Crash of the Barbell

From a purely realpolitik perspective, the right does miserable work driving wedges into their opposing coalition. Given the snarling, incompatible, and mutually antagonistic factions within the left, it should be a simple and obligatory task to set them lunging for each other’s throats. If the last few centuries are any indication, jews and muslims seem well-enough inclined to fight, if we would but prod them to it. Likewise, inducing blacks and mestizos to jam fingers in faces is much more like conquering a milkshake than Mars. Unfortunately executing such obvious tactics is not who we are, and so the cuck-right waits stupefied for its enemies to organize around it.

While understanding decorum denies using the left’s successful racial politics against it, it’s still astonishing that the right remains too genteel to even fracture liberalism’s comical class-based barbell coalition. Taking race completely out of consideration, which in the realm of politics and civilization is like taking the hydrogen out of water, the left still looks as coherent as a drunken vomit. That’s because it’s a movement with no ballast. It is a temporary truce between predatory plutocracy and feral underclass against a soft middle.

The problem for the left is that its globalist gentry has nothing in common with its subterranean morlocks aside from the desire to eat off opposite ends of the same host. This native tension can be put to far more productive use than it has. For example, James Hodgkinson, the tin soldier who recently went Republican hunting, was adamant in his antipathy for the mega-rich. But just who do programmed bots like this think the rich are? I know the answer, but they apparently do not. As of the 2016 Forbes list, these are the country’s wealthiest owners of congressmen.

1. Bill Gates
Net Worth: $81B
Source of wealth: Microsoft

2. Jeff Bezos
Net Worth: $67B
Source of wealth:

3. Warren Buffett
Net Worth: $65.5B
Source of wealth: Berkshire Hathaway

4. Mark Zuckerberg
Net Worth: $55.5B
Source of wealth: Facebook

5. Larry Ellison
Net Worth: $49.3B
Source of wealth: Oracle

6. Michael Bloomberg
Net Worth: $45B
Source of wealth: Bloomberg LP

7. Charles Koch
Net Worth: $42B
Source of wealth: diversified

7. David Koch
Net Worth: $42B
Source of wealth: diversified

9. Larry Page
Net Worth: $38.5B
Source of wealth: Google

10. Sergey Brin
Net Worth: $37.5B
Source of wealth: Google

11. Jim Walton
Net Worth: $35.6B
Source of wealth: Wal-Mart

12. S. Robson Walton
Net Worth: $35.5B
Source of wealth: Wal-Mart

13. Alice Walton
Net Worth: $35.4B
Source of wealth: Wal-Mart

14. Sheldon Adelson
Net Worth: $31.8B
Source of wealth: casinos

15. Steve Ballmer
Net Worth: $27.5B
Source of wealth: Microsoft

16. Jacqueline Mars
Net Worth: $27B
Source of wealth: candy

16. John Mars
Net Worth: $27B
Source of wealth: candy

18. Phil Knight
Net Worth: $25.5B
Source of wealth: Nike

19. George Soros
Net Worth: $24.9B
Source of wealth: hedge funds

20. Michael Dell

Of that twenty, seven are so left they would only feel uncomfortable in an antifa rally for the risk of touching a $1. The Koch brothers are libertarians; Adelson is a slobbering Israel-first Jabba; and the Waltons are so staunchly republican they donated lavishly to Hillary. Only the Mars family appear to be stock conservatives. The rest are opportunistic multi-party globalists. There are no nationalists anywhere on this list or in the numbers hundreds beneath it. As a result, attacks on the filthy rich by just the filthy will necessarily involve a huge amount of liberal friendly fire. Consider it a cross-barbell artillery exchange. And that is something the dissident right should view with calm composure.

One example came to mind recently from the Islamic world. There, Britain’s morlock champion Jeremy Corbyn demanded homes of the rich be confiscated for use by foreign colonists displaced in the Grenfell Tower blaze. Of course, whose country is it anyway? Though there will almost certainly be future fires in Zanzibar and Sanaa as well. And when those occur, more liberal London gentry will simply have to part with a property or two. What a shame to have the costs of one’s open border advocacy sneak in through the servant’s quarters.

If Republicans were an actual opposition party, they would shove this wedge all the way up the democrats’ intestines. A house speaker with purpose could run a bill through congress that directly tied assets of billionaires to the housing and upkeep costs of foreign squatters. Immigrant tax surcharges they could call it. And it could be made to bite with serrated teeth. The weight of subsidizing their own dispossession would be lifted off the middle class and foisted upon migration sponsors where it belongs. What are democrats going to do, fight against higher taxes on the rich? Their Silicon Valley patrons would certainly demand it, though I doubt their army ants in the street would acquiesce.

