The Truth About Minimum Wage

th (3).jpg

Republicans, both nationalists and conservatives, have been crowing about the recent failure of the minimum wage increase in Seattle. While it is always nice for our world view to be validated I feel this article is necessary so that we will not be misunderstood. After all Democrats are always eager to paint conservatives as the tools of big business even while they passed Dodd-Frank which concentrated 43% of the banking industry in 4 banks and Obamacare which doubled the profits of the insurance industry at the cost of rising premiums and deductibles for the middle class. Republicans, like everyone else, do want wages to go up. We just believe that raising the minimum wage particularly the federal minimum wage is the wrong way to go about it.


Before I give our view I will debunk the points made by Democrats first. Whenever any policies are discussed the left will always bring up Denmark, Norway, and Sweden as their perfect utopias. Ask them point-blank if these countries have a federal minimum wage. As small as these countries are they have realized that a nationwide minimum wage might be apt for one location but would not work for another. In the context of the US a federal minimum wage designed for New York would price rural businesses out of the market but a minimum designed for rural areas would not be livable in New York. This is why these countries have minimum wage negotiated per industry instead of for the entire country.

Arbitrarily raising the minimum wage does not work either. A variant of that was tried in Venezuela in Petroleos de Venezuela, their national oil company. You may recall that just prior to their crisis they were also hailed as a model socialist country that the US should follow. Venezuela eventually nationalized the oil company. When they did they hired more people and increased their wages. The problem was they did not produce more oil nor did they sell it at a higher price. You just had more people doing the same amount of work at higher wages. This was not a problem while oil prices were high. When they bottomed out this became part of the reason we see the chaos we do in Venezuela today. Incidentally this is also why Trump is dangerous to Putin. More production by the US of oil and natural gas could cause a glut in the market which would cause worldwide prices to drop and ruin the Russian economy.


As Republicans we do believe in the free market. Even nationalists believe in a free market just one bound within the nation. Labor like anything else is a commodity and follows the rules of supply and demand. When the supply of available labor is high then the price is low. In addition when the demand for available labor is high then the price for labor will increase as well.

We believe that instead of setting random numbers as the minimum wage the government should instead set policies that will help lower supply of labor and increase demand for it. This way the change to wages will be organic and something the companies themselves would have to do in order to get the best of the available labor. We think this will be safer as in leaner times companies will not be forced out or forced into bankruptcy by wage levels it can no longer afford.

On a related note this is why the people don’t believe the Democrats and media when they tell them we are at full employment. If we are at full employment wages are supposed to go up but they are stagnant. The Trump administration is doing things that we believe are necessary to change this. The best example is addressing illegal immigration. The slave labor provided by illegals and those provided by those with work visas such as H1-b increase the amount of labor in the pool. With more labor available potential employees have less power to bargain for higher wages. Removing regulations and providing tax reform also increases the amount of businesses in the US increasing the demand for labor therefore making each individual worker more negotiating power.

To sum everything up Democrats believe in legislating wage increases no matter what conditions on the ground dictate while Republicans believe in creating conditions necessary for the wages to increase.


The Truth About the Trump Budget


The Democrats are up in arms about the Trump budget. Cruel, Barbaric, Mean are some of the nicest words they have used to describe it and it just goes downhill from there. As usual the spokespeople of the Trump administration have not been able to defend the budget effectively so it falls upon independent bloggers like me to get the truth out the best I can. On a side note I am convinced Trump would be better served if he outsourced his messaging to independents , 4chan, and reddit. We would do a better job than his current team.

The primary line of attack the democrats are using is that President Trump is cutting 800 billion dollars from Medicaid therefore he is throwing grandma off a cliff. This is not true. The budget actually adds more money to medicaid and other entitlements every year. This is what is actually happening. There is a projection of how many people would be enrolled for Medicaid in the future and that medicaid would need a certain amount of money in the future. If you allocate less than that then the democrats deem it as a cut. If you are on medicaid this year and next this will not affect you.


The philosophy behind the budget plays a major part in the conflict here. When democrats and republicans make a budget they expect that the amount of people seeking entitlements will increase or stay at the same pace that they are now. When Trump and sane republicans make a budget they expect that this budget will help people earn more money and therefore this will reduce the number of people who rely on entitlements or at the very least slows the growth of the enrollees.

