We have finished our construction of an intellectual foundation for the right, a foundation built upon Providence. From the existence of Providence, the Creator of the world and giver of teloi to all things, we derived a theory of political sovereignty and its derived critique of democracy, a moral case for maintaining heritage America’s demographic dominance , a look into the true meanings of hierarchy and equality, and an explanation for the genetic differences between the races and the sexes. This foundation is an alternative to the mundane musings of Mencius Moldbug, who has been shown to be a neo-conservative asset, and to the Nietzschean/political realist right that, as has been demonstrated, ends in a ham-fisted moral relativity. While I am proud to offer up an intellectual foundation that is superior to the two dominant strands of right-wing thought, for there is no solid foundation other than Christ, theory without praxis is empty words. As it is empty moralism to simply say what is right, but never to do it, or even do the opposite, it is empty theorizing to put forward political theory without a plan to implement it. That is our task now.
Donors Need Results
It goes without saying that a political movement in the 21st century will require substantial financial backing to have a shot at success. People like George Soros and Peter Theil are important for a reason. Joe Biden spent over one billion dollars in his 2020 election campaign, and he did so because he was, to reference the movie, playing money ball. Glenn Younkin, looking at more local elections, spent over forty million dollars in his gubernatorial race. We are talking about a game where big money wins, and the right is forced to play. “But don’t you know electoral politics is out of the cards?”, both accelerationist and neo-reactionary will ask. My answer is this: “you are right that standard GOP politics or goofy third-party runs will not work, but I am not advocating that.” In a moment we will see what kind of politics derives from the intellectual foundation, but first let us take on the question of donors. Without substantial donors it will not matter what we view of politics, for we will not have the resources to begin any meaningful project.
Donors are like investors, they put money out because they expect something in return. Investors will invest in a company if they can make money, and donors will invest in a candidate, or movement, if 1) there is a reasonable probability that this candidate or movement will win and 2) if this candidate or movement will benefit the donor in some manner. A successful right-wing movement cannot come out of the gates asking for money, it needs to prove itself. Wining a number of local elections, and perhaps a few state elections, is a sure way to prove competence and political viability. If a number of small or medium scale wins can be amassed, then a future movement will be able to present these wins to potential donors as a proof that their political model wins elections. Further, in addition to electoral wins a future movement should be able to present evidence that their candidate tangibly improved the lives of the area in question, most importantly in economic terms. If a donor is presented with a candidate or movement that has been shown to strengthen the economy then he, or she, is much more likely to donate because his, or her, own business is likely to see a rise in profits if this candidate or movement continues to win elections. So, what the right needs to do is launch a series of local campaigns, win them, strengthen local economies, and slowly amass a portfolio to present to future donors.
You might be thinking to yourself, “would these campaigns, whose aim is to get funding, not also require funding?”, and if so then you are right. Some seed money will be required to run a series of local elections, seed money that can reasonably be acquired through social media outreach and through wealthy personal contacts. A political action committee (PAC) would need to be formed to collect these donations, but donation collecting would not be the only thing the PAC would do.
The PAC
Aside from collecting donations, the PAC will be in charge of recruiting potential candidates. Believe it or not, politicians are not very smart…ask anyone involved in electoral politics and they will back me up. Most politicians do not even write their own platform, that is done by campaign staffers and donors. The PAC will be tasked with finding potential candidates and not only offering campaign funds, but couple this with a service providing polices that are proved to be popular and to benefit the local community. Prospects come in, right-wing candidates come out. If there is a politician reading this, my intention is not to disrespect you. No, what I am proposing is giving you a winning platform that will improve the lives of your constituents and make you loved by them. Is this not what you want? Who cares if I just called you “not very smart”…the people love you, you are in office, and you are a local hero.
Year-round the PAC will have media monkeys tasked with running social media, Twitter and Gab in particular, promoting the message of the PAC. At first these monkeys will be volunteers, but will eventually be replaced, or promoted, to full time employees. Through Twitter and Gab a number of small donations will be received, five dollars here and ten dollars there from average Joe’s who believe a better world is possible and our PAC can bring about that world.
