Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘taxes’

Why Tax Reform Matters

Wednesday, December 13th, 2017

The woman who ram-rodded ObamaCare through the US House of Representatives has an important announcement. And she even might have a point.

Nancy Pelosi hates the GOP tax overhaul, and it is a totally partisan GOP tax overhaul; nary a Democrat broke partisan Sharia to vote for it. It is Armageddon according to the representative of one of the least religiously inclined regions of Amerika. Now Dear Mizz Nancy should relax and try not to get the vapors. If Democrats could actually do something in church other than feel one another up, they’d get to Revelation 21:23 and realize the whole Armageddon thing turned out okay in the long run.

OK, so I’m sh!t-posting the name of The Lord in vain. OK, so was San Fran Nan. But again, she makes a salient point. Tax legislation really gets to the point on some stuff. The whole thing about putting your money where your mouth is has valid verity. Money talks, bullcrap runs the marathon sayeth natural philosopher Nino Brown.

Tax codes reflect the moral beliefs of a society. If you hate the people that make your success possible and seek to savagely bite off the hand that feeds you, than collect your revenue solely through income taxes and wonder why Burger King goes Benedict Arnold and moves to Canada. If you want people to genuinely care less about tomorrow or their children, then by all means take 50% of their net worth via inheritance taxes so they can’t pass it on.

And you get the added bonus of hacking up rural familial legacies and turning them into Levitt Towns. We have the most Progressive tax code in world history. Detroit, Birmingham and Newark wouldn’t be the charming places they are today without the $800bn a year in entitlement programs that these taxes don’t quite collect enough revenue to cover.

Again, I’ll focus in on that Inheritance Tax. It cuts to the heart of Progressive hatred towards traditional landed gentry. Senator Charles Grassley perhaps fatally uncucked and now, like anyone who speaks truth to Leftism anywhere, he needs a faster horse.

Grassley was adamant about the need for change, even if farmers and small business owners represent a tiny minority of estate tax payers. The reason, he said, is as much philosophical as practical. An estate tax effectively and unfairly taxes a person’s earnings twice, he argued: first when they earn it and again when they die. And, he added, it penalizes savers without touching spenders. “I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing,” Grassley said, “as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.

The Leftists jumped on this as ¡PROOF! that the senator don’t care about The Poor.™ If only Grassley were more articulate as a spokesman for decent and farsighted ideals. He is discussing the financial equivalent of Deep Ecology. As Deep Ecologists questioned the true values and purposes of environmental arguments, Senator Grassley has challenged the fundamental assumptions and purposes of the tax code. This is definitely something the Progressives would rather have remain “settled science.” But the power to tax is a powerful incentivization machine.

Grassley is proposing that building wealth over time should be the standard financial incentive from a tax code. If the government is going to reach into your wallet, it is going to alter your behavior. The larger and more encompassing the government, the larger and more powerful a goading whip its taxation policies will be. Senator Grassley proposes the long-term husbanding of property and wealth should be rewarded over short-term aggregate demand generation. This sort of profound heresy cannot be countenanced in a progressive society. Wealth that is protected, stored and grown as a fine whiskey is aged, cannot be redistributed on behalf of some whim of the mob. It is antidemocratic to behave with intelligent and measured judgement.

So Nancy took to Twitter in order to perform a condign inquisition.

I want every single California Republican to understand this. Your ideology doesn’t come first. Your party doesn’t come first. The PEOPLE come first. If you fail to recognize that, you don’t belong here.

Just as a Deep Ecologist cannot worship the modern expediency of industry, the Deep Economist cannot coexist in the Progressive Ethos. The Mob cannot coexist with the intelligent landed freeman. The economy demands subservience to aggregate demand. It demands expedient access to the property of those who store their wealth and tend it with judgement and care. The “Hookers-n-Blow” Economy of Modern Amerika cannot endure. It will fail. Its tax code will have to mosquito more and more prosperity from the corporations who will not leave or evade. It will have to destroy the fortunes of more traditional families to pay for the Section 8 Vouchers and EBT Card fills. The Now can never allow for the tomorrow. A tax code for the grasshoppers must defraud the ants. Taxing the income of those who succeed is the only way to feed the life support systems of those who refuse to do what is necessary to uplift themselves.

The tax code favoring fairness and equality is designed to make you equally bovine and keep you all moving down the funnel, towards the abattoir. A tax code that allows families to acquire, maintain and inherit wealth over the generations begins to reward those who invest and nurture their possessions and their children. That will kill the progressive dream of equality. It will promote freedom which is the very antithesis of equality and fairness.

Allow individuals to discipline themselves and the invariable bell curve of abilities and time preference will reassert itself above any scheme of income redistribution or enforced financial equality. Economic opportunity is the death of socialism. And that is why tax reform matters just as much as Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi acknowledges that it truly does. For her, it is the end of the liberal world as we know it. And I feel fine.

Government Is Self-Rationalizing

Saturday, December 9th, 2017

Humanity encounters crises because we are self-referential. Through our specialized jobs, but even more our tendency to socialize, we are accustomed to getting through life by convincing other people that we deserve things. This leads to a condition where we are self-rationalizing; we act based on what others will approve of, and then later explain what we get to ourselves as the best possible condition that could have been.

This presents a problem because our first step determines our last step. Once we start down a path, we begin rationalizing it within the group, and the group reinforces its dominant bias or narrative agenda, which has us going further down the path because otherwise, someone might be to blame for screwing up. And so step one leads to step two, with no chance to get off the crazy train until the crash.

Internal pressure provides the most fascinating study. In a group of people, getting anything done is a struggle, so we filter our thoughts for what we believe we can achieve. At that point, making the group happy so that it holds together becomes more important than anything else, and we contort and adjust our ideas to match what the group will approve. This filter kills any ideas of a different path before they are voiced, much like an early form of political correctness.