The budget is the blueprint of your plan for the economy. It is what you would like the economy to achieve. With the plans they present if the democrats are successful then you would have more people enrolled via welfare than ever. If the Trump plan is succesful then you would have fewer people enrolled for entitlements. Remember the budget is only supposed to be for one year. If it turns out the projections are not working then you can always add more money in the future. In essence the democrats want people mired in poverty and living of entitlements while Trump and sane republicans are taking a risk to lift them out of it.


At this point in the conversation it is usually the Republicans that cry out. What about the debt? If the plans to remove more people from entitlements fail then the deficit will be higher than ever. This is true, but then so what?

One thing that republicans don’t like to admit is that if Romney had won the debt would still have gone up. It may not have doubled like it did under Obama but it would still have gone up. If you put the most committed deficit hawk in power during the time of Obama the debt would have still gone up. At the end of the day any meaningful attempts to tackle the debt and deficits will have to go through entitlement reform. That is only possible if people are earning enough that they get out of it and are able to look at it objectively. Presiding over 8 years of supposedly massive growth while ordinary people have the same income they did when your massive growth started will not help it. If we have budgets that promote the status quo where we add more and more people to welfare then nothing will change and the problem will get worse. At some point we have to take the risk and try to lift people off poverty so they no longer need entitlements. Only then will they agree to change it.

Stimulus vs Tax Cut

Everyone democrat who was wildly applauding the stimulus by Obama is now staunchly opposed to the tax cuts by President Trump. The tax cuts and stimulus achieve the same thing. They stimulate the economy by making more money available to people. In the stimulus companies were able to stay open and keep paying their employees while others were able to expand and with tax cuts the same results are achieved.

There is one major difference that has to be pointed out. With the stimulus you gave all the benefits up front. Each company was handed a sack of money from the Obama administration. If the companies did not live up to their end of the deal then there was nothing Obama could do. Incidentally this is also the problem a lot of people have with the Iran deal. Tax cuts are different. They are not sacks of money to be handed out but rather promises that we will not take as much of their income in the future. It is implied that we are doing this so they can employ more Americans and offer higher wages. If this does not materialize then we can always remove the tax cuts.

In the past tax cuts were given but America was not a competitive place to invest in. Companies instead invested in India, China, and other countries. In effect our tax cuts funded their growth. To be completely fair with the corporations it is very hard to invest in a place that says on paper it will take 39.1% of your profits when other places say they will only take 15-20% sometimes less. It is time we used tax cuts to fund our growth.

The Trump budget is good enough. Something needs to be done to attempt to lift people up from poverty. If we keep doing what we have done before we will only achieve the same results.

Cultural Privilege


Whenever you discuss anything with a liberal the conversation always devolves down to privilege. This is ironic as this is exactly the reason why they cannot handle the Trump presidency. Loosely defined privilege is the advantage someone has in life because of the circumstances of his birth.

The right may hate me for saying this but some privileges do exist. I firmly believe that there is an American Privilege, if you are born an American you can expect a much higher quality of life than someone born in Syria. A genius born in Syria could still very well end up sold by Uncle Mohammed for 5 goats or be sent to bomb the local police station to claim your 99 virgins. There are of course some privileges that are bogus. White privilege being one of them. People of all colors can succeed in America. If hard pressed I would even say that Asians may succeed at higher rates than white people do. It may even be harder to be a poor white person in America than a poor black or brown one as there are support structures that exist for them that do not for the poor white person.

I am not saying we should feel guilty about this. Some people are born stronger, faster, smarter, prettier, more athletic, or a whole host of other advantages than others. Different people get different advantages and it is all about making the best out of the hand we are dealt.

Liberal Privilege

Liberals have cultural privilege. Since they were born liberals have been told by society that their ideas are correct. While you are growing up most of the things that you interact with come from a liberal perspective. If you watch tv or a movie it would most likely have been made by a liberal. Chances are the teachers you have for lower and middle school are liberals as well. Even comic books are coming with a liberal flavor now. Although that may change as marvel says their profits have cratered after catering to social justice warriors. Nuanced arguments like how adding more labor to the pool without available jobs makes it harder for wages to go up or how we creating a new slave class with illegal immigrants come much later. This is not random. Liberals exert a lot of effort to keep these institutions pure. Conservatives are routinely hunted down in Hollywood and teachers who don’t conform to the standard viewpoints are removed.

