Posts Tagged ‘wealth transfer’

Understanding Leftism As Inertia And Rationalization

Thursday, April 20th, 2017

Over cocktails with Leftists, the most extraordinary thing was said: “You either give to the top or you give to the bottom, and Republicans choose to give to the top.”

This statement was striking in its simplicity. Is that all? It shapes the mind to think about giving, instead of creating, and this shows the difference between Left and Right.

The Left, defined by its only idea, egalitarianism, seeks to redistribute wealth. On the Right, where we recognize the necessity of deciding issues on a case-by-case basis and recognize the particularity of solutions as superior to general theory, the question is not redistribution, but the production of wealth, because we realize that without affirmative acts to produce wealth, it dissipates.

This leads in turn to the realization that the Left does not recognize that civilization requires ongoing and regular acts to maintain. To them, it is there and can be taken for granted, and thus the only question is carving up the wealth that exists to make sure everyone feels included, because this is the way to win at the game of socializing and peer pressure.

They exist in a perpetual present tense where what we have today exists as if by a divine hand, and did not require the work of yesterday to create, and will exist tomorrow without the work of today. In this, we see a disconnect in cause-effect reasoning caused by the proximate intermediary of socializing, which tells that all things exist by human intention alone.

In other words, humans intend for no one to go hungry, so they write a check from the Treasury and the problem goes away. Or they intend for all people to be equal, so they proclaim it and execute dissidents on the guillotine. Maybe they want everyone to be accepted, so they force acceptance of all people, no matter how much they deviate from social norms.

What they forget is that civilization as we know it comes from the affirmative acts of our people. It takes work to make food, shelter, and an economy. Social norms keep people moving in the same direction, and enable civilization to function in the first place. Inequality drives people to rise above others and therefore, to put the competent at the top of our hierarchy.

Leftists do not recognize these needs, and as a result, are entirely blind to the task of maintaining civilization. This means that to them, the questions of leadership are as simple as how to spread money and power around. Conservatives aim to create that wealth and power, and to them, division of it is done so that more is produced.

This is why conservatives emphasize giving money and power to the competent. It is not a question of making everyone feel accepted, but ensuring that the people who are most likely to make more wealth and power are in a position to do so. This is entirely lost on the Left, who do not exist outside of a perpetual present tense where these things already exist.

Inertia drives the Left. Finding themselves in a civilization where benefits are present, they assume these are perpetual and given by heaven. This inertia may reflect a fear of the passage of time, including aging and mortality. It manifests in a denial of the cyclic nature of reality and our part in it.

It also provides a rationalization and decline and justification for profiting from it. If civilization “just exists,” without requiring us to be means to the end of its perpetuation, there is nothing wrong with taking everything that one can and giving nothing back. One is freed from the guilt of watching another labor for shared benefit while taking for personal benefit only.

This inertia and rationalization provides the individual with the ability to act selfishly without guilt, while simultaneously not worrying about the future. In this view, what existed at the birth of the individual will exist in perpetuity regardless of the actions of the individual. They view themselves as having no effect and no obligations.

From this comes the “bourgeois” mentality or the view of the successful middle class, which is that society is a competition for resources and the only political involvement required is to “virtue signal” or demonstrate moral goodness through transferring wealth to those with less success. Politics is a means of symbolic gestures that lead to personal success.

When we view Leftism through this filter, its origins as an adaptive pathology become clear. It seems to be an ideology, but really, it is a defensive rationalization for the individual to disclaim obligation to maintain civilization. This explains its enduring popularity as well as its incoherence.

Once it is visualized this way, Leftism becomes defeatable. It is no longer an active philosophy that has actual goals. Instead, it is a pathology of people seeking to accept and deny the decline. They perceive it as a way of making themselves more important in a shrinking pond. If this power is removed, Leftism becomes inert and thus unrewarding, and will be discarded.

The Grand Goal Of Leftism And Globalism

Monday, October 10th, 2016


Recently John Rivers described the “grand (elite) plan”:

  1. Import millions of Muslims.
  2. Install police state for our protection.
  3. Exempt Muslims from police state to cause Islamophobia.

