Narrowing Down
The other day my sink needed repairs. There were some leaks here and there, and my plumber had to stop by for two hours to troubleshoot, and replace some parts. It was not really my sink as such that was leaking, but the valve, along with the hose. To say my sink was leaking, while true, did not help the plumber. What parts exactly, and where on those parts? Water was on my kitchen floor, which made me very unhappy, and for the water to stop there had to be a “narrowing down.”
You look out into the world, and see decisions that could only be made out of the most outrageous incompetence a possum would be ashamed of, or done with the intentional purpose of harming our country. California stopping kids from taking honors classes, with specific attention to prevent the learning of calculus1, to prevent intellectual inequality, is an idea so bad that you wonder if Alfred was right when he told Batman, “Some people just want to see the world burn.” Decisions are made every day that can only have the effect of harming our country, and sooner or later people will suspect that someone, or some group of people, may have a motive for doing so. Perhaps a nihilistic rage, or an attempt to create a power vacuum, or even still there might be money in civilizational demolition. That the motive is not known, does not rule out there being a motive.
After a period of time there are whispers of “Free Masons”, “Jews”, “The World Economic Forum”, and so on. What these signifiers denote is simple: the bad guys. Functionally, there is little difference between the claim that “bad guys are ruining our country”, and “the Masons/Jews/WEC are destroying our country.” Like me saying my sink is leaking, using these signifiers does not allow for any problem solving. Which Free Masons? Which Jews? Who on the World Economic Forum? Do these people have names? Furthermore, by what means are they destroying the country? No one who holds any of these three, or any other large group, accountable for destructive acts, would say all X are responsible. Your town’s Blue Lodge does little more than have spaghetti dinners, and have bingo night; most folks on the right have respect for Murray Rothbard (a Jewish libertarian, who wrote a classic essay against egalitarianism); an intern at the WEC in all likelihood is thinking entirely about bettering his CV, than any global strategy. So, if you do believe one of these groups to occupy a unique space in America’s destruction, like my kitchen sink, there has to be a narrowing down for the claim to operable.
As an exercise, let us focus on the upcoming Virginia elections. I have been paying special attention to them, and it provides a smaller target than the media as such, or the justice system as such. By looking at the donors for different state senate candidates, I came across Sonjia Smith, who, along with her husband Michael Bills, have been called by Elections Daily, “The New Kingmakers of the Virginia Democratic Party.”2 Smith, and her husband, have two PACs the Clean Virginia Fund, and Commonwealth Forward. Their supported candidates are 99% Democratic, and 100% leftist. I do not know if they wear aprons, or tiny hats, but this billionaire couple has a name, an address, and is as specific as my leaky valve. Stopping the left in Virginia means, in some part, stopping this couple.
How does one stop a billionaire leftist power couple? It is easier than expected, though the execution would take a lot of thought, and good deal of patience. If they are not billionaires, they cannot spend on politics. To stop them from being billionaires, means cutting off their source of income. Take Michael Bills, who derives part of his wealth from Bluestem Asset Management LLC, a financial advising firm based in Charlottesville Virginia. Clearing out this source of income would partially limit his ability to contribute to the Clean Virginia Fund, and Commonwealth Forward, and if he cannot contribute as freely to these PACs, then the left will have less ammunition in Virginia.
We are now getting into the nasty part of business, where we are actively trying to take out the competition, rather than just outcompete them. Though many partake in this dark art, talking about it is scandalous, alerts the competition to your plans, and could potentially cause legal problems. A quick cursory search on how financial advisors fail can give some inspiration, or even what would cause such a firm to land in legal trouble (conflicts of interest perchance?), and with enough planning, and prudence, any of these can be orchestrated given a low enough time preference.
If the infrastructure propping up any given leftist node is desirable, it can be appropriated. Turning enemies into friends can be done by solving their problems for them, or, better yet, creating problems for them, then being at their side to put Humpty Dumpty together again. This would require more capital, as building takes more resources (and skill) than destruction, but would yield double the value.
A Note on Ethics
Readers know that while I firmly believe in the reality of virtue, and agree with Socrates that it is better to die a good man, than prosper as a vicious soul, I am also thoroughly practical (Heidegger is to be thanked for this). If you are wondering if my proposal crosses the moral line, let me ask a few questions. Forgive me as I provide an imaginary interlocuter, which I will try to keep as true to my readership as possible.
A-If a man is playing baseball with his son one Saturday, would it be appropriate to enter his yard and take the bat from his hands?
B-No. That is his bat, his yard, and you do not have the right to steal his property, and infringe upon his father/son time.
A-What if you had a suspicion that he stole the bat, could you take it then?
B-Maybe if I knew he stole it from me, but then I would just ask for it back, probably when his son is gone, and at most I would report it to the police. Even still, that is a little trivial.
A-Imagine, then, that you walk past the yard and the father is clubbing his son with the bat, as if he were a baby seal, what would you do then?
B-Then, Rose, I would feel obligated to take the bat from him.
A-What changed?
B-The father was using the bat to hurt someone, someone who was defenseless.
A-Could this be applied to a hammer? That someone has a right to their hammer until they use it to attack someone?
B-That hammer should probably be taken to stop the act.
A-Could a gun be confiscated if it was being used to rob a bank?
B-Yes.
A-But not if it was for hunting, or for self-defense?
B-No Rose
A-What then, of someone who uses a business to fund child murder (abortion), demographic displacement (mass immigration), and to teach children that men are women, women are men, and that with a simple surgery they can become any gender they want?
B-If what we said above was true, then so long as that business was being used in that way, it likely needs to be taken away to prevent further acts of abortion, displacement, and abuse.
Narrowing Down
Authors like Scott Howard have traced the cash flow behind the Jacobin revolution, but men like Howard are exceptions. Most on the right stop at large, vague, categories, and even try to psychoanalyze these large categories, batting down solutions to political problems because “group X would not like that, and since X is in charge, and this would irritate them, that could never work.” Talk of Jews, elites, Anglos (as an American, this riles me up bad), the left (I am guilty of this), and so on is only as helpful as me saying my floor is wet because my sink is leaking. It may be true, but it is not helpful, nor operable. A McDonald’s hamburger has some nutrition, but to call it nutritional would be a lie. Something can be merely true, without it being the truth. Should the right truly want to defeat the left, then it must act like a plumber, narrow down where the subversion comes from, how it is funded, then do everything possible to cut off that funding.