This goes above being taught that they are right. Liberals are taught a very simple formula. If you dislike something all you have to do is declare that it is racist, sexist, fascist, or any other ist and society will rally behind you to exterminate the threat. Companies will get boycotted, professors will get fired tenure or no tenure, and people lose their jobs. I urge you to look for articles about Mccain, Romney, Bush, or any other Republican running for president at the time they were running and compare it with articles after. It would be far kinder to be labelled a murderer than a racist. Do you ever wonder why there are so many accusations of faux racism happening recently? You cannot give people the power of life and death over someone and not expect them to use it. Republicans are complicit in this as well. Instead of standing up to the system they have gone along with it and the greatest fear for most of them is to be labelled an ist.


For most liberals Trump is a breakdown of the system. They were supposed to be correct. They labeled Trump all the proper things and the labels did not produce the desired result. It would have been the same with any other presidential candidate. Liberals ran their campaign like they always do based on how evil Trump was. He was not America. He is sexist. He is racist. He is a fascist. America chose him anyway. Not only that they gave him majorities in both the house and the senate. There are two options liberals can choose from. Either the rest of the country does not define racism, sexism, and fascism the way they do or Russians. They chose Russians.

To the intellectual liberals Trump represents are far greater threat. Not only did the system malfunction Trump did not participate in it. Atlas Shrugged has some questionable assumptions regarding the economy and the value of the capitalist but it is spot on morality. Trump is like Hank Rearden in his trial. The system is set up so that everybody has an original sin. In Atlas Shrugged it was making a profit. In Trumps case he was white, male, and rich. Trump never downplayed any of that. In fact one of the central themes of his campaign was I am rich. Trump did not play the racism game either. When a reporter called him out on the Pocahontas comment he just repeated it. When they said his ads were anti-semetic he didn’t care. He ran on illegal immigration reform and did not care that he was called racist. The intellectuals know that all it takes is one person with great reach to show that the system is a mirage for the entire system to break down. Losing their cultural privilege is the greatest fear of these intellectuals.

The Trump Tax Plan and You

download (3)

In my previous article I broke down the major changes to the tax code that Trump is proposing and showed that the major beneficiaries would be the poor and the middle class. One of the difficulties with tax is that sometimes abstract arguments do not work and we have to see how it benefits us directly. For today I will try to list some scenarios to show how it would benefit people at different income levels.

Before I begin I realize that every person is different so it is very unlikely the scenarios I offer will match your situation directly. You may have some additional credits or deductions I do not list. There are two facts that I want you to keep in mind as you go thru this. First in 2016 75% of all people who filed income tax opted for standardized deduction not itemized ones. Second in 2016 almost half of Americans working made 30000 or less.

Scenario 1: Single Making 30000

This would most likely describe a younger person starting out. Under President Obama the standardized deduction was 6300. You would subtract that from 30000 giving you a taxable income of 23700. This puts you in the 15% tax bracket. Your first 10350 would be untaxed. The next 9275 at 10% and everything else at 15%. Under Obama your tax liability would be 1538.75.

Under President Trump your standardized deduction would be 15000 giving you a taxable income of 15000. This would place you in the 15000 tax bracket which means you pay 0%. Your tax liability would be 0 under President Trump.

Scenario 2: Joint making 45000

This would most likely describe a struggling family. Under President Obama the standardized deduction for joint filers was 12600. If you subtract this from 45000 you get a taxable income of 32400. The first 10350 would be untaxed. The next 9275 would be at 10%. Everything else at 15%. Under Obama your liability would be 2843.75.

Under President Trump the standardized deduction for joint filers is 30000. Subtract that and it leaves you with a taxable income of 15000. This puts you in the 0 tax bracket which means you pay 0 under President Trump.

Scenario 3: Single making 60000

Estimates for what make you middle class vary by city. The average I got is 60000. Depending on where you live this could be higher or lower. Under President Obama your standardized deduction would be 6300 leaving you with taxable income of 53700. Like earlier the first 10350 is untaxed. The next 9275 at 10%. The next 28375 at 15%. The rest of the 5700 at 25%. This gives you a total liability of 6608.75 under President Obama.