A Political Vision
Okay, this sounds nice, but what are we actually talking about? What is the message of this PAC, and how does it relate to the intellectual foundation we laid out? At the core of the political vision is what I call “The Christian Economy”, an economic restructuring that prioritizes local businesses, state residents, and families, over multi-national and national goliaths. In our post on sovereignty we said, “Sovereignty, then, derives from Providence insofar that political sovereignty is only maintained as long as a government aligns itself with the will of Providence, which we have seen is same as the nature, or reality, of things. Sovereignty comes from above, not below”, and this can be applied to the economy. Discerning what types of economy are in accord with Providence’s will is a difficult task, but we can look to the distributism of Belloc and Chesterton, aspects of American Southern agrarianism, Roman Catholic teachings on subsidiarity, or the communal and localist thought of Russel Kirk and Wendell Berry. Each of these thinkers are much more intelligent and thoughtful than your humble author, and a thorough study of their works will be profitable to a future right-wing movement. Vladimir Solovyov, a Russian Orthodox philosopher who lived in the late 18th century and an ethicist worthy of the right’s attention, according to David Bentley Hart’s forward to The Justification of the Good, had three economic maxims:
“material wealth is not the correct goal of economic activity; that workers have a limitless dignity and are thus not to be made instruments of production; and that Christians have a responsibility to the earth.”1
Hart continues,
“He [Solovyov] accepts that a Christian society should guarantee a minimum degree of stability and subsistence for all persons, but he rejects the redistribution of wealth in favor of a broad distribution of property (the proximity to distributism is here especially obvious). Neither capitalism nor socialism, in his view, can answer to the spiritual dignity of the human world of production and community; he seems to regard the choice between them as a choice between individualist and collectivist nihilisms, which can at best parody either Christian freedom or Christian charity, but which can arrive at no real end other than a ‘passive disintegration’ of society into individual units of will or an authoritarian social violence that elevates envy above gratitude or generosity.”2
Solovyov’s economic views, which are consistent with a large number of Christian political theorists, if translated into policy would lead to a strengthening of local communities, financial independence, and a prioritizing of the family. Conversely, national and multi-national corporations, and usurious agents, who are responsible for the break down of local economies and for making it too expensive for young couples to have multiple children and raise them well, would suffer…and for the right this would be a good thing. Amazon, Walmart and Blackrock, to name just a few, is smashing the local community and making more and more of the world dependent on a global technocratic class of billionaires who answer to no government. Weakening their power by empowering local communities and families will be to weaken the right’s chief enemy. Making this economic crises about the hundreds of variations on capitalism or socialism will not get us out of this mess. What will get us out of this crises is concrete policies derived from the Christian ethic, expanded upon by the likes of Solovyov.
It is true that not every American is a Christian. It is equally true that many Christians might be hesitant about applying Christianity to economics. For this reason it will not be necessary to frame the following policies as explicitly Christian anymore than a free-marketer needs to reference Milton Friedman on the campaign trail or a socialist needs to cite Graber on his campaign site. How this economic platform will be framed will be dependent on location, constituency, and what rival candidates are running on. Content will remain the same, but presentation will change as need be.
Building a Christian economic will be the main focus for a future movement, seeing that it will strengthen the constituency of the right and weaken our corporate goliath enemies. A second component to the future PAC’s platform will be taking the culture war seriously. What does this mean? It means, first of all draining leftist institutions of all funding and giving that funding to naturally conservative institutions. Second of all, it means drawing out the logical conclusions of conservative beliefs. The key example of this is acknowledging that since abortion is murder, those who advocate for abortion are advocating for murder, and this is a punishable offence. Before we look into the details of a social vision, let us first expand the economic vision.
Three Economic Policies
I) Strengthening local and state level businesses: In the 21st century it is taken as a matter of fact that the American government subsidizes certain businesses through direct funding and through tax exemptions. Amazon pays less taxes than your local hardware store, and it receives an ungodly amount of direct funding from the federal government. Why is this so? I have a simple maxim: that which is taxed, is discouraged; that which is subsidized, is encouraged. Every economy is shaped by taxation and subsidies, and depending on how these are allotted the economy will produce different goods and services. Simply by re-arranging taxes and subsidies you can change what an economy looks like. To strengthen local and state level businesses, what needs to be done is subsidizing them and simultaneously exempting them from taxes while also introducing a small entry tax on any business that is not local to the state in question. This tax should be small and reasonable, making it an easy decision for a company to pay the tax in order to gain entry to that state. Such a tax will provide some of the money, if not all of it, required for the subsidies. Even without the entry tax the subsidies will pay for themselves, so to speak, because it will put more money into the pockets of state citizens who will then be able to hire additional workers and the new workers will then be able to participate in the local economy.
There is the obvious objection to this: “what if these local and state level companies simply pocket the money?” Simply, these subsidies will not be handed out at random. In order to qualify for one of these subsidies candidates need to be committed to using a portion of the subsidy to hire new employees, and another portion of the subsidy to raise the wages of all employees. We only want to encourage good behavior, namely good employment, and as such any business that does not want to hire new employees and who does not wish to raise their wages (how much will be determined on the locale) will simply not receive the subsidy. Other requirements can be built into this program as desired.
