Why Nobody Cares:

White nationalists often wonder why regular Americans don't seem to have any sense of urgency. White nationalists look at several trend lines that end at armageddon, and they also see several current-day realities that would seem eminently objectionable. Between the two, one would think that Americans would be far more politically motivated to embrace change, and far less likely to embrace the status quo.

What are the reasons for apathy in the modern world? Obviously the strongest force for apathy is how meaningless it is even if you do care. An individual is powerless to change the world. Opposing the status quo is a thankless task that ultimately has no reward. Only if there's some visible chance of success for an entrenched policy or government to be changed could anyone be motivated to involve themselves politically. Even if someone is convinced that all trends point to armageddon and all sorts of current day realities are less than optimal, if there is no chance for change then the best answer remains to ignore it all and go about your daily life.

Sentiments such as these can bubble under a closed lid for decades, only to finally emerge triumphant in sudden strokes when individuals realize a critical momentum has been reached and the country only needs one good push for all their political dreams to be realized. Such was the Bolshevik revolution, or the more recent revolution in Tunisia. People in Russia and Tunisia didn't suddenly realize they disliked the Tzar or the President-for-Life. They suddenly realized that the institutions were weak enough that their meager power as an individual might be enough to topple said regimes. Apathy is just another word for prudence. Is it possible that if individuals had been a bit more courageous and self-sacrificial, they could have slightly sped up the time-line of revolution and change in their countries? Would people have rallied behind their good example and the critical momentum have been reached? Perhaps. But why risk it? Better to watch and wait until public sentiment is clear and something really can be done. Even the USSR was taken down eventually, even if it meant 50 years of 'bad trends and awful present-day realities,' by simply watching and waiting for a time public sentiment wouldn't take it anymore.

However, bad trends usually don't lead to awful present-day realities. The day always arrives where 'what cannot go on, will not go on.' It's a law of nature that trends can't continue indefinitely. It's a law of nature that people won't endure present day hardships, if they are sufficiently awful, forever. If life gets bad enough, public sentiment will respond, however lethargically.

This is why crime rates, which had spiked in the 1970's-1990's, roused public sentiment and created a backlash of tough criminal penalties and laxer gun control laws. Once the new balance had been worked out, crime had returned to its earlier 1960's levels, and public sentiment dissipated over the issue of crime. New York City isn't a dangerous place to live anymore, so no one is running on the issue or worrying about it anymore. This is why a bad trend line is so meaningless. Something that is currently fine, but will eventually become bad in the far future, can always be dealt with in the far future once it's actually become bad. Until then, who cares?

It's not true that some trend lines are 'irreversible.' Global Warming could be reversed, after the fact, by sucking CO2 out of the air, or geoengineering, or who knows what. Currently, global warming has been a net positive, since excessive cold is more damaging to the world than excessive heat, and excessive CO2 actually helps crops grow and leads to higher agricultural yields. There are negative feedback loops almost everywhere in Nature, otherwise life would have become insupportable on Earth long ago. The idea that we're stuck in a vicious cycle makes good headlines but is highly unlikely, since the Earth has gone through periods of much warmer temperature and much higher CO2 concentrations and life somehow survived those times too. Not only did the Earth survive, it reversed those 'trends' and plunged the world into subsequent ice ages.

The same is true of mass immigration, or dysgenics. These trends aren't irreversible, no matter how long they go on, because states can always switch over to mass deportations, secession, segregation, space colonization, genetic engineering and/or eugenics later, when the issues really do become relevant. If our predictions are right and people really will suffer massively from, say, a hostile Muslim population in their midst, public sentiment would crest about the issue and correct the mistake at that time. When Germany felt hard enough pressed, it elected Hitler. If humanity can elect Hitler when push comes to shove, I'm sure it can also elect or appoint less dramatic leaders to put into place less dramatic solutions too. For example, Geert Wilders' PVV is nearly the most popular party in the Netherlands.

It's not even true that a non-white majority is an irreversible trend because it could no longer be voted away, because in an armed conflict whites are generally worth any 10 non-whites. Furthermore, whites make so much more money than non-whites, that the real movers and shapers of the country would remain whites no matter how small a minority they became. Just like how Chinese diasporas control the majority of the money in countries where they are the minority, and are equally or more powerful than the majority populations around them. Just like how jews aren't inconvenienced by being a mere 2% of the population of America and remain 50% of America's billionaires. Numbers just don't amount to much without taking the quality of different groups into account.

No matter how nightmarish the scenario, I can point to a contemporary or historical situation that mirrored said nightmare and was still a decent place to live, or a reversible situation that led to a revolution that solved the contested issues. If nothing else, nations that rule themselves too poorly will eventually be conquered and resettled by more successful groups. Nothing is unsalvageable, irreversible, or unlivable in this world. To say some imagined bad trend would lead to such a result underestimates humanity.

Let's trust whites to act when the time is right. The people of the future will know exactly when life becomes unbearable, and at that time they will cease to bear the burdens of 'diversity,' 'socialism,' 'global warming,' 'peak oil,' or whatever our apocalyptic fear is. Until then, worrying about it is a waste of time. The danger has not yet lowered people's standard of living to even be noticeable in modern life. European and American history does not present an image of helpless spineless idiot masses ready to be abused and tyrannized over forever in irredeemable positive feedback loops. Tarquin learned his lesson in Rome, Louis the XVI in France, and Tzar Nicholas II in Russia. Europeans don't meekly suffer forever. We are the least biddable race on Earth, and the most fearsome to tyrants.

