|
|
|
Nationalism and the Money Power The last, volatile twenty-four hours on the trading floors and in the political councils have confirmed for anyone interested in knowing the fact (and many are determined not to know it) that political internationalism is in deep trouble. The European political class appears to be unable to do any more than kick the can down the road. We are probably still two months away from knowing for sure whether any kind of definitive package can be put in place to prevent the Greek government defaulting on debt repayment, or whether such a default would necessarily drag in Portugal, and Portugal Spain. The Euro could not survive such an eventuality, and the European process could not survive the loss of the Euro. It’s something Eurosceptics knew about from the outset, of course, and have been telling the world ever since. But notwithstanding its predictive power and support among the voters, Euroscepticism remains a minority interest at the top of the main parties, in governments and government departments and, inevitably, in the European nomenclature. It is a political conviction fatally divorced from office. There ought to be an opportunity here for political nationalism. This is the time to talk about economics. So what would a nationalist economic policy look like in these times? I’ve been posting the following list, or parts thereof, on various UK national daily threads, just to introduce a few people to the kind of revolutionary ideas that nationalists ought to be exploring. I’m not sure that any nationalist party could seriously propose very much of it at this stage. It’s more than a wish-list, though. The components hang together, and a successful overthrow of the Money Power is the only basis on which our racial goals can be achieved.
Comments:2
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:10 | # Great to be getting back to this! As GW here links to a past euro-financial thread that petered out rather quickly due to the unanticipated (oh, I know, except, according to J Richards, for the Jews) Breivik shootings, I am re-posting some material from that previous thread that is relevant here, too. First, the original Oborne Daily Telegraph article:
When the crash came in October 1929, they felt thoroughly vindicated, and waited for the dust to settle. The following spring, when share prices had consolidated at around a third lower than the all-time high reached the previous year, they reinvested the family savings, probably feeling a bit smug. Then, on April 17, 1930, the market embarked on a second and even more shattering period of decline, by the end of which shares were worth barely 10 per cent of their value at their peak. Those prudent investors who had seen the Wall Street Crash coming were wiped out. There was one crucial message from yesterday’s shambolic and panicky eurozone summit: today’s predicament contains terrifying parallels with the situation that prevailed 80 years ago, although the problem lies (at this stage, at least) with the debt rather than the equity markets. After the catastrophe of 2008, many believed and argued – as others did in 1929 – that it was a one-off event, which could readily be put right by the ingenuity of experts. The truth is sadly different. The aftermath of that financial debacle, like the economic downturn after 1929, falls into a special category. Most recessions are part of the normal, healthy functioning of any market economy – a good example is the downturn of the late 1980s. But in rare cases, they are far more sinister, because their underlying cause is a structural imbalance which cannot be solved by conventional means. Such recessions, which tend to associated with catastrophic financial events, are dangerous because they herald a long period of economic dislocation and collapse. Their consequences stretch deep into the realm of politics and social life. Indeed, the 1929 crash sparked a decade of economic failure around much of the world, helping bring the Weimar Republic to its knees and easing the way for the rise of German fascism. So we live in a very troubling period. The situation is very bad in the United States, where ratings agencies are threatening the once unimaginable step of downgrading Treasury bonds, and Congress is consumed by partisan wrangling over raising the nation’s debt limit. But it is desperate in Europe, because the situation has been exacerbated by a piece of economic dogma. The faith of leading European politicians and bankers in monetary union, a system of financial government whose origins can be traced back to the set of temporary political circumstances in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, and which was brought to bear without serious economic analysis, is essentially irrational. Indeed, in many ways, the euro bears comparison to the gold standard. Back in 1929, politicians and central bankers assumed that the convertibility of national currencies into gold (defined by the economist John Maynard Keynes as a “barbaric relic”) was a law of nature, like gravity. European politicians have developed the same superstitious attachment to the single currency. They are determined to persist with it, no matter what suffering it causes, or however brutal its economic and social consequences. There is only one way of sustaining this policy, as the International Monetary Fund argued ahead of yesterday’s summit in