This policy is general and is what some of my colleagues call “spigot pointing.” Like a water spigot, subsidies can be turned on and off and what they water grows. What grows in an economy is, like a garden, can be guided if there is the will. Republicans have unfortunately neglected this historically and have not realized that political power is synonymous with guiding the economy. When an accelerationist or a neo-reactionary says GOP politics have failed, they are right but they do not see that the reason for this is that the GOP would not, either for ideological or ulterior motivations, turn the spigot. Yes, you are right my neo-reactionary reader, spigot pointing polices will be fought against by the multi-nationals and their usurious allies, but you are forgetting that a supermajority of Americans side with local businesses over multi-nationals. No amount of money can convince the average Joe that his local hardware store deserves to be taxed more than Amazon. No amount of electoral rigging, if you are concerned about that, can flip a supermajority.
What businesses will be subsidized and receive tax exemption will depend on the locale, but one sector that should be helped across the board is agriculture. Small farms (usually designated as possessing less than one hundred cows) would receive a base subsidy that will be increased if they are free range, increased again if they do not use anti-biotics on their cows, and increased again if their livestock is not fed corn or soy. These measures are made possible by the corresponding subsidies, which will not only cover the cost of each of these measures but will leave a bit of excess funds for the farmer’s digression. Right now Bill Gates owns more farmland than anyone else in America, totaling up to 269,000 acres of land. One man controlling that much farm land means one man can decide the food supply in America. Even if you think Bill Gates is benevolent, it should scare you that he could theoretically starve the country if he got angry enough. Not only is this a security threat, Gates owning that much land deprives local and family farms from the opportunity of making a living. How did this happen? Local and family farms could not resist the offer made, they were in too bad of an economic position to say no. We can fix that.
II) Returning independence to the states:
Once there was a time that North Carolina or Massachusetts could determine their own political fate. State representatives and state senators had a lot more power one hundred years ago then they did now. Why? Political power is intimately tied to economic power. Major financial interests have a considerable say in what policies candidates run on. If company X owns land in North Carolina and Massachusetts, be it a warehouse, call center, or office, then company X will, if they have enough money, fund politicians in these two states with the requirement that they run on policies that will benefit company X. Amazon does this. Blackrock does this. Everyone does this. What results is a state loses its political independence, its ability to determine its own course, to companies that own land in the state but is not based in that state. One company might control the policies of twenty different states, but only reside in one, or none, of them. If you wonder why naturally conservative states can end up promoting progressive policies, this is a chief reason why. For that matter, if you are a progressive or lean left on economics you should see the problem of this just as much as I do.
What is to be done? Either a law should be passed that makes state residency a requirement to purchase land in state X, or let it be put as a referendum: “should persons or companies not living in [state name] be allowed to purchase land in [state name]. Land can be rented, of course, but not owned. If a referendum is needed, then heavy campaigning on its behalf should follow its immediate approval.
Such a policy would complement the first policy outlined here, especially when it comes to farm land being bought by extra-state persons and companies. Limiting land ownership to residence of a state will further curb the influence on multi-national corporations and their usurious companions, giving breath to the naturally conservative American population.
III) Making children affordable
A major factor as to why young couples refrain from having children and why heritage Americans are not reproducing at replacement levels is that in 21st century America it is expensive to raise a child, let alone more than two. To remedy this we will introduce the close cousin to spigot pointing, window guidance. Window guidance is a monetary policy that, to minimize inflation and maximize real economic growth, states credit should be created and allocated primarily for productive purposes. Note that this is not consumer or speculative credit, for either will result in consumer price or asset price inflation. Limits are set on lending, and lending is guided and directed to specific areas of the economy. To do this, and as such makes this the most ambitious policy, would require a central bank of some kind, and in our case a state bank. What makes window guidance so important is that it allows an economic community to decide on a number of goals and allocate resources to meet said goals. If a community decides that making childbearing more affordable, $100,000 could be allocated to each child born in a childbearing family, administered in such a way that the family could only withdraw certain amounts designated for certain reason. Healthcare and food expenses are two possible approved reasons for withdraw.
If a state does not have a state bank, or if it proves too difficult to create one (using the phrase “a people’s bank”, contrasted with “the Wall Street banks”, could be a useful campaign strategy), then this can be done with state revenue opposed to credit. Although credit is preferable, shifting around taxes so that the $100,000 allotment becomes possible is a viable avenue.
After Implementation
One year after these three policies are implemented a state will see a massive boom in domestic markets, measured by new jobs and an increase in wages, a significant degree of political independence restored, and many young families of two, three or four children. All of this will be done according to the Christian economic ethic that we touched upon earlier, an ethic that derives from our understanding of political sovereignty. Simply put, naturally conservative citizens will be empowered and the main drivers of world oligarchy and leftism will be ever more excluded from both the economic and political playing field. Following what will amount to an economic miracle, the residents of the state will be loyal to the future movement and continue to vote in its favor.
