Part 1: Reasons for Embracing Protectionism

Nothing destroys a good idea so efficiently as success—not so much the success of the idea itself as much as the success of those, politicians mostly, who claim to be implementing it. This is why in Russia advocating privatization is more likely to get you punched in the face than listened to  “privatization”[i] having been neoliberalspeak for moving away from Communism by having Russian Communist Jews invite their Western co-ethnics to come and help them loot the nation’s wealth via crooked inside dealing.[ii] Truly moral privatization, on the other hand, would have involved forcefully but gradually dissolving the Communist system by allowing private citizens to begin trading amongst themselves in the open (they had been doing so clandestinely since the beginning of Communism, of course) and without state interference, allowing them to accumulate the experience needed to take the reins of Russia’s economy themselves. Too often sound and noble concepts are like beautiful women born among bourgeois intellectuals and initially admired until given flattering attention by the elites who then rape and whore them until they’re despised and rejected by the masses who have no idea what they were originally like.

Since Trump’s recent ascendance, the same could happen to protectionism, a concept which long before Trump was divided into many different forms, some far less sound than others. Indeed it might be said that protectionism divides the dissident right the way that immigration once divided and is again beginning to divide the Left (the split being mostly between those who want to restrict immigration to help the working classes and those who want to open the floodgates out of misplaced pity for nonwhites and/or outright malice for whites): those who enter the dissident right via libertarianism and retain a (mostly healthy) distrust of the state tend to distrust or outright despise protectionist measures, while those who did not come that route, or who did but have fully burned those bridges are more likely to be willing to give it a go, perhaps even with enthusiasm.

Coming down on the pro-protectionist (though critical of Trump’s variety) side, I hope to explain and defend my position in this essay, which was given impetus by a recent comment by longtime, erudite commenter Lord Shang: Lord Shang’s having worked, by his telling (which I have no reason to doubt), on Pat Buchanan’s election campaign in some capacity back in the ‘90s reminded me of my own journey to the dissident right, which in a slightly uncommon turn passed through protectionism (by way of Buchanan’s The Great Betrayal: How American Sovereignty and Social Justice Are Being Sacrificed to the Gods of the Global Economy) before moving into Austrian School libertarianism and ultimately settling in the dissident right proper. As a nationalist by temperament, I always found Pat Buchanan’s general stance and rationale for it far more congenial than Austrian School free trade, though from familiarity with the latter’s economics in general, I could see perfectly well the shortcomings and flaws of Buchanan’s specific policies. Because of this, I spent some time developing, from the ground up, an Austrian-/axiomatic-/deductive-style of my own, parts of which touch on the nature of protectionism and free trade. With that in mind, let me now lay out what I consider to be true protectionism, following which I’ll contrast it with the nature of the kind of crony capitalism which many politicians tout as protectionism.

To begin, let’s note the major reasons that a nation might want to engage in protectionism—whether protectionism can actually fulfill those goals is another matter, and we’ll deal with that in a minute. But for now, let’s simply lay out the major ostensible reasons for using it. Basically, there are three: economic power, military power, and cultural preservation. Let’s cover the third one, which is kind of the odd one out, first.

Although it was a severe (and self-serving) exaggeration on Karl Marx’s part that “the hand-mill gives you society with a feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist,”[iii] there is no doubt that economics and technology exert strong effects on a nation’s culture, for good and evil. The biggest example of this in our own nation and time (though both the effect and notice of it go back to the early United States) might be the rural/city divide with regard to politics and culture, as was starkly on display during all of Trump’s presidential runs: as an anonymously authored article on Identity Dixie has pointed out, if during the 2020 election, carrying a state depended on winning counties rather than the popular vote, Trump would have overwhelmingly won both Texas and Georgia (unlike the actual election outcome, which saw Georgia go to Biden and Trump take Texas by a far-slimmer margin); whether you love it or hate it, the ability of blue-hive cities to inculcate hive-mind thinking is undeniable, as is the tendency of rural folks to lean conservative (in a true sense). And, of course, it’s not simply that those of a leftist temperament migrate to the cities while those of an opposite temperament either stay behind or flee the cities (though that does play a part in it); we all know the stories about kids who had no natural inclination towards the former changing once they became immersed in big city/liberal academic culture during their stint in college. There is a collective cultural pressure in various locales, the magnification or diminution of which will be based on economic policies of the nation that, intentionally or accidentally, tilt the scales in favor of one or the other. As I said, this phenomenon is so old that even Thomas Jefferson commented on it, attempting to explain it in a chapter of his Notes on the State of Virginia:

The political oeconomists of Europe have established it as a principle that every state should endeavour to manufacture for itself: and this principle, like many others, we transfer to America, without calculating the difference of circumstance which should often produce a difference of result. In Europe the lands are either cultivated or locked up against the cultivator. Manufacture must therefore be resorted to of necessity not of choice, to support the surplus of their people. But we have an immensity of land courting the industry of the husbandman. Is it best then that all our citizens should be employed in its improvement, or that one half should be called off from that to exercise manufactures and handicraft arts for the other? Those who labour in the earth are the chosen people of God, if ever he had a chosen people, whose breasts he has made his peculiar deposite for substantial and genuine virtue. It is the focus in which he keeps alive that sacred fire, which otherwise might escape from the face of the earth.