Brussels. Admittedly, the IMF should not be regarded as an impartial arbiter. Theoretically, its responsibilities stretch around the globe, but it has become the plaything of a reactionary European elite, of whom its latest managing director, Christine Lagarde (a dreadful and backward-looking choice), is the latest manifestation. However, the IMF was entirely correct when it pointed out that the only conceivable salvation for the eurozone is to impose greater fiscal integration among member states. This advice was finally being taken yesterday – and it is almost impossible to overestimate the importance of the decision which European leaders seemed last night to be reaching. By authorising a huge expansion in the bail-out fund that is propping up the EU’s peripheral members (largely in order to stop the contagion spreading to Italy and Spain), the eurozone has taken the decisive step to becoming a fiscal union. So long as the settlement is accepted by national parliaments, yesterday will come to be seen as the witching hour after which Europe will cease to be, except vestigially, a collection of nation states. It will have one economic government, one currency, one foreign policy. This integration will be so complete that taxpayers in the more prosperous countries will be expected to pay for the welfare systems and pension plans of failing EU states. This is the final realisation of the dream that animated the founders of the Common Market more than half a century ago – which is one reason why so many prominent Europeans have privately welcomed the eurozone catastrophe, labelling it a “beneficial crisis”. David Cameron and George Osborne have both indicated that they, too, welcome this fundamental change in the nature and purpose of the European project. The markets have rallied strongly, hailing what is being seen as the best chance of a resolution to the gruelling and drawn-out crisis. It is conceivable that yesterday’s negotiations may indeed save the eurozone – but it is worth pausing to consider the consequences of European fiscal union. First, it will mean the economic destruction of most of the southern European countries. Indeed, this process is already far advanced. Thanks to their membership of the eurozone, peripheral countries such as Greece and Portugal – and to an increasing extent Spain and Italy – are undergoing a process of forcible deindustrialisation. Their economic sovereignty has been obliterated; they face a future as vassal states, their role reduced to the one enjoyed by the European colonies of the 19th and early 20th centuries. They will provide cheap labour, raw materials, agricultural produce and a ready market for the manufactured goods and services provided by the far more productive and efficient northern Europeans. Their political leaders will, like the hapless George Papandreou of Greece, lose all political legitimacy, becoming local representatives of distant powers who are forced to implement economic programmes from elsewhere in return for massive financial subventions. While these nations relapse into pre-modern economic systems, Germany is busy turning into one of the most dynamic and productive economies in the world. Despite the grumbling, for the Germans, the bail-outs are worth every penny, because they guarantee a cheap outlet for their manufactured goods. Yesterday’s witching hour of the European Union means that Germany has come very close to realising Bismarck’s dream of an economic empire stretching from central Europe to the Eastern Mediterranean. History has seen many attempts to unify Europe, from the Habsburgs to the Bourbons and Napoleon. This attempt is likely to fail, too. Indeed, a paradox is at work here. The founders of the European Union were driven by a vision of a peaceful new world after a century of war. Yet nothing could have been more calculated to create civil disorder and national resistance than yesterday’s demented move to salvage the single currency. 3
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:15 | # And now, my previous responses: Oborne is right, I think, that the EU’s current (mis)management of its financial crisis is inexorably leading the monetary union towards fiscal union. He is also correct that such union would lead to Northern countries’ assumption of Southern pension liabilities. Beyond that, he is not that “clear-sighted” at all. 1. Most recessions are part of the normal, healthy functioning of any market economy Wrong. While minor, region-specific or sector-specific booms and subsequent busts are always possible in advanced economies, economy-wide recessions are ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE monetary phenomena (as Rothbard once put it) caused by central banks. 2. the 1929 crash sparked a decade of economic failure around much of the world Wrong. It was the central government’s meddlesome responses (at least in the US, to my knowledge, though probably also elsewhere) that transformed what ought to have been a short, sharp recession, itself caused by the loose Fed monetary policies of the 20s, into a prolongued depression. 