Contemporary Right-Wing Accelerationism in politics essentially involves enacting policies to facilitate the emergence of a technological singularity in the most economically efficient and fastest way possible.
In addition, it also involves doubling down on self-sabotaging leftist policies to turn them against their own creators. So without further ado, here are 8 left-wing policies Rightists should support (for all the wrong reasons):
1) Support a
15$ 25$ Minimum Wage (replacing 3rd world migrants with robots)
It would help to mention, the bankers and corporations who run the world economy don’t support the third world migrants out of “kindness” or for “diversity”, they do it to exploit them (as credit card debt-slaves and cheap unskilled labor) as western native populations decline.
By at least 2050, the unfortunate result will be around 3.5 billion Africans wanting to mass-migrate to our countries, eventually demanding welfare and property through their superior voting power (at their current fertility rate, an overpopulated Africa will be the >65% ethnic world majority by the end of the century):
If we want the mass migration to stop then we’ll have to slowly replace them… with automation. In case you haven’t noticed, unprecedented advances in AI and robotics have been taking the stage, set to replace 30% of jobs in the next two decades (we will need to boost those numbers if we are to survive extinction through the migrant crisis).
This poses the question of whether corporations will still want to bring in migrants if “cheap labor” becomes illegal. A large 25$ minimum wage is the perfect incentive for forcing companies to automate and destroy low-wage jobs (especially in the transport and service industry). This will decrease demand for manufacturers, cashiers, drivers, etc. (jobs that will soon be overwhelmingly held by migrants instead of natives).
Automation will not only save native populations in Europe and America from extinction, but will also accelerate the robot revolution (which in turn, accelerates the arrival of post-scarcity).
Just to be clear, this is not going to target blue collar tradesmen (who are skilled freelancers), or students (who will be making more than 25$ as long as they major in something useful). This is going to strictly target unskilled labor (to such a large extent that migrants might even have to return to the manually-operated sweatshops in their home countries just to find work).
Migrants will not be wanted by the rich if they are not allowed to work cheaply. Only then will the (((bankers))), (((media))), and cheap labor seeking corporations who fund leftist parties change their positions on mass migration. Raising the minimum wage kills jobs and if there are no job positions left to fill, the rich will stop buying government power to bring migrants in. Western natives, which by then will be mostly skilled or educated white collar workers, can begin to reclaim their own countries again.
But keep in mind, companies won’t switch to automation unless they are incentivized to prefer it over cheap labor. Once the state makes unskilled leftist whiners too expensive to hire with its 25$ minimum wage, all those expensive robotics might actually start to look like a better deal. Rest assured, we might just see the day when leftist coffee baristas are ousted by their own self-sabotaging policies, so
2) Support Gun Control (but only in the inner-city)
As low-wage migrants are replaced by automation, the number of unemployed minorities will begin to pile up in the streets (until they are deported back). Many will try to kill us if they are not disarmed, unfortunately for Americans, we will first have to address the second amendment:
Whenever gun control has come up, we all know the stereotypical boomer conservative that points to the example of Nazis and how “they were national socialists and, therefore, leftists!”. Here’s the thing though, I think a lot of what makes an action “left” or “right” is the intent (agreeing for the wrong reasons). If you’re banning guns just to keep them out of the hands of inner-city black nationalist thugs who want to “burn down your suburbs” or potentially rape/murder your family, then the action is suddenly not so “leftist”:
In America the roots of gun control were historically racist, in fact, gun control is still racist but not explicit. There are racial disparities in violent crime, the majority of which is committed by black minorities. Is it any surprise that big cities like Chicago, Detroit, and D.C (which have the largest black population in the country) have the strictest gun control laws? Even then, it might still be difficult to pass a universal “inner city only” gun control law, but here’s how a general gun control law would help too:
When you have a non-homogenous society you also have disparities in socioeconomic status, so this classist law is actually targeting race. Liberals who vote for gun permits and background checks think that the people being disarmed will be rich/middle-class rural white conservatives when it would actually hurt the black underclass (who won’t be able to afford the elevated costs of owning a firearm).
Not only are gun control laws harder to enforce in rural areas, but gun control laws inevitably create a system that disenfranchises the inner city poor. If you want to bear arms in liberal America then you will have to apply for a firearm owner ID card, pay a fine to renew it each year, and take a 20+ hour safety course at a gun range only available in rural/suburban areas (much of the Chicago inner city poor doesn’t have the time or resources to accomplish all this).