Human groups thus find themselves following a behavior pattern where they start out small and have focus on a goal, but if they succeed, grow large and then shift their focus toward making everyone happy. At that point, reality is ignored, and results become bad in consequence. Out of fear of instability, the group works harder to unify itself, instead of re-focusing on the goal. In this way, the most successful human endeavors become the ones most pathologically devoted to self-destruction.

Somewhere in there, the sheer frustration of working on a doomed process takes over and people become actively destructive. They know, but cannot articulate, that their time is being wasted. They resent others for being implements of doom and yet have no idea what they would do differently. Vandalism, perversion, self-destruction, and resentful passive-aggressive behavior result.

We can see this self-referential self-rationalizing mentality in democratic governments, since they are unable to recall any past programs that provide benefit to anyone, as then they will be seen as the aggressor who takes from others. This is why we have hysterical political mumbling like the budget fumble currently roiling the swamp in Washington, D.C.:

As the population ages and lawmakers grapple with the effects automation has on job displacement, more funds at the federal level are going to be an absolute necessity. It’s simply not going to be tenable to keep on raising and spending what’s raised and spent today. And other countries prove there’s plenty of room to raise more revenue without kneecapping economic growth.

The easiest thing to do first is to raise some money on the corporate side. The U.S. used to raise 4-5 percent of GDP in corporate taxes. Today, that’s down to 1.6 percent. The corporate income tax once made up about one-third of total U.S. revenue. In 2017, it won’t even make up 10 percent. (At the same time, the personal income tax has remained steady, raising 7 or 8 percent in GDP, for about 45 percent of total revenue.)

…And then there’s rates on the wealthy, which most certainly have room to go up. If it were entirely up to me, rather than hiking what is currently the 39-percent top bracket, I’d add new brackets on top so that multi-millionaires aren’t paying the same marginal rate as the upper-middle class. America’s concentration of wealth is such that there’s plenty of room to raise taxes on the rich with nary an economic blip; in fact, there’s a case that income inequality is itself a drag on growth. The top marginal rate used to be above 90 percent, and was at 50 as recently as the 80s, so going higher than today’s rate isn’t some ahistorical anomaly.

The missing portions of this article furnish the most interest: we see zero analysis of cause and effect, such as “we raised the rates this much and this was the result.” Instead there is just the notice that people got away with something similar in the past, so maybe we should assume that the demands on us are identical and adopt those same old policies.

Even more, what we witness here turns from a reasonable argument about balancing a budget into a demand to keep funding exactly what we are doing now. There is no ability to say that we should look at acts of the past as something that requires assessment, or even a consideration for how we will eventually get rid of our crippling debt, which is devaluing our currency. There is just rationalization of what we have done and a panic-stricken begging for someone to keep the money tap flowing.

How do we escape this death spiral? Until there is a reckoning, known colloquially as “hitting rock bottom,” we do not, because under democracy politicians will not remove any program that benefits someone anywhere. Instead, they will insist that our current spending is the only possible universe in which we could exist, tax until they crush the producers in the economy, and spend until the government runs into default by fully devaluing its currency. Once we assume democracy, this is the only path that it can take.

Much like any other iteration of The Human Problem, this instance shows us the codependency with power that atomized individuals possess. They demand a protector because they fear personal consequences for screwing up or misunderstanding how reality works. They seek to abolish reality by replacing it with a human simulacrum of reality, and this path too leads them away from sanity.

We could save ourselves untold years of misery, trillions of dollars, and wasted potential by admitting that we have hit rock bottom because there is no other way that we can go except forward into rationalization, and thus downward toward the abyss. For us to do that, however, we must see sacrifice as part of duty, instead of merely a duty toward our individualistic selves.

By Removing State Tax Deductions, Trump Is Forcing States To Take Responsibility For Bloated Budgets

Thursday, September 28th, 2017

All of life comes down to the choice of whether you choose a human order or an order based in nature, God or gods, and logic. If you choose the human order, you will forever be playing into the victimhood-scapegoat spectrum, where you have to blame others for the consequences of your own bad decisions.

Donald Trump just struck back at centuries of American prole-bloat by proposing to deny federal deductions for state taxes. This is a classic conservative move which supports localism by localizing responsibility.

If you are in California, and paying 6% of your income in tax to the state, you no longer have Uncle Sap to absorb the cost of that. Instead, you see it as what it actually is: a cost that California is passing on to the rest of the nation. After that happens, you will be more wary when you turn on the television and see the politicians have a new program for “free” benefits. Nope, not free anymore.

Voters in New York could approve whatever insane edicts came from their political class and shrug it off because they were not paying for it. They paid taxes, sure, but then deducted those, so the end result was that no more money came out of their pockets. If they cannot take that deduction, they will see their tax load as it truly is, which is an insane amount of money, most of it going to parasites.

Now, instead, the burden is shifted back to those with the power of the vote to change it. When California comes up with another set of free benefits, the voters have to realize that they are paying for this as well. When New York’s chattering classes decide they want another ideological crusade, the voters know they are going to feel the pain for it.

Even better would be if states and federal government adopted a flat tax. No one votes who does not have some skin in the game. But in the long term, pretty much anyone with a pulse recognizes that 60% of our taxes go toward Leftist wealth redistribution programs and that if we cut those, we could pay almost nothing in taxes.

Many have even snapped to the awareness that their high property taxes are mostly going to fund schools that are more expensive than those in any other advanced nation, mainly because our diversity load is so high and we refuse to send anyone home for total ineptitude or bad behavior.

For many years now, Americans have viewed the wealth of their fellow voters as an infinite cornucopia upon which they had a blank check to draw for any programs that increased “equality,” including civil rights. These costs were then hidden away as debt, assigned to long-term funds which were never fully paid, and otherwise concealed from the robotic, mindless voters.

Naturally, humans tend to be generous when voting with Other People’s Money (OPM) and so the proliferation of social programs was massive. If you are paying relatively little in taxes, and know that you can squeeze it out of people in other states or income brackets, why not vote to spend a little more, if you anticipate receiving more?