As a result, we could all eagerly anticipate Zuckerberg’s first subsequent appeal to the sanctity of sovereign borders.


16 thoughts on “Crash of the Barbell

  1. “To see what’s in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” Yours is, of course, a fantastic course of action. It needs a catchy rhetorical tag line that can be embedded in Summer of Rage protests.
    “Hedge fund bosses, and billionaires’ sons
    Give up your cash for the new Americans!”

  2. Pingback: Crash of the Barbell | Reaction Times

  3. My only disagreement with you – The Kock brothers are most assuredly not libertarians, and I wish people would stop calling them that.

    It would be nice if we did as you suggested. We should expand it to others areas, too. You want to bring in a bunch of migrants? You are first in line to house them and pay for your existence. You want to invade Trashcanistan? You, or your children, are going in on the first wave. Think about how much less of both of those examples we would have if people were actually made to face tangible consequences for their actions.

  4. In theory it should be the easiest thing in the world to break up a coalition where billionaires are allied with penniless welfare dependents, fundamentalist Muslims with homosexuals, etc. But the truth is that most of the people on “our” side are in passive collusion with our enemies and have no desire to rock the boat. I’d say there aren’t ten politicians on Capitol Hill who would go out of their way to stand up for white American interests. The thing about politicians is that they live in an insular world where most human contact they have is with other politicians and the media. Even if they start out with good intentions, they start to feel a bond with the treasonous ruling elite surrounding them.

  5. DNP: “Facebook stock is for everyone who believes in the values of Facebook. End shareholder xenophobia!” I think I’ll tweet that.

    Gator: If limited to broad political categories, how would you characterize the Koch boys? And yes, we should make far more a point of attaching costs to the neoliberal program.

    James: Thanks

    Rob: I don’t disagree.

  6. Porter, I would call them republicans. I know many on the alt right don’t care for libertarians, but I would make a big distinction between (L)ibertarians and (l)ibertarians. By the measure used today, I suppose you could call them libertarians using the same measure Bill Weld was the LP VP nominee. Giving money to the beltway accepted ‘libertarian’ think tanks like Cato doesn’t make one a libertarian. They gave to Mittens in 08 and 12, even before he was the nominee, and put their support behind Walker this time around. They are just garden variety republicans.

  7. You seem to have missed the critical factor that has made the “barbell,” (High-Low coalition) a fixture of all political systems since at-least the bronze age (lest we forget the original Helots). The reasons that the wedge won’t be driven home are two fold:

    First, though cold globalists uniformly fund the left, they are also in the overwhelming majority of donors to the right. You could spend quite a number of hours digging through GOP and even Trump donors before you located any nationalist-sympathizers. Granted, it wouldn’t be impossible to find as on the left, but it would be a needle in the proverbial haystack. Ergo, any serious attempt to cleave off the top of the left’s stack is borderline suicidal behavior. You would first need cash in reserve to ensure the next two election cycles were funded to ride out the no-donation stonewalling and then you’d need (more plausibly given the internet) an extremely energetic grass-roots movement to get congressional seats covered under withering ad-buys from spurned plutocrats. It should also go without saying that you would need a very deep roster of new faces with squeaky clean records because a good chunk of the GOP would absolutely defect over someone shitting in the money-bed this hard.

    Second, there is absolutely no under-estimating the ignorant, boorish, and gullible nature of the low half of the left’s spectrum. If the party leaders begin a media barrage about something, it doesn’t matter how counter-intuitive the message, they will follow. A slip-stream of dissent is known to occur, but that’s why the DNC employs a veritable legion of local “community organizers,” and other attack-dog surrogates to staunch the bleeding wherever it occurs. Occupy Wall Street is the best example of this. You had a jumbo helping of leftists angry at banks, within a 48 hour period they had been completely neutered and reduced to a mass of hand-signaling arguments about which race/gender/disability combo deserved to speak into the megaphone about their intersectionality.

    Summarily, you’re absolutely right about the fractious nature of the left’s coalition, but I would say that factionalism and incoherence is more of a strength (at times) than a weakness. When combined with the slavish loyalty that comes from social approval and a sympathetic bureaucracy, you get a surprisingly reliable coalition whose only true weakness is that the low side is so incredibly dumb and lazy that they must be rounded up and transported to the polls on election day. But hey, that’s nothing a few billionaires can’t afford to do in perpetuity.