This is not a parody because it is really happening. So it’s more like a jester warning the Court of a danger using humor because after all, some things can’t be discussed (directly) as Trump so eloquently stated.

However, a “plan” suggests that there must be something else, such as a conspiracy, or alien leader, with a specific goal in mind. This reminded me of the book The Goal written by Eliyahu Goldratt and Jeff Cox in 1984. Mr. Goldratt was educated as a physicist but made a name as a business consultant because he developed the “Theory of Constraints.”

Where most managers would increase production to make more money, Goldratt suggested that a company can do it by removing “constraints,” such as to improve “throughput” by for example optimizing bottlenecks. But the focus is not on the one bottleneck, it is on all the bottlenecks at the same time, because that is the “goal”.

It is therefore important for a company to keep its “goal” in mind because changing it requires a change in the mathematics of the entire production line.

It has become glaringly obvious that NWO politicians do not have a goal, or something like a better civilization or improved trade that can be used to develop a “mathematical” plan. This is why the court jester had to suggest a “plan” in a wry sense of “goal” humor.

It is possible at this point to digress and write about development plans for cities, or countries or even the United Nations. It is also possible to digress into analyzing leaders and their ships. But it is more expedient to simply jump the grade and write about the real elite, because they have a simple goal supported by a simple plan.

According to the book The Richest Man in Babylon written by George S Clason in 1926 (and even though the book is in front of me), I am not going to recite it, but in short; the goal is to make money and the plan is to:

  1. Find a target.
  2. Invest spare money.
  3. Re-invest profits.

It is almost similar to Warren Buffet’s goal where he stated: “I never sell”. Recently I read that he is looking for people that “are spending money.” Obviously he is out of targets. This made me wonder why on earth Buffet supports the grant-giving, immigrant-buying Clintons. The answer in this context would be that he is just the same as Facebook, Apple and other tech people wearing out the White House carpets. The market is not consumers anymore; it is the parental politicians treating consumers like (their) children.

At this point one reaction will be to think that it is obvious that rich people want to make money. However, it is more than that, it is just money meaning there is absolutely no race, religion or ideology involved. Slowly it becomes clear that the real elite’s goal, is just (more) money.

So what is their plan? The concept for this, apart from investing as described above, is not to invest, but to subvert “people” towards a point where “wealth” is simply transferred. The subversion process follows the same technique that a politician would do to a competing politician, political assassination. There are many cases in the current year where an “assassination hit” was called onto a “hurdle”. In the case of money, it is called an “economic hit.”

The best book to read here is the Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins in 2004. He was himself an EHM (Economic Hit Man) and writing the book in 1982 he intended to title it “Conscience of an Economic Hit Man.”  Clearly he was the “do-er” and not the “investor”. He updated this book to the title “The New Confession of an Economic Hitman” and even has youtube and a website. Now in 2016 he states that “they are coming for your democracy” in an article by Sarah van Gelder.

Clearly there are many “stories” that should now be told, but suffice it to say that many countries were targeted, one of which was Greece. Another target was the mineral rich South Africa. The entire “democratization” so much lauded in the international press via Hollywood films and Nobel Peace prizes was a front duping people into do what they were told, while the gold reserves were shipped away and cash moved through the back door.

This ability to destabilize countries for some strange benefit has been going on for quite a while now, even implicating Hillary Clinton in Honduras. The point is that the elites doing this are gaining experience, allowing them to optimize their own production “throughput.” South Africa was a spectacular financial “bloodless coup” (for the elite) and many techniques used to subvert the conservative population, is now used on American conservatives, such as firing conservative military and police officers, guilt-ridden education and media-of- fear.

One technique they routinely apply is to corrupt an internal “elite” inside a target country. The amounts of money is jaw-droppingly large for these “small” politicians, but provided with the right amount of moral egalitarian motivation such money is greedily accepted “for the common good”. Examples of such corrupted small “elites” can be readily found because they literally do the same things such as:

  1. Write a “book.”
  2. Become part of the “after-dinner” club.
  3. Sell “connective” information.
  4. Set up a “charitable” foundation.

During the economic hit on South Africa this “small” elite was not readily identifiable as is now the case in the United States. The emergence of “Cuckservatives” allowed easier identification of the subversive small elite club eying enormous riches after giving up their country for adoption because it’s “the right thing to do.”