3. The situation is very bad in the United States, where ratings agencies are threatening the once unimaginable step of downgrading Treasury bonds, and Congress is consumed by partisan wrangling over raising the nation’s debt limit. Not exactly. The economic situation is bad in the US mostly because of the actions of the Fed and especially the Obama admin since the 2008 crash (though we do face horrible, long-term fiscal imbalances in our useless ‘entitlement’ programs, but which are endogenous to these programs, and thus not Obama’s fault). Had the Fed simply allowed for a short, sharp depression, we would already be growing out of it. But by its insane, inflationist policy of money debasement (“quantitative easing”), the Fed has partially delayed the economy’s final reckoning with the badly distorted housing market (the root of our problems, again caused solely by a web of governmental policies, laws, and monetary actions). This, in combination with the huge, $814 billion waste of the 2009 Obama “stimulus”, whose purpose and effect was to transfer huge amounts of private sector wealth to state governments so that they could bail out various statist (and Democratic) constituencies which rely on govt paychecks and welfare checks, as well as Obama’s strident, anti-business, anti-capitalist rhetoric (strangely echoed to some extent around MR), is why our current economic performance is so anemic. The Congressional debt-wrangling is, long-term, a very good thing, however. The fundamental battle is always between the economic rationality and proper incentives to productivity of the for-profit sector, and the constant waste of socialism and chronic distortions produced by regulations of all varieties. What this debt battle is really about is stopping America’s further slide into a socialist economy. That outcome is far more important than even a realized debt downgrade. 4. in many ways, the euro bears comparison to the gold standard Wrong. The only comparison is that both are seen to create large markets benefitting from avoiding the problems, costs and calculational uncertainties associated with doing business in different currencies. The euro (and the present dollar) is pure fiat money, its value totally at the whim of government officials. The gold standard was “the people’s money”, its ultimate value determined by freely transacting individuals. the “true euro” would be a market-determined, international gold standard, such as existed in the 19th century. 5. the eurozone has taken the decisive step to becoming a fiscal union ... This integration will be so complete that taxpayers in the more prosperous countries will be expected to pay for the welfare systems and pension plans of failing EU states. Correct - and a very bad thing - but not for Greece et al. 6. This is the final realisation of the dream that animated the founders of the Common Market more than half a century ago True? I don’t think so, though my EU history is not great. They wanted a common currency to facilitate trade, which in turn was assumed would bind the countries with economic incentives, and so avoid future wars. 7. but it is worth pausing to consider the consequences of European fiscal union. First, it will mean the economic destruction of most of the southern European countries. Indeed, this process is already far advanced. Thanks to their membership of the eurozone, peripheral countries such as Greece and Portugal – and to an increasing extent Spain and Italy – are undergoing a process of forcible deindustrialisation. This is ridiculous. If Germany is required to bail out the pensions and many of the public costs of these unproductive Southern countries, that can hardly be called “economic destruction”. It’s more like a forced gift. China is helping to prop up the American welfare state. Without that Chinese investment in Treasury paper, we would either have to severely curtail our federal entitlement programs (which might actually be a good thing long-term, but not in a short-term economic sense), raise interest rates, raise taxes, or tolerate much greater inflation. China is helping us live beyond our means. And would southern deindustrialization be so bad? If the countries were all part of a single fiscal bloc, and Germany were so much more industrially efficient that it came to dominate manufacturing within the union, so what? How is that bad for Southerners? They will benefit economically from German productivity. The law of comparative advantage is lurking around here. 8. Their economic sovereignty has been obliterated In what sense was their economic sovereignty a good thing? If German domination forces Southerners to run more efficient, less corrupt, less socialistic, and more transparent economies, so what? Southerners’ problems are mostly due to their own gross fiscal and economic mismanagement. Who could possibly argue with the idea that many black-run American cities and townships would be better off being stripped of their sovereignty, and then taken over and managed by more distant, white-run governing structures? 9. Despite the grumbling, for the Germans, the bail-outs are worth every penny, because they guarantee a cheap outlet for their manufactured goods. Wrong. Germany doesn’t need such a “guarantee”. If their products are good, people everywhere will demand them. But the bailouts constitute real money being taken from German taxpayers, now or in the future. As always, German taxpayers will be the big losers here. European banks will win, as will southern populations, able to avoid reckoning with their profligate, statist ways. Finally, I understand why European ethnonationalists might oppose a European superstate. But where’s the problem for those of us who are racial nationalists? 4
