71 Republic: Andrew Yang Shows Principle Is Only Worth $1,000 a Month

Peyton Gouzien:

“2020 Democratic Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang has a unique following among the right. Yang has become particularly popular among more fringe parts, such as the Alt-Right. Mother Jones contends that the reason for this is Yang’s willingness to talk about topics other candidates largely avoid. Moreover, Yang has been on several podcasts and programming popular among the right, including the Joe Rogan Experience, the Ben Shapiro Show, and Fox News. But many of his ideas contradict the very principles that these people claim to hold.

While Yang has experienced much support from many elements of the right, this seems like a betrayal of their principles. Many on the right claim to be conservatives, libertarians, or traditionalists, but these are contrary to Yang’s platform. Few of his policies actually agree with the principles of any of these labels. The right’s support of Yang as a candidate seems entirely hinged on him appealing to the Trump base in rhetoric. Andrew Yang has focused on the economic woes of those who got Trump elected, making automation and job displacement core to his campaign. The thing is, his actual policies, such as Universal Basic Income, go against much of the principles of the mainstream and even fringe elements of the right. …”

Am I even on the American Right?

For the past 15 years, I have been an ideological populist and nationalist. My values are authoritarianism, social conservatism and economic fairness. I’m a Left-Authoritarian, not a conservative or lolbertarian. I’m on the “fringe right” in the sense of being a moderate centrist.

I deny sharing the same principles as Tomi Lahren or Ben Shapiro. I also have nothing in common with Jeffrey Tucker. I feel like I am both to the left of those people and to the right of progressives. I support the vast majority of things on that list which are not social issues.

Here are the issues where I align in theory with mainstream conservatives: LGBTQ rights, gay marriage, transgenderism, abortion, immigration, political correctness, Christianity and so forth, which is to say, only on social conservatism. This is why I occasionally vote for Republican candidates like Donald Trump in 2016 who vowed to “build the wall” and deport illegal aliens in 2016.

Unfortunately, the Trump administration has proven to me that the GOP’s commitment to the “social issues” is nothing but a scam. These issues are trotted out as campaign rhetoric only to divide the Left and trick folks like me to vote for the Right’s foreign policy and economic agenda. Once in power, the “conservative-populist coalition” turns out to be only the neocon foreign policy and the lolbertarian economic policy. The common ground on social issues like immigration is neglected until the next election cycle when it can be invoked again as a bogeyman to vote for the GOP.

Instead of finding common ground with Blompf on social issues, I have decided to find common ground with Andrew Yang on economics in 2020. We share a considerable amount of common ground on Universal Basic Income, Humane Capitalism, Medicare for All, student loan debt relief, infrastructure spending, postal banking, democracy dollars and especially a shared belief in economic fairness and an acute sense of social concern about the impact of automation on the White working class.

Note: Robert Penn Warren’s All the King’s Men is the greatest Southern novel of all time. Why do you think we like Yang so much? Ever hear of Willie Stark? Granted, the Great Yellow Hope lacks the Anglo-Celtic flair of Willie Stark on the stump, but he has the same spirit, story and politics.

About Hunter Wallace 9609 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

20 Comments

  1. I’m a Southern Nationalist.

    Consequently, popular Cuckservative personalities hold no interest or fascination for me. Having fleshed out my ideology, they have no more to say to me, than the Left do. They’re products of Northern culture, which is as foreign to my life experience, as are houses with basements and being confused about chicken fried steak.

    The same goes for the Democratic and Republican parties. They’re hindrances to Southern political and economic restoration and progress. They represent foreign interference in the Southern political equation. I want them and the scalawags who represent them, gone.

  2. I really have to ask a few questions:

    1. Do you really want to support a guy whose platform for stopping the opioid crisis is to legalize all opioids?

    2. Why do you keep posting that map of the 2016 electorate like it proves every point in the book?

    3. Do you realize that Yang’s entire economic platform is geared toward giving more stuff to non-Whites? Whites are not the primary recipients of those social programs he wants to expand.

