Having seemed to give a rather bitter blackpill in my article on the nature and power of woke capital, I thought it best to, in this and some forthcoming articles, discuss how one may better fight the economic wing of the powers that be. In that vein, this is the first in a series of articles on the topic of Southern cities versus Southern rural areas (though their ideas would apply to a lesser extent to northern ones as well) and their potential for building a dissident economy, especially with regard to agriculture. Although much of the material for these articles had been floating around in my head in a separate, disjointed way for some time, Otto Bismarck’s recent article posted on Identity Dixie inspired me to put them down in a more organized, coherent form, both to delve a little further into the current and potential state of Southern urban and rural areas and to offer some practical advice for how, in light of their current and likely future states, Southern Paleos can take advantage of the great changes coming, changes which our elites’ actions have rendered all but inevitable, to craft a major part of a dissident economy that can not only survive but thrive in the wake of the upheavals those changes will bring.
To begin with, it must be understood that US cities and suburbs—all of them, not just those in the South—are in a state of overreach, sometimes severely so, whereas rural areas in the US are in a state of underreach to a greater or lesser extent. The reason for both lies in the fact that for decades now the US has been to a heavy extent what I would call an indirect military economy. To avoid confusion, I don’t mean that the US is overwhelmingly dependent on military exports for much of its trade, as was the case with the dysfunctional Soviet economy which for long stretches of time got its foreign exchange currencies from exports of AK-47s and other weaponry rather than agricultural or consumer goods, though for the US such exports (especially to its European vassal states) are an important part of its economy; nor do I mean that the US economy is still being run along military lines as it had been during the first and second World Wars, though its bureaucratic regulatory groups are something of holdovers from such times. Rather, I mean this: all nations’ ability to consume is directly tied to their ability to produce—it merely depends on what they are producing, and I think it fair to describe the US as having an indirect military economy inasmuch as much of what it “produces” is fear and complacency among weaker nations, especially those in the third-world, via its military might.
Though this trend obviously started during the Cold War while the US was still the factory of the world, it worsened rapidly following the Cold War with the fall of the Soviet Union as a military rival and the rise of China as an industrial powerhouse and the resultant wholesale offshoring of US industry. The US’s ability to maintain the dollar as the world reserve currency, especially via the Saudi regime’s use of the petrodollar, has become more and more of a crutch on which it now heavily leans to keep its standard of living from collapsing. With the wars in Syria and Ukraine having shown the US empire to both an erratic bully (recall its seizure of Russian assets and threats to various nations that didn’t want to comply with sanctions) and a paper tiger, as well as the rise of BRICS and other alternatives to the dollar system, that crutch is about to snap.
And when it goes, so also goes the viability of US city and suburb in their current form. The organizational structure of both city and suburb was in part shaped by an assumption that US living standards would remain or improve, not only in their minute aspects (the size of houses or apartments, the cars and possessions of their inhabitants, etc.) but in their major ones as well. The suburbs for their part, being largely built around efforts at white flight and maintaining a safe distance from diversity in all its glory, become less and less sustainable as the cost of fuel, cars, and everything that goes into maintaining a comfortable existence in the suburbs goes through the roof. The cities, on the other hand, tend to be de facto built around the bread-and-circuses welfare state which allows urbane liberal whites, Jews, and East Asians to stay in close enough proximity to diversity to look down their noses at those who flee entirely from it without being entirely devoured by it. Although such liberal urbanites got a taste of what diversity can do during the summer of George Floyd, they ain’t seen nothin’ yet: let that welfare state fail for even a week, and the rapine orgy undertaken by their dark-skinned pets will make the Sack of Rome look like a tea party—and the relative or complete death of the dollar will make that failure all but inevitable.
Though I’ll be delving into aspects of the urban/suburban situation deeper in later articles, here I want to focus on how the same economic forces that will destroy the cities and suburbs in their current forms will massively increase the potential of the countryside. Basically, it all comes down to how during the dollar’s heyday US agriculture, at least on a small scale, was relatively uncompetitive within the US market when compared with that of Peru, Brazil, and the other nations having equally rich land but a much, much cheaper labor force. With the weakening of the dollar and the ascent of Brazil into BRICS (expect much of the global south to follow its lead) that situation will reverse. Whether this happens sooner or later, for those who prepare for its inevitable occurrence it could prove an unbelievable boon.