Corruption of morals in the mass of cultivators is a phaenomenon of which no age nor nation has furnished an example. It is the mark set on those, who not looking up to heaven, to their own soil and industry, as does the husbandman, for their subsistence, depend for it on casualties and caprice of customers. Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition. This, the natural progress and consequence of the arts, has sometimes perhaps been retarded by accidental circumstances: but, generally speaking, the proportion which the aggregate of the other classes of citizens bears in any state to that of its husbandmen, is the proportion of its unsound to its healthy parts, and is a good enough barometer whereby to measure its degree of corruption. While we have land to labour then, let us never wish to see our citizens occupied at a work-bench, or twirling a distaff. Carpenters, masons, smiths, are wanting in husbandry: but, for the general operations of manufacture, let our workshops remain in Europe. It is better to carry provisions and materials to workmen there, than bring them to the provisions and materials, and with them their manners and principles. The loss by the transportation of commodities across the Atlantic will be made up in happiness and permanence of government. The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body. It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigour. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.

The famous running intellectual feud between Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton about what economic path the early republic should tread featured heavily such concerns; and indeed, our present debates may be said to be the (currently) furthest end of a philosophical and economic debate that has been flaring and receding since the founders’ time. Part of the debate, of course, involved purely economic issues, though all the greatest minds (such as Jefferson and Hamilton) taking part in the debate acknowledged that cultural issues are certainly at stake as well and must be addressed—though addressing them is an act of playing with fire and must be undertaken with extreme circumspection.

The reason it’s playing with fire is that, unlike the purely economic ones, cultural issues are not very amenable to straightforward empirical analysis, leaving far more ambiguity and gray areas for conniving politicians to exploit for their own ends, which they will relentlessly pursue, and in the process transform a true protectionist policy into a crony capitalist one. Because of that, we won’t even attempt to address cultural issues in this essay beyond making the reader aware of them and instead focus on purely economic concerns which are amenable to cut-and-dried quantitative analysis. (In a later essay, we’ll be dealing with those thorny cultural issues.)

The other two reasons for embracing protectionism of some kind are, as I’ve said, much more clear-cut and provable or disprovable. The first is economic prosperity, whether we measure that in terms of a nation’s share of the world economy or an individual’s share of his national economy: other things being equal, most people outside of fanatical liberals (and they often adopt their counterposition only hypocritically as a virtue signal) want to see their nation’s share of the world pie as big as possible and the same for their own share of the nation’s. And while such economic prosperity does not necessarily lead individually to happiness or collectively to a culturally and spiritually high civilization capable of weathering the ages, it definitely does translate, but for the gross incompetence of politicians, into military might (whether to be used purely defensively as a republic or offensively as an empire is a separate issue). Part of this is direct, as was the case with the U.S. in World War II when the factories that once churned out tractors began churning out Sherman tanks; part of this is indirect, as with Saudi Arabia, which manufactures almost nothing of its own but instead uses petrodollars from the sale of its vast oil reserves to purchase the latest and best military hardware. The case of 19th- and early 20-th century Britain is an example of both: being the first nation to strongly industrialize allowed the British to create and sustain an army and navy capable of holding together a worldwide empire, while their embrace of free trade in both agricultural and manufactured goods both increased their economic well-being (undeniably with regard to food and agricultural products available to ordinary Britons) and increased their dependence on imported goods such that by the time of World War I, protectionist Germany rivaled them in terms of manufacturing while its submarine warfare threatened the British Isles with potential war famine as they no longer grew enough at home to feed their population. Had Britain been able to keep its Victorian-era share of world manufacturing up to the eve of World War I, it is unlikely that it would have needed the United States’s help to overcome Germany, and to be sure, given the vast resources of the United States and the human capital of both the U.S. and Germany, even had the British embraced true protectionism, it would not have been enough to maintain that level of economic dominance for itself, but it likely would have slowed the industrial rise of its rivals and sped up its own; and the same is most definitely true with regard to the economic decline of the U.S. and concomitant rise (largely via the same mechanism) of China. At least, that is my contention; the Austrians and even mainstream economists would likely argue otherwise, and it is the purpose of part 2 of this essay to show why they are mistaken.