    4. Why is it that whenever you talk about your positions, you do so in the guise of supporting a candidate that is almost completely opposed to those positions? Yang is socially left-wing, economically pretty far-left (he’s right down where Bernie is on economics, the only difference is that he hates robots), and he’s absolutely opposed to nationalism and populism.

    I remember something some famous Austrian painter said about people who compromise and pick a candidate that they don’t fully support and them being basically spineless cucks.

    • Your answers:

      1.) Yes, I have some experience in dealing with this problem because I know people who have suffered from opioid addiction and the shame in coming clean about it and getting them into treatment is the biggest problem.

      2.) The map of the 2016 electorate shows that populists and moderates are 29% of the electorate. I keep posting it to show how different political reality is from retarded assumptions about “the Left” and “the Right.”

      3.) No, I don’t. Most non-Whites already have access to these social programs. They already get EBT and Medicaid. Yang’s UBI proposal is opt in so they can either choose between UBI or receiving their current benefits. The people who will benefit the most from UBI aren’t benefiting from the existing welfare state, but are paying for it, which is to say most White people.

      4.) I don’t see Yang as “completely opposed” to my positions at all. I supported all sorts of things whether it was UBI or higher taxes or regulating Wall Street or Medicare for All or student loan debt relief or infrastructure spending before I had ever heard of Yang. It was one of the reasons why I supported Blompf in 2016. I said at the time that I hated his tax plan.

      5.) As for social issues, I look at the GOP and see a wash. Trump and the GOP are now pro-homosexuality. The Trump administration is actually promoting homosexuality across the world now. In spite of all the theatrics over abortion, the issue has gone nowhere in two generations. As for political correctness and immigration, both have gotten worse under Trump. What’s the logic of voting for the GOP on the basis of social issues? It makes more sense to vote on the basis of economics.

      There is absolutely nothing that Tomi Lahren or Ben Shapiro is going to do to “conserve my culture.” Neither Tomi Lahren or Ben Shapiro is going to make me a better Christian, a better White man, a better Southerner, etc. Those people are completely useless and have a flawless track record of accomplishing exactly nothing on social issues.

      6.) There aren’t any candidates running who I fully support. Politics is the art of the possible. The choice is between finding common ground with Yang on economics or Blompf on social issues. The problem is, Blompf’s position on the social issues is fraudulent. He is conning people. If Yang wants to give me $1,000 a month, that is 1.) better than anything the GOP is offering and 2.) better than getting nothing at all out of the next four years because some people who are motivated by nostalgia want to sit around on the internet pining for the Third Reich to come back.

      • You go right ahead and vote for a candidate that wants to legalize everything killing Whites by the thousands.

        I refuse to abandon my beliefs in exchange for a bag of gibs that will never ever pass Congress, while all of the other stuff he wants will be pushed by a heavily Democrat Congress (gun curtailing, voting rights for felons, pot legalization, Supreme Court term limit to push out conservative judges, opioid decriminalization, expand minority options for Ivy League schools, reduce incarceration rates of minorities, civil rights reform to include faggotry, pathway to citizenship for the 31 million illegal aliens, expansion of DREAM Act, make Puerto Rico and DC states while adding millions of non-White voters, increasing minimum wage for non-Whites, add a VAT to increase taxes on the poor, weakening the nuclear response procedure, forcing multicultralism onto high school graduates, forcing airlines to have all passengers on board including those who would otherwise be removed for violent behavior, expanding self-driving vehicle efforts with subsidies which goes against the anti-robot stance, increasing various taxes on small business owners, expanding merit-based immigration, reworking zoning regulations to benefit non-Whites over Whites, reducing regulation standards on nuclear energy, government involvement in all media forms to remove any possibility of Russian influence on them, and creating a holiday to “celebrate paying taxes”).

        That’s a very long list of things that are directly opposed to the various positions you’ve taken on this site.

        You are giving all of that up in exchange for gibs.

        Congratulations on becoming a nigger.

        • Re: FNP

          Let’s run through all of these:

          1.) Has the abortion issue gone anywhere in the last 40 years? If not, why should we expect anything to change in the next 4 years? Also, we voted for Blompf in 2016 who put Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. There is now a solid “conservative” majority on the Supreme Court. If the Roberts Court doesn’t strike down Roe by 2020, will a “conservative” Supreme Court ever do so?