This isn’t even taking account the ammo shortage we’re experiencing, the left’s desire to tax firearms, and purchasing the ammo/gun in the first place. But the white guy on his ranch right now shooting paper-targets with his million-billion round magazine clips? He’s not worrying about any of that.
As it was in Bloomberg’s New York, gun control will continue to be racist in effect because the middle class can always buy government and make them target the underclass (who are disproportionately non-Asian minorities). Even if you get money out of politics, the middle class still contributes more in taxes and that buys political privilege. The upper class are also scared of blacks because they tend to be more violent and will rob them from resources. Compare stop-and-frisk laws checking for drugs, you’ll see the same disparity for non-asian minorities:
Notice that it targeted minorities essentially 4 out of 5 times? Imagine if the same happened for guns. Liberals oppose the drug war but not the war on guns, however, maybe you should support both because it jails people who will vote to steal your hard earned paycheck.
Now, what’s really interesting is the resulting collapse of contradicting leftist policies. After all, Voter ID laws are racist and supposed to keep black people from voting… but a Gun permit and ID for the same purpose is somehow different? Either way, their reaction will be hilarious. The way the burden of proof works is that the liberals will not only have to demonstrate that the benefit of banning all guns exceeds the benefit of gun freedom, they will also have to demonstrate that the benefit of gun control exceeds the backlash against them from their own black voters.
Even then, Democrats might still suggest that this accidental racism is justifiable to reduce violence and harm. Men are 8 times more violent than women, but we don’t say you’re sexist when you point these things out (because they correlate with biological dimorphism). Since there is a heavy racial disparity in violent crime and gun crime (and this crime rate is a justification for gun control). Hell, we could also use this same logic to justify restricting the immigration of certain groups on a violence and harm-reduction basis.
Democrats can’t reform their way out of this system, most guns are already owned by white men and women. The whites and the well-connected will always have their gun rights and other forms of self-defense (alarm systems, private security, and one day, maybe even home-defense drones).
So the next time some white cuck suggests we take guns away from civilians, your position needs to be: “Sure, we wouldn’t want all the POC to resist getting their asses pistol-whipped by cops, how else would we enforce the triggering nazi cis-heteronormative shitlord patriarchy?”
3) Support Free Tube-Tying, Vasectomies, Abortion, and Birth Control:
If we want to successfully implement anti-migrant policies like mass automation, a 25$ minimum, and inner-city gun control, then we will need to keep the voting numbers of these populations low and suppressed.
While this sinisterly executed propaganda (pictured) is good for a laugh, it’s not subtle enough to motivate populations to a significant extent. But there is another solution, free birth control, free vasectomies, and free abortions.
Free birth control and free abortions would actually be very good for right wing demographic interests (if religion were not an issue) since both of these policies make fiscal sense. Abortions are only a few hundred dollars and birth control is 2 dozen dollars a month, yet the long-term financial results are a favorable gain (saves the cost of a lifetime of welfare, food stamps, Medicare, and public school education).
Let me be clear, pushing free Abortions and free Birth Control will not make rich/middle class White and Asian people have more abortions because they can already afford all the abortions they want, but blacks cannot. It will mainly be the Lower class and Blacks who take advantage of the program since Blacks already have the most abortions out of all races (pictured below).
Again, like with gun control, the left will be forced into a position where they’ll receive a racial backlash for supporting their own policies. Any black person reading this article might now see how the left is sabotaging their desire to outbreed the white race.
While Alex Jones and the like may argue this is “a racist liberal plot to genocide Blacks!”, But I think it is also fair to mention that most blacks can’t afford to have those kids anyway, so this might be mutually beneficial. These are the people who need these services the most, so it might actually be a humanitarian act to grant them access (a defense the left will use when blacks protest).
Blacks are 4 times more likely to get abortions than whites for a reason, giving them more access will decrease the financial burden of having so many kids. In addition, free vasectomies and tube-tyings could also stop all the low-IQ Leftists from procreating (maybe even have the government pay them to do it when they go in for the abortion).
As pictured below, many black women can’t even afford their own abortions. If they are so desperate for cash, they might just happily accept a government check in exchange for voluntarily sterilizing themselves:
Since at least more than 50% of intelligence is heritable, it would be a favorable “Reverse-Idiocracy” phenomenon if we also gave these free “tube-tying” treatments to white SJW women and free Vasectomies for their cucked
boyfriends beta-orbiters (or give them one-time 1000$ welfare check to sterilize themselves).