Hence my advice to all Paleos and normiecons in the rural US, whether north or South: Without delay, focus on increasing your agricultural production or at least holding onto what you have. This isn’t just limited to farmers. Even relatively rural suburbs can usually allow for a garden. Practice the craft and hone your skills now, using it perhaps for merely better feeding your family at a lesser price while denying big agri and the pseudo-food industry (by which I mean the heavily processed, high-fructose corn syrup–laden garbage that currently takes up over half of grocery store shelf space) further profit. That way, when the great reversal between the relative price of agricultural imports and domestic agriculture occurs, you will be in a position to reap the benefits.
And if all these thousands of small plots—or at least the ones that can produce beyond a subsistence level—can be, under the guidance of northern and Southern dissidents, bound together into an efficient alternative supply chain, they stand a good chance of not only competing with the big agri of the farmer Bill (Gates) types but also forming the backbone of an alternative economy that can allow dissidents in both town and country—and yes, there will be more urban dissidents in the time to come, many more, as city dwellers watch their old assumptions about race go up in smoke and race realism hits them in the face, literally, in many cases—to tell big, woke business of all kinds where to shove it and state their beliefs without fear of being fired or cancelled. The nature and purpose of that agricultural supply chain, then, is the topic of my next article in this series.
Although the following essay is mostly pulled together excerpts from a book which I am writing, the inspiration for its timing and form came from a recent article by Anne Wilson Smith, “No More Identity by Proxy,” as well as her father’s comment on it, below.
Reading them—and they aren’t that different than the kind of works and comments you will find on dissident right sites in general—I realized that they are rather like the famous blind Indians all touching a different part of the elephant (in the room) that is the left’s control of our economy: virtually all of them realize the extent of the problem but almost none of them gets a clear picture of its entire workings, with many being able to grasp only the parts of it that are immediately in front of them. With that in mind, I thought it best to use this essay, which will appear in a greatly fleshed out and expanded form in my book, to help those on our side pull back and see the entirety of the behemoth that now tramples on their freedom and culture.
Just as most of the monsters in the world of Greek myth traced their origins back to Echidna and Typhon, so it might be said that the horrors of woke capital all trace their origins back to the iniquitous marriage between Wall Street and the Fed. Although I’ve got nothing against a stock market per se, I have everything against one that arrogates wealth and power to itself through its Fed connections, connections which allow its well-connected banks to create money out of thin air, robbing honest Americans, north and South, in the process. This process has been long and ongoing, but it has definitely accelerated since the 2008 crash and has involved a trade-off between wealth and power clearly tilted towards power. Let me explain what I mean by this.
When the Fed engaged in unprecedented credit expansion with round after round of quantitative easing, taking interest rates into de facto negative territory (i.e., negative when you factor in inflation), it was thought by many that we would have inflation or even hyperinflation, and yet until the recent COVID-19 panic, which witnessed the throttling of the global economy further amid more and greater credit expansion by the Fed, this didn’t happen. The question is, why? While part of the answer lies in the dollar’s use as a world reserve currency (only very recently challenged in any serious way) which allows our elites to export part of their inflation, a further and more important cause is Wall Street. During this time period the stock market effectively absorbed and negated—in terms of inflation and only in terms of inflation--the massive increase in the money supply, leading to innumerable companies being vastly overvalued relative to their profits and outlook; and the same thing might be said of cryptocurrencies and the various financial instruments whose prices became increasingly divorced from reality. During this time, our avaricious elites (for convenience’s sake, let’s refer to them as the 1%) saw their slice of the economic pie massively increase.
As I alluded to earlier, they in essence kept their wealth in an on-paper rather than in effect form and, by intent or accident, increased their power instead: had they tried to convert a large part of their paper or digital wealth into material wealth, they would have unleashed hyperinflation on the country while looting it as effectively as the oligarchs looted Russia. In fact, the two situations might be said to be inverses of each other: While Russia’s people saw themselves economically destroyed by wicked elites but gradually returned to their spiritual roots, America’s people were (up until recently) left relatively intact economically while our own wicked elites proceeded to spiritually and culturally destroy us.