          2.) I’m not familiar with your beliefs and can only speak to my beliefs. Huey Long supported Universal Basic Income. As an ideological populist, why should I oppose Universal Basic Income because Yang supports the same policy?

          3.) I don’t give a shit about pot legalization. I don’t know anyone who has ever died from pot. It is drunk driving that has killed everyone I know. I say this as someone who has never even smoked cigarettes in my entire life.

          4.) It was Blompf who banned bump stocks. We had Obama for 8 years and even he couldn’t do that. I’ve never voted for the GOP on the basis of “Democrats are going to take our guns.” I don’t plan to start doing so anytime soon in 2020.

          5.) Voting rights for felons? Letting criminals out of prison? It was Blompf and Jared Kushner and the Koch Brothers and the GOP Congress who passed criminal justice reform in the lame duck session of Congress in December. Once again, Obama was president for 8 years and couldn’t get that done either.

          6.) I don’t care about Supreme Court term limits. Why should a single elderly person like Anthony Kennedy control our national politics for like 20 years of my life before retiring?

          7.) If you haven’t noticed, it was the Roberts Court which legalized gay marriage, and the Trump administration is promoting homosexuality in foreign countries now. If anything is true, Trump moved the Overton Window by making homosexuality acceptable on the Right and erasing the difference that used to exist on LGBTQ rights.

          8.) A VAT will force corporations like Amazon to pay taxes which currently exploit loopholes to get around paying income taxes.

          9.) Yang supports nuclear energy.

          10.) The GOP also supports a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens. Blompf and the GOP have repeatedly offered a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens in multiple immigration proposals. In fact, every time the GOP is in power we spend all our time fighting off amnesty for illegal aliens and have done so twice since Trump has been president. Ronald Reagan signed the 1984 amnesty. George H.W. Bush dramatically expanded legal immigration. George W. Bush spent years pushing comprehensive immigration reform. As for Blompf, he has said that he wants to raise legal immigration to the highest level ever and gave an interview just the other day complaining about E-Verify because it works.

          11.) How many times has the GOP Congress passed the DREAM Act? I’ve lost count. It only pretends to oppose the DREAM Act when it is not in power. The only reason the DREAM Act wasn’t passed last year is because Democrats opposed it.

          12.) Over half of Puerto Ricans already live here and vote in our elections.

          13.) Good thing we have Blompf, Charlie Kirk and the GOP to save us from multiculturalism with his constant boasting about the black, Hispanic and Asian unemployment rates. Blompf has celebrated every multicultural holiday from remembering the Holocaust like a dozen times a year to Kwanzaa. There is no difference whatsoever on multiculturalism.

          14.) No one is going to stop self-driving vehicles. Are you kidding?

          15.) I support raising taxes on corporations that have made a killing out of the rise in the stock market and which have used their tax cuts to fire workers, raise their dividends for investors and buyback their own stocks.

          16.) Expanding merit-based immigration? Didn’t Blompf just give a whole speech about the Kushner immigration plan which does just that?

          17.) When Obama was president, we used to be on payment processors and social media, but that all changed when Blompf became president. Why doesn’t he just tell the FCC to order Silicon Valley to knock it off?

          18.) In 2016, I supported Blompf because he got on the debate stage and said he wasn’t going to cut entitlements. I don’t support gutting Medicare and Social Security like conservatives and lolbertarians.

          Perhaps you can point me to all these articles where I have given up all these former positions in exchange for gibs? Feel free to cite all the articles where I have supported, say, a neocon foreign policy or conservative or lolbertarian economic policies. I’m a social conservative. The thing is, I think the GOP is just faking and conning people on supporting social conservatism. I believe this is especially true of Blompf whose policies in office have exposed the whole scam which I have documented on like a daily basis on this blog for the past two years now. I don’t believe Blompf or Tomi Lahren or Charlie Kirk will conserve anything I care about.