Being the low time preference impulsive degenerates leftists are, most will probably take the deal and get their tubes tied/snipped. Since it takes almost nothing to convince them to cut their own dicks off and wear dresses (go Trans), so sterilizing them shouldn’t be much of a challenge. Again, rich/middle-class rightist whites don’t need this extra government money and won’t take the sterilization bribe, but the underclass will because they are desperate for money (even if it were only a 1000$ bonus).
Are these really the people we want having children?:
Don’t get me wrong, I believe any sane parent should teach their children that abortion is wrong, but since feminists so aggressively insist, they should be allowed to destroy their own lives if they want. It’s not about submitting to leftist values, it’s about letting the right demographics propagate (children born to the underclass would live terrible lives anyway).
Now, I love the religious-right to death, even when they disagree with me. To those who would classify all this as “infanticide”, here is a respectable pro-life position you could take instead:
“Anyone who would murder their own child is not fit to raise a child, this not someone you would want to be reproducing their shitty genes, let alone raise others to be a murderer just like them” – Morrakiu
The Right wing has fiscal reasons, a demographic reason, an ethical reason, and and an evolutionary reason to suppression these degenerate people who have so little regard for life. Ironically the far-left so stupidly agrees with this program I’ve outlining, since they are preventing the very socialist revolution they desire by keeping the numbers of the blacks and poor under control.
4) Get Money out of Politics (campaign finance reform for corporate shills)
If we want the 25$ minimum wage, mass-automation, and the robotics age to come to fruition, we will first have to disarm the rich and the corrupt (who will use their political power to keep cheap labor legalized.
As a right-winger you know (or should know) that the super-rich do not have your back, your politics are the politics of the middle class, not the elites. Your goal is to disenfranchise (((the Rich))). The richer they are the more they should get fucked (the top 0.1% are disproportionately jewish, even though jews are a 2% minority population in the U.S). However, the upper-middle class can still be allies, since they don’t have high in-group ethnic preferences like the top 0.1% global zionist elites do.
So what do we mean by “getting money out of politics”? http://www.wolf-pac.com/ defines it as “eliminate corporate personhood and public financing of all election campaigns”. This means every candidate recieves the same amount of public financing for campaigns, so Hillary Clinton can’t turn to her Record 1.2 Billion Dollar Campaign Fund to buy rigged elections. You could also outright ban public contributions or have a cap on them (perhaps $2700, like Bernie Sanders did).
Overall, you’ll want to disempower (((people))) who support these corrupt candidates by enacting an anti-PAC policy. Getting rid of super-PACs is definitely a good thing since most of them are democrats . Unions are also pretty big on the charts, so let’s try to get it done before the 2020 election cycle comes around.
5) Support Maternity leave and Equal Pay laws (but not diversity quotas)
As migrants recede, we will have to reignite native fertility rates if we want to reclaim the first world from the fanatical rapists who have invaded us.
Firstly, the traditionalist argument for Maternity leave is a lesser of two evils, it allows women to enjoy the fulfillment of having their own children instead of working for a (((CEO))) until their ovaries shrivel up and die. Once given a taste of motherhood and maternal hormones, it can even increase the likelihood that women may be tempted and lured away from the “oh so important” cubicles and back to traditional roles.
Paying women to have children will bring about the end of the demographic crisis and encourage population stability among first world nations, which means one less argument for immigration. Thank you maternity leave! You Trojan horse you!
Yet, we at the U.S are the only first world country that does not provide it:
And yes, it IS the first world natives who are encouraged by this, we aren’t talking about burger flippers, kebab shop cashiers, and taxi drivers are we? We’re talking about white collar workers, the intelligent people who work too hard and are not having enough kids. Whether or not you believe the majority of intelligence is heritable like research suggests, they will still have the monetary means to provide for their children, so either way these are the people you want to breed.
There are also economic incentives in female workers having higher costs attached to them, the risk of a sexual harassment lawsuit is a pretty big risk and cost, even bigger than months and months of paid maternity leave. In other words, the resulting economic incentive is to hire more men (who don’t need maternity leave) and fewer women (who will again be encouraged to consider nuclear family motherhood). Before you know it, the high demands of feminists have put them back in the kitchen, such is the self-sabotaging nature of leftism.
