Let’s take a look, today, at geopolitics.

We’ll take a short break from Canada, with how easy that is—even for Canadians—so that we can look at a much wider cultural trend. I’ve never really thought about this particular trend before because I, as the author of this work, will admit to never having placed any particular stock in what celebrities and elites did or thought. To me, it never mattered. Nothing about them mattered except what they could do for me; and on rare occasions, they could entertain. I’m going to make the case that the Great Mass (of which we are all part, in some way) trends enough toward adulation that they can be led ruinously astray by this elite caste whose interests are bought and paid for—just like anyone.

First, go and watch this. 

Now personally, I like Meryl. Came from nothing, beat her way to the top and now stays there because no one can topple her—that’s pure capitalism. That’s legitimate power, ability and yes, while the entire industry of Hollywood is built on sustaining these people and their market value once they reach that point, it still says something about Streep that she can stick it out up there near the top echelons for, what has it been? Twenty, thirty years?

Very impressive stuff.

This does not mean she is smart, historically literate, contextually capable or most importantly? Unbiased.

Meryl and her friends are continuously trying to convince you to ruin yourselves and your country, and the country your children would inherit if you could afford them, usually through dysgenics.

There’s a series of issues with someone this rich and stable trying to explain to other people why they should be less rich and stable. It’s an idea that I’m not sure the Great Mass fully considers before they begin to make decisions for the entire nation.

So there’s this—I saw it on my FaceBook feed today—idea that “if you have a lot of stuff you should build a longer table instead of a taller fence,” kind of idea. The problem with that idea in terms of absolute definition is that having a lot of stuff is totally relative. Our homeless people, here in Canada, have a lot more stuff than your middle-class person in Russia, even if all you do is count the government services most of them are entitled to.

However, in Keysian economics, that means absolutely nothing. Canadians in particular owe two and a half dollars to each dollar they earn, as a general trend—that’s with income tax, mortgages, car loans and household debt. The thing about the “modern” economy is that it has mostly to do with paying the interest on all the loans that make living possible. Most of us have almost no disposable income at all, put in concrete terms. All we’re doing when we’re not paying debts is putting off paying debts.

In further contrast, we are all basically homeless compared to people like Meryl Streep and JK Rowling, for another example of some of the worst for the proliferation of the type of idea I’m about to explain.

So here’s what a celebrity like Ms. Streep or Ms. Rowling are telling you to do when they exhort you to “help out” and “save lives.”

Here’s what it means when the fallacy of natives to Western countries being more fortunate than others is deployed like a weapon against people who have no particular reason to worry about how people are doing in other places.

They’re asking you to burden yourselves with things you can’t afford by getting the government to do it for you—and get this, you still can’t afford it.

They are telling you that the government has money, and can afford to do things with it.

Actually, the government has absolutely no money. The government costs money. Go and look. The federal, provincial and municipal budgets in Canada are absolutely enormous compared to their revenues; at this exact moment, the federal budget alone is going to add one hundred eighteen billion dollars onto the national debt across the next four years.

The current gross domestic product of Canada was one and a half trillion American dollars in 2015. Imagine how much the governments of various levels are costing us that we can’t afford to even do all the things they want to do?

So, here’s a look at how just the federal budget breaks down, courtesy of the Globe and Mail. You can see the overspending is legitimate.

Now, when Streep or Rowling or whoever else starts trying to get you to force your government to take up more money, spend more on taking in refugees, or foreign aid, or human rights interventions, or whatever else it happens to be, you have to understand what a selfish act this is for them.

For two women (and that’s taking just them rather than the total value of the Hollywood-elite who always prompt the middle class to act in their stead) who are, together, worth about one point one billion American dollars to ask your average citizen to ask their governments to take the fall is obvious.

Government already can’t afford what it’s doing, particularly for us in Canada.

Why am I talking about costs and refugees, I guess you might be asking yourself. Isn’t this a human problem? Shouldn’t we just be helping so we can feel good about helping?

No. No, we should not.

We might, if we had massive sustainable and relatively infinite wealth where it wouldn’t hurt us in the slightest to do so. I have two problems even with that, though. The first is: if we just flood the Middle-East with money, won’t they come after us eventually anyway? Historically, when Rome conquered the known world and improved agriculture, swept away the bandits and improved technology, culture, and global wealth, all that happened is that barbarians began to appear at the gates of Rome. Rome, for the record, was eventually sacked by the Vandals in 404 CE and the Empire collapsed into a period known as the Dark Ages.

The second problem I have with giving money to troubled countries for nothing is: what happens to most people when they get money for free? They spend it immediately. I mean, what did you used to do with your birthday money? How many lottery winners are now extremely successful businessmen or women? I bet you the rates are low.

Stagnation. Like living off welfare. It’s never enough to grow, but never enough for things to hit rock bottom either, which prompts action.

What we want is to have these people help themselves. Refugees are fine if there’s still a war going on, but Syria has a ceasefire. Damascus is hosting a massive return. It’s now fair (actually, it was always fair) to wonder how many of these “refugees” were actually running from war instead of just in search of money and economic opportunity?

The statistics are troubling, especially the ones coming out of Sweden, and the on-the-ground reporting is even worse. Check out Lauren Southern’s work at Rebel Media for more.