Part 2: The Nature of True Protectionism and How It Works

In part 1 we discussed the goals of true protectionists; now our task becomes defining true protectionism and proving that it is a correct means to those ends. With that mind, let me start out by answering the question what is true protectionism and how does it work? To answer both parts at once, true protectionism is an economic nationalist policy designed to maximize capital accumulation (and thus wealth) per capita by using tariffs to equalize labor costs between the economies of your country and those you trade with.

First, we ought to ask, what is an economy?

To put it briefly, it is nothing more and nothing less than the sum of the activities of those who engage in or otherwise effect (for good or ill) economic activity at any level—hence, you can talk about the local economy, the state economy, the national economy, or the world economy.

What determines the strength or prosperity of an economy at any level? Basically, three things: the amount of natural resources commanded by those who make up the economy; the amount of economically useful capital per capita (that is, the amount of useful machines, tools etc., that make labor more productive which are available for workers in the economy to use) that they command; and the state of technology. I say command rather than own, as an imperial economy (such as that of Ancient Rome) or quasi-imperial one (such as, unfortunately, the US under the petrodollar, if not earlier) can strengthen itself by making other economic zones (be those nations, tribal areas, or other types) offers they can’t refuse. I specify economically useful since an asset may not always be a positive economic contribution: for example, an old steam shovel might increase a person’s productivity relative to using a spade, but if it uses three times as much fuel to move one-fourth the earth as a newer model that’s readily available for about the same price as it would cost to keep the old model running, it’s not an asset to the economy; and I say “the state of technology” since technology can be an economic force multiplier, allowing for superior capital designs that allow the same amount of resources to be made even more productive.

The last two, in turn, are heavily dependent on three more factors, those being the economy’s rate of savings, its level of human capital, and its cultural institutions: that is, how many resources (including human labor) its participants are willing to forgo as consumers’ goods so that they can be transferred to the production of producers’ goods (i.e., capital); the average intelligence, drive, sociability, and conscientiousness of those participants (for which average IQ/STEM numbers per capita can serve as a proxy); and the cultural, legal, and political institutions and the degree to which they allow the population to unleash its natural potential or hamper it from doing so. So, other things being equal, the smarter and more honest and frugal a nation’s population is, the more powerful its economy is going to be, especially if it has beneficial barriers to keep it from diluting that power by harmfully mixing with another, lesser economy.

I know that sounds a bit odd so let me explain. At any level of economic activity there are greater and lesser degrees of integration of that economy’s parts, be those natural resources, human capital, or technology, with prices of things which economic actors consider the same usually converging to some degree. The degree of convergence, in turn, depends on the barriers or obstacles to such convergence: these can be anything from natural barriers born of nature or human nature (so physical distance and hard-to-cross terrain, or the imperfect nature of human knowledge) to man-made barriers such as borders, tariffs, laws, etc.

When two economies that had been separated for whatever reason have the barriers separating them removed, they begin to fuse as if they are one and their prices begin to converge. In some cases, this can be to the detriment of one of those economies. To see how, let me give you a concrete and realistic example of how this works. Say you have two formerly separate economies of two countries that begin to engage in free trade after being separated for some time. Let’s examine what will begin to happen on the micro level once trade is established or if there are no trade barriers for the first time and then pull back and see what kinds of macro trends occur as a result. Our example will contain two countries of roughly the same size, one with post-WWII conditions, i.e., large amounts of capital per capita, a high standard of living, and high labor costs; the other will be modeled on China at the beginning of its reform period when it first began opening itself up to major trade and started courting industries from abroad. To eliminate complications, we will assume that both countries are the same size and have the same sets of natural resources, as well as the same average IQ levels and rate of savings. Furthermore, we’re going to assume that the countries stand right next to each other such that transport costs are not a factor. Let us just assume, for the sake of convenience, that all other production costs are identical for the countries so that any difference in making a particular product in the first vs the second country is due solely to the difference in labor costs.

With that in mind, let’s take a look at the situation from a micro perspective. The question is, once the two economies fuse, what will come to the notice of the entrepreneurs, who in their quest for profits are one of two primary groups making changes to the economy’s structure of production—that is, the particular arrangement of all resources within it (including human capital) at any given time—in light of recent or anticipated changes in the natural world, in consumers’ buying patterns, and/or changes in governmental activity that impacts the economy (government being the other group making, sometimes for good but usually for ill, changes to the economy). Basically, our entrepreneurs will see a huge pool of cheap labor available and will begin shifting capital from the richer country to the poorer one to take advantage of it, as illustrated by the following graphic which shows the cost of producing the same product in either country.