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 24 Sep 2011 10:03 | # @Haller Given your commitment to methodological individualism and libertarian economics it’s funny how everything that goes wrong is always someone else’s fault. Terrible Governments etc., of course letting the entire banking system collapse would have being a great lesson in ‘moral hazard’ but perhaps not the most pragmatic policy response. Seriously your obvious and superficial ideological ‘deformities’ are beyond tedious. I doubt you actually have any real knowledge of economics. Maybe limit your posts in future to “free markets are wonderful and I’m a Hayekian liberal that doesn’t know it” or some such (and throw in “I love the Pope too”). It’s like that buffoon Linder; he wants uber-collective action to set up and enjoy an ultra-libertarian Ayn Rand inspired white ‘micro-state’. He goes about this by telling Mr. & Mrs. Middle American that Jews should be exterminated and shouting ‘nigger’ in the street a lot. Wow victory is inevitable with such a well thought-out and insightful political operation. Try and aim to get at least some first-order degree of political and intellectual coherence. You know that thing called thinking it’s very good for achieving coherence and the like. Let alone some second-order thinking on issues like “how can I made this concept maximally easy and attractive for people”. Now that is just silly, yes? The general asininity of the comment sections in recent days on here has been quite astonishing. Really one could spend a great deal of time and effort to produce a moderately sophisticated and reflective rebuttal to most of it but why bother? Seriously why engage with conspiracy nuts, wannabe neo-Nazi’s, and bitchy ‘drama Queens’ settling balls-achingly dull personal feuds? Yes hyper-liberalism is crazy in many ways but really you don’t fight idiocy of one type with idiocy of another variety. 5
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 24 Sep 2011 10:09 | # Your nationalist economic proposals are OK, but not great, beyond the obvious of ending immigration, and repatriation, which is as much political as economic. The point of a nationalist economic platform is to put economic arrangements in the service of ethnonational preservation and collective advance. We want an economy that moves the vast bulk of deserving people forward, and which is not skewed towards enriching the few at the expense of the many - especially when such enrichment occurs at the expense of longer term prospects for national survival itself (eg, as is the case with immigration and agriculture or construction in the USA, in which the benefits of paying lower wages, due to artificial increases in the national labor supply, are privatized, while the costs associated with said immigration are both socialized, in the form of taxpayer freebies, and nationalized, in the form of reductions in EGI and prospects for national survival). [Immigration is really a negative externality from the pov of the nation itself, perfectly analogous to a factory dumping toxic waste into a local estuary, thus not paying the full costs of production. I think this is an important insight, btw, that isn’t sufficiently recognized or at least expressed among nationalists.] Of course, as befits the very idea of nationalism, there will be no one-size-fits all approach. Each nation will have its policy agenda which, though rooted in a correct understanding of value-free (scientific) economics, will reflect local conditions and priorities (for the nationalist, those begin with ethnonational perpetuity). For example, how should Norway handle its North Sea oil? Who should be allowed to profit from this? On whom or what should the proceeds be spent? Those are open questions, to which there are no right answers, per se (though many wrong ones). But a nationalist would reasonably object if foreign oil consortia (esp sovereign ones, like China’s) were allowed to drill, with such profits as accrue to Norway then being used for foreign aid, or to resettle African refugees in Oslo or Trondheim (to take an extreme and obvious example). The nation’s resources must redound to the (true) nation’s benefit. What the nationalist wants is maximum economic efficiency within the meta-economic parameters of perpetual ethnonational survival, ecological preservation, and material benefits for the deserving national majority. 6
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 24 Sep 2011 10:15 | # @Lister Are you sober at the moment? Really. You screech, and have the effrontery to criticize me for (alleged, but undemonstrated) “political and intellectual coherence”? Or was that Linder you were speaking to? Until you have something substantive to offer on the topic at hand, perhaps you should sit quietly in the corner, and learn from your betters. 7
Posted by Hail on Sat, 24 Sep 2011 11:46 | #
I have heard it said that the stock market crash and the Great Depression in the USA were almost unrelated phenomena. The one did not cause the other, anyway. Ironically, I have read that Germany’s depression of the early 1930s was the direct result of the U.S. stock market crash. Here’s how: (1) 1918: German Empire surrenders after four years of economically-draining war. 8
Posted by Hail on Sat, 24 Sep 2011 11:50 | # On the cause of the German depression: Here is a relevant passage from a highly-recommended book. (See middle paragraph).