Under President Trump you would have a standardized deduction of 15000. Leaving you with a taxable income of 45000. The first 15000 is untaxed. Everything else is at 12%. Under President Trump the liability of a single middle class person would be 3600. Almost half.

Scenario 4: Joint Making 100000

The average for a middle class family seems to be 100000. Under President Obama you would have a standard deduction of 12600 leaving you with a taxable income of 87400. As always the first 10350 is untaxed. The next at 9275 at 10%. The following 28375 at 15% and the remaining 39400 at 25%. Under President Obama the liability of this middle class family is 15033.75.

The same family under President Trump would have a deductible of 30000 leaving taxable income of 70000. The first 15000 is not taxed. The next 37500 gets taxed at 12% and the rest at 25%. Under President Trump the liability of the same middle class family would be 8875.

As you can see for most people earning 30000 and below they would find themselves paying no taxes and for the middle class would have their tax burden halved.

The Tremendous Tax Plan


We have the next piece of major legislation coming out of the administration and that is centered around tax reform. I did not fully support the healthcare bill as it did not contain any provisions to control the price of drugs but I fully support this tax bill. From what I can see it does everything you can ever ask for in tax reform. One of the difficulties with bills like this is that very few people know what is exactly in it but everyone discusses it. As best I can I will go over what is in the bill and then I will go over the complaints people have against it.


  • Lower tax rates overall. The top rate is lowered to 33% from almost 40% and most deductions are removed. Standard deduction of 30000 for joint and 15000 for single. Incomes up to 15000 pay 0. New childcare related deductions. Maximum deduction is 100000 for single and 200000 for joint. Carried interest is taxed as labor and not capital gains.
  • Estate tax is gone. Capital gains held at death are taxed.
  • Corporate taxes get cut from 35% to 15%. Owners of S corps, single props, and partnerships can have their income taxed at 15% instead of income tax. Limiting the number of things that can be claimed as expenses.
  • Tax on unrepatriated earnings. 4% for most 10% for cash.


The 4 bullet points summarize the entire tax plan. I left of the commentary until now so you could see and judge the plan for yourself. If there are any points I missed feel free to reach out.

  • Estate Tax – I could write volumes on this alone. Instead I ask you to do one thing. Google how much Steve Jobs paid in estate taxes when he died. The number rhymes with hero. The truly wealthy do not pay estate taxes. You have an entire industry of people who are wealthy and well-connected in their own right who make sure that they do not pay this tax.
  • Tax for Repatriation – If there is any part of the tax reform bill that has universal support this is it. Everyone knows we have unreported income for our corporations abroad. There is literally no other way to get this money.
  • Corporate Taxes– The democrats are going after this hard and spinning this as a tax cut for the rich. On paper it would be true. 35 percent to 15 percent halves their tax bill. The democrats don’t want to tell you that no one actually pays 35%. If corporations actually had to pay this amount we would lost businesses to inversions at a faster rate that we are losing now. Studies differ on what businesses are actually paying. Some say that it is 12% others go as high as 16%. None of them are anywhere in the neighborhood of 35%. Even with our current real tax rate we are already losing businesses to inversion. Apple being the most famous one. If the corporate tax code is not fixed we will continue losing them. The most frustrating part of this whole ordeal is the people who are against fixing the corporate tax code are also against any nationalist or protectionist policies to keep businesses in America which leaves us with exactly zero options to deal with the problem.
  • Income Taxes– This is where the whole tax cut for the rich angle falls apart and it is understandable that democrats do not mention this. First off the floor for income taxes has been raised to 15000. That means a lot more people will not be paying taxes at all. Remember we have a progressive tax system. Keeping 15000 means a whole lot more to someone earning 50000 a year than it does to someone earning 300000 a year. More importantly a lot of the deductions are going away and there is a major push to get everyone to use standardized deductions by raising them. Who do you think benefits when you push standardized deductions? The people with lower-income who can barely make ends meet or the people with more money to spend? Higher standardized deductions are a massive benefit to the poor and middle class and may actually cause the highest earners to pay more. Lastly the carried interest loophole. For the longest time investment managers, among the wealthiest in the population, have gotten away with paying capital gains instead of income tax. The tax plan ends this and classifies it as income tax instead. Has anyone ever brought this up when they say it is a massive tax cut to the rich?