So these rich, famous women are asking you to negatively impact your own nation to help extra-nationals. We’re clear on this now, right? The government has no money. It is in fact, insolvent. If we ever stopped paying taxes all at once, the whole thing would immediately fall apart in an eyeblink, because it has no revenue outside of us.

If you look at that Globe and Mail graph again, there’s an ominous black box that just says, “Deficit.”

“Deficit” means inflation and national debt, which is basically like not only taking out a loan, but also agreeing to your money being worth less against that debt later on. If you just print money and push it into the economy, each dollar becomes worth less, and prices rise as products (which remain in the same amount of supply) become worth more dollars.

Cost of living goes up, and taxes rise to pay for property and corporate expenses (who just wind up pushing the increased cost of manufacturing goods to their consumers, which starts to drive purchasers out of business for not being able to afford or fulfill demand) skyrocket.

When you think about it that way, it’s a terrible idea. If every thousand refugees increased your gas bill by $5, would you still want them coming in?

No one talks about this, though, but why not? Because it’s cold-hearted, and draconic? Because you can’t take money with you when you die?

Listen, you’re not taking anything with you when you die—not even the warm, smug feeling of helping people at great personal cost. Money keeps you out of that six-foot-deep hole in the dirt, and it lets you have your own family, of course, which also costs money. Particularly children.

So when Rowling and Streep are asking you, from their stage at the Grammys, surrounded by famous brethren, with the whole room’s net worth being around the total federal budget of your country, you have to ask yourself if they’re going to be helping  out themselves.

If their answer is, “I pay my taxes and therefore my government should do what I want” in some format, you know you’re dealing with a particularly low-grade member of the Great Mass. Our C-average population which sees a problem and immediately tries to fix it without strategy or consideration for the future consequences or the extensions of either the solution or the problem.

If Streep or Rowling personally paid money to bring over refugees to live in their homes and be the responsibility of those women, then yes. Absolutely, exhort people to follow your example, and you would be totally in the right. Private charity is a great thing, and I fully support and respect it.

But trying to guilt or bludgeon or coerce people into tanking their economy, which, because they are the modern version of subsistence farmers, cripples them and cripples their children (prospective though those children may be) much more than it will cripple Streep or Rowling or their progeny—their economic footprint is too vast to be impacted.

Alright so why does it work?

Simple. Adulation.

This person entertained me once. I like her style. She did good work. And look, she worked her way up the ladder and fought and was great and claimed her place in Hollywood. That’s pluck. She’s famous too, so she must know things.

Also look! She’s on a stage at an awards ceremony, surrounded by beautiful, successful people!

This is the type of trash that comes straight out of the C-average lizard brain. It’s the reason people switch sides when rooting for their sports to the more successful teams. We know that people do this because that team’s jerseys start selling extremely well.

We follow success because we want to be successful. The problem is that blindly following the successful just means you wind up walking into stuff. It’s the classic case of the siren song, luring sailors to their doom in stormy seas. The promise of success—particularly via association, which carries no cost in effort or misery or repetitious failures—is very alluring and must always be fought against.

What do you do if you carry power like this? Like Streep?

Me, I’d still be writing this blog. But I also want to give a shout out to someone named Joy Villa, who totally outdid herself at those Grammys this year. There’s nothing like a solid shot of culture shock injected into an event like this. It reminds us that even if a famous person says they support migrants and foreign aid and liberalism as a whole, their actual attitudes might be totally different.

Look, famous people are not really different than you. Their resources are also finite, and constantly threatening to run out. What happens when Streep is ugly, and too old? Or gets palsy? Or something else which threatens her acting ability.

She’s gonna need a support base, isn’t she, to keep her in comfort and hooked up to whatever medicines or technology she’ll require. So she needs those famous people to still like her by then.

More, she wants to keep making money now, against that possibility. So she needs to be acceptable to Hollywood. Hollywood, if you take a look around for oh, the split second it takes for some ranting by DeNiro or Emma Stone or some other demagogue to catch your attention, is extremely communistic at the current moment.

So what are these women doing?

Hedging their bets, while killing every country they can reach with the voice. Their hands covered in blood, our Hollywood sirens try to steer the Great Mass towards its death.

I’ll hook back, here at the end. Is it all about immigration, right now? Yes, it is. It really is. Western economies are all at the brink of collapse, particularly as the Americans swing about wildly looking for a way to bail themselves out of what might be a hundred-thirty trillion USD debt which, if anyone ever calls even .2% of it, will immediately destroy them.

We cannot afford anything anymore. We do not have plenty. We cannot build a longer table to accommodate more mouths, because we cannot feed the mouths that we already have. If the federal budget didn’t convince you, Canadians, nothing is going to.

If you really think, though, that we need to save people in countries who never bothered trying to fix those countries so that they could save themselves, take them in yourself. Find some Syrian people who need homes, pay for them yourself. Buy them groceries, and power, and get them jobs, and find them girlfriends (rape rates in Sweden have skyrocketed at the time of this writing from 2012, and can be linked to migrant activity) and so forth.

That’d be great. You get that warm glow of satisfaction as you pay for people you can’t afford without dooming the rest of us. Remember, money doesn’t follow you into the afterlife.

Ignore sirens. Get the facts. Don’t worry about identity politics, and remember to discuss everything with everyone.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s