Race, religion and ideology have nothing to do with it. But the elite will use whatever is necessary to advance towards his goal. For example they can use blacks to destabilize whites on racial grounds, they can use Islam to destabilize Christians and they actively use liberal-democracy as their preferred ideology because it plays into their hands. In the US it’s the Lutheran Church apparently deciding where what immigrants go.

So, essentially the entire “hit” is not a conspiracy, it is simply a process put into place that allows unfettered access to convenient players at a lower level, such as Black Lives Matter, without them even knowing about it. Even Church leaders may express their support for activities not knowing what really is behind it, such as the Anglican Church harboring terrorists in South Africa (and proud of it today). All the “elitist” will do is to remove “constraints” while encouraging those participating idiots such as SJW’s or journalists to produce the required narrative that may allow changing of laws etc.

In fighting this dys-civilized scourge (not un-civilized), new warriors are needed, because we are in a sense fighting against ourselves and that include all races, religions and ideologues. These warriors will have to help us prioritize the “enemy” and help us focus on the low hanging fruit first, so that we can get our own processes in place.

On a personal note: Dr. Nicholas Samuel, who just published a book visible at agree with my pinned tweet that “the evolution of the market has thrown up pseudo markets that weaken the middle-class backbone.”

If we don’t establish an own goal of fighting greed, civilization will last a little longer, but only for those hiding behind security and guns. Ask any expat in Africa.

Wealth transfer is conquest

Tuesday, December 15th, 2015

Miskatonic University Orne Library Postcard Front

Since 1789, the West has known only one voice in politics: class warfare. This idea holds that some people are richer, smarter, stronger, healthier, more beautiful and more competent than others, therefore since we like to think we are all equal, the only possible cause for this condition is that the above-equal people oppressed the rest of us.

That word “therefore” should be said in Vincent Price intonation, maybe while throwing a handful of flash powder and waving a cape. It is the “magical therefore” which unites a non-sequitur with a popular image, and because most people are unwilling or incapable of engaging in logical thought, becomes instantly popular. That word “therefore” just sounds like winning an argument. Like saying “science proves it.”

In the years after WWII, which brought the fall of far-right governments but also revealed how horrible far-left ones are, we have added another fascination to our list: wealth transfer. This is popular because states owned by the people tend to fail spectacularly, but taxing those rich/smart/successful meanies and throwing the money to everyone else is always a vote-getter. Vote-buyer, I mean.

In the class warfare/wealth transfer model, the goal of every good and right person is to make sure that the people with extra money give it to the rest, starting with those who are the least equal. If you wonder why our postwar Left has been fascinated by Amerinds, African-Americans, Palestinians and Muslims, it is because these groups come from less-than-equal societies. You show how right and good you are by taking from rich groups — whites, Jews, men — and handing it over to these unequal groups. Bonus points if you find transgendered or gay ones.

What this means is that a few of us will carry the rest on our backs.

In the abstract — always a dangerous place — this does not sound so bad. Some have more, so give to the rest, and everyone is happy, right? All war and race riots end, all people are brothers, and enlightenment reigns… just like the end of the 9th Symphony. In reality, it means that the less-than-equal are given no incentive to improve themselves, and they become enraged because their destiny is now controlled by this small group. This puts them in a dual frame of mind, which we can see in #BlackLivesMatter and Syrian “refugees” alike: the rich should give us all they have, and we should destroy them too.

This psychology has been endemic to the Left since 1789. The poor blamed the rich for the population explosion of the poor, and they were right, in a way, because good management by the rich enabled the poor to thrive in good years. Had the rich been more bloodless and calculating, they would have kept the poor starving so this would not happen. But they had long memories to the peasant revolts of the previous two centuries, and figured they could buy off the turnip-pickers by letting them share in the prosperity. That created one of these mental loops among the poor, who saw the rich as responsible for the destiny of the poor, and wanted to both take all they could get and destroy the rich too.

Of course, that did not work out so well in France. It killed off its aristocrats, then went bankrupt, and when the curtain rose, the cynical businessmen of the port cities controlled everything. So it always is with popular revolts.

