The Nature of Woke Capital
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.
4/25/2023 06:21:09 pm
Well said, D.H. I'm looking forward to your book. Without the evil cover and largess provided by Clown World vampire finance and governance, all the blue-haired wokesters would shrivel and blow away, methinks. Along with the new "BRICS+" systems, we, hopefully, may see something sovereign out of Texas. My friend Terry Hulsey is all over this in his new book, which I will review shortly. God, gold, guns, and guts will save us from the woke-y nuts.
Leave a Reply.
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.