A vast shift has happened in the West. For over two centuries, we were drugged with the promise of Leftism, and then realized that even in its mild forms, it crushes our economies and changes us into hopeless people, much as it did in the Soviet Union. Trump’s counter-attack on taxes is part of the reversal of this Leftist wave and the return of accountability, sanity, duty and responsibility.

Anarchy, Confederacy and Tyranny

Wednesday, August 30th, 2017

Tyranny is not a method, like authoritarianism, but a condition under which one exists when leadership is motivated by something other than the health of the organic nation as a whole. It needs to be the nation as a whole because otherwise it becomes divisive as one group is favored over others, which is one of the many paths to tyranny.

A tyrant might rule for his own sense of power and importance. He might favor one group over others. He might represent a foreign power wishing to destroy the society. Or, he might simply be in the grips of a messianic universalist dogma like Communism. In all cases, the result is the same: the organic nation loses, and the tyrant grows more powerful.

What is this organic nation? Mostly intangible patterns to tangibles like heritage, culture, history, values, faith, morality and wisdom. These are intangible between they are invisible relationships between objects over time, and not objects themselves. The pattern of a nation is first a genetic founding group, and then the culture and values that nurture it to be the best according to its purpose, a nebulous term indicating a position in an order like an ecosystem, where each tribe of humans exists in a balance with nature and have a certain role among both human and animal tribes.

Watching the storm die down in Houston, it has become clear that natural disasters, by interrupting the infrastructure and institutions of civilization, create a type of temporary anarchy which is profound in what is missing: the sense of being able to conduct an ordinary life according to the purpose assigned to the tribe to which one belongs. This, more than “freedom,” is what the healthy person desires. They want the ability to live so that they make something of their lives that is worth living and dying for.

Houston, in the final analysis, will be seen as a typical city like Detroit or Chicago that has run itself into debt because the voters wanted social benefits more than flood control drainage. But more broadly, it shows us why the Confederacy wanted to retain the rights of states, instead of joining an all-powerful Union.

The reason for this, ironically, was the same reason that the original colonies seceded from England in the first place.

The Civil War began based on the pretext of slavery, but the cause ran deeper: the destruction of the Southern economy by Northern industrial interests. Let us look at a primary source, the Declaration of Causes from Georgia:

The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade.

Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency.

The document begins by talking about slavery, but then picks up to the actual cause: Northern taxation, tariffs and other impositions upon the South which were designed to crush its industry, which would then allow it to be purchased and controlled by Northern industry, which wanted vertical integration of its industry, much of which (including textiles) used the raw output of Southern agriculture.

Georgia explains this here:

After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South.

The South was an agrarian economy that provided raw materials; the North was an industrial economy that took those raw materials, finished them into textiles and other goods, and then sold them overseas. The South, realizing that its goods fetched better prices in England and mainland Europe, began selling directly overseas and receiving higher prices. This sustained Southern independence from the North and frustrated Northern manufacturers, who realized that there was great profit in buying low and selling high.

To counter that, the North imposed a number of tariffs on European goods, and Europe raised reciprocal tariffs in response. This forced the South to sell its goods to the North at reduced prices; when America raised her tariffs, other nations raised theirs to American goods, and so the only market was domestic. However, the Walker Tariff Act of 1846 lowered tariffs, in part to pacify British concern over the borders that were drawn for Oregon earlier that year. That meant the South could keep its economy.

In response, Northern politicians paired up with industry and came up with a compromise: the forerunners of today’s liberals objected to slavery on a moral basis, and so this aegis of righteousness could be adopted in order to conceal the financial motivations behind the desire to crush the South. That ideological crusade then became the pretext, or excuse, for war.

Texas added another complaint:

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

Much of the contentious behavior that preceded that war involved the annexation of new territories in the Northwest and former French colonies, namely because the Northern states — under the guise of opposing slavery, but actually in a competition of economic systems — refused to allow the South any of this territory, and used other means of artificially limiting the size of the South.

With the election of Abraham Lincoln, who made anti-slavery part of his campaign, it became clear that inevitably the larger territory of the North plus its larger population would defeat the popular vote and Electoral College both, and slavery would be abolished, which was significant in that it would gut the Southern economy, allowing it to be purchased by the industries of the North so they would have guaranteed supply of raw materials.

As part of its desire to intensify the pressure on the South, the federal government stopped providing many promised protections, offloading more cost onto the governments of the Southern States in an attempt to weaken them. By allowing Indians and Mexico to attack Texas, the government hoped to force the State to pay for its own defenses and distract itself with more immediate threats.

In other words, the South could either go to war, or be destroyed by the ballot box.

The American Civil War reprised the French Revolution in that ideology was used as a cover for theft. In the French Revolution, the lower classes wanted wealth and power, and some elements of the mercantile middle classes wanted to remove any barriers to their further profits, so an ideological pretext was invented for the overthrow of the kings. In America, the same was done using slavery, when the actual motive was the $16bn Southern economy.

Abraham Lincoln formalized the metapolitics of ideological pretexts with what would become American policy, from a letter to Karl Marx:

Nations do not exist for themselves alone, but to promote the welfare and happiness of mankind by benevolent intercourse and example.

Today, we call that globalism, which might be better understood as worldwide Leftism, or a doctrine of the equality of all human individuals. This idea makes people feel warm and fuzzy inside because it promises an end to struggle for social acceptance, and so it is a powerful way to motivate masses of people as is required by democracy, and upon its success the US — like the French Revolutionaries and Bolsheviks — adopted it as the most fundamental policy of American rule.