          If these people are utterly useless and will never conserve anything, why not support Yang and $1,000 a month? Nothing that I care about is going to be lost in the process. It’s not like Blompf and the GOP have ever won on a single social issue or will do anything for the next 4 years except more favors for Israel and the wealthy donors who support their racket. 70% of the country opposes political correctness and it has gotten 10x worse since he has been president. How many chances do they deserve?

          • One question, respectfully, Mr. Wallace: would you still support Andrew Yang if he had made no mention of the $1,000 UBI or removed it from his platform before the election ? Also, just an observation; I think ‘pot’ probably does kill quite a few people in a DWI situation- – perhaps it doesn’t get recorded as such.

            Fantastic blog — a daily go-to!! Thank you for all you do.

          • Let’s break down the breakdown:

            1. “We” didn’t vote for Trump. You voted for Trump. I did not, because I have never in my life voted for either GOP or Democrats.

            2. There is an option for supporting UBI while not supporting Yang. I support UBI in a way, though I’d also require it to be work-welfare rather than gibs.

            3. You post quite often about the moral decline of Southern society over the last 50 years or so. Surely you realize the cognitive dissonance between being against moral decline and not caring about drug abuse, right?

            4. Yes, Congress under Trump banned bump stocks (the House in particular supported this heavily, which isn’t surprising as it was Democrat-controlled when this happened). Andrew Yang’s gun position is to ban guns of the types commonly used in shootings. This means shotguns, handguns, rifles, and after those, what is left?

            5. Obama was president in an era where the left was less powerful. Today, they’re far more powerful than they were then, and they’re no longer afraid to pass anything they can, because they know GOP won’t stop them in any real capacity.

            6. You should care about Supreme Court limits. An 18-year term is a very specific number that implies that Yang would be only a single-term president and expects 8 years of GOP after him, leading to Democrats picking all 9 justices in 2038 (the pattern is typically 8 years GOP, 8 years Democrat, but Trump is almost certainly going to lose the election).

            7. Gay marriage was legalized by the Supreme Court in a ruling (United States v. Windsor, 2013) in which it was 5-4. The 4 dissenting justices were Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas. These were, at the time, the 4 conservative justices on the Court. Kennedy was the one that authored the majority opinion, even though Roberts was Chief Justice (the Chief Justice doesn’t decide how votes go on cases unless there’s a tie, which there wasn’t). So instead of blaming the ones who opposed it, why not blame the ones who supported it?

            8. A VAT in every other country where such a thing exists is akin to sales tax in the US. The difference is that Yang wants it as well as sales tax. This is not a normal desire, and does not work in the way you think it does – it’s not the producer that pays the tax, but the consumer.

            9. Yang supports removing environmental regulations for nuclear power plants. This doesn’t make him supportive of nuclear energy, just supportive of relaxing environmental regulations so that nuclear energy companies can put more radioactive materials out into the environment.

            10. What’s interesting here is that you don’t mention that Clinton was steadfastly opposed to immigration reform and started construction of a border fence that Dubya worked on as well. Much like UBI, though, this is not an either/or choice, and assuming that the only other choice is Trump is still a bullshit argument. As for candidates that don’t support immigration reform, you could always pick one of the other Democrats who doesn’t support it if you’re intent on voting major party.

            11. Everything I can find about the DREAM Act 2018 version is that it failed numerous times to pass the Senate due to GOP opposition. The House passed it easily, with every GOP member voting against it. I don’t really understand how you get from that to “GOP always passes DREAM”, though I would have to assume it follows the same strawman type of argument you always make.

            12. Okay, but Puerto Ricans don’t vote in a position that gives them more representation in Congress. Making them a state would add 2 senators and several representatives (based on population, probably 3-5). Making DC a state would do the same, though likely only 1 representative. These areas are almost fully Democrat as well.

            13. Good thing we have neo-Confederates that will endlessly bitch and moan about Trump’s positions while supporting a candidate that wants to go even further on ALL of those positions that you whine about… Candidates do exist in both parties that don’t support that, but those candidates aren’t offering to buy your vote for $1,000 a month.