As you can see, profits to be had are much higher in the more capital-poor country, to which the first country’s entrepreneurs begin offshoring their production facilities. How long this process will go on depends on many factors, but they all boil down to what parts of both economies are considered interchangeable by the market participants and thus will have their prices begin to converge, and what barriers exist to stop their convergence. This process of course includes real wages of workers in the two countries, and by examining them we can see the limits of the offshoring process; as I explain in another essay:

Of course, for that [profit] differential [between producing it in one country vs the other] to work, the company needs its [home country] buyers to have the same real income. The reason the company loves those Third-Worlders as workers is the same reason it hates them as customers: unless we’re talking about food and maybe something like a cell phone, there’s no way the man who puts in an entire day to earn what an American worker would make in an hour is going to buy the company’s product for the same price. But as offshoring continues apace and throws more and more American workers out of their manufacturing jobs and into wage competition with other US workers, both real and nominal incomes decline and those workers’ inability to buy the offshoring companies’ products reduces its sales and hence their profit margins from above at the same time that rising real wages of the Third World workers begin to reduce those profits from below. This will keep going until it seems as if the two economies fuse and all things interchangeable, including labor and incomes, are mixed and evened out, [in some cases] to the great detriment of the West’s middle and working classes.

Such an outcome is not the case in our above example, at least not in the long-run, since it assumes that both countries have equal average IQs, resources, etc. But consider an example where the first economy is the same as in the example above but the one it’s merging with is something like that of a sub-Saharan African nation or Haiti: in other words, an economy made up of people with such low average IQ that the exceptions are too few to be statistically significant, an entire population made up of what in an industrial economy would be considered unskilled or menial labor:

List of characteristics:

Country A:

Total population: 120,000 (100,000 working; 20,000 nonworking)

Total income: 100,000,000.00

Workers:

20,000 STEM-types (they earn collectively, 30,000,000.00)

30,000 semiskilled-types (they earn collectively 30,000,000.00)

50,000 unskilled (they earn collectively 40,000,000.00)

Country B:

Total population: 120,000 (100,000 working; 20,000 nonworking)

Total income: 10,000,000.00

Workers:

100,000 unskilled (they earn collectively 10,000,000.00)

Country A-B fused economy:

Total population: 240,000 (200,000 working; 40,000 nonworking)

Total income: 110,000,000.00

Workers:

20,000 STEM-types (they earn collectively, 30,000,000.00)

30,000 semiskilled-types (they earn collectively 30,000,000.00)

150,000 unskilled (they earn collectively 50,000,000.00)

Prefusion per capita earnings:

Country A:

STEM-type: $1,500.00

Semiskilled: $1,000.00

Unskilled: $800.00

Postfusion per capita earnings:

Country A:

STEM-type: $1,500.00

Semiskilled: $1,000.00

Unskilled: $333.33

*This example is also taken from my Occidental Observer essay, which I now notice contains an embarrassing math mistake: the semiskilled workers’ per capital earnings should be $1,000.00 (not the $1,500.00 shown).

As you can see, in the long run as well as the short run such a union of opposite economies is a match made in hell for the US working and middle classes, who see their real wages decimated by being forced into competition with such low-tier human capital.

But the devastation goes even beyond that, given that, as I show in my other paper, while economic prosperity (whether absolute or relative) tends to fuel greater savings and capital formation among the White middle and, to a lesser extent, working classes, among the denizens of third world, it tends to fuel a population boom, meaning that in the future the white working classes will have even lower wages as they compete with even greater numbers of Third Worlders.

But the problem goes even deeper and the future it portends becomes even darker still when you take into account the effect of such a transfer of real wealth on the absolute number of STEM types in the world as a whole. This problem (which I hope to elaborate on in a future essay) is one which virtually the entire economics profession has either missed or ignored on purpose, but one with the greatest import for the future of world living standards, to say nothing of the living standard in the Western nations. The problem goes to the heart of genetics, specifically to the nature of dominant and recessive genes. Imagine two groups of rabbits, one in which half the population have black stripes in their fur that are missing in the phenotypes of the other half, and another group in which the black stripes occur in only about 1/100th of the population. Given the frequency of the stripes in such a high percentage of the first population as a whole, it is far, far more likely that the stripe-less members of the first group will have offspring with blacks stripes than it is that the stripe-less members of the second group will (that is, far greater numbers in the first groups are likely to have recessive genes that could contribute to producing the stripes than are members of the second group).