Rather than cash in and spend (on more mansions, yachts, diamonds, or whatever else their hearts desire) most of their Fed-obtained funny money--after laundering it through the system as gains from nominally increasing stock prices—the 1% chose rather to keep most of their money in the markets while drawing more and more of America’s real wealth into its and their control—giving our oligarchs a stranglehold over the livelihood of the vast majority of American workers who, because their economy was not chopped up, cannibalized, and in large part sold off to the same extent as Russia’s was (yes, I’m fully aware that ordinary Americans’ wages, etc., have been stagnating for the past 30 years and their manufacturing has been outsourced to a great extent, but that’s still not on the level of total economic collapse leading to thousands upon thousands of deaths that Russia’s looters unleashed), could not see the economic noose being tightened on them. The further concentration of stocks bought with the Fed’s phantom wealth in transnational supercompanies such as BlackRock and Vanguard further consolidated control over most of America’s businesses in the hands of that infinitesimal percentage whose wealth, power, and connections to the American deep state--including the intelligence agencies who have no qualms about waging psychological and cultural warfare against foreigners and Americans alike--imbue them with a pathological desire to remake the world of those they deem beneath them in whatever ways they please. (And you can bet your life that 99 out of 100 times, their vision runs contrary that of any sane, normal man.)
Thus the multifarious insanities that we collectively refer to as wokeism are pushed and protected from the top down: any executive who does not toe the line can be chucked and any company that does not submit can be bought out or outcompeted.
This is what gives those companies that wholeheartedly embrace wokeism the ability to withstand the ire of angry consumers: thanks to the Fed’s credit expansion, most companies require loans to replace their capital equipment as it gradually wears out (honest companies saving their profits for replacement find them reduced by inflation to below what would be required) or even to purchase materials and/or meet payroll. Thus if two companies come to get loans, one honest and moral, one crooked and woke, the banks, the larger of which virtually all are part of the Fed/BlackRock milieu, can deny a loan to the former and approve it to the latter. Thus the woke companies have a margin of error that allows them to withstand all but the most all-out boycotts by consumers: Given that some percentage of the population is completely liberal or brainwashed and another, larger portion of it is indifferent, it would take a complete and utter boycott by all (for lack of a better term) conservative types for it take a loss too big to survive without an intervention that the elites fear would give away the game entirely. That creating an alternative unwoke company big enough to serve all the customers needed to destroy the current woke version could not be done without the kind of money which only the woke elites have ready access to serves to further ensure that such en masse opposition never materializes.
Adding to woke power is the merger mania of recent decades, which could not have occurred in the absence of credit expansion by the Fed: because you have to pay a hefty premium to take complete control of another company, which would only make an economic sense if that company is severely underperforming relative to its potential, as would be the case with only a very small number of companies under normal circumstances, megamergers of the sort we’ve seen would under those normal circumstances be extremely rare; that these became increasingly common and destructive is thanks only to an elite who can afford to merge with abandon thanks to having made most of their money the old-fashioned way—printing it (if only digitally). This gives our woke elites further leverage to push their agenda, as their parent company can use its increasingly vast resources to allow any of its lesser companies to weather a siege by consumers angry with its degenerate agenda. Indeed the parent company could be brought to its knees only with a massive boycott of a large number of its companies—and even then it could survive via its Fed connections with elite fear of being completely found out the only obstacle to utilizing that lifeline.
Inherent in it is the nature of power, be it economic or political, which we may visualize as a level: the higher up on it you go, the easier it is to apply force, with only a small number of people at the very top needed to exert massive force on the majority at the bottom. Thus, the wisdom in the Jeffersonian idea that power can only be prevented from becoming tyrannical by disbursing it and weakening it: hence our rulers’ hostility to localism and states’ rights. Nor would this disbursal of power preclude the establishment or continuation of a great and powerful nation, as along as the various parts are bound to each other by genetic and cultural similarity. If they are not, only tyrannical power can bind them together and prevent them from devolving into numerous mutually hostile states: hence our rulers’ emphasis on diversity and its inseparability from wokeism—diversity being in this way truly a strength for them, as it all but necessitates an autocratic consolidation of power, which they so desire. This is the game our elites have forced us to play with them and the nature of the odds stacked against us. Though it would be quite difficult to overcome them, it is not impossible, as I hope to show in a later essay.