At this point, we have come to the root cause of the American Civil War: it was an attempt to preserve an early form of democracy from the later form into which democracy, aided by the mercantile middle classes and lower class revolt, evolves. As one famous discourse explains it:

The following conversation between English ship Captain Hillyar and Capt. Raphael Semmes-Confederate Ship CSS Alabama occurred during the war on August 5th, 1861. It is a summary from a well-educated Southerner who is stating his reasons for fighting…

Semmes: “Simply that the machinery of the Federal Government, under which we have lived, and which was designed for the common benefit, has been made the means of despoiling the South, to enrich the North”, and I explained to him the workings of the iniquitous tariffs, under the operation of which the South had, in effect, been reduced to a dependent colonial condition, almost as abject as that of the Roman provinces, under their proconsuls; the only difference being, that smooth-faced hypocrisy had been added to robbery, inasmuch as we had been plundered under the forms of law.”

Captain Hillyar: “All this is new to me,” replied the captain. “I thought that your war had arisen out of the slavery question.”

Semmes: “That is the common mistake of foreigners. The enemy has taken pains to impress foreign nations with this false view of the case. With the exception of a few honest zealots, the canting hypocritical Yankee cares as little for our slaves as he does for our draught animals. The war which he has been making upon slavery for the last 40 years is only an interlude, or by-play, to help on the main action of the drama, which is Empire; and it is a curious coincidence that it was commenced about the time the North began to rob the South by means of its tariffs. When a burglar designs to enter a dwelling for the purpose of robbery, he provides himself with the necessary implements. The slavery question was one of the implements employed to help on the robbery of the South. It strengthened the Northern party, and enabled them to get their tariffs through Congress; and when at length, the South, driven to the wall, turned, as even the crushed worm will turn, it was cunningly perceived by the Northern men that ‘No slavery’ would be a popular war-cry, and hence, they used it.
It is true that we are defending our slave property, but we are defending it no more than any other species of our property – it is all endangered, under a general system of robbery. We are in fact, fighting for independence.”

The Union victory in 1865 destroyed the right of secession in America,which had been so cherished by America’s founding fathers as the principle of their revolution. British historian and political philosopher Lord Acton, one of the most intellectual figures in Victorian England, understood the deeper meaning of Southern defeat. In a letter to former Confederate General Robert E. Lee dated November 4,1866, Lord Acton (author of the famous phrase, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” – Editor) wrote, “I saw in States Rights the only available check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. I deemed you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization and I mourn for that which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo (defeat of Napoleon). As Illinois Governor Richard Yates stated in a message to his state assembly on January 2,1865, the war had “tended, more than any other event in the history of the country, to militate against the Jeffersonian Ideal ( Thomas Jefferson ) that the best government is that which governs least.”

The Jeffersonian ideal consisted of the notion that government was a necessary evil that could be mitigated by limiting its size and power. This is the modern conservative ideal of “small government,” which means not just a government of few employees, but one of few powers, which requires that government not have an ideology such as the one Lincoln adopted above, but merely be a caretaker of its people. The flaw in the Jeffersonian view is that it focuses on restricting government, but does not find a way to compel government to affirmatively reach toward positive goals, which creates a pattern of history where government ignores obvious problems, and then to fix them, as Plato related regarding tyrants, demands more powers which are not rescinded after the crisis passes.

Critics of democracy have long observed that it inevitably grows in power over time because it changes the people over which it rules. Plato notes that men under democracy become solipsistic because of the focus on “freedom” instead of virtue. Alexander de Tocqueville described this risk to human psychology as well in Democracy in America, Volume 2, Section 4: Chapter VI, “What Sort of Despotism Democratic Nations Have to Fear”:

Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?

Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things; it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits.

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison quotes John Adams as saying:

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

The hope of that paper was to establish that a Republic — essentially a democracy limited by laws, rights and procedures — was fundamentally different than a democracy, despite being a variety of democracy. What history has shown us in the intervening years is that if even a highly architected document like the Constitution cannot limit people from voting changes to their Republic to make it into a democracy, there is no hope for democracy at all, because any infection of democracy into a political system will inevitably lead to full democracy and the tyranny of the majority, as happened in the American Civil War.

In Houston, we see a similar failure: a city that was warned about the potential of a catastrophic flood, but chose instead to spend its money on social benefits, as the majority wanted. Who is this majority? Steve Sailer reminds us that Houston became a minority-majority city in the 1980s, and since that time, has leaned Leftward, including toward policies that increased the amount of concrete in the city, avoided vital drainage projects, and enhanced benefits, causing the city to be deeply in debt.

The dynamic of the current situation in Houston is similar to that of the Confederacy, which was held hostage by a more numerous voting majority in the North comprised of mixed-ethnic people who were sympathetic to the underdog narrative of the abolitionists. Anti-Immigrant sentiment blossomed in America for the four decades prior to the Civil War, and in fact pro-immigrant emotions of the time parallel our current national narrative:

Although a smattering of Irish Catholics had lived in America since the colonial period, there was no significant immigration to the United States until the catastrophe of the Potato Famine (1845-1853) set it in motion. The first non-Protestant group to arrive in large numbers, the Irish often faced both religious and ethnic prejudice from the then largely Anglo-Saxon population. Anti-Catholic, particularly anti–Irish Catholic, feelings led to the formation of the American or Know-Nothing Party, which enjoyed a brief period of influence in the early 1850s before the growing sectional dispute pushed the Catholic immigrant issue to the sidelines.

…Nevertheless, the firing on Fort Sumter and President Abraham Lincoln’s call for volunteers evoked a sense of patriotism to the Union that was fanned by Irish newspapers and political and religious leaders. Patrick Donohue’s Boston Pilot, the ‘Irishman’s bible,’ enthusiastically supported the war to restore the Union. Archbishop John Joseph Hughes of New York, the ‘bishop and chief’ of the New York Irish whose influence was nationwide, also urged his flock to help suppress the rebellion. But early in the war he pointedly warned the Lincoln administration that if Irish-American soldiers had ‘to fight for the abolition of slavery, then, indeed, they will turn away in disgust from the discharge of what would otherwise be a patriotic duty.’