There is a lot of talk about whether the tax plan is supply side or demand side. The descriptions do not fit the plan best. It is a realist plan. It takes the portion of the tax code which is the most often and aggressively exploited and removes them pushing for standardized deductions instead. There are two main benefits of this plan. First the standardized deductions and the higher floor let the middle and lower-income families keep more of their income and it levels the playing field between the huge corporations and the small businesses. Rich corporations like GE can afford to hire the best tax attorneys and accountants to make sure they pay no taxes while smaller business cannot do this and have to muddle along the best way they can. Simplifying everything means that both of them will pay an equal percentage.


There are two major complaints with the tax plan and they both stem from the same idiocy. First that the tax plan will lower revenues and increase the debt and second that it is a massive tax cut for the rich. The “experts” who claim this do present a lot of figures to back them up. The only problem with these figures is that they assume that people actually pay the tax rate on paper. After all if studies show the tax rate that people corporations actually pay is 12-15% and you lower the rate to 15% how is it a tax cut? If the government is only collecting this much now how will collections go lower if you collect the same amount?

The most insidious thing about these “analysis” is that almost to a man the people doing them are tax lawyers and accountants. The people who make their living making sure that companies and wealthy individuals pay next to no taxes  are claiming that this tax plan is bad because they do. It is hard to blame them. If you simplify the tax code then their industry will be in danger.

Milo Did Nothing Wrong


Everything Milo said in that interview is perfectly reasonable and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. In fact anyone who thinks otherwise should get off the internet as you will see a lot more unspeakable things which will offend your delicate sensibilities. I would advise skipping any liberal comedians as well as they routinely say worse things. I encourage everyone to actually watch the video for themselves. One of the best things about this time is that the original source material is almost always available online.

Legal Age vs Emotional Age

In the interview Milo was very clear that he believed the current legal ages are apt and should not be changed. In fact towards the later part of the interview he shows disgust and gravity when discussing the young boys involved in the parties in Hollywood. He clearly shows he does not approve of those things in that portion of the interview.

On to what he did say. It is perfectly reasonable to think that people evolve emotionally at different rates. Some people may be ready for sex at a younger age and some people may not be ready for sex even when they hit the age of majority. I hate to break it to everyone but teens have sex all the time. A quick google search will show you that in 2013 46% of high school students were sexually active. Those people obviously felt that they were mature enough to have sex before 18. Granted they most likely had sex with people their own age but Milo felt different. He felt that he was mature enough to handle a relationship with a 29 year old. According to Milo in his recent press conference he was a 17 year old having a relationship with a 29 year old man. Would this still have been illegal according to the letter of the law? Yes. If Milo complained about it at the time he would have been perfectly within his rights to have the 29 year old man arrested. Yet he didn’t because he felt he was mature enough to handle the relationship. I specifically point this out to show that other people who were forced into these relationships when they felt they werent ready can and should complain.

Underage Attraction

In his interview Milo pointed out that some men or women may be sexually attracted to teenagers. His host argued that only perverts would do that and that has been the media interpretation as well. Just as people develop emotionally at different rates people develop physically at different rates as well. It is absolutely possible to think a teenager would be over the age of consent just by looking at her alone. It is also possible to think that they would be sexually desirable. Milo makes a clear distinction between people whose bodies have not yet matured emotionally and physically and those who have.

Food for thought on this subject. Hustler videos has 140 videos in their barely legal series. 140. If there was no market for it there would not even be 5.

Support Relationships

Milo brought up that in the gay community there are relationships between homosexuals of different generations. Relationships are not purely about sex and according to Milo the older gays help the younger ones cope with their new identities. He says this is important as the younger gays may be repressed in their own communities as they may have parents who do not understand their identity and the partner in the relationship ends up being the only person the other one is able to rely on.

Having your identity repressed is one of the issues the left has been bringing up for decades. This is the reason why they say they have to identify whether or not your a tranny at grade one. In fact the gay muslim democrat who shot up the night club in Orlando was only supposed to have done it because his religion repressed his sexuality. If the gay community has found a way to deal with this between two consenting people then more power to them.


One of the major critiques against Milo is that he is treating the relationship he had at a young age as something that was beneficial to him and something that he wanted instead of something that harmed him. In other words he was expected to act like a victim and when he did not the left got mad.