That our current political situation is unhealthy and unsustainable no one of sense could fail to see. That the roots of our government’s uncontrolled growth, the ways it has come to loom larger and larger in the once freer land it coldly leeches of vitality to strengthen itself are numerous and varied, no one of honesty could fail to admit. It is not my intent here to provide solutions for all aspects of the problem. Rather, I hope to focus on one of those roots, and thereby help to make it at least marginally harder for our elites to spit on our laws, degrade our culture, displace our people with hostile foreigners, and saddle our sons and daughters with massive debts in the process. The root at which I wish to take aim is our two-party oligarchy.
As of now, it is simply not possible for a third party to effectively challenge the oligarchy’s shared rule at any level of government. At least partially, this sad reality owes its continued existence to an illusion. As is so often the case with governments throughout the ages, the mirage of popular support creates actual (if passive) support. Stalin infamously had a policy of sending the first person to stop clapping after one of his speeches to the Gulag. So all wore a mask of joy on their face and clapped like mad, leaving each man in the crowd plagued with doubts as to how many were foolish or complacent enough to be clapping genuinely, and whose claps belied deep frustration and rage. Thus a crowd easily large enough and hostile enough to overwhelm Stalin’s guards and kill him on the spot was rendered completely innocuous.
While our Demopublican elites are as yet far from enjoying Stalin’s repressive, absolute power, they are protected in what substantial political power they enjoy by a similar deception. Like the happy faces in Stalin’s crowd (if to a lesser degree), a vote can conceal much dissatisfaction and frustration. After all, there is no way to vote for some of a candidate’s policies but not others; he is a package deal. And since there is no way to tell how many ballots for a candidate were cast with enthusiasm and how many were cast in brooding resignation of finding his opponent even worse, many a suited sociopath is permitted to masquerade as the beloved paladin of all who voted for him.
This illusory support then creates actual support by feeding a species of self-fulfilling prophecy: the two parties tell us that only they are popular enough and able to command enough support and votes to win and that a vote for a third party candidate is both futile and a de facto vote for the oligarch you hate even more; and so few vote for the tertium quid and he goes down in defeat, appearing as unpopular and his cause as hopeless as the Demopublican prophets foretold, making their future predictions about the futility of challenging them all the more believable.
As Stalin’s potential detractors or attackers feared finding themselves in physical exile in the Gulag, so many an American voter fears finding himself in the social exile of an unpopular or futile cause, far from the camps of the Big 2, who seem to enjoy the nearly unanimous support of just about everyone who votes. And so our oligarchs endlessly play the lesser-of-two evils game with us and get us to hold our noses and swallow the rancid bilge water they carry for the crony capitalists, sexual deviants, war mongers, and other wealthy riffraff that fund them.
To weaken the illusion and rock the thrones of our co-rulers a little I propose the following idea. Call it the “no confidence vote.” It can be enacted at any level of government (best to begin at the local and work your way up) with a law requiring the following:
1. All polling stations must offer all voters the following options:
a. cast a full vote for a candidate, etc., for an office
b. cast a vote of no confidence for a candidate for an office, or
c. cast a general vote of no confidence for that office.
2. Should the votes of no confidence reach or exceed 50% of the total cast for that office, no candidate may be elected to that office until another election (for all offices which failed to meet the 51% full votes minimum) is held in which the votes of no confidence fall below 50% of the total.
3. The interval between elections is set at the level of the law’s inaction and can vary, as can what happens to the office: the old occupants might continue or (my preferred choice) the office goes vacant and nothing new can be done but the bureaucracy continues its work as usual. (The latter option ensures that a tossed election won’t benefit the prior office holders but also won’t lead to a government shutdown, which the Big 2 could threaten us with to extort full votes for themselves.)
4. The announcements of returns must tell the following:
a. what number and percentage of candidate-specific votes each candidate got
b. what number and percentage of each candidate’s votes were votes of no confidence
c. what number and percentage of total votes were general no confidence votes
d. what number and percentage of total votes were some kind of no confidence vote
With a no confidence vote for a candidate a voter can in effect say to the Big 2, “I may have given you my vote, but only to prevent someone I despise even more than you from winning; if I’d had a better choice, I’d have voted against you.” Hence, a Catholic Democrat could show Obama that she hates his abortion policies and general decadence; a Republican could let McCain know that he loathes his warmongering, etc. The lesser-of-two-evils package-deal nature of the candidates remains, but the illusion of popular support it creates will be shattered. And should the general no confidence votes—which will likely bring to the polls many who, with Paleos and libertarians, previously had argued, “Don’t vote; it only encourages them”—help push the total of such votes to 50% or more, the lesser-of-two-evils game could be (at least for that election and seat) ended. For if the Big 2 are forced back to the drawing board, one of two salutary results will occur.