When combined with these protected class policies, equal pay laws have the same effect. As libertarians always say, “if you can pay a group of people less money, you higher more of them because it gives you a competitive advantage”, conversly, if they cost more you higher fewer. An “equal wage law” would prevent this adjustment and employers would no longer be able to shoulder the extra cost of this protective class, especially a class that demands so many extra social programs.
Overall, if Rightists truly hate gays, women, trans people, and blacks, then they SHOULD do everything in their power to increase the regulatory cost of hiring those people (all in the name of tolerance and social justice of course!!! ^^). Of course, this plan falls apart if they implement diversity quotas, so DO continue to oppose those, but support equal pay. So let’s get to it! Maternity leave for everyone, it’s the current year!
6) Support Universal Healthcare (for citizens only):
The main problem with single payer is that a successful businessman is treated equivalent to a crackwhore, however, this could be mitigated with a two-tier system. Rich people, although they’d still be paying for the health care we all use, would still be able to opt out and get the highest quality of private health care they need quickly. At this point dear reader, the question may have crossed your mind; “wait a minute, why even bother?”
It’s simple, those affected by the system would mainly be minorities, leftists, and, although they are the majority of people, people with low IQs (rest assured, those with their time preference set to maximum would still be able to pull through). A Universal health care system would have rationing in place that would have a negative effect on those who can’t afford the tier 2 healthcare (the wait times of a single payer system most definitely have an effect on survival rates). Even better, a nationalized healthcare system could even make it so that every hospital in the US is forced to check for citizenship before treatment, that way illegal immigrants would die out on the street (and be more de-incentivized to come here).
Before some may object that this sounds expensive for such a small gain, we still have to point out that most single payer countries pay half of what Americans pay per capita. Implementing this system would not necessarily raise taxes on the middle class, with rationing in place and wrongheaded subsidies like Medicaid and Medicare abolished the cost would drop to around what other countries pay (we’d even have a surplus and most disposable income). People really underestimate the disastrous effect of these subsidies, a clinic in Maine dropped Medicaid and Medicare and was able to cut their prices in half! This was due to reduced administrative overhead, so other clinics and hospitals would be able to cut their prices in half too. Doctors will do all kinds of unnecessary bullshit as long as Medicaid will cover it, but if you nationalize their hospital and give them a limited budget they’re going to ration and make sure the most important shit is what gets done, so rightists should support single-payer because there will simply be more money around. If universal healthcare still sounds disastrously expensive even after that, just keep in mind that the majority of the (((people))) that make up the top 1% have a very… let’s just say (((kosher))) background.
Insurance companies aren’t the real root of the problems with our healthcare industry. However, while the companies themselves may not make any profit, they still have an incentive to grow their customer base and the bureaucrats there want more demand for their services so an insurance mandate from the state is as good as it gets. What’s concerning is that because of the entrenched interests lobbying for the government, single payer may not even be possible as it was for other countries (the parasitic insurance companies are only an American phenomenon, unseen in countries like the UK or Canada). Believe me, lobbiests are going to fight this because if single payer is ever instituted, most of these parastic insurance companies will go bankrupt from hemorrhaging customers (the very prospect of that probably makes your dick hard if you’re on the left or alt-right).
As an aftermath of this, there will be lower costs (as previously mentioned, as long as we can keep regulation from inhibiting that), otherwise insurance, medicaid, and medicare are essentially gone. We might even see a return of mutual aid societies, the organizations that insured people before the government thought it was a good idea to “fix” healthcare. Centralization means you have
Centralization means you have less targets to attack, if you’re on the right and hate minorities or the poor then you’re better off working with single payer. This is because medicare/Medicaid we currently have forces the tier one top quality facilities to treat them, as opposed to the poor quality inexpensive tier-two facility that would be treating them under a single payer system (while you enjoy the benefits of the privately funded tier-one hospitals). Under single payer, assuming the government has nationalized most of the hospitals and you cut the national healthcare system we currently have, those hospitals have a very hard time treating poor people and minorities (while the rich whites, as always, will have their private clinics). Meanwhile, if you’re on the left you can enjoy the fact that hospitals won’t be profit-driven organizations when they’re nationalized under single payer. Single payer won’t fix everything, but it sure as hell is better than Obamacare was.
This might be hard to explain to your peers, especially since it just looks like you’re hurting your own people just to screw over yids, but let’s just say that sometimes one needs to perform the occaisional invasive surgery to remove a parasite from the intestines of western civilization.