10
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 24 Sep 2011 12:59 | # hehehe ... I meant to say INcoherence in my reply to Lister. Hail, Thanks for the reference (and the pdf from anon/uh - I have bookmarked that site - amazing how much great stuff is on the net). The problem with economic history is that it is mostly useless (or at best decriptive, as opposed to explanatory) unless based on the correct economic theoretical paradigm. Read Rothbard, America’s Great Depression (go to mises.org - they’re having a slight sale this month). Of course, I did not say that the stock crash caused the Depression, though they had the same ultimate origin: Federal Reserve monetary policies in the 20s. What should have been a short depression became “Great” because of the asininity of the socialistic New Deal (ie, the kind of state-interventionist, anti-economic + anti-business nonsense favored by the likes of Graham Lister, Obama and their anti-capitalist ilk). 11
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 24 Sep 2011 13:13 | # GW honestly I don’t know how you have the patience to run this site and deal with the 99% of stupidity that passes for debate here. Mr. Haller Seriously you have nothing. I know when people are spouting 3rd hand ideas they read from 2nd rate hacks. It isn’t worth the time and effort to seriously engage in debate here as you are generally incapable and resort to trash talk at a drop of a hat. I have asked you many time about the sociology of religion, serious philosophical/theological questions, asked you about the normative assumption implicit in ‘methodological individualism’ and any other number of substantive questions. Noticeably there is a pattern of you consistently ignoring/forgetting about them (or at best reproducing banality and ‘it’s all too difficult to get into’). Too difficult to think outside the box is it? I admit much of my contributions are off the top of my head, so to speak, and could be much better if I tried but IRL I do actually produce substantive, peer-reviewed scientific work etc., so maybe, just maybe, I can think moderately well. Not like a big Ivy League hotshot obviously but we all have our crosses to bare. You’re going to graduate school - good luck as I think you might need it old chap and I think your academic supervisor certainly will if he or she has any standards. Still getting to the bottom of the whole ‘is meat OK to eat on a Friday?’ ‘issue’ will be a major intellectual achievement. Dr. Lister GW and everyone else - I know, I know, I really will stop rising to the bait, it’s getting tedious now (and I have better things to do). 12
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:15 | # Dr. Lister: Are you for real? I offer a serious opening salvo re the topic at hand (nationalist economics), and what I get is a bunch of near-unintelligible criticism-cum-ad hominem from you (as though I were addressing you in the first place - what “bait” of mine are you rising to?! seems rather the other way, doesn’t it?). I have addressed you re the sociology of religion. I addressed you at some length in the past on economic topics. I have not adequately addressed you re: the alleged normative assumptions of my methodological individualism, though I did mention something on that in passing recently, and frankly, I have nothing to contribute that is original on that particular subject. I follow Mises (type “meth/indiv” at mises.org, and search and read on the topic for yourself - why must I summarize someone else, to whom you can have your own access? my free time is limited). There is a distinct pattern to your mostly unrequested interactions with me. You offer up some very bold assertion, provide little to no argument in defense of it, and then both criticize me for not offering up my own “peer-review”-quality disquisitions on whatever topic is bothering you, while simultaneously implying that I am stupid or ignorant (and often lazily lumping me in with those with whom I am frequently at pains to point out my own disagreements or distance - and then acting like you’ve “discovered” something about me - eg I support free enterprise; ergo, I’m a Randian (totally untrue) or a Hayekian liberal (not true, either); I’m Christian, therefore some kind of Pat Robertson acolyte (no comment)). Where, btw, is your scientific critique of free markets, that I might be the one to criticize? And do you actually think that such comments of yours as you’ve offered here at MR are more insightful or more lucidly written that what I have posted? I swear, pal, you have some kind of weird ‘hard-on’ for me. I rarely criticize or even note you (except in response to critiques initially directed at me). I am reminded of something Rothbard once said in my presence about the mutual hatred of the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks (the implication was that ideologues tend to hate most those who are closest to them, yet subtly different: neocons and paleocons, Greens and labor-socialists, Fabians and Marxists, etc). I think you particularly dislike me because I am: a theist (strike 1), a Christian (strike 2), a Catholic (I’m sure a particular strike 3), a free marketeer (strike 4), and, probably, an American (strike 5). That I am in fact well-educated (nb - I already have a graduate degree; and am currently back in school, as of this month), articulate, and more erudite than many, seems to irritate you still more. I’m not usually given over to psychoanalyzing others, but I suspect that you have a general dislike of “faithists”, “laissez-fairists”, and Americans, and probably resent their presence in nationalist fora. I don’t care if you criticize my ideas, but stop implying intellectual incapacity on my part. I may think your economic views (which I can’t recall your really having developed, incidentally; only that you reject free markets) nonsense, but I certainly haven’t implied you’re literally stupid (foolish, perhaps, in the manner of liberals - “often clever, never wise”). Anyway, feel free to refrain from interacting with me or not, as you prefer. I’m not going anywhere. 13