            14. You missed the point. Yang is literally campaigning heavily on “Robots = bad”, while also having a platform that includes funding more robot car projects. There is a big difference between supporting humane capitalism and promising to put millions of White Americans out of work by ensuring self-driving trucks exist in the near future.

            15. I also support gassing the rich. However, Yang’s small business tax plan doesn’t do that. His plan is levying taxes on middle-class business owners, not the super-rich.

            16. Again, this hearkens back to the point about how there are many other options not named Yang or Trump. Yes, both of them support this. If the replacement of Whites in a White country is less important than $1,000 a month is to you, that does say quite a lot about you. There are even Democratic candidates running that support reducing legal immigration and curtailing illegal aliens entering and staying in the country, but as you’ve said many times, you’d rather have $1,000 a month (which won’t pass Congress even if it’s fully Democrat as most Democrats are budget hawks, not budget owls).

            17. Well, for one reason why Trump doesn’t do this, it’s probably because the FCC doesn’t answer to the president. It’s an independent commission, like many other government agencies. As for the other reason, the FCC board members are openly paid for by telecomms companies, who aren’t beholden to keeping a relatively small amount of people on their platforms. I assume this was in response to the position Yang has regarding control of the media by the government, but it’s really not clear and seems like a complete tangent.

            18. I don’t support cutting those either. But then again, neither did Hillary, so the point is rather moot. Every politician knows that you have to support those programs to get elected, and every voter knows that if someone doesn’t, they aren’t going to win. I don’t really know where you were trying to go on this one, as it’s not something that appears in the list at all.

            Perhaps I can point you to every article you post proclaiming support for Yang as evidence of you supporting a candidate that opposes you on dozens of issues? Okay, does this article work as proof of you supporting a candidate that has more anti-White platform positions than anybody other than literal niggers?

            No matter how many times you repeat Charlie Kirk and Tomi Lahren’s names, the reality is that neither of them are relevant to Yang being anti-White. Incidentally, though, Charlie Kirk was the subject of an SPLC publication on how he’s a “neo-Nazi White Supremacist” (not relevant either, but I do find it amusing how much time various elements of the American Right spend on shitting on people the SPLC also hates).

            As to “why not support Yang and get $1,000 a month”, I think I made that pretty clear – from his position on legalizing all opioids other than heroin (which includes fentanyl, the leading cause of White deaths in the opioid epidemic) to his position on forced multicultural training for high school graduates to his support of various far-left social policies that even most Democrats don’t support.

            PS: Since you repeatedly say you have no idea what sort of platform I support, despite me saying numerous times that it’s an NS platform… My recommendation would be to look at a copy of the 1920 NSDAP party platform. Also keep in mind that I’m a dual US-German citizen currently living in Estonia – I do far more of my work in Europe than in the US.

          • Re: FNP

            1.) Generally speaking, I vote in elections because I am a practical minded realist. We’re going to continue to have a federal government for the foreseeable future whether I like it or not. Unlike some people, I do not believe that various dead regimes from history will be brought back to life through the sheer power of nostalgia and alienation from contemporary society.

            2.) I support Yang and couldn’t care less that he is Asian. He supports a policy that I have supported for years as a populist. Huey Long supported the same policy in the Great Depression. Also, if it is true that we are facing a situation where 20% to 30% of American jobs will be automated over the course of the next 15 years and the sheer number of jobs that will be lost is even higher in my area, then I really don’t see what the alternative is to UBI. I suppose we can ignore the problem and descend into some kind of violent communist revolution, but as a reasonable man and a parent I would prefer a smoother transition.

            3.) I’m against drug abuse, but I am not a fool. We’ve tried Prohibition before and it didn’t work. Personally, I am a social drinker. Otherwise, I would never even touch alcohol, much less any tobacco product. The only way to eliminate drug abuse is through education and cultivating better habits. As for marijuana, I consider it considerably less harmful than opioids, cigarettes and alcohol. I can’t think of single person who I know who has ever died from marijuana. In contrast, countless people I know have died in drunk driving accidents or from cancer or from abusing opioids. So, I just find the whole debate utterly misguided.