…Of the approximately 140,000 Irish-born soldiers in the Federal armies, about one-third came from New York. Ambitious Irish New Yorkers fanned out across the country, encouraging state governors to approve the Irish formations in other states while securing commands for themselves. Scattered Irish regiments were formed in the West, but the East provided the bulk of officially designated Irish units.

Any immigrant group or group in a diverse society that does not perceive itself as being in control will feel a similar sentiment: it resents and tries to subvert whatever group is above it. This is one of the many reasons that diversity does not work. Another is a loss of social trust which results in alienation even within ethnic groups.

More importantly, however, each identifiable group acts in its own interests — this extends to race, religion, ethnicity, class and politics — and will use politics as a means to enrich itself while damaging other groups. This is exactly what happened in Houston, where Mayor Sylvester Turner supports benefits to the mostly-minority city services workers while opposing any increase in drainage systems:

Metro Houston, which includes smaller communities and unincorporated parts of Harris County, has added more than a million people since 1992, while the amount of water-absorbing wetlands per capita has been halved. Paved surfaces in the county increased by well over 25 percent in that period, according to researchers.

Paved land generates five times more runoff than woodlands.

…More than a quarter of the $726,000 in contributions to Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner last December came from developers, engineers, builders and real estate interests. Some of the money for Turner, a Democrat who won a Dec. 12 runoff, was collected at a Metro National fundraiser.

The situation gets more interesting when one considers the nature of Houston: it is a commercial downtown surrounded by suburbs, which are highly segregated by race despite the massively diverse and cosmopolitan character of the city. The suburbs, especially the white suburbs, pay most of the taxes; the recipients of social benefits are mostly minorities. Like the South paid for the North, the suburbs are paying for the city.

For this reason, voters have divided into two camps: those who rationalize the situation and convince themselves to support it, and those who do not, but know that they will never win because the city is only 24.9% white, and therefore between combined minority and Leftist votes, will always approve the Leftist agenda of more social programs and benefits. This is why Houston has elected blacks and lesbians as its recent mayors, and why it is a very blue region in a red state.

Much like the Confederacy, European-Americans are held hostage to a similar pattern: the cities of the coasts, who are blue, have the numbers and the money, so they control the media and the voting, but it is the European-Americans in the center of the country who are the middle class and upper class voters squeezed to provide most of the taxes. In Houston, this occurs through property taxes based on the value of the home. Tenement homes pay very little in taxes; middle-class and above homes pay the vast majority.

Real wages have not budged for decades, corresponding to the introduction of welfare and entitlements programs in the federal budget, which means that the squeeze on the middle class is becoming more pronounced at a time when, owing to the influx of third world immigrants whose lower IQs make them destined to be poor, costs are steadily rising.

As in the past, a refusal to look honestly at the situation and the need for producers to be rewarded and not parasitized has set the conditions for a civil war. While the waters recede, many European-Americans in Houston are realizing that the money taken from them went to another group, and now those European-Americans pay the price with flooded homes and ruined businesses.

Subsequent Generations of Immigrants Turn To Terrorism, Proving Diversity and Assimilation Wrong

Saturday, August 26th, 2017

People invent lore to justify what they believe is convenient. This means that all of our reasoning as a society is backward, because it is people using the reasons they claim that they did things, in order to argue for what they want next.

In the post-Irish mythos of America, different groups from all over the world come here to a “melting pot” where they lose their original identity and become generic Americans because we have brought them the Bible, taught them capitalism, and indoctrinated them in the ideology of human universalism, or equality.

Europe has followed the American lead, but as seems to be happening here, things are not turning out well for the diversity narrative as cultural confusion leads second-generation immigrants to become terrorists because of the disorientation wracked by diversity:

“An estimated 60 percent of those who espouse violent jihadism in Europe are second-generation Muslims who have lost their connection with their country of origin and have failed to integrate into Western societies,” Roy says.

They are subject to a “process of deculturation” that leaves them ignorant of and detached from both the European society and the one of their origins. The result, Roy argues, is a dangerous “identity vacuum” in which “violent extremism thrives.”

Giving up a native culture means to go from someone with a place in the world to someone who must adopt a foreign nation and who must signify status through income only, having given up the values system of their homelands and having replaced it with what is effectively an ideology of anarchy.

This cultural erasure is responsible for the radicalization of second generations of immigrants, who find that they cannot become members of the founding group of the nation because that group was biologically different from their own, and at the same time, they have been made into merely economic units, which deprives them of any context, leading to the atomized lifestyle which creates both libertinism and radicalism.

In other words, even if we pretend that people can exist without a culture, they need one, and our attempts at “assimilation” and “integration” simply deprive them of their inherent nation and fail to replace it with something more compelling:

To call America a melting pot is hostile to marginalized groups because, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, multiculturalists “reject the ideal of the ‘melting pot’ in which members of minority groups are expected to assimilate into the dominant culture in favor of an ideal in which members of minority groups can maintain their distinctive collective identities and practices.” Multiculturalism pervades liberal thinking in our time. As a result, assimilation is “a concept many on the left currently hate,” Beinart writes.

To assimilate is to make oneself, or be made by others, similar to those others, a process that necessarily means becoming dissimilar from the people the immigrant left behind in his native land. The melting-pot metaphor implies that the assimilated will modify the culture they are assimilated to, rendering it as American as pizza pie. But that isn’t good enough. For the zealous multiculturalist, assimilation demands “that the marginalized conform to the identities of their oppressors,” to quote the Stanford Encyclopedia again, which “looks suspiciously like the erasure of socially subordinate identities rather than their genuine incorporation into the polity.”

Note that applying the logic of multiculturalism to the case of immigration requires positing that immigrants are dominated, oppressed, and subordinated.

First generation immigrants generally do not care about cultural loss because they do not perceive they have lost it; born abroad, they still have that identity and the memory of living among their people, thus easily gravitate toward immigrant groups and family in the new nation. Their children however, having grown up as attendees of a market rather than participants in a cultural identity.