Several centuries later, we can see how class warfare shakes out from a tangential detail:

Approximately 71% of the 34 million 17-to-24-year-olds in the U.S. would not qualify for military service because of reasons related to health, physical appearance and educational background, according to the Pentagon.

In other words, in military matters, 29% of the population is carrying the rest.

Look at taxes, inventions, entrepreneurship and any other measurement and you will see the same. This is nothing new on a grand scale, because some are always more competent than the rest and they create all that a society does of actual import while the others just go through the motions (if you wonder why most jobs are do-nothing pro forma make-work, there’s your answer). But: this pattern is accelerating, and the takers far outnumber the makers, and thanks to class warfare and wealth transfer, the makers are getting ground down and desperate. Their lives are basically highly-paid slavery of 70-hour work weeks and constantly being on call.

And the end result? The middle class is disappearing. This particular symptom of falling Late Empire societies occurs when government creates wealth transfer as a means of buying off those who would start race riots and revolutions. It is no different than paying mercenaries, but this payola can be disguised as welfare, anti-discrimination, refugee aid and urban renewal.

The middle class in America is declining and no longer constitutes a majority under President Barack Obama, according to a Pew Research study, which found that “after more than four decades of serving as the nation’s economic majority, the American middle class is now matched in number by those in the economic tiers above and below it.”

Pew found that the “share of American adults living in middle-income households has fallen from 61% in 1971 to 50% in 2015. The share living in the upper-income tier rose from 14% to 21% over the same period. Meanwhile, the share in the lower-income tier increased from 25% to 29%.”

Everyone demands this from the West. When North Korea’s four working farms fail, they threaten to launch nuclear double-headed missiles at us so we pay them foreign aid. The Palestinians extract tribute from the Israelis, BlackLivesMatter demands it from Ferguson, and Al Sharpton squeezes it out of corporations. They are all in the unhealthy state of being dependent on us and, because being dependent is to feel helpless, hating us and wanting us dead. Within the West, the takers feel the same way about the makers.

“Equality” sounds good in the abstract until you think about it a moment and realize that it always must involve taking from the successful, and giving to the less successful, which makes the latter group angry dependents. This is why equality destroys those above: it works them to death, and then confronts them with an enraged enemy who wonders why there is not more wealth for them. Only when the more successful groups live in mud huts will these demands cease, and then they will change to demands for revenge upon the more successful for failing.

Wealth transfer and class warfare are a form of conquest. In this game, the poor are the pawns, and the real victors are those who sell the mediocre products that poor people live by: alcohol, entertainment, payday check cashing, pawn shops, pornography and overnight auto loans. This group are not talented enough to profit from the thriving, but they sure do benefit from the decline.

We have been held hostage and enslaved by the demands of the herd for too long. This path ends in certain doom; no one will speak of it. Its origin is in the defensive ego which squirms at the thought it might be inferior to anything, and wants to destroy those above it as a result. But the actual motivation is good old-fashioned mediocrity and opportunism, disguising themselves as altruism as they inevitably do, wielded by those too incompetent to realize they will destroy the real source of their wealth, which is a society advanced enough for them to do business in.

Stevens4Prez 2016: How I’d save the middle class

Saturday, December 5th, 2015


Greetings, everyone. Settle down there in front. My name is Brett Stevens and I’m running for president. I don’t stand a chance of winning, but neither does anyone else in a democracy. No one laughing… oh wait, there’s a few. No, don’t throw tomatoes. Anyhoo, I wanted to introduce my campaign.

I’m not running on the right or the left, although my approach is conservative, because my politics are from before the time when we split into right and left and murdered innocent people in the name of ideology. My political ideology is really simple, actually. Here it is:

I believe that every idea needs to be measured in terms of its results.

Soo…. that doesn’t sound controversial, but it is. This means that what you think of the idea is not important. All that matters is whether it works, and if you decide that you like it even though it fails and you can rationalize that, you don’t get to have it. Results only, and by that I mean effects in reality from now until the end of time. No dodging responsibility here.