Now apply this to humans. High intelligence is so biologically complicated that scientists do not believe that any single gene or even small set of genes will be soon identified that could be thought to lead to it, at least not by themselves. While high (or low) intelligence is highly heritable, it’s not entirely so, and as Richard Lynn shows in his book Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations, about one-third of children leave the social class of their parents, either rising or falling from it.[iv] When your trade policies result in a loss of real income for Whites and a gain for races with far lower average IQ scores, you are reducing the number of children likely to have high IQs, and thus you are indirectly lowering the average IQ score of the entire earth! This is true even if the workers of both races have the same IQ rates as individuals since even a low-IQ White is more likely to possess the recessive genes that in the next generation could lead to high intelligence than is a Black or Brown with the same individual IQ. To see how this must be the case, consider how much more likely higher-IQ Blacks are to become involved in criminal activity than Whites of the same IQ: while a Black with an IQ of 100 is equal to the average White in that respect, he’s likely far closer to the Black average in terms of temperament, impulse control, and future orientation. IQ is not the center of a genetic universe which all other genes revolve around and calibrate themselves by, but rather one part of a potential package that is more likely to resemble the average of its race in more ways than not.

And since world living standards per capita are largely the product of the total amount of capital in the world, and since the amount of capital worldwide is highly dependent on the number of STEM workers relative to the world population, the higher the percentage of the world total that Whites and East Asians make up, the higher world living standards will be, even for the non-white, non-East Asian nations. Hence economic nationalist policies by the White and Yellow nations are at once self-protective and altruistic—the best of both worlds, for the entire world.

In part 3 (the final part of this series) we’ll go into how to put such an economic nationalism system in place in some detail.

[i] For a fairly accurate discussion of why many of Mikhail Gorbachev’s so-called reforms were mostly ineffective window dressing for an attempt to save the Communist system, see the introduction to Requiem for Marx by Yuri Maltsev.

[ii] Although the author wouldn’t have dared describe the situation in quite so unflattering of terms, Amy Chua’s World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability gives a decent summary of just how predominant in the Russian economy Jews became during the ‘90s looting binge. There’s actually a humorous anecdote by her in which, upon learning that six out of the seven top Russian oligarchs are Jews, her Jewish husband responded, “Only six? So who’s the seventh guy?”

[iii] Marx, Karl. “The Poverty of Philosophy.” Translated by Institute of Marxism Leninism, The Poverty of Philosophy – Chapter 2.1, 1993, www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch02.htm.

[iv] Lynn, Richard. Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations. Second Revised ed., Ulster Institute for Social Research, 1930, 190, 193.

Based mainly on Tucker Carlson’s interview with Conor McGregor.

McGregor criticised mass migration strongly, calling it suicide and genocide. He proposed a series of questions to determine if an individual foreigner should be deported. He invoked God repeatedly. He called our politicians traitors and described the traditional punishment: “Well, in the olden days, my family, the MacGregor clan, you know, treason is you’re hung, drawn and quartered if you commit treason against your nation. So, what is going on here is an abomination, a travesty, and it cannot continue for much longer.”

He issued blood curdling threats in a polite and perfectly legal way. “We are peaceful. We are not harmless.” If the interview does nothing else, it inspires us as to the safe,legal and fun way to threaten the Planters.

He disarmed the far right tag with ease: “Far left, far right. All of these terminologies mean nothing to mé.”

The choice of the Freemason’s Hall called forth the obvious question: Is McGregor a mason? He hasn’t answered yet.

The Irish Freemasons issued a statement saying that they have no connection to Tucker or Conor and apologised for renting the hall to them. Even if the Freemason statement is all lies, it is still a metapolitical win. They made a statement that someone was not a member. They rarely do this. They also said that they did not cancel the rental when they found out it was McGregor because they were afraid of the “backlash”. It is wonderful and heart warming that the Freemasons are talking about being afraid. Be afraid, boys, be very afraid.

It is certainly true that their Hall is vulnerable to backlash. It is just across the road from our Parliament in Leinster House. The politicians have lavish security and fences that protect them from the vengeful mob. The Freemason Hall, on the other hand is very vulnerable.

The Interweb has photos of Tucker wearing a little red string bracelet, supposedly a sign of a Kabbala Jewish black magic club. If Tucker did sell his soul in return for career success, it doesn’t really affect McGregor’s vote. Most of our politicians, doctors and even some of our musicians have done exactly the same. (Keith Duffy of Boyzone describes being in the record company in London as they did the mumbo jumbo over the boxes of records…And let’s not start on Bono…).

Some of Our Guys think that McGregor has already sold his soul and is just another Zionist stooge, paid to perform a script. Albert Pike boasted 150 years ago:”When the people require a hero, we will provide him.” Governments target opposition movements and put their own people in charge.

If McGregor has sold his soul to Satan, this will play very badly indeed in the election. It will not be any use to him to point out that all the rest of the politicians are just as bad.

Holding the interview at the Freemason’s Hall is ambiguous.

It could be a signal that either Tucker or McGregor or both are in some masonic plot. “We know all about the masons, and we like it”. On Telegram the boys at Symbolism in my City will give you chapter and verse to support this view.

Or it could mean “We know all about the masons and we want revenge.”