Even more important, they lose out on the social trust that exists in non-diverse societies, and so have no sense of unity with others in their host nation:

Government, Roger Scruton argues, “requires a ‘we,’ a prepolitical loyalty that causes neighbors…to treat each other as fellow citizens.” Without the “legacy of social trust” derived from this sense of belonging to a highly specific subset of mankind, political stability is impossible.

No one was thinking of that when immigration programs were designed because those programs were created to fund the entitlements payments which had to go to the huge generation of people born from 1944-1964, a.k.a. the “Baby Boomers” or “Me Generation.” In Europe, the immigrants were intended as a tax base to pay for Boomer retirement:

But, Krieger added, one of the big caveats here is the effect that immigrants have on pension or retirement systems, which constitute a huge chunk of the public budget in many countries. Pension systems are typically pay-as-you-go programs, which means everyone currently working gets taxed and that money immediately goes to current retirees. Immigrants tend to have a tremendously positive impact on the pension system, he said. In fact, their arrival triggers what “pension economists usually call an ‘introductory gift.’ If you find a job, you start paying contributions and all these contributions—because it’s a pay-as-you-go system—go directly to the retirees.” That can swiftly shore up government finances in countries with an aging population, which describes most of Europe. Plus, “There’s been research showing that even if the people are net beneficiaries of the pension system [i.e. if, by the time these immigrants grow old, the state has committed to larger pension payouts], even then it would have a positive effect on pay-as-you-go simply because they will have children who become contributors, and immigrants tend to have more children than natives.” In Germany, said Krieger, that kind of effect on the pension system “is a factor of three or four compared to all the other benefits.”

In America, a similar rationale was advanced in that immigrant payments into social security were anticipated to fund retirement programs so that existing citizens could exit the workforce and still receive benefits:

Stephen Goss, chief actuary for the Social Security Administration, told the Daily Beast, “Even as it stands under current policy, unauthorized immigrants contribute positively to the financing of social security not only in terms of their own contributions, but in the succeeding generations when they have children on our soil that are citizens from day one.”

…“The biggest problem we have with social security is there are fewer Americans to pay into the system to support people who are currently retired or about to retire,” says Ornstein, “so the more people working and paying into the system is better for everybody.”

Henry Aaron, an expert on social security at the Brookings Institution, says that looking ahead 75 years into the future, the legalization of some five million immigrants by executive order would be “like a boost in population—and a higher population is typically good for the (social security) trust fund. It’s equal to an increase in net migration, and when people enter the system, and that group is young and working, that’s positive.”

When all you look at is economics, this makes sense. If you look at multiple silos of social benefits and detriments, it becomes clear that what is happening with immigration is merely cost-shifting, namely putting money into retirement programs while taking it out of other areas of the economy, including the benefits which most immigrants rely on.

At that point, it is hardly surprising that the children of immigrants — realizing that they are essentially part of a large retirement insurance scam created by democratic governments — become indifferent to life, and thus radicalize. Immigration benefits no one, and assimilation destroys identity, further increasing the misery necessary for successful suicidal terrorist recruitment.

Rise Of The Trump Doctrine

Tuesday, June 13th, 2017

As Samuel Huntington noted back in the 1990s, liberal democracy has entered its final stages. It seems to be at the peak of its power, but these are really its dying throes; no longer having any competition to the Left, it has followed the Soviet Union in the pursuit of a total managed economy and society and by doing so, has strangled its host civilizations.

That is the good news. That which has peaked has nowhere to go but down, and in the case of unrealistic beliefs like Leftism, coming into power means that it demonstrates its unworthiness to hold power. The only difficulty is that here we are not deposing a single dictator, but as many tyrants are there are voters.

The first signs of its failure came with the rise of the Tea Party. This group wanted a libertarian revolution, or a removal of government from as much of everyday life as possible, but also paired this with more extreme social conservatism than mainstream politicians would accept. The Tea Party wanted to end the role of government as enforcer of civil rights, tolerance and other “blank checks” for more government power and money.

Out of that movement came the force that catapulted Donald J. Trump into the presidency, along with more extreme social conservatives like the Alt Right. These groups realized that ideological government, or government that enforces civil rights, quickly becomes even worse than the Soviets. It turns genocidal and manipulative, and will deplete a civilization and leave behind ruins.

In doing so, Trump developed a new doctrine: the role of government should be to enable business and culture to exist together, and it should replace ideology with commonsense functionality. That requires removing the power of many layers of government, displacing the people who benefit from them, and liberating business from excessive regulation.

As part of that, he is setting the stage for the next act in the drama, which is the downfall of liberal democracy itself once it becomes clear that (a) these governments always spend themselves into bankruptcy and (b) the voters will always support them in doing so because voting encourages people to spend the wealth of a society on special interests. Democracy has failed because it cannot succeed.

It seemed to succeed, at first, but then again, so did the Soviet Union and the French Revolution. Almost anything can succeed in the short term because it rides the inertia of the past by benefiting from the wealth, institutions and functional people left behind from the previous stage in society. But inevitably, it raids and displaces those, causing them to fail.

The Trump Doctrine begins with a simple observation: the herd is wrong, and the herd always wants one-step solutions that involve stronger government. Trump made his career out of finding properties that “everyone who knows anything” agreed were not wanted, and then turning those into success stories. It did not always work, but it worked more often than it did not.

The herd hates Trump, but the perceived consensus is fading:

Is it possible that we’re wrong about Donald Trump? …I ask because when there’s a stampede of critics headed in one direction, maybe it’s time to stand back from the herd. When an overwhelming consensus builds in serious academic, media, and political circles, and when comedians can make a good living mocking the man in the Oval Office, it makes sense to wonder if perhaps everyone is wrong. Because it wouldn’t be the first time people have been wrong about a president.

Our academics, media and politicians know how to be popular. They follow whatever the herd decides. This is measured not by what everyone actually thinks, but what they will admit in social situations, and the group influences each other and comes to compromises. These involve fond dreams of free government benefits, world peace, racial reconciliation and other emotional pursuits.