The way you react to situations in life is the only thing you really control. If Milo felt that the relationship was beneficial to him then he is the only one who can make that call. The left should not force Milo and other people into a box to fit their narratives. I do stress again that other people will have different experiences and if they were forced to have sex without their consent by older people then they should absolutely file charges.

Why go after Milo?

Milo is not alone at being targeted. Ben Shapiro, Pewdiepie, any person who expresses a conservative or in this case libertarian viewpoint to the youth and is successful at it is being systematically silenced by the left. The left has long believed that students should only be able to hear liberal viewpoints and are counting on this for future elections. Anything that threatens this is met with instant hostility. The left not only tries to silence opposing viewpoints but rather tries to destroy the careers of the people who would threaten their monopoly.

Milo and others like him are finally making inroads into territory that have previously been exclusively held by liberals. Republicans should listen to the actual conversations and rally around these figures instead of falling for the fake outrage generated by the left. If we abandon Milo and others like him to liberals when they are attacked, or worse help them do it then no one would provide the valuable services they do. Remember they are only singled out because what they are doing is actually working.

Merkel is Close to Achieving Hitlers Dream


It has now been 70 years since World War 2 and the German dream continues. Merkel is well on her way to achieve the goals as determined by Hitler. If you recall those goals were expulsion and then later death to all Jews and German dominance in Europe over most of the other countries.

The Jewish Question

Merkel has made more progress towards expelling the Jews than any other German leader since Hitler. Record number of Jews have been leaving Europe since 2015 usually headed for Israel, the USA, or Canada. The record levels of emigration coincides with the decision of Merkel to unilaterally welcome millions of Muslim refugees from the Middle East which sparked one of the great refugee crisis Europe is now facing.

At the time she made the decision to unilaterally commit the EU in the major undertaking of welcoming millions of Islamic refugees everyone was confused as to why she made that decision. Now that we see the results the reasoning is clear. It is an understatement to say that there is some animosity between Jews and Muslims. Since the time of Hitler Muslim majority nations have banded together twice in an effort to eradicate Israel, the only Jewish nation on the planet. To this day Muslims still regularly send mortar, rocket, bomb, and other type of attacks into Israel. Some Muslim nations still deny the right of the Jewish state to exist as well. Importing an entire culture that hates the Jews would have the desired effect of expelling them.

Like Hitler Merkel will not stop at expulsion. As noted there are three major destinations for the Jews. Israel, USA, and Canada. Merkel has been very vocal about the USA and Canada accepting more Muslim refugees creating the same type of environment in those countries that have been successful in expelling the Jews from Europe. An inhospitable environment in those countries would then lead the Jews to go to the other destination, Israel. Germany under Merkel has been consistent in voting for sanctions against Israel at any opportunity and has generally sided with the countries who say Israel has no right to exist.

Continental Dominance

In the past Hitler tried to conquer Europe by force. He was able to get France and some other countries but ultimately failed. In the continuation of his dream Merkel has tried a different tactic. She has fostered the growth of the European Union. Of course this union is problematic for Germany as well. France and Britain are equally strong economies and in the case of Britain they have a stronger military as well. Instead of a system where Germany has complete dominance it is forced to share power with them.

Merkel in her usual brilliance used the same refugee crisis that helped expel the Jews to force out the economies that could survive on their own. Britain officially voted to leave the EU and by all indications France may soon follow. This then leaves the weaker economies which have been hurt by the strength of the Euro and by the refugee crisis as well. Greece who is on the verge of bankruptcy and unable to provide any social services to their people, has been denied any debt relief by Germany, yet has been criticized for not having the funding and infrastructure to deal with the refugee crisis. Germany as the dominant economy with the other weaker European economies attached to it is the European Empire Hitler always dreamed of. Once Germany is the dominant power we will see more consolidation of power in the EU and even a joint army moving it closer to a true German Empire.

We may hate the principles that Merkel stands for and her continuation of Hitler’s legacy but we cannot deny that she has been more effective at it than anyone else in history.


The Alt Right View: Justice Gorsuch


President Trump has nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch for the supreme court and I have seen very few articles on the reaction of the alt-right to the pick. By all accounts Gorsuch has an impressive resume hitting all the right law schools and positions. He has a view of the constitution similar to Justice Scalia and seems to be for term limits. He also seems to be pro-life and against the ability of federal agencies making regulations themselves as opposed to operating on the powers given by the legislature.