The wily boys at the Cavan Vanguard tag this story: “We will never forget what they did to us.” Not to be rude, and with many decent exceptions, but Freemason here basically means rich, greedy, dishonest Protestant, west Brit, English, Jewish or other.

It’s possible they want to set up McGregor. They could allow him to run for president and ensure that he has a ridiculously tiny number of votes. Then, just as they did after the two elections last year, they can smirk and say: The Irish people have voted 99% to reject the message of hate and they welcome continued mass migration…”

Talk is cheap but if McGregor means the words he spoke, then he is against the Masons. He is sometimes incoherent and doesn’t finish sentences, but often he is very precise, very concise and has some great lines and rhymes.

In his defence, one can say that he is a rough diamond, with a short fuse but his heart is in the right place and he is a decent man. He is polite towards Israelis and hasn’t criticised the Freemasons by name. Perhaps it is enough of a struggle to implement Remigration without taking on the Jews and the Freemasons at the same time? Perhaps the hope is that by not specifically targetting these two groups, they might be more inclined to be neutral when we start — politely, respectfully and with a smile — loading our surplus Pakistanis and Nigerians onto clean, well-equipped, safe cattleboats destined for a coconut-, mango- and banana-fuelled one way cruise to the tropics?

Conor is working the Neuro Linguistic Programming in a good way. He uses fact, logic and emotion. He could have filled the whole interview with horror stories of Irish people suffering at the hands of our remarkably ungrateful guests. But he doesn’t.

I am not going to sit here in front of you with doom and gloom about the things that are going wrong. I will highlight for sure, but I will highlight the solutions and the resolutions and where we are headed and keep the outlook positive.

Note the “solutions and resolutions” rhyme… The Dapper Rapper.

So, we continue to highlight the wrongdoings of a minute government elite. And it is minute, and what they are doing, they are using intimidation tactics, they are using bullying tactics, they are using diversion tactics, they are using public funds and public wealth to enrich private people and private industries to alter the thinking of the public. And we say no more. And we are in the midst of highlighting it and continuing our motion towards the betterment of our country and the saving of our great country.

Ireland is God’s country and you will not go against the nation of Ireland. We are peaceful, we are not harmless, and we will continue this journey onwards.”

The first mention of God, and in the next sentence, the first delicate, subtle hint of a threat.

“We are peaceful”. Very true. Our hearts are overflowing with peaceful sentiment.
“We are not harmless.” Harmless means incapable of harm. But both Conor and the rest of us are certainly capable of inflicting harm, as long as our hot shot legal advisors tell us that it is legal to do so.

He repeats the threat:

If you think about a raise or your next job or your next position, that is where we feel our government elite have their eyes on. They have their eyes on the next role for themselves. And then in order to get that next role, they must speak their piece on foreign issues and nothing to do with Irish issues. And then, lo and behold, an announcement of a raise or an employment in the European Union delegate, and then off they go on their merry way after running riot on Ireland and zero accountability of doing so.

And it’s no more. I’m not sure where people think they will go in this small island. You will not destroy Ireland and be free to walk away. And that is a fact.

I’m an Irishman. I love my country dearly. Nothing or no one could ever change that fact. I would give my life for my nation.

As you said, we are an island unto ourselves, a small island, and we are being governed by a small people who are in turn being governed by another minute group of people, and it must stop. And that’s it.

You know, I’m an employer of many people here in the country, of many businesses here operating in the country. And daily I hear about the struggles of people and the issues they are going through. And it ignites a fire in me to stand up. There’s something in my belly for my country that I cannot shake. And even despite maybe the worrisome of my mother and people in my life. Why? Let’s go away. Let’s sail on the yacht. Let’s do something else. I cannot. My country is my country and I’ll fight for it till the day I go out. And that is it.

He summarises the problem in a few words:

The overspending that’s going on, this is our public wealth being administered into private hands, enriching people to bring in this influx of illegal mass migration that is changing the fabric of my country. Ireland is very close to losing its Irishness and we will not let that happen.

We must continue to raise our voice and speak our piece. It’s almost taboo to speak it and it has been made that way by our government elite. Like I said, they use bullying, they use intimidation tactics, they use our funds to pay our legacy media to push an agenda. They do not push facts, they push agendas.

Centered and Grounded

TUCKER CARLSON: CNN has described you as the leader, and I’m quoting, of Ireland’s far right….
CONOR MCGREGOR: Far left, far right. All of these terminologies mean nothing to me.

Great answer. Brilliant answer. This is Alexander, the sword and the Gordian knot.

He continues:

I am a family man. I’m an employer of the country, you know, I’m a supporter of many people and I care about my land and the safety of its citizens and the prosperity of its citizens. I want preference. I want peace, preference and prosperity for the citizens of Ireland, for my people. And isn’t that fair for our country, men and women? … Ireland is for Ireland, you know, and that is it.
Peace, preference and prosperity. A powerful triad.