            4.) How is it possible that the Trump administration succeeded in banning bump stocks, but not the Obama administration? If Obama had banned bump stocks, the GOP would have raised hell about it and would have likely stopped it cold. Frankly, I am not concerned about gun control because experience has shown that the “positions” of various presidential candidates ends up being quite meaningless. Blompf was going to be the most “pro-gun” president ever, but look what happened when he was in office. Also, I already own all the guns that I could ever need and have never been a single issue voter and don’t plan on being one in the next election either.

            5.) This simply isn’t true. When Obama was president, the Democrats controlled the White House, House of Representatives and the Senate. Democrats also had far more power at the state level. It is the GOP which has softened its position on everything from gun control to immigration to homosexuality to criminal justice reform over the past ten years.

            6.) Quite frankly, I don’t care about having “conservative judges” on the Supreme Court. Feel free to point out a single social issue where those “conservative judges” have delivered a major victory. The “conservatives” on the Supreme Court have sustained affirmative action and disparate impact. I have watched them strike down state immigration laws. I have watch them create new rights to sodomy and gay marriage. Otherwise, all they do is issue countless pro-business rulings.

            7.) I’m 38-years-old and the GOP has controlled the Supreme Court through my entire adulthood. I was in middle school or high school when conservatives gained a majority on the Supreme Court. I will never forget how the Roberts Court upheld Obamacare, disparate impact and gay marriage and struck down Alabama’s immigration law. I have no confidence whatsoever in “conservative judges” to generate victories on social issues. Feel free to show me the victories that we have to show for the last 20 years it has controlled the Supreme Court.

            8.) As Yang has pointed out, corporations like Amazon are experts at evading the federal income tax. Many of these corporations are literally paying nothing in federal taxes while their whole business model relies on our infrastructure. I agree with Yang and Tucker Carlson that a VAT tax would force them to pay taxes through transactions.

            9.) We have nuclear power plants all over the South. I have no issue with nuclear power. We don’t live in an area that is prone to major earthquakes like Japan or on the West Coast. Insofar as there has been environmental damage, it has been minimal and addressed without any issues. The South is the energy powerhouse of the United States whether it is nuclear, coal, natural gas, oil, wind or solar.

            10.) Blompf is going to be the GOP nominee. The history of the last three GOP presidents – Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush – and now the real Blompf as president, as opposed to the campaign version, shows continuity in the Republican immigration policy. The GOP has consistently catered to business lobbyists while milking the issue of illegal immigration to exploit the resentment of populist voters. The Blompf administration has definitely shown that a Republican president will do nothing about immigration except cater to the cheap labor interest. He hasn’t even tried to use his powers to deport the illegal already here.

            11.) The GOP Congress has passed the DREAM Act on multiple occasions since the George W. Bush presidency. Blompf has also offered amnesty to the DREAMers in multiple “compromises” he has pitched to the Democrats.

            12.) You’re forgetting that I am voting for a Democratic candidate. The GOP isn’t going to do anything about Puerto Ricans.

            13.) Let’s get something straight: I am a populist, not a conservative. In other words, I tend to agree with Republicans on social issues while I tend to agree with Democrats on economics. The only reason why I would vote for the GOP is because of a theoretical alignment with them on social issues. Why should I continue to vote for Republicans though on the basis of fake social issues? Their positions on immigration, homosexuality and political correctness are FAKE. If that is the case and they aren’t going to put up any fight on those issues, why not just vote for the Democrats on the basis of economics?

            14.) Yang’s actual position on automation, AI and robotics and other new technologies is that this is happening and we are inevitably going to have to deal with it and adjust to this new reality. Feel free to point to the history of technology and show me an example of how technology ultimately doesn’t triumph and change the social and economic order. I believe that these technologies are unstoppable regardless of whether Andrew Yang gets anywhere in the Democratic primary. As far as I am concerned, the only question is whether we are going to adopt UBI sooner or later. What’s it going to be like 4 years from? 8 years from now? Hell, 2 years from now we will be getting hit with the outer bands of the deep learning AI Category 5 economic hurricane.

            15.) Small businesses?