As a result, most of my platform falls into one of two categories: (1) the “stop doing stupid things” branch where I talk about repealing most laws passed after 1792, and the (2) “we don’t need laws to do this” branch where we talk about ways that as citizens, informally and without being forced to do so, can make changes. Long shot is: you pay a lot less in tax and have less government in your life, but you have to step up and be an active participant.

And of course that’s not going to win. (Laughter). If I wanted to win, I’d be part of the Free Donuts and Beer Party and everyone would love me. The Democrats could learn a lot from me. Or maybe they hide what they’re actually doing because they’re all lawyers. Stop comparing lawyers to snakes. That’s mean to snakes. (Loud silence).

Moving on… today I want to tell you about how I’d save the middle class. The middle class — people with more wealth than just scraping by, but not so much they can buy their way out of trouble — has been under assault since the 1950s. At that time, our government took to heart what it learned from the Nazis and the Soviets, and realized that if it found an ideology that no one could say no to, it could write itself an unlimited blank check for power. They came up with “the poor,” which was a new category designed to imply that anyone barely scraping by was a victim somehow, and then tied that in with race, which is a touchy American subject. So now it was: the Black poor. You can’t say no to that unless you’re the ultimate meanie!

Starting in that decade, Americans began to approve of “social justice” programs that aimed to correct racism, poverty, sexism and discrimination against homosexuals. What they did not realize — and no one had incentive to tell them — was that this more than doubled our budget.

We can pay down war debt, and ride out changes in the market. But we can’t do that when we are spending much more than we can take in, because then debt becomes a perpetual condition. And people become dependent on these programs. This means that the situation will never be corrected.

Unfortunately for the middle class, “social justice” will eliminate them. In the same way that a rich man and poor man can pay the same $100 fine and have it be devastating to one and inconsequential to the other, the social justice taxes hit poor, middle class and rich separately. The poor pay no taxes, but even if they did, they would trade off a huge chunk of their income for even more in benefits. The middle class pay more taxes, and cut corners in other areas instead, which means they never build up a solid cushion of wealth and are living paycheck-to-paycheck. But what they pay out is greater than what they receive. The rich pay the most, but it’s still nothing compared to the benefits they receive from having the money pumped into the economy through all the people receiving benefits, although that money doesn’t go very far because it goes into products at the end of their added value process, not at the beginning where it could serve as investment capital.

The end result of this is wealth transfer from the middle class to “the poor,” which generally means groups who have not had much luck finding prosperity in our country. This creates a permanent group of kids sitting in the back row of class who are going to try to sabotage anything we do, while we pay for them, and can’t make them go away. And it’s being done on the backs of the middle class people.

My plan for saving the middle class has a few components as a result:

  • Lower taxes to a flat rate of 15%
  • Cut all programs but military, space and roads
  • Defund and remove all social justice laws
  • Restore freedom of association for everyone

The last one seems controversial, but it shouldn’t be. Freedom of association means that society cannot force you to spend time with, sell to, rent to, buy from, hire or be hired by anyone you dislike at any time or to sell any product you do not approve of. If you don’t want to sell someone a gay wedding cake, you don’t have to. If they don’t want to sell you a cake because your nose looks funny or you LARP on the weekends, that’s OK too.

We can end our constant religious wars with this one too. Don’t want Muslims in your town? Find enough people to not support them, and they’ll go away. Want an atheist paradise? You don’t have to sell your house to Christians, Jews or Muslims. And even if you want a little theological enclave, you can just sell to only those of your faith and cut everyone else out.

The fact is, folks, it’s not the job of government to put diapers on you and make you do the right thing as we see it. We trust in God and nature for that. Government is here to keep the roads up to date and have the military to defend us, and really, very little else. Much of the stuff we do now is unnecessary, or better handled by someone else. If it needs doing, it’ll get done.

Our society is in deep doo-doo because we took on these social justice programs. We’re broke, unstable and most people hate each other. There is no unity, trust or decency. And the economy is flaking out as a result. Most people want us to make more government to fix this problem, but the fact is that more government got us into this state, and will only deepen the problem. We need to think different, outside the box, and that box is government.