    • I wasn’t arguing will/won’t, but rather should. No doubt the right (to the extent we apply that term to republicans) would lose a huge amount of funding without the super-rich. But the left would lose practically everything. The white middle class can sustain political activity on its own; the opposite lobe of the left’s barbell can not. Thus a prudent strategist would eagerly take a cut in half if his enemy takes a cut in full. But I will never accuse the cuck-right of strategic prudence.

  8. And the way they got those billions was by having corporate structures that far outlive any of us regular meatbags.

    That’s the real power behind Big Globo and its Monopoly Money billions: compound interest that doesn’t stop accruing after the threescore and ten year life expectancy of regular schlubs (twoscore and ten if you’re a white man).

    There’s a very easy answer to all this: sunset corporate charters after 7 years. Make them reboot regularly the same way working whites have to keep packing up and fleeing the Diversitopias imported to their communities and schools.

    Of course any state that would try this would be crushed like an Austrian painter who figures out how to make his own people rich with the fruits of their own labor, cutting out Big Globo and its Monopoly Money managers.

  9. Great article, thank you. It’s possible there is some nexus between the billionaire class, big gov and those pesky fiat bankers whose amber waves of green flood the fruited plains of DC on both sides of the Potomac.

    “And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”
    Jefferson to Taylor, May 28, 1816, in PTJ:RS, 10:89. Transcription available at Founders Online.

  10. When the filthy left street trash and their SJW white/Asian comrades think of “the rich,” I don’t think they conjure up Bill Gates or other billio-vermin. No, they think of the white suburban family with three kids and as Escalade in the yard. People that vote Republican. It doesn’t matter how wealthy you are if you supported Hillary. And it doesn’t matter if you’re only scraping by — if you’re a person-who-thinks-of-himself-as-white Republican, you’re “rich.”

    Ultimately, the coalition maintains itself because the Emmanuel Goldstein’s pulling the strings have made “whitey” the perpetual Emmanuel Goldstein, the eternal villain. No other unifying force is needed. We may not like each other much, says the black to the brown, but we both REALLY hate whitey, or want what he’s got. It’s like hyenas and vultures sharing the same kill — a suspicious coalition of corpse-eaters. Once they’ve eaten all there is to eat, we can expect trouble. But by then we’re all wiped out anyway. The hyenas won’t turn on the vultures until the last bit of flesh is taken from the last white body (to use contemporary parlance).

    That said, yes, the correct political route would be massive hoisting on their petards. Oh, you WANT the third world here? Oh, you’re in FAVOR of increased taxes? Well there you are! Here’s a 99% surtax on any earnings over $50M a year, to support the immigrants! That’s not enough, though. We should also have a confiscatory tax on existing wealth. Bezos is worth $67 billion! Seriously, nobody needs more than a lousy billion. All private wealth should be taxed down to a cool billion. What, you can’t live on a lousy billion? I weep for you.

    The obvious trouble is that the vast bulk of our political class gets their boat and hooker money from the many extra billions Bezos and his ilk have. I don’t know how we change this. It really will take a military take over, or some kind of coup, but where’s the man to do it? Trump is probably as close as we’ll ever get. Indeed, if Trump were more overtly populist, he might draw together what there is of the economic Left and the populist Right. It’s his natural position in a way, but even Trump doesn’t have the balls to step that out of line and make direct attacks on the wealthy.

    • I agree with your assessment of who the Left considers “the rich.” The media does an excellent job perpetuating the misconception. So Bezos just bought a newspaper (that was easy) and Warren Buffet can get a CNBC interview whenever he wants to complain that he doesn’t pay enough in taxes. No matter how many times anchor Becky Quick has this discussion with him, she won’t point out that he can be relieved of this source of great sadness by donating all of his money. It’s not illegal, Warren!

      Even considering the media accomplices, it’s a little surprising that it never occurs to the Left to demand something, anything of the actual rich. If Steve Scalise can go ahead and die because of his health care vote, it seems it would occur to someone that Bill and Warren could finance a few insurance premiums. Although they are so busy exploding the population of Africa through vaccines and GMOs, it never occurs to them to spend money on cancer research or anything that helps Americans.

      The obscene amount of hoarded wealth is a mystery. I suppose, in small part, since a lot of wealth is tied up in stock, they can’t liquidate it all without driving the price down. But most likely it’s greed and ego that has these elites holding onto billions of dollars, while the media fawns over their philanthropy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s