Note that he doesn’t want equality for the Irish. He wants preference. Just as the Englishman should have preference in England, the Frenchman in France and the Palestinian in Palestine, so too for the Irishman.

I don’t. Right, left. You know, I feel I’m centered. That is what I feel. In fact, I ground myself every day. I walk out and I ground myself every day barefoot in the grass. Barefoot is king. I fought in the octagons in the cages all around the counties of Ireland and then into the United States of America, barefoot. So I am a grounded man, either left, right, I am center and grounded.

He gets in a well-deserved dig against the casual cruelties of some of our Gardai:

The Traffic Corps of An Gardai Siochana is one of the most successful divisions in the Gardai, in our police force, for convictions. And, you know, it is the most successful and it has caused untold stress onto the people of Ireland. I wonder the amount of suicides and the amount of lives lost and families destroyed over the stress of the traffic car institution with, you know, driving without tax or no NCT [National Car Test]. It’s all a money racket.

He forgets to mention insurance here. The insurance industry is run by Lloyds of London and they siphon a billion a year out of us.

This writer can confirm the following comment:

But in this day and age now we’ve got our new visitors to the island who get fully exempt from driving without tax, insurance, NCT, and even on Irish registered plates. Free as a bird right through.

McGregor notes: “

The pressure and the awareness we’re putting on our government elite is causing slight changes. You know, they’re doing certain things to appease. However genuine that is, how much of a facade that is. We’re skeptical. Our trust is at an all time low.

There have indeed been various flatulent and insincere noises from politicians saying that they will reduce the migration flow.
Irish politicians are apparently getting lots and lots of abuse when they go out and about. No abuse for McGregor and the boys: “And you know, you see, we walk the length and breadth of the Dublin city capital and its love and cheer and support. Not one politician under any party can do the same. And that is a shame.”
McGregor talks about the Good Immigrant:

For me, there’s compassion. I employ people from all walks of life. So there is a compassion element. Many people have immigrated here, have done great things for our country, and that has to be highlighted also. But it’s like at a stage now where the great people who have came here and immigrated and contributed greatly to our society are now feeling the strain of and are feeling the wrath almost because of this social unrest. It has to stop. It has got to stop. You know, and we’re at our limit with it. We are really at our limit with it.

He mentions how the Great Replacement is being used to further weaken the Irish language:

There’s counties overrun right now. There’s a county in Ireland, Carna. It’s a Gaeltacht county. It’s a Gaeltacht town. And there’s more IPAS [ International Protection Accommodation Services] center. It was a home for the Ukrainians, and now it’s being altered into an IPAS center. And it’s one of the last places of our language. And that is being. That is feeling an influx of it. And there’s, you know, the people are out in the streets against it. …And with this EU migration pact, if the floodgates are open on that, it’s a difficult time.

When the Ukrainians came to the Gaeltacht, the idealists assured us that they would learn Irish and they would contribute to the revival. But English is a useful world language, and Irish is only a majority language in a few villages. The only reason a refugee would learn Irish is out of gratitude to the Irish people for their help. 99% of Ukrainians have chosen NOT to learn Irish, and they happily force the English language on their Irish neighbours.

McGregor hints at a Remigration-inspired mutiny amongst our Defence Forces and Gardai.. He doesn’t spell it out, of course — that would be foolish. He slightly underestimates the figure for the cops and army.

We have 6,000 members of the Defence Force, 6,000 army, and we have about 12,000 Garda. I really wonder how many are happy with the direction our country was going. I cannot see. I cannot see many behind closed doors. Garda are the police. I cannot see many closed doors that are happy with this.
Even if I look at what has happened in some of the protests, where the Garda, essentially the Garda, are following orders. They’re doing their job. It’s a tricky one, and it’s a sad one to see. It was very sad and upsetting to see our Garda on their compatriots, and that’s what we saw. And use excessive Force, but it’s an order coming down. And I feel sad seeing it. I feel sad seeing it. And, you know, most recently, one of them came out unnamed and said it has stayed with him. They are very, very troubled by it. And it’s just a sad sight to see.

His worst answer is the following:

TUCKER CARLSON: So you’re not necessarily against the tariffs?
CONOR MCGREGOR: It doesn’t sound like, well, our government say, what good is tariffs? Tariffs are no good for nobody. Yet they’ve been tariff in the United States. You know, if that’s the case, then why have we been tariffing them? Why haven’t we been hitting. Why have we been hitting them with tariffs? I’m not so much against it. I’m watching it. You know, I’m watching it. I wish for economic success for my nation and you know, Ireland deserves it. That’s how it straight. We played our cards correct in certain ways and you know, that’s it. But like I said, fair. It has to be fair. Fairness is, is key here. And that’s, that’s what I, that’s what I push for him.