7) Support Welfare (but only EBT and only for citizens)
This one is simple. You support a small amount of welfare because it keeps people from rioting (at least until we can get private drone armies). When people are genuinely going hungry they violently lash out and welfare is a moderate, minimum payment to the underclass in exchange for their non-involvement in radical political change. Consider the austerity rise and riots in Europe, or better yet, the murder of Czar Nicolas and his entire family. Yes, it’s smarter to fight poverty with scientific research (Technology, Biomedical, DARPA, and NASA) that have positive externalities instead of “Muh free shit”. Either way the basic management of poverty is a necessity to prevent social breakdown, so we shouldn’t cut welfare, we just need to be smart about it.
This is where the previously mentioned free abortions, birth control, vasectomies, and tubal ligation for the underclass comes in. However for welfare, we should particluarly focus on replacing it with EBT, better known as “food stamps” (which is one of the most efficient welfare programs ever devised). EBT is genius because, unlike other programs, it’s pre-allocated food money, not a cash payment that you can spend on whatever you want.
What I’m proposing is that ALL money should be like EBT. This all sounds very familiar doesn’t it? That’s because I’m supporting UBI (universal basic income), but with strings attached so they won’t demand more money. This means, in addition to food stamps, you’d have another pre-paid EBT for your water bill, another payment for rent, another for your bus ticket, etc. What you would NOT have is a pre-payment for recreation or discretionary spending. If you want to buy drugs, a dildo, or a flat screen TV, then you work for it.
What you would NOT have is a pre-payment for recreation or discretionary spending. If you want to buy drugs, a dildo, or a flat screen TV, then you work for it. This is a valuable idea because a lot of the underclass and minorites cannot be trusted to make their own financial decisions, you cannot give them a welfare check. If you do. they might blow all their money at “da club” because they are stupid/impulsive and will not have enough money left to feed their kids (then complain to the media that they aren’t getting enough). UBI/EBT must keep to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs if it is to work. Pre-allocation also gives us the opportunity to register, drug-test, and citizenship test these welfare applicants, so that’s another bonus.
Pre-allocation also gives us the opportunity to register, drug-test, and citizenship test these welfare applicants, so that’s another bonus. Overall, rightists are in no position to negotiate before they have their robot armies, so until then, this welfare system is the lesser of two evils.
8) Legalize Weed (But regulate the living shit out of it)
Although it gives you the opportunity to lock up millions of blacks (and prevent them from ever voting again to steal your hard earned paycheck), the benefits of legalization and ending the drug war far outweigh it. The biggest advantage is that you transform an industry dominated by Mexican Cartels into and a sizable percentage of black drug dealers into an industry dominated by white capitalists.
How do we know this is happening? Because it’s already happening in areas where we’ve legalized weed (Washington, Colorado, California) and leftists are very obsessed with pointing it out. Those states have already regulated the hell out of that industry and is putting the Cartels and inner city gangs out of business. Liberals and the FDA regulate the hell out of the industry (“you need 10,000$ for this and a 10,000$ permit for that and a registered corp”). Just look at what leftists and the FDA do with restaurants and they’re not even selling drugs.
Dealing drugs now costs thousands of dollars to comply with code. Unfortunately, Tyrone and Shalaquaghanda don’t have the initial capital or investors to compete with legal corporate-scale marijuana businesses. This will drive all non-whites and non-asians out of the drug business to the point where they will now have to get a real job and contribute to society.
In addition, marijuana affects underclass voter turnout in mid-term, which is good for Rightists (who moped the floor with lefists in the last 2 midterm elections). Midterms end up this way because stoner burnouts and minorities have low time preferences and only care when there’s a cult of personality central to the election (Obama, Hillary, etc.). In 2014 only 13% of voters were under 30 compared to 19% in 2012 when they had the cultural personality (public perception of Obama has not changed among leftists).
In addition, whenever Marijuana legalization is on the ballot, voter turnout for young leftists is high. That’s why rightists will want to get it out of the way as soon as possible so they’ll go back to being apathetic, stoned, and not caring. The sample size may be small, but the states that had marijuana legalization did seem to have higher turnout. Most people are apolitical and even then there are a lot of single-issue voters out there. If you give them what they want then you can get them out of the way (or even win a couple of them over). Let’s try to get this stuff legalized next midterm so it doesn’t interfere with the 2020 election or leave the drug dealers in business.
These are 8 policies where we can agree with leftists for all the wrong reasons.
Now get out there and pretend you’re compromising!