Not About Us

The stand of the alt-right is pretty simple. The Supreme Court pick is not about us. We got behind Trump because we shared his views on economic nationalism, strict border controls, and harsher stances against Islamic terrorism. The Supreme Court pick, while important was low on the list of our priorities. We do recognize though that there are some other members of the Trump coalition who voted for Trump exclusively because of the Supreme Court pick. It is much more important to us that they are satisfied with this pick than if we ourselves are satisfied with it. We recognize that we are in a coalition and each faction of that coalition has their own priorities. In order to keep the coalition strong and supportive of President Trump the individual members have to feel that they are getting their needs met. That way we get our priorities met as well. It does us no good if we are happy with this pick but the rest are not. In this issue as long as the religious right and traditional conservatives are happy with the pick then we are as well.

Core and Non-Core

The stance we have on this issue will be a recurring theme you will notice with the alt-right. We have stances on all issues but we realize which issues are our core issues which we cannot compromise on and which ones are non-core issues which we are happy to offer to our coalition partners in order to get our main agenda passed. In a previous article I mentioned our main ideology is pragmatic nationalism and we understand enough about politics to know that we are not going to get everything we want we just have to secure our core issues.

If you poll voters that identify with the alt-right I think you will find that a surprising number would be pro-choice and would be agnostic on gun rights. It just so happens that these issues are very important to the people willing to coalesce with us so we support them in it with the understanding that they would support us in the future as well.

From what I am seeing it looks like the conservatives and religious right are very happy with this appointment so we approve of it and are very happy with it as well.

The Alt Right View: Ideology


I have been asked by multiple people what exactly the ideology of the alt-right is? The short answer is pragmatic nationalism. The alt-right does not really hold a set of conservative or liberal views on any one subject. The primary concern is that the policies chosen benefit America first. This means that on some issues we can side with the left and on others with the right.

This is actually a lot more complex than it sounds. There are some groups who believe more free trade is the solution to everything so no matter what the problem they go with that even if it no longer works. There are some groups that believe a more aggressive foreign policy is the answer even if it is not a good idea for that particular case. There are some groups who believe that welcome every culture to the United States is the answer despite Islam proving to be incompatible with the west. Pragmatic Nationalism cannot just pick a default answer. It has to look at the circumstances surrounding each decision and pick the best course. I will give some examples to show how the alt-right position can change depending on circumstances.

Free Trade

There was a point in time where World War 2 just ended. Europe being one of the major battlegrounds of the war lost much of its industrial capacity. Japan and China had the same problem as China was a battleground and under occupation for much of the war and Japan, while not invaded, had most of its factories bombed or nuked. Africa and the Middle east were chugging along hopelessly as usual. In that situation free trade was great! Who wouldn’t want unlimited access to all the market places in the world with no competition? We could produce as much as we wanted and everything would have to be made in America and sold elsewhere as there was nowhere else to produce it.

Fast forward to modern times. Almost every country has the capability to produce basic products. Only a few very specialized things can only be manufactured in America. Other countries can and have taken business from the US by attracting companies with lower wages and low to no taxes. At this point with so much more competition, free trade becomes less desirable and protectionist measures should be put in place.


The statue of liberty says that you should throw anyone you don’t want in your country to the US and we will take them. It may sound strange but there was a point in time where we would have supported this approach. The US has just conquered half a continent from the Indians and the Mexicans. We had a lot of empty land in our hands and not enough people. to fill it. Using the subjugated populations for the areas would just have been asking for rebellions and in any case there was not enough Indians left alive to effectively do this. Making babies would have taken to long as we would have to wait a couple of generations before we could integrate the fallow lands into our economy. Economically each immigrant did not have a safety net surrounding them. No healthcare, food stamps, or any other benefits so there was little additional cost to welcoming them.

We have to compare that to our situation today. According to the latest statistics we have around 40% of the population not working. We have a housing crisis in several cities where the lower economic  classes who run the service sector unable to afford to live in the cities they work in. We have advances in tactics and weaponry which means that one single terrorist is more dangerous than a regiment of troops when our immigration policies were different. We also have different social services in place where a single person costs more to maintain. Simply put we just do not have the same need for the same amount of people than we did when we asked to be the worlds dumping ground.

I hope these two examples show how pragmatic nationalism works and how an idea which may have worked in one generation may not work in another.