This is why they are always successful, but also always wrong. We knew that some day the gig would be up. That day is now.

In their quest to make everything perfect and safe, the voters unleashed a government that has shattered the middle class by destroying their sources of income:

Then, as commentators as diverse as Pat Buchanan and Ed Schultz have noted, more than 50,000 factories closed over the years.

This is why President Trump in his statement about the Paris Accords talked about “lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production.”

…Most of the businesses that closed were small or medium-sized businesses that were killed in large part due to environmental regulations and/or foreign competition, both of which the president mentioned in his Paris statement.

In the mind of a voter, a one-step solution is the only one that will work. Indirect solutions like markets and culture just do not “feel” solid enough. So instead, they approve more power for those in charge, forgetting that they are handing this authority not to geniuses but to mid-level bureaucrats, most of whom have Napoleon complexes.

Those people in turn write millions of words of rules, sign hundreds of treaties, establish law through the judiciary, and do anything else to increase their power in pursuits of blank check goals like civil rights or environmentalism. They do this because they perceive that it will increase their power and make their careers successful. It is a tragedy of the commons.

This in turn creates a huge cost burden to the taxpayer, which is passed on to those working for government and those receiving entitlement payments, effecting a wealth transfer away from the productive to the parasitic. Note how bureaucrats get paid more than you do to do a whole lot of nothing constructive:

The village manager in my hometown will be paid $221,375 this year and is in line to receive a $33,000 pay increase next year. He also gets a $6,000 car allowance, according to the village. At least 16 other Village Hall employees make more than $100,000 in base salary.

My local township appears to be so flush with cash that every season I receive a full-color, glossy newsletter that boasts all the programs I don’t use and never asked for. The newsletter advertises critical services such as a workshop about choosing between a tablet or PC.

…Similar situations are playing out all across the state. Government pay isn’t just higher than what the rest of us make — it’s more than we can afford.

With this change, America is following the Soviet Union pattern: only the people in government do well; everyone else suffers. And the solution to that will be more government as well.

The Trump Doctrine has shown a willingness to change this. He wants to cut the size of government, end the regulations, restart industry and pay off the deficit. He hopes to have a trickle-down effect as local governments imitate the success of this. However, he cannot do enough, and he knows it. He just needs to do enough to demonstrate that he is right.

Even if he were given free rein to do whatever he wanted, Trump — one man — could not reverse the past century of horrible decisions, nor could he fully displace the toxic government. Luckily for us, he will not achieve victory directly. Instead he will show us that democratic government has become just as abusive as dictatorships, and pave the way for the next phase of humanity.

Much as Francis Fukuyama argued for “the end of history” with liberal democracy as the final stage of humankind, Trump believes that history has ended, which means it has been restarted. All of the assumptions of the past 228 years have gone out the window. Instead, we will be looking for a way out of this system, which has now failed just as surely as Communism and National Socialism did.

Our time is the “Berlin 1945 moment” for liberal democracy. It has failed by creating a monster in the form of our national government, the EU and the UN. This monster threatens to destroy us and replace us with foreigners so that it can remain in power forever, but its plan is not working. The new occupants are not generating the wealth, knowledge and quality judgment that secured our success in the past. As a result, civilization is failing.

If the Trump Doctrine has a core, it is a rejection of ideology and its replacement by real-world, commonsense thinking. That in turn is a precursor toward replacing democracy and equality with known methods of thriving, and directing ourselves toward transcendent goals instead of human ones. The future is bright, even if it must get worse before it gets better.

Neoreaction In Action: Ireland Goes Patchwork

Saturday, January 28th, 2017

Under Neoreactionary theory, small states will form that compete on the basis of cost and services offered to citizens, essentially formalizing the knowledge that governments are self-interested corporations and not benevolent charities. While this fails to address the national question and the actual motivation for most human decisions, it does explain the Irish state tax haven.

Apple announced its intentions to move its iTunes biz to Ireland in September when it transferred an estimated $9 billion of iTunes assets. At that time it also shuffled all existing developer contracts to Ireland-based Apple Distribution International. Like Luxembourg, Ireland is known for being a low-tax haven for international businesses. Last month, both Apple and Ireland announced they would appeal a record $14 billion tax bill from the European Commission, which earlier found it had been underpaying tax on profits across the European bloc from 2003 to 2014. Apple today is the biggest private employer in Cork, the Irish Republic’s second-largest city, with a workforce exceeding 5,500. Economists estimate Apple’s Cork operation pumps around $17 billion annually in salaries, tax and investment into the Irish economy.

If Ireland were to set up a libertarian free-trade zone as part of the country, say a major city, and offer citizens the benefits of living in a European country without the high taxes and insane regulations that this normally means, it could see a similar boom in income which would be more important than taxes as it would offer a thriving country which could then achieve financial independence by taking existing tax revenues and investing them in its corporations, providing an eternal revenue stream.

Consequential Formalism

Monday, January 9th, 2017

It’s hard to talk about the evils of overgovernance without factual evidence. In theory, we all want freedom. In practice, we all want security. The two frequently exist in tension. This is particularly true of people who will not avail themselves of their freedom to produce their own financial security.

Fans of significantly engaged and empowered government will then loudly offer government mandated security while diligently burying the costs amidst a flotsam of minutiae. “If you like your doctor, you can keep him.” They tell you.

To counteract this snow-job sales pitch, actual evidence of the cost has to be made readily available. This I call Consequential Formalism. The consequences (costs) of goverment largesse need to be formalized (made obvious and logically undeniable). The Burning Platform Blog shows us how this is properly done.

The merchant itemizes the Philadelphia Beverage Tax and clearly demonstrates that this tax constitutes about 30% of the entire transaction. The *Void Transaction* line at the bottom is the clearly demonstrated consequence. The revenue of a 30% tax on a cancelled transaction equals $0.00.

