Your Bloodstained iPhone

The Hypocrisy of the Neoliberal Left

I’m not a big fan of globalism (I consider myself a nationalist and a proud Western supremacist) but one of the few benefits of our current neoliberal paradigm is that whenever I get attacked online by some moralizing Leftist telling me that I’m a Mean Person for not feeling any white guilt or not being a good feminist ally or not supporting trans people privately “mentoring” kids, I can simply point out the fact that they are typing their critique of my morals on an electronic device that poor people in a foreign country died to produce. For example, here’s a picture of a teenage mom in the Democratic Republic of the Congo putting her baby into a cardboard box so that she can dig for the cobalt used to make batteries for your smartphone. When any Leftist tries to lecture me about my “white privilege,” I like to remind them that they’re personally enabling the modern-day slavery of black people in Africa just so they can type snarky comments at me on their iPhone… so who’s the real “white supremacist” here?

This teenage mother knows that her struggle is worth it if it allows modern Lefists to be able to lecture people like me on Reddit about the evils of transphobic Wrongthink

However, as I’ve said in the past, it’s wrong to criticize an existing paradigm if you don’t have a better alternative to it. I use technology just like everybody else does, and I have no intention of returning to the Stone Age just so I can live in alignment with my values. Fortunately, I don’t have to. Unlike the hypocritical neoliberals who overpopulate our society, my morals are perfectly aligned with my behavior, so I never need to worry about accusations of hypocrisy. Unlike globalists, I have a solution to the problem of modern day slavery which will actually work and is scalable, so I have the moral high ground to criticize them all I want, but they can’t effectively criticize me in return except by making up lies about me; something that they routinely do to all of their ideological opponents.

I don’t mean to suggest that neoliberal globalists don’t care about modern day corporate slavery: many of them genuinely do. It’s just that their approach to solving it is so naive and bipolar that it causes many more problems than it solves. Even the most intelligent and well-spoken globalists are blind to the failure modes of their own ideology. For example, if I were to talk to a globalist thought leader like Klaus Schwab or George Soros about the evils of exploitative business practices in Africa, they would tell me that they are very much concerned about it as well. In fact, they would undoubtedly tell me that they have a plan to solve it! Klaus would patiently sit me down and explain to me that by providing financial aid to African countries like the DRC, we can gradually eliminate poverty, reducing the need for unfortunate women like this to perform such dangerous and hazardous work for trifling amounts of money. And by directing venture capital investments towards ESG-compliant companies, we can gradually eliminate such immoral business practices, so that companies in third-world countries only do business in an ethical and non-exploitative way.

The globalist plan sounds very good in theory, but sadly, it falls apart at first contact with reality. Does providing financial aid to Africa really benefit women like this? Of course it doesn’t. The level of corruption that many African nations experience is incredibly high, and the vast majority of the financial aid that globalist politicians provide to African nations like the DRC gets appropriated by armed soldiers with rifles, to help prop up the local warlords and petty dictators who hold power in these backwards countries. Some of them routinely rape the women who perform this kind of backbreaking labor. So the idea that increasingly large financial aid packages to Africa will solve the problem of modern day slavery is delusional at best, and deceptive at worst. Furthermore, the ever-increasing amounts of financial aid that get funneled into these tinpot dictatorships could be used more effectively to solve poverty at home. For example, did you know that there are entire communities in the United States without access to working septic systems? It’s true. A large swath of U.S. citizens live in third-world conditions while our globalist elites insist on constantly giving more and more “financial aid” to corrupt third world dictatorships. Why are the people in charge of our government using our tax money so inefficiently? If our financial aid actually benefited people like the unfortunate woman mentioned earlier then I could see a valid case being made that it’s a good thing for us to contribute to more backwards nations, but instead, our financial aid to foreign countries is just being used to fund corrupt local dictators and their paramilitary rape-gangs. I would much rather see my tax dollars spent on helping American citizens who are currently stuck in third-world poverty.

The other part of globalist ideology that is misleading is their insistence that ESG compliance genuinely helps redirect capital to companies that are improving the world. Is that really true? If ESG ratings genuinely determine the positive impact of a company, then why is it that the world’s first electric-car company - Tesla - is considered to be “poorly compliant” with ESG standards, while Exxon - the company that brought us some of pollution’s greatest hits - is ranked as one of the top ESG companies? That doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense. It’s almost as if the ESG ratings are nothing but a cynical attempt by our globalist elites to control capital markets so that they can financially destroy anybody who threatens their agenda while rewarding corporations that stay aligned with them.

In short, globalists don’t really have any good plans for improving the world. They have a slick ideological narrative which they propagate that explains how the policies which benefit them personally are conveniently supposed to benefit everybody else too, but just the tiniest amount of critical thought is enough to see through this transparent lie. Ironically enough, the only fragment of globalist ideology which makes any logical sense is the self-serving part which they will never say out loud: namely, the fact that the Western world needs electronics and batteries in order to maintain our industrial level of technology, and failing to secure our ability to obtain these things would lead to an supply-chain collapse of epic proportions, which would result in mass death for both the United States and Europe. (Covid gave us just the tiniest taste of what such a supply-chain failure would look like, but the full scope of such an event would be far worse.) Globalists know this is true but they’ll never publicly talk about it because the level of virtue-signalling in our society has gotten so intense that they would be vilified and hated simply for revealing the cold hard facts of how our economy works. In other words, they don’t want to discuss reality because they’re afraid that a bunch of NPCs on Twitter will whine at them.