Think of what you can do with the extra money. We won’t give you free stuff like the Democrats, but we’ll let you keep your own stuff instead of giving it to us. I have a rule about government programs: any programs that take money from all of us and give it to a group smaller than all of us are bad programs. That includes farm subsidies, welfare, and pork barrel projects by senators. We can cut it all and stop screwing up our country, and you’ll come out ahead and government will get out of debt.

I won’t claim this step is radical, but right now, any change from business-as-usual is going to look radical. What we have to agree on is that the way we are doing it now just is not working and we need a change. From there, we can make this country fun again. Thank you for listening. I’ll be back in a month with more policy ideas. Yes, Ma’am, there will be refreshments…For God and country, of course!…What a lovely baby!

Transcript from December 2, 2015 at “Lee’s Bowl and Burger,” Harrison, Texas.

Liberal mythology creates our woes

Saturday, October 10th, 2015


Constant preoccupation with fiscal policy obscures a deeper reality.

To use a tired analogy, fiscal juggling is virtually the same as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Politics in the final analysis cannot and must not be about “efficiency in government”. It is necessarily an extension of moral philosophy.

The warp and woof of our society was not in generations past dictated by the frail syntheses of “social planning”. To the extent that this has been brought into play in recent years, it has cut the silken thread – that deeply felt but thinly understood contract – that binds individuals to each other.

This attachment was not brought about by edict but by a shared understanding of what was sensible and just in an endless array of circumstances. Our lives have now, however, been balkanized and sterilized, perhaps forever. The natural social order has been robbed of its inherent ability to allocate resources – compassion too, come to that – and to confront challenges and overcome problems.

Our most treasured values, which shape society, arose quite spontaneously when men and women met and traded freely together. The law of contract, for example, was basically only discovered, not designed; we simply found out what worked, and abandoned what did not. Property, contract, honesty and other values were ingrained in us because in the end they allowed a free society to operate.

It is a misapprehension, a 20th century liberal perversion, to imagine that universal and deeply felt values can be abandoned to a council of planners who will wisely effect some murky so-called “greater good”. The problem is that while it is true we instinctively and habitually operate according to regularities of individual conduct, we can never understand their true nature in the broader sense. They are, in fact, unknowable; any attempt to reconstruct them rather than letting them evolve in a real interacting situation will always instantly introduce pathologies – cancers in human relations – that we could never imagine let alone predict.

While achieving these distortions quite understandably becomes the creed of all bureaucracies, universities now represent a particularly prurient paradigm. Academics have bought into this nonsense, uncritically and almost universally, creating and sanctioning an ideological juggernaut we now call “political correctness”.

Basically, this doctrine affirms, and tries to render unassailable, the 20th century liberal mythology that individuals can justly lay claim to special “rights” if they’re born into or affix themselves to certain groups. These cliques are them imbued, quite arbitrarily, with gross entitlements to the exclusion, and invariably to the detriment, of those individuals not so inoculated.

In a new form, this is the tyranny which classical liberalism in the late 18th and 19th century tried to unravel. In the current climate, groups trying to insert themselves into the Great Provider are endless, and include women, “workers”, renters, farmers, seniors, students and any number of ethnic groups, among many others.

The driving force here is not truly public need, or even demand, in the final analysis. Rather, it is a manifestation of The First Law of Collectivism: that any initiative implemented through bureaucratic infrastructures has as its primary purpose the advancement and protection of its proponents and practitioners. 80% of all largesse flows directly into the pockets of public service functionaries.

The other 20% is allowed to trickle down to the hoi polloi in what boils down to an advertising budget used to promote the fiefdom and lay the groundwork for ever more “progressive” and “socially just” schemes. Any rationale will do, really; a pluralistic society by necessity is full of human contingencies and volatilities which can be exploited and used to extend the collective “rights” of this group or that.

Our fiscal disaster and inability to deal with it are thus only a tumor created by mandarin-driven mythologies. These latter are rapidly enslaving the consciousness of us all, crushing our spirit.

This article originally appeared in The Winnipeg Sun in 1991, and appears here through the gracious permission and timely suggestion of Betty Trueman.

Taxation without representation is theft

Wednesday, November 19th, 2014


The American Revolution resists study because it is both a Revolution in politics and a war for independence as a colony, and because the motivations behind remain shrouded in mystery.