People would be more sympathetic to us if we worried about issues that actually did harm their quality of life instead of ones we merely project someday might. Polls show that Americans want a solution to unemployment, not immigration, and not global warming. That solution is the citizen's dividend. We can't give people jobs that no longer exist, because they have been mechanized or shipped overseas. But what we can give people is the same dignity and minimum standard of living they enjoyed before they were unemployed. It's the only solution. There are no viable alternatives. If we constantly worried about the plight of the insecure in our country -- elderly who may not receive money from a bankrupt social security system they've paid into all their lives, runaway health care costs in the midst of fifty million uninsured people, the 20% of Americans who are unemployed and can't find work no matter how hard they look for it, young couples who can't afford to buy a home or start a family like their parents could at much earlier ages, rising divorce and illegitimacy rates that disadvantage helpless innocent children and break a lot of people's hearts along the way, a debt that must be paid down or reneged on before mere interest on it takes up our entire tax revenue, endless counter-productive wars and defense spending far beyond the purposes of self-defense. . . maybe people would pay attention because they would have a reason to pay attention.

Contemporary solutions to contemporary problems. Solutions that aren't as painful or disruptive as the problems themselves. This is what people want, this is what they are willing to hear. The citizen's dividend, and the corresponding cuts in other government spending that make it possible, could solve all of the problems listed above. All of them. One of the main causes of divorce is financial insecurity. One of the main causes of single motherhood is that welfare benefits support single but not married couples. One of the main reasons people no longer marry and birthrates are below replacement is because they don't have enough money in their 20's. We are a rich country, with $46,000 per person to work with. With a little redistribution, we could solve all economic and social ills in the country, practically overnight. In fact, we are currently redistributing more money than the citizen's dividend would demand from us. The difference is the redistribution is going to the wrong places and in the wrong, most inefficient of manners. When you give charity to people on the basis of how awful their lives are, people are incentivized to lead terrible lives. If you give them a base line of charity, that they must husband carefully and see that it meets all of their needs, they will be incentivized towards prudence and healthy living.

Social Security is a ponzi scheme -- a well known bad method of wealth redistribution. The citizen's dividend would be paid out every year out of taxes collected that year. No IOU's, no defaults, no cut in benefits later. The citizen's dividend would be the first truly secure retirement plan. Furthermore, social security has a low rate of return. If the money had been invested by, say, forward looking individuals who wanted to turn their citizen's dividend savings into plump retirement accounts, they could have grown the US economy while at the same time assuring themselves a higher standard of living down the line.

Medicare makes it painless to the individual to engage in useless medical care for terminally ill patients. Over 50% of health care spending occurs in the last year of someone's life. The government is distorting the market by subsidizing end of life care so heavily. The citizen's dividend would allow even 20 year olds, even unemployed people, to buy catastrophic health insurance, but it would not try to fund old people's hopeless quest for immortality. It solves all of our modern health care problems, covers everyone truly in need, and for less money than we're currently spending.

Men find work so that they can pick up women. Women find work so that they can dump men. This equation wouldn't be necessary with the citizen's dividend. Men who can't find work could still find love. Women who can't find work wouldn't be trapped in abusive relationships. Women or men who don't want to work can still be a valuable asset to the family as a stay at home Mom or Dad, because they always bring in at least their fair share from the citizen's dividend. If men and women didn't compete with each other so fiercely over jobs, the labor market would tighten and wages would rise for the first time since 1970, giving those who Do work higher rewards.

None of this happens via current wealth redistribution. Food stamps, hud housing, medicaid, welfare, social security, medicare -- none of it cures social problems, strengthens our economy, helps our most vulnerable, or solves anything. All current wealth redistribution is of the 'kick the can down the road' variety, encouraging reckless and bad behavior for those it does reach, while letting others despair as they fall through the cracks because their pain wasn't 'legitimate' enough to warrant address. How could it be any other way? Whatever you pay for, you get more of -- whether that's single mothers or end of life care or feckless government IOU's. Only the citizen's dividend keeps the money in the private market where moral, prudent behavior is rewarded. Only the citizen's dividend refuses to subsidize anything so the market isn't distorted and prices remain reasonable. Only the citizen's dividend refuses to discriminate and follows the 14th amendment's spirit of equal protection under the law.

Obviously, a country can't have a citizen's dividend and open borders, because then we would have to pay a dole out to the entire world. Opposition to immigration could be framed as a simple necessity for the sake of the citizen's dividend. Rather than racism, opposing open borders would become a matter of citizenism -- protecting our quality of life within the borders of the USA by not trying to stretch our benevolent system past the breaking point of what we can afford. Anyone could understand that. If we want a citizen's dividend for ourselves and our children, if we want the rich to pay enough in taxes to support the rest of us, we can't foist on them the starving billions of India and Africa. No matter how altruistic people are in abstract, they would rarely agree to, say, halve their citizen's dividend for the sake of importing another 100 million poor people that could 'really use it.' People are kind, but they aren't that kind.

So even if all contemporary problems are meaningless and the white nationalist opposition to immigration is the most important policy of our time, people should still campaign not for white nationalism, but the citizen's dividend, which could actually achieve white nationalist's dreams. Don't make Charles Murray stand alone on this issue. Pushing the citizen's dividend is the single greatest gift anyone could give to the modern world. Not only does it help the indigent, not only does it stop immigration and get rid of affirmative action, not only does it end the war between the sexes, not only does it provide true security for an aging population, it even reverses extinction level birth rates. Two birds with one stone? More like 20, or 50. It is a political panacea. It cures everything.