Tucker talks bullets:

TUCKER CARLSON: So you’re therefore a massive threat to the structure running your country. Now, what do you think they’re going to do to you if you keep talking this way?
CONOR MCGREGOR: Attempt to tarnish as they are, you know, attempt to disrupt as they are, or possibly worse. But I do not fear, I do not fear it. Like I said, I move forward under God and my nation can see my nation, can see my heart and what I’m for. And that’s, that’s it. That’s like I move on and carry on.
TUCKER CARLSON: You’re really not afraid at all?
CONOR MCGREGOR: Not an iota.

Tucker then does something brave and wonderful. He critcises the revolting Guinness brewing company! The real ale conspiracy theorists will tell you that Guinness have spent a century buying up every single little brewery all over Ireland, and then quietly closing them down. Every single one. Guinness even made sure to buy up all the local brewery advertising mirrors, enamel signs, etc. They were determined to obliterate even the memory of our ancient local beers.

TUCKER CARLSON: Is this a little weird? I guess I didn’t realize that Guinness was an English company…Centuries of colonial oppression and they’re still selling their stout here.

It’s because of all the Protestants, and there are probably loads of Freemasons at Guinness.

CONOR MCGREGOR: You know, if you’re not held accountable or you’ve got, you know, you’re free to do as you will. That is what it is with Guinness. I’m a publican also, so I own pubs. So I deal with Guinness and I serve Guinness. I serve my competitor. No problem. We outsell at 10 to 1, 10 points to 1. We outsell it on site.
But, you know, other publicans are dealing with Guinness distributors and they’re not friendly, they’re not supportive, because they’ve never had to be. And then when I came onto the scene with Forge Irish Stout, all of a sudden they start coming and shaking the publican’s hand a little bit differently.

Because of their near monopoly Guinness often treat publicans and customers with contempt.
McGregor is generous, forgiving and protective of women as the chieftain must be:

I don’t know Rosie O’Donnell from Adam, but, you know, I believe she’s a comedian. I seen her on our national TV. She spoke a bit ill of me. I don’t know, Rosie. She seems unhappy. She seems going through something at the moment, and I’m not the type of person to kick a person when they’re down.

That’s another point where McGregor differs strongly from the Judaeo-Masonic philosophy.

CONOR MCGREGOR: I wish for her, I believe she’s a comedian is what her craft is. I wish for her to find her happiness again. And that is it. That was what I could feel.
TUCKER CARLSON: She was going through something.
CONOR MCGREGOR: Even I could feel it for sure, I think. And I wish for her happiness and spread love in the world. That’s it.

McGregor should send her a bunch of flowers, a big hamper of organic food, a bottle of whiskey for medicinal purposes and a book on why it’s not a good idea to turn your kid trans.

Carlson tries to provoke McGregor into an open declaration of rebellion, but the Dublin man has a great answer.

TUCKER CARLSON: Why doesn’t someone overthrow the government here? Yeah, I mean, that’s like an act of war against your country. I mean, I shouldn’t say that to you because I don’t want to get you.
CONOR MCGREGOR: Look, I’m statesmanlike. Statesmanlike. I’ll say this. We are peaceful. We are not harmless.
TUCKER CARLSON: In a normal country, people wouldn’t put up with that.
CONOR MCGREGOR: We move under God and we let God guide us. We’re capable of many things. We’re capable of many things as a great nation, as a great people, and we move under God.”

Tucker fails to ask some obvious questions: why didn’t McGregor run in the local elections or the national elections last year? A hundred euro deposit and a thousand votes will get you a council seat. Five hundred euros and ten thousand votes will get you a parliament seat. That’s water under the bridge now, of course. He could have asked about the habit of females making false rape allegations. He could have asked about McGregor’s enthusiasm for COVID lockdowns (“bring in the army”). He could have asked him: You wished the Jews “Happy Hanukkah”. Are you going to wish the Palestinians “Happy Easter”?

TUCKER CARLSON: And you think of Ireland as like a very religious country. It’s not really anymore. Do you think it’s becoming more spiritually aware or less?

CONOR MCGREGOR: Yeah, for sure. Do you see?
TUCKER CARLSON: You feel that?
CONOR MCGREGOR: Yeah, for sure. It’s spiritual warfare going on right here. War. 100%. Yes. And we fancy our chances. We fancy our chances in a big way.

They say that the one thing the devil doesn’t like is being mocked. McGregor went into the Dublin HQ of the local devil-worshipping franchise and mocked them, insulted them and — perfectly legally — threatened them…
If someone gave McGregor money to be controlled opposition, maybe they should ask for a refund?

Beir bua!