For many of us the question was always why taxation was such a big deal. If our Revolution had been about money, it would seem much less legitimate than an ideological revolution for freedom, justice, and equality. But these two issues are linked.

Since the formation of human civilization, the enduring problem facing societies has been the separation between participants and attendees. Participants are those who apply themselves toward improvement of the condition of themselves and society; attendees are those who show up expecting to be told what to do, and on that basis, demand more wealth and comfort than they could make for themselves.

The problem with society is that it perceives all people as being part of the same group, and thus starts to grant them equal privileges regardless of whether they are participants or attendees. This is the beginning of the end for any society, as whatever you encourage or allow to exist in this generation, you get more of in the next. Thus society begins replacing participants with attendees, and soon runs out of the ability to manage itself.

A short venture to the third world will show us exactly why this is a problem. In third world societies, there are no roads, closed sewers, industry and little social order. All of those things require participation. However, there are many people who are eking out an existence with minimal effort, and these tend to target participants for making the attendees look bad. If someone invents a closed sewer, by inverse causality everyone else looks like a dummy who could not make such a thing. The face-saving response is to burn the inventor as a witch, and declare the invention haram.

Spengler observed, as have others, that almost all third world civilizations represent shadows from an ancient empire. Once, a society of participants stood here; then, something happened, and now it is only attendees. This is particularly visible in the Yucatan peninsula where we see peasants living hand-to-mouth in grass huts erected in the shadows of the massive architecture produced by the advanced math of a lost kingdom.

One facet of this condition is taxation, which can be used either for social good or for theft. In the former, taxes are taken from the citizens equally (or at least at an equal rate) and used to build things that everyone enjoys the use of: roads, libraries, museums, symphonies, sewers, a military, electricity. In the latter, taxes are taken from one group and given to another group for their benefit.

Since the former group are more frequently participants, and the latter group almost uniformly attendees, this effects a wealth transfer from the productive to the unproductive, guaranteeing that future generations will have a greater percentage of attendees. This will inevitably produce conditions equal to those found in the third world of individualist attendees refusing to participate in creating the basics of society, all within view of the crumbling ruins of an obviously greater empire that came to an end.

Our revolution was fought against one form of this wealth transfer which occurred when our English colonial masters taxed us and shipped the wealth home to England, perpetually limiting the amount of participant wealth that could be used to improve conditions here. A popular slogan at the time was “no taxation without representation,” which tends to have this meaning:

A situation in which a government imposes taxes on a particular group of its citizens, despite the citizens not consenting or having an actual representative deliver their views when the taxation decision was made.

Only two centuries later, we face a similar situation. In this case, wealth is transferred from the one-fifth of the population who does best and this pays for the other 60% of society to receive benefits given directly to them. This is not going to roads and libraries, but ten to fifteen thousand dollars a year of direct subsidy.

How is this without representation? It is enforced through the power of numbers. The attendees — who would not have had the vote under the original Constitutional rule — outnumber the participants three to one. And so, every time the question of continuing the attendee subsidy comes up for decision, the numbers have it and the payments continue.

The secondary American Revolution will be fought over a simple proposition: I owe you nothing. If I have to go to work, and figure out how to find a career and maintain it, then you have to do the same. If you cannot find employment, time to start being a day laborer, or working some fields, or selling firewood or something other than putting your hand out. Further, the society of the participants owes nothing to attendees who want “rights” like gay marriage and open borders that offend and threaten the participants. We have your number, attendees: your goal is to replace us so you can always outvote us and take from us. But that will ultimately lead to your doom as well as society slips into a third world style dysfunction.

Currently we have taxation without representation and dozens of other subsidies by the participants for the attendees: gay marriage, affirmative action, anti-discrimination, unions, corporate bailouts, government jobs, make-work job categories that are regulatory creations, endless government fees, and many more. These all serve the same purpose, which is to take from the productive to subsidize the unproductive, which guarantees government an audience of enthusiastic voters.

However, the Revolution has already begun and the participants are finally getting wise to this scam. The only question remains whether the attendees will realize their free lunch hour is up and go quietly, or whether we will require more gunfire and bloodshed in order to transition from this parasitic order to a productive one.

Recommended Reading