            VAT:

            https://www.yang2020.com/policies/value-added-tax/

            Capital Gains:

            https://www.yang2020.com/policies/capital-gain-carried-interest-tax/

            Financial Transactions:

            https://www.yang2020.com/policies/financial-transaction-tax/

            16.) It says a lot about you that you think there is a difference on immigration that is significant enough to determine how we should vote? What precisely is the difference? In his own words, Blompf supports merit-based immigration. He supports the highest levels of immigration ever. He supports amnesty for DREAMers. He has failed to build the wall. Illegal immigration is now higher than it was under Obama. There is no other Democrat but Yang who would support solving the border crisis with emergency powers:

            http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2019/04/16/andrew-yang-id-support-a-national-emergency-to-solve-the-border-crisis/

            17.) Who did Blompf put in that position? Oh wait … Ajit Pai. And who is that? Ajit Pai did exactly what the GOP wanted him to do which was to end net neutrality (i.e., deregulation) without doing anything about internet censorship.

            18.) It’s not a moot question because Blompf’s own budgets he has sent to Congress show his positions on entitlement spending were fraudulent. In fact, the plan in 2021 after winning the battle of “capitalism vs. socialism” is massive entitlement cuts so that more money can be spent on the worthless military to protect Israel.

            19.) Instead of finding common group with Blompf on social issues, I am finding common ground with Yang on economics. As a populist, this is the logical choice because experience has shown that Blompf and the GOP’s positions on social issues are fake or ineffective. I have utterly no reason at all to pass on, say, $1,000 a month or student loan debt forgiveness because of Blompf’s “positions” on Antifa violence, social media censorship, immigration, homosexuality, political correctness or any of his other fake issues which are belied by his actions.

            20.) Actually, it is only Yang who has brought up the suicide and opioid epidemic in White America as a White problem and expressed sympathy for White people. He has already done more in that respect that Blompf.

            21.) Charlie Kirk and Tomi Lahren are relevant because they are proof that “conservatism” is worthless. It is liberating to realize that Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and so forth are useless. Once you accept this truth, then you realize that whether or not “conservatives” are in power will make no difference whatsoever in whether our culture is preserved or continues to degenerate. There is nothing that Charlie Kirk is doing that will make anyone a better Christian.

            22.) Charlie Kirk and his ilk are bloodsucking parasites who exploit resentment over social and economic decline in order to “secure the bag” for themselves. They aren’t out for anyone but their wealthy donors.

            23.) I’ve never had any interest in the NDSAP. I’m not a German. I’m a Southerner. Good luck restoring the Third Reich though. That’s not our fight. We live in a different country in a different time.

            20.)

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Pai#Career

  3. The problem is HW, you won’t ever see a dime of that $1,000
    It’s a fool’s errand to chase. Whites in general won’t see it either.
    The whites that MIGHT get it are poop whigger trash who spawn mulatto babies and destroy their community with drugs, alcohol and crime. The ones that DON’T need to be reproducing.
    Most of that promised money (if ever delivered on) will vanish into thin air of the black and brown throngs.
    It’s 30 pieces of silver to kiss America on the cheek one last time.

  4. So what do we do in 2020?

    We can sit out the election, but one of these flawed candidates will still become POTUS.

    We all know that both parties are pawns to (((wealthy donors))), and will do their bidding first and foremost.

    Where does that leave us? Should we hold our nose and vote for Yang or Gabbard, of go full speed ahead with acceleration with Biden or Sanders?

    As much as we all detest and mock lolbertarianians, a candidate that was an ardent supporter or free speech (irl and online) and association would get my vote with or without UBI.

  5. A nation cannot be built on the right or the left, which are personality tendencies, but on a program of harmonization. Federalism and personal privacy make this possible, things abandoned under Judaism – a totalitarian world view.

  6. I don’t align with abstract concepts like left or right. I am Pro White. I do what is good for Whites. While I have strong reservations about supporting an Asian, I do know that automation will be economic armageddon for the majority of people. If politicians aren’t taking this issue seriously now, they should be replaced with someone younger and smarter.

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. MIGA: Lindsey Graham Wars Iran of Massive Military Retaliation – Occidental Dissent

Comments are closed.