Posted on December 29, 2020

Why I Support Direct Stimulus Payments

Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, December 29, 2020

Last night, President Trump signed a $2.3 trillion spending package that combined COVID-19 relief with funding to keep the government running. Earlier that day, President Trump had reposted the speech in which he warned Congress to “increase payments to the people, get rid of the ‘pork.’” He folded hours later. This is a pattern. In March 2018, President Trump signed a spending bill he opposed but vowed, “I’m not going to do it again.” He did it again.

President Trump reportedly won three main concessions on relief. First, the Senate will vote on an increased $2,000 payment to most Americans, instead of the $600 just passed. Second, the Senate will vote on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which lets social media companies act as “platforms” instead of “publishers,” without liability for what is posted. Third, there was a vague promise about investigating voter fraud. I doubt these things will happen.

A plurality of Americans think $600 isn’t enough. Lockdowns, BLM riots, and the pandemic have crippled many small businesses. Amazon has benefitted, but Middle America has not. I think direct payments are the fairest way to repair the damage.

However, the 5,000-page bill the president signed is stuffed with useless handouts. It has billions of dollars in foreign aid. It forgives $1.3 billion in loans to historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs). This is less than two weeks after MacKenzie Scott, Jeff Bezos’s ex-wife, gave HCBUs a record-breaking gift of $4 billion.

Congress will probably override President Trump’s veto of a defense spending bill, thus ensuring that Confederate names will be stripped from military bases and that funding for foolish wars will continue. Democrats loaded the bill with handouts for their constituencies, but I see no evidence Republicans did the same for their voters.

The government is spending huge amounts of money. It will do so regardless of what President Trump does. It will do so regardless of whether Republicans keep the Senate. Since the money is being spent, I want some of it. I want my people to get some of it. My government is permitting my replacement; I don’t want to pay for it, too.

Of course, this fiscal policy is ruinous. Senator Rand Paul, who I expect will block the $2,000 payments, argues that passing out “free money” is without “any semblance of moral or fiscal integrity.” He’s probably right. In the long term, debt could consume America. I just no longer care.

The most brutal metaphor I’ve heard is that America is a corpse. The Republicans root for the corpse and the Democrats root for the maggots. I no longer care about the long-term fiscal survival of the Potomac Regime because it harms me and those I care about.

MAGA was supposed to be about “America First.” Instead, all that’s left is empty criticism of liberal journalists, showy outrage about leftist excesses, and jingoism against China. I will certainly not say President Trump did more harm than good, and I don’t regret voting for him twice, but he’s leaving. What will MAGA mean after he’s gone?

Is it China that threatens American liberties? In terms of social control, the American system is worse than the Chinese system. It’s certainly more anti-white.

While the Chinese build European-style replica cities, the post-Western world is destroying the real thing. Skilled white workers may find a better economic future in China than in the United States. Unskilled white men may too. Indifference from the Chinese Communist Party may be better than open scorn from “our” government.

In the 20th century, the West largely separated church and state. In the 21st, the white world is separating nation and state. The United States of America would not exist without European-Americans. Whites are the nation. However, the ruling class punishes whites through discriminatory legal policies, economic privileges for non-whites, constant scorn, and replacement via mass immigration. In return, we are supposed to prop up the system. Why?

I don’t like vulgarity, but this cartoon summarizes the current situation.

Although it is hard to calculate precise figures, whites subsidize blacks and Hispanics. The white majority is shrinking. How much longer can whites shoulder this burden? And why should we?

This matters because the post-Trump GOP may try to return to “fiscal conservatism,” instead of economic populism. I’m opposed to massive government spending in principle, but that’s irrelevant today. It’s like arguing who was the true pope during the Western Schism. There might be a correct answer, but who cares?

Fiscal conservatism tries to keep the system running efficiently. However, European-Americans shouldn’t want the system to run efficiently. “American” hegemony doesn’t benefit us. I ask all whites this question: What stake do we have in whether this system survives? I’d argue we are an occupied people, and the vast network of American military bases and huge defense budget do nothing for our security. Our foes are already inside the gates and give orders to the people who are supposed to protect us.

The “mystic chords of memory” hold whites hostage. We don’t want to give up America. Even now, America could be salvaged by ending mass immigration, H1-B visas, affirmative action, and critical race theory in the education system, among other things. However, Republicans won’t do any of this. They didn’t when they had the chance in 2017.

We are still part of this political order. Secession is unlikely because regional elites have no interest in breaking away from the Regime on the Potomac. Regional identifies are far weaker than they were in 1861 or even 1961. There are still things we can do within the existing system, but white advocates should also rethink our preferred economic policies.

I was once a libertarian. Libertarianism can lead to race realism because the reality is that some races end up subsidizing others. Thus, if you have more of the subsidized races, you end up with a more intrusive, “socialist” government. Our instinct is to fight against government intervention. Consciously or unconsciously, Republicans rely on racial resentment when they fight for limited government.  Data show that people are less likely to support social programs they think benefit out-groups.

However, our era is far different from the Cold War or even Ronald Reagan’s 1980s. Demographic changes mean Republican victory at the national level may not be possible. Defending the “free market” seems absurd when oligarchs such as Jeff Bezos, George Soros, and Mark Zuckerberg reap the benefits of a supposedly “populist movement.” Many Republican voters, “market skeptical Republicans,” favor tax increases on the very rich. The traditional libertarian message of self-reliance is a bitter pill when private companies can cut you off from social media or basic financial services.

There is still hope. The system is vulnerable. The Left is not a pro-worker party. Instead, the Democrats and Woke Capital work for non-whites. The Republicans should emphasize class politics and universal entitlements. If they won’t, we need a new party or many smaller regional parties.

In the long term, Universal Basic Income may be bad for fiscal health, but that no longer concerns us. More federal spending and debt are inevitable under Democrat hegemony. If America is being looted, let’s fight for our cut. We can then use it to build something better. Policies such as Universal Basic Income would also remove the economic weapon from leftists who hound students and workers from their schools and jobs. UBI would make us all dox-proof.

It is hard for economic conservatives to become “statists.” However, in the libertarian classic Atlas Shrugged, John Galt withdraws support from the system, hastens its collapse, and brings the possibility of renewal. His greatest enemy is not a socialist or a leftist radical, but the capitalist Dagny Taggert, who through her own intelligence and willpower maintains a ruling class that hates her. Fiscal conservatism, or trying to make sure that a hostile system keeps working, does more harm than good. It’s the mistake Taggert makes.

Today, we are nationalists without a nation.  We should pursue universal entitlements and basic protections so we can survive economically. We are not conservatives, because we don’t want to conserve the social order. We must fight for a system that will protect our political, racial, cultural and economic interests. These interests cannot be separated.

Our destiny is not to save a hostile system from itself. It’s to build something of our own. This combination of heroic destiny and economic-self interest isn’t contradictory. It’s necessary. It’s something true nationalists have always known. In the words of Giuseppe Mazzini: “Do not beguile yourselves with the hope of emancipation from unjust social conditions if you do not first conquer a Country for yourselves.”