On the one hand, if they hope to win next time around, they’ll be forced to toss some of the more rank and sordid special interest garbage they tried to cram into the bottom of the package they offered us, lest they again offend too many normal supporters into voting no confidence. Should this happen even once, should the panderers see their chances of winning disappear and their despicable sugar daddies see their legal bribery go down the drain, both will be more hesitant to put as much of their time and money on the line seeking and doing lobbying as they had before.
The no confidence vote turns the lobbyists’ and politicians’ greatest advantage against them. They can afford to dedicate a large portion of their time and money to campaigning and lobbying in hopes of a big payoff, while the average voter must devote himself to making an honest living and (with nothing substantial to gain for himself no matter who wins) puts little time and money into politics; but that also means that the average voter has almost nothing to lose by helping to toss an election with his no confidence vote, while politicians and lobbyists stand to lose everything.
On the other hand, there is another outcome which might finally occur: a third-party party victory. If an election is thrown, if the returns coming in show moderate to high percentages of no confidence votes for the Big 2 but almost 100% full votes for the third-party candidate, the illusion of Demopublican popularity will be shattered and those who only voted for them out of fear of wasting their vote or joining an unpopular cause will likely reconsider their position. The disgruntled but timorous man will say, “Well, I guess I wasn’t the only one who hated his guts and all the crap he peddles for his Hollywood friends.” The previously wavering will be emboldened to give his next vote to the third-party man he’d liked but didn’t want to waste it on—for it’s no less a waste to vote for the Big 2 if the election is tossed. The very possibility of actually winning or showing their internal popularity will encourage at least a few more parties to make the attempt.
Those which do will find their power and influence magnified by the inherent logic of the no confidence vote. For as a third-party candidate’s best chance of winning is by having the election tossed, it will pay him to turn the big 2’s position of dominance against them: As the horses to bet on, the Big 2 rake in the most special interest cash, but that also means they have the most to hide.
Rather than spending his meager war chest on ads for himself, which likely won’t generate much support for him anyway, he will run ads pointing out as many unsavory connections and promises the Big 2 made as he can in order to turn their normal supporters’ votes from full to no confidence, thus possibly tossing the election and giving him a better shot at victory the second time around.
This will at least discourage Demopublican plastic men from disrespecting less mainstream candidates the way they did Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan. At most, it might further discourage the Big 2 from taking the tainted money in the first place.
And even if they win, the oligarchs’ confidence will at least be somewhat shaken by the number of no confidence votes among the total that elected them. Phony “mandates” will be shown for what they are. Nixon might have been less inclined to expand the welfare state had he seen just how many of his “landslide victory” votes owed themselves to McGovern’s unpopularity and the fact that Wallace had been gunned down.
While the idea of the no confidence vote will doubtlessly face the full onslaught of Demopublican party men and their media toadies, it’s rhetorically fairly easy to sell: what normal citizen, after all, would consider an election in which half the voters don’t want the current candidates to rule legitimate? Cost and inconvenience will be too great, its opponents will argue, but that seems rather weak when pitted against the idea that if the Big 2 simply provide candidates of which at least half the voters approve the first time around, there will be no additional time and expense needed. Also, given that the current scramble for special interest cash which the Big 2 now spend most of their time engaging in will at least be reduced by the no confidence vote, it’s highly likely it will actually reduce the cost of elections.
Well, that’s my idea, for what it’s worth. It’s certainly not a full solution to our political troubles, but it might make the situation at least slightly better and for the life of me I can’t see how it could make it worse.
Of course this might be rather moot if the whole thing had to be done via voting machines which wouldn’t record the votes accurately anyway, but that’s another issue for another day.
D. H. Corax is a northerner who echoes the sentiment of Lord Acton's letter to Robert E. Lee that he "saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled [him] with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy,” and who, like Lee before the war, would like to see the union held together, but only if it be a voluntary union in which "federal," or national, tyranny is kept in check by the explicit and legally acknowledged threats of nullification and succession by truly sovereign states.