Three Social Policies
I) Winning the generation
Even before the introduction of Critical Race Theory, public schools have been known to turn children into progressives. If you do not believe me, compare the political views of a high schooler who went to public school to a high schooler who was homeschooled and one who went to a Christian school. Chances are, the public school student is to the left of both the homeschooled and Christian schooled students. A progressive will very likely say that this is because public schools are better and teach the truth, so it is only natural that those who do not go to public school will be misinformed and ignorant…they will be conservatives, in other words. Responding to this would get us too far off course, so let is stand that, for better or worse, public schools, when compared to homeschools and Christian schools, tend to produce left-leaning students.
For the right, there can be no victory if each generation grows progressively more, well, progressive. What was mainstream opinion ten years ago is now on “the right”, and what was mainstream thirty years ago is now on “the far right.” If this trend continues then Generation Alpha and the following generation will continue to move the country leftward. To prevent this, let a bill3 be proposed that funds students rather than schools, making homeschooling and private education affordable for all who want it. On average, it costs $15k a year for each student in the public education system, and in addition to the cost of public education, taxpayers are also paying an average of $15k a year for child care according to a 2018 report by the Center of American Progress. The proposed bill will introduce a system of a yearly payment of $15k for each child in your family. This system would have a three child limit per household, which means that a three child household would be given $45k a year for each child until they turn 18 years old.
Will there be push back? Yes, but keep in mind that this policy, like all other polices proposed so far, are popular by a super majority. Even in California, 69% of parents would chose to send their child to a private school if they could afford it. What is more powerful than teacher unions? Mothers who want their children to be physically safe and receive a quality education.
II) Applying the law
Out of all the policies proposed here, this is the most partisan because by and large Democrat sponsored efforts are criminal. If a state declares abortion to be murder, or simply criminal, either at conception, at the point of heartbeat, or some other designated time, then it becomes permissible to charge those who advocate abortion for either advocating murder or advocating a criminal action. No new law needs to be passed, this is entirely legal. Republican politicians do not already do this because they see politics as a structured competition, like debate or marksmanship, not wanting to acknowledge that their Democratic rivals play by the rules of open warfare. Acknowledging this, and returning in kind is the only way to overcome a leftist hegemony.
Other times the law needs to be applied are antifa and BLM riots, charging all who participate with under riot of 18 US Code 2101. Even if participants are not prosecuted, state attorney generals can use up the left’s monetary resources that would otherwise be spent on offensive measures. No, I do not think this will bankrupt the left but it will divert their resources and make leftist activists hesitant to participate in any violent behavior.
III) Cracking down on illegal immigration
Almost all Republican politicians think the way to solve illegal immigration, which would aid in the demographic problem, is to increase border security and ramp up deportations. This has too many moving parts and is unimaginative. Most illegal immigration can be stopped by passing a law that requires two things: 1) requiring employers to send the state revenue service the social security number of all their current, and all new, employees, and 2) for any employer that does not comply or sends in a social security number that is found elsewhere in the country, their financial and capital assets will be seized. Not a single ICE agent is necessary, because no illegal will be able to find work. Those who hire illegals will be punished such that no employer would even dare to risk it.
After Implementation
One year after implementing these social policies the majority of students will be out of the public education system, out of the number one progressive making institution in the country, abortion will no longer be able to be advocated for, violent antifa and BLM will either be arrested or their financial backers will be diverting their productive energies away from offensive struggles to try and protect their foot soldiers, and the demographic situation will have improved (recognizing this is not a silver bullet) as illegal immigrants will have left the state having been excluded from the economy.
Conclusion
We have seen that attracting donors is absolutely necessary if the right wants to win, and that to attract donors requires results. Through a series of local and state elections, driven by a political action committee, that results in economic prosperity, a future movement will get the necessary funding it needs to take its platform to the national scale. All of these policies are downstream from the intellectual foundation we have been building the past couple weeks, and it the praxis to accompany its theory.
This path forward is not merely theoretically. Looking at the list of subscribers I see a number of GOP officials and even some British Conservative Party officials. People with real influence read this blog, and for that I can only thank God. When I speak of a political action committee being formed, I mean that one will be formed in the near future. Get ready America, a new dawn is just over the hill.
Solovyov, Vladimir. Translated by Nathalie A. Duddington. The Justification of the Good. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Grand Rapids, Michigan. 2015. xlviii
Solovyov, Vladimir. Translated by Nathalie A. Duddington. The Justification of the Good. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Grand Rapids, Michigan. 2015. xlviii
The outline of this bill, along with a sample letter to your representative, can be found my colleague’s website: www.the45kplan.org