The Alt-Right View: Trade War


For our topic today I will be discussing our views on trade wars. I have wanted to do this topic for a while as I feel it is one of the few legitimate concerns people would have over President Trump and the alt-right.

To begin with a trade war or economic war is another form of war so it follows all the rules that I outlined when I discussed our views on war. Trade wars should only be done out of national interest and once started there should be no limits to return to peace as fast as possible. I would also like to add that the objective of a trade war does not necessarily have to be economic. We started embargoes against states like North Korea or Iran, not because we need them to open their markets, which no one cares about but because we wanted to inspire societal change by replacing their form of government and political change by correcting the attitudes of their leaders. At the end of the day Economic wars are just another tool in our quiver to further our national interest.

People who do not follow our philosophy wonder why we are not more concerned with a trade war. More than anything our views are pragmatic. We believe that the poor state of the American economy and our trade balance gives us certain advantages in a trade war. These advantages disappear once the economy and trade balance get better but we should use them while they are here. In the Alt Right view trade wars follow two rules.

The Customer is Always Right

Think back to your own life. If something happens and the local Mcdonalds does something to annoy you then you can easily switch to the neighboring KFC , Wendy’s, or Burger King. Due to the number of choices you have available about the only thing that will happen is that the seasoning in your fried chicken changes. The price does not even go up as Wendys, Burger King, and KFC will still have to compete amongst themselves.

The US faces a similar situation with China. From Clothing (34B) to computers (40B) to toys (28B). Almost everything that China sells to the US is a product with multiple competitors. In fact you may not even notice if the Chinese brand is not available as there is a Korean, Philippine, or Japanese one you could buy instead. In fact the other countries would step up production to fill in the void left by the Chinese. The volume of trade is another consideration. The top 10 products that China sells to the US totals over 250 billion in volume. If the US market was closed off or restricted to them there would be no other market available to take that volume and they would have to reduce production.

Contrast this with the US economy. The product we sell in the most volume to China is soy beans(10B). The total of the top 10 products the US sells to China does not even hit 40b. It is a lot easier to find new costumers for 40b worth of goods than it is to find them for 250 b worth of goods. The fact that we produce so little is not a good thing and if we succeed it will change. Yet this is the reality we are dealing with as of the moment.

There is also a misconception that since there is more Chinese than Americans that China is a more important market to enter which is why companies would prefer it. This is wrong. America is the most important market in the world and companies would always prefer access to it over China. Due to social security, welfare, credit cards, and other devices each American has more purchasing power than what his salary would suggest and even that salary would be much higher than his Chinese counterparts. The only real value the Chinese have is low wages and even that is being taken over by the Indians, Vietnamese, and others.

At this point people will then ask. Isn’t the main beneficiary Vietnam, India, and the other countries production will shift to? Why yes. Thank you for noticing. In an age where China is flexing its muscles in Asia its greatest fear next to a US- Russia alliance is having its production transferred to the other Asian countries by the same methods American production was transferred to it. Remember the trade war does not always have to have an economic goal. As for the US dealing with multiple smaller countries is easier than dealing with one major superpower. Some of the jobs which require more infrastructure and those involving restricted technology may find its way back as well.

Unless You Have a Monopoly

This is the second that overrides the first. Think back to your life. When Sprint or Verizon pisses you off what can you do? Cry harder. Unless of course you have actual competition in you area. I mention this rule for the sake of completeness as it does not apply to the situation in China and the US. If one did have a monopoly they could use that to great advantage in a trade war.

Having a monopoly does not necessarily mean having a monopoly in the classical sense. You could supply so much of the demand for the product worldwide that you have a functional monopoly. For instance in World War 2 so much of the demand for oil was spoken for that even if the US was not the only supplier of oil for Japan it could still cripple them by refusing to sell even if they are the consumer as they had no one else to buy from.

You could also have a created monopoly because of technology. This usually applies to the military and other things of that nature. While there are many different tanks for example once you buy an American one then you would have to keep buying ones from American defense contractors as the spare parts would not be compatible if you suddenly started buying Chinese ones. Incidentally this is why forcing European countries to double their defense budgets is a great move as it creates a lot of new business for US defense contractors and jobs for the industries involved in it.

The Customer is Always Right Unless You Have a Monopoly. Which is why we are not worried about a trade war with China.