism and abstract economic faggotry, we can reach the common man with our basic message.
1) Its ok to be white
2) The Left is anti-white
3) We must secure the existence of our people, and a future for white children.
4) Gun Rights are white rights. Gun control is anti white, because browns and blacks will carry guns legal or not and do now already.
5) Open borders is anti white because its actual effect is to displace white workers (still by far the majority), dillute the voting power of the white population.
Etc. and so forth for the few critical issues we are fighting by proxy now through the NRA and other white proxy organizations.
Simple, clean and without the faggotry of the Libertarians who can’t even get off the starting line because they are too busy fighting over the economic ideas of long dead Jews.
We have a strategic goal (14 words. We know the issues we need to advocate for. What was missing was tactics (memes aren’t tactics in and of themselves). We now have tactics. No more excuse to be arguing over abstractions anymore. Save that for when we even have a say in those policies, as currently we don’t, rendering the argument of those ideas moot.
@Hunter, I dont disagree with anything you sre saying about economics. I disagree that its pertinent at this point in time, and in anycase not necessary to argue because this United States is going to pursue those policies in its interest regardless of whether its good for us.
Until we have a say, any energy spent arguing in abstraction is largely wasted.
So how do we gain a say?
We have to take our new lever and fulcrum (see previous post) and stick it in a chink (gap, no racisms yo) in the system to create a space for ourselves. That space is at the state and local level, not national level politics.
Why? I advocate accelerationism or anything that gets stuff for whitey, or buys time for whitey to wake up at national level. Student debt relief, $1,000/m etc. and damn the cost. Why? Because the more dysfunctional the national political system becomes, the more power shifts back to the states through the already existing Federalist system. This is already happening on both sides of the political divide.
1) Sanctuary states are defying federal power over national sovereignty.
2) Gun Control, states are defying national gun control (Missouri most recently)
3) State level legal weed
4) State and regional level courts veto anything the national government does by tying laws up in litigation.
The more that the national government in Washington loses legitimacy and capacity to govern, the more power devolves to the states. The states already have redundant systems for critical infrastructure. They can and will assert their independence. Accelerationist policy at the national level will speed this process.
Federalism is a real thing, and is an inbuilt part of our constitutional system. All we have to do is take advantage of it and position ourselves to gain influence in the our states as the power shifts back.
Accelerationism at the National Level.
Issues of White Wellbeing at the State level and local level.
That is our roadmap for success in accomplishing the 14 words.
We now have an immediate tactical plan, a long term strategic framework, a platform, and a simple message.
The economic system will vary by state, as it should based on those peoples consensus of views. It won’t be decided from afar or in abstraction. It will be whatever it takes to make what resources we have at that time work for our people in whatever circumstance we find oursleves.
Economics are tools to serve the people, not idols to be fought for in and of themselves.
A great article (perhaps because it mirrors some of my thoughts…).
http://hirocker.com/r-economy/replicator-economy.html