More like this please. Find the liberalism. Document the failure of the liberalism. Attack the liberalism by exposing its exorbitant costs. When these costs can’t just be buried in the dirt of bushwa and mumbo-jumbo, they will be come apparent. It will also become apparent why the person who trades liberty for security winds up with what that person deserves: neither.

The Unelected Government in a Democracy is A Self-Licking Dog-Feces Ice Cream Cone

Tuesday, May 31st, 2016

dogs_licking_ice_cream

Governance in a democracy is supposed to reflect and carry forward the will of the people. The safeguard against corruption that is supposed to prevent waste, fraud or abuse is the fear of the next election. This works for the politicians. It fails for tenured, unelected, professional bureaucrats. They, like the cockroaches, will survive WW III. The more of your governmental apparatus that is on unelected autopilot; the more corrupt that government will become under democracy. It will eventually become a self-licking dog feces ice cream cone with malice shone towards all who strive athwart its self-indulgent corruption and venal vice.

So just how does an ice cream cone lick itself? It’s a linguistic idiom. Baskin and Robbins doesn’t have another new flavor. The self-licking ice cream cone is an organization that primarily serves to satisfy itself rather than serve a valid public mission. So just how does the figurativeice cream cone self-lick? It happens in three basic steps. We will use the IRS as an example as we walk through each step.

  1. The organization monopolizes a necessary public mission. The US Internal Revenue Service is charged to collect the monetary amounts needed to supply ready cash to the US Government. It does not actually still fund the government; we now perpetually borrow those funds. However, the IRS has awesome regulatory harassment and enforcement powers that are useful to politicians that win its allegiance. The IRS remains and gets greater empowerment.
  2. The organization uses its powers in a remarkably corrupt fashion. It favors individuals it likes and uses the regulatory powers of state to bedevil those it sees through a less auspicious lens. The IRS would probably suffer a severe loss of power from a repeal of the 16th Amendment. This how they would “hypothetically” respond…

    “I am a lowly clerk at the IRS, looking at your application for tax-free status,” said the caller, Bill, from Elizabeth, New Jersey. “I go to your web page to see the goals of your group and one of the goals of your group is to abolish the IRS. You can bet every dollar you got I’m going to go after you and target you and try and end your group and that’s just the way it is,” the caller said.

  3. But wouldn’t all that chicanery and thuggish abuse of power leave a paper trail. Nope. The GSA sells shredders. The IRS just takes a few key papers and preserves some organizational security. How do you stop them and make them actually keep records. You have to spend years in court to enforce the mandate that they actually do their job in this regards. Otherwise, the documentation goes straight down Winston Smith’s memory hole.

At the end of multiple repetitions of this three step process by multiple agencies of our unelected government, the citizen discovers something insidious. The citizen votes in the elections that would signify a democracy. Instead, the power and the authority increasingly resides with a number of unelected, unresponsive, uncheckable regulatory hegemons.

Thus, the citizen no longer lives in a representative democracy. There is a new form of government that he experiences in day-to-day life. This would be oligarchical collectivism. That would be exactly the experience of anyone unfortunate enough to have been pulled by their dick through the knothole by the IRS.

How First World Governments Have Bribed Their Citizens Into Compliance

Thursday, May 5th, 2016

good_dog_with_cheeseburger

Over at The Conversation, important research reveals the reason that modern citizens seem to grumble all the time but never take any action to substantially change their situation: they have been bribed into silence. This is how government, evolving like a tapeworm, has solved the problem of recessions, flagging loyalty and keeping itself in power.

The researchers make an important point. Thanks to government benefits raising the lower and high taxes lowering the higher, people without wealth can afford to live like wealthy people. Here’s the most relevant part of the research in graphical form:

unequal_spending

This graph shows how people in the lowest 80% of the population have their spending boosted by social welfare benefits, and how the highest lose about a third of their spending power thanks to taxation. I imagine the graph is similar in Europe because similar methods are applied there.

The authors write:

[S]pending inequality – what we should really care about – is far smaller than wealth inequality…The fact that spending inequality is dramatically smaller than wealth inequality results from our highly progressive fiscal system, as well as the fact that labor income is distributed more equally than wealth.

The top 1 percent of 40-49-year-olds face a net tax, on average, of 45 percent. This means that the present value of their spending is reduced by the fiscal system to 55 percent of the present value of their resources…For the bottom 20 percent, the average net tax rate is negative 34.2 percent. In other words, they get to spend 34.2 percent more than they have thanks to government policy…

Governments guarantee permanent stability (of government) through this model. The people most likely to revolt, namely the lower 80%, are bought off with the wealth of the higher 20%, who are not taxed so much that they cannot still enjoy a good life. This means that any attempt to remove the current system from order will meet with squeals of protest from the lower who fear their benefits going away, and the higher who see that their customer base will fall if the spending powers of the lower are curtailed.

Benefits (“bennies”) have always been bribes in disguise, presumably to keep the proles from rioting. Now they are a way the population is held hostage. It can keep a good life, so long as it keeps voting for the usual gang of incompetents, because while they’ll screw everything up, they’ll keep the bennies coming.

We also see how multiculturalism is made to work on paper in the West. The third world people who are imported are poorer, so they are given government benefits, which generally pacifies them so they mostly limit their violent crimes to the ghettos in which they are stored. The bennies allow them to have a good life, but in return, they buy the products — iPhones and Louis Vuitton and health insurance — that the higher earners produce. This inflates the value of the economy and the take-home of the higher earners, despite it being essential as circular ponzi scheme that is using permanent Keynesianism to suggest the economy is healthier than it actually is.

This shows us the origin of the ugliest form of consumerism: it is how governments pay for the increased taxes that make the bribes to citizens possible. The upper fifth is not buying much of the fast food, gadgets and entertainment as they have better things to do and different priorities. The subsidized people are, which increases demand for money, allowing government to claim positive economic effects from what ultimately will be a deleterious practice.

Recommended Reading