The fact is that if you genuinely want to improve the living conditions of people like the unfortunate woman in this photo, the best way to do so is not through financial aid packages alone, but by addressing the root cause of her problem: namely, rolling into her country with massive military force, killing the corrupt dictators in charge of her backwards society, and replacing them with more competent governors. Obviously we couldn’t install permanent governors in charge of these countries, because that would be colonialism and we would only be replacing one kind of slavery with another. But we could easily put them on some sort of twelve-year plan to instill their country with Western values before integrating them into the U.S. as a fully fledged state. If people like this woman were fully fledged citizens of the U.S.A., it would be impossible for the United States to exploit them, because they would have Senators and Congressmen representing their interests in our government. After all, it is very easy for large multinational corporations to exploit poor enslaved foreigners whose leaders they have bribed into compliance, but it is much harder for them to exploit free citizens of the United States who have political representation and demand fair treatment. Another advantage of this plan is that by integrating these countries into ours, we would be able to permanently secure access to the resources that our society needs in order to prevent disruption to our technological supply chain.

Neoliberals and Leftists hate this plan, because it reveals the biggest weakness of their psychology: a pathological dependancy on the status quo and a reluctance to think outside the box. If I proposed this plan to a neoliberal propagandist like Klaus Schwab, he would undoubtedly scoff at it and tell me that I needed some education about the “Principle of Westphalian Sovereignity” which the United Nations is based upon. For those of you who are less historically inclined, the principle of Westphalian Sovereignity essentially states that every nation in the world has the right to self-determination. This means that as long as a country was set up by its own people, no foreign power has the right to intervene with their self-governance, no matter how brutal, backwards, or evil their government may be. Klaus would gently explain to me that the principle of Westphalian Sovereignity is the only thing stopping our world from plunging into the abyss of a dangerous power struggle where “might makes right” is the rule of the day, and where great powers fight to control as much territory as possible in order to head off potential threats from rivals. If we were to abandon this principle, then other great powers like China or Russia would abandon it also, triggering a power struggle that would be both bloody and disastrous.

Of course, what Klaus’s patronizing villainous monologue would completely fail to take into account is the fact that the other great powers of the world have already abandoned the principle of Westphalian Sovereignity. Russia showed no hesitation in annexing Ukraine, and China is already drawing up plans to invade Taiwan, gradually ratcheting up their rhetoric so that they can more easily justify the coming invasion in the eyes of their citizens. In other words, we are already in a bloody power struggle, and the only real question is whether our politicians choose to acknowledge that reality and proactively deal with it, or whether they wish to continue denying reality while our geopolitical rivals devour this planet one country at a time until they control literally everything and our nation’s greatness is extinguished forever. This is why I like to refer to the Treaty of Westphalia as “the Treaty of Western Failure” - because in reality, the principles laid out in that treaty are nothing more than a blueprint for how to make Western civilization gradually collapse.

Another objection that Klaus might raise is that it would be extremely difficult for the U.S. to maintain control over distant territories, particularly in the early stages of the occupation, when insurrections and insurgencies would be at an all-time high. After all, we were barely able to hold Afghanistan, and the government that we spent decades installing collapsed almost immediately after we pulled out. But I am very skeptical of this line of reasoning. If asserting direct control of third world countries (that are technologically thirty years behind us) is really so hard, then why was the British Empire able to do it with such ease? They didn’t have the huge technological lead over these countries that we do. All they had were muskets and ships, while we have drones and stealth bombers. Heck, we could field fully automated soldiers very quickly if we wanted to. The only real advantage that the British Empire had over us is that they actually did assume direct control, whereas we have an irrational need to install local puppet governments to do our bidding. Why do we constantly have to go through middlemen like this? It’s highly inefficient, and severely hinders our goals. The only reason we follow this protocol is because of the principle of Westphalian Sovereignity, a self-inflicted handicap that our geopolitical rivals ignore, while they privately laugh at us for being naive enough to disadvantage ourselves in this manner.

It’s possible that I’m being a little unfair to our military. To be honest, another major advantage that the British Empire’s military forces had over our own troops is that they had fewer rules of engagement, while our military has so many restrictions and regulations (designed mostly to safeguard our enemies well-being rather than the lives of our own soldiers) that if you were to print all of these rules out and bind them into a single volume, you could knock a man unconscious with it. In fact, if I were to run for office - something that grows increasingly likely with each passing day as I grow more and more frustrated with the incompetence of our ruling class - then one of the first things I would do upon being elected would be to review the documents guiding our military’s rules of engagement and burn half of them. Our soldiers need more supplies, not more rules.

The point I’m trying to make is that nobody truly wants teenage moms to spend twelve hour days slaving away under the hot sun with their babies in a cardboard box just so that some overprivileged Westerners can type snarky comments on Facebook. The difference between me and the smug Leftists criticizing me is that when I’m typing a Substack post on an electronic device that some innocent person probably died to produce, I understand that this is a bad thing and I actually have an actionable plan to solve this problem, whereas they just enable the people who are causing it.

So… can I count on your vote?