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:32 | # Dr. Lister: Perhaps you would like to begin your voyage into economic understanding. Best to understand economic fundamentals before seeing how to rearrange the economy so as better to fulfill nationalists aims, wouldn’t you agree? Here’s a recent, simple little piece to help you to start thinking as an economist: 14
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:38 | # Dr. Lister: And here is a classic article, recently re-posted, by that “idiot” Hayek: http://mises.org/daily/5615/The-Use-of-Knowledge-in-Society You really could learn something. 15
Posted by anon / uh on Sat, 24 Sep 2011 15:04 | # Hey Leon, Unusually for me, I took the time this morning to read this post and every word of yours in response, minus what you’ve just said to Graham. My take on the latter is that he’s a competent scientist, with some very interesting things to say, but has a massive media-informed grudge against Americans and especially those who uphold free markets — reading his potshots at “liberals” is a bit like reading a French newspaper. I’m extremely dull-witted so I can’t pretend to understand the first thing about macroeconomics, and consequently can’t opine on how things ought to be, which has always seemed silly to me as national economies don’t care for what I think anyhow, but I am just able to sense that perhaps Graham is not motivated by as pure a grasp of these matters as you are. That is in no way to minimize the man, who is obviously brilliant in his field and rather beyond. But he does fly off the handle on this point, as against a sort of specter of Americanism shared, far more levelly, by Guessedworker. It is a sane thing to suggest that a state founded by and on the principle of unbridled mercantilism is inevitably corrupt and specious as a nation; it is somewhat insane (in a completely logical sense!) to dump on someone for merely speculating on how a free market can be adjusted to suit a renewed national interest. At bottom, then, I believe Graham’s gripe is the unacknowledged opinion shared with Guessedworker that America is not a nation in the organic sense at all, so any discussion of how it may be run as such is laughable and retarded. Now, as in all things, I’m a total nihilist and say your words are so much wasted time / energy, for after all no one in power cares what we think and human affairs are not strictly rational like in your liberal textbooks. What I know of economics is in fact limited to ground-level behavioral finance (Kahnemann & Tversky et al.) so wherever *I* see analyses of “rational markets” blah blah blah I just tune out. It’s good to have some capsule discussion to correct this utterly moronic ADD view of economics, in short. This is curious to me:
How can paying for welfare and pensions be construed as the “dream” of the EU CM founders?? Sounds like a madness the author of the above is retro-projecting onto them. This seems to be confirmed by the next statement that:
Huh? Is this same George Osborne whom
Soooo he’s “committed to cutting the state”, yet “has indicated” that he welcomes a European super-welfare state. Anyhow, your comment of 09:09 is brilliant — I can’t find anything that jars my sensibility. This in particular, I’m sorry to say to you, would warm the hearts of Feder, Darré & the gang:
captcha: cost39 lolzozlozlzozlzozlzlzz 16
Posted by anon / uh on Sat, 24 Sep 2011 15:24 | # Leon, Another thing you want to observe about Graham — ugh, I hate to be so critical of someone I read with pleasure — is that his comments are exactly the same kind that litter British fora across the internet. If you have a look at the Telegraph, Daily Mail, The Times, etc. etc., you’ll find the very same brisk, dismissive style full of breathless ad homines old chap come back when you’ve sorted yourself out thank you very much now f*ck off. This is really how they interact with each other. Remember when Guessedworker admonished that you not “model irony-fail”? It is almost their most distinguishing cultural trait apart from the accents, random fistfights and gardening ability. “You don’t know what the f*ck you;re on about mate shut your gob” has for a Briton the same value as painstaking point-by-point refutation, for which “they can’t be arsed” having “be’a things to do”. Meanwhile Germaine Greer is on “Question Time” equating little girls kissing their fathers goodnight with pedophilia. 17
Posted by Mr Voight on Sat, 24 Sep 2011 16:09 | # You could do worse than to completely mimic Australia’s (domestic and foreign)economic policy pre-1970 . Probably too socialistic and protectionist for the Americans, but it was the cornerstone of the White Australia Policy and kept a majority of the population well off. Opening the markets, floating the dollar etc was what killed us in terms of real wealth, affordable housing and demographics. The only reason we currently remain in a better position than the US and Europe is because of China’s appetite for our resources. 19
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 24 Sep 2011 17:35 | # uh, Graham’s and my common complaint, I believe, is against Americanism, particularly its impact on the old continent as Americanisation - something Enoch Powell railed at all his political life. This is by no means a complaint against Americans. There are, though, some habits of speech among the British, French, Italians and Spanish (not so sure about Germans - maybe Dasein can tell us) in regard to what is said and what is left unsaid which come slap bang up against the American habit of saying everything. Sometimes, the sheer, upfront innocence and sincerity of American religiosity, for example, can leave us amazed that we are the same people. The enthusiasm for material success can also grate somewhat. But no matter. The thing to remember is we are the same people, we face the same existential challenges, those of us with a critique of present times find solutions in the same political badlands. Speaking personally, I’d also add that, without exception, those Americans with whom I’ve come into close contact since starting this blog have been very fine men. Anyway, we are stuck with each other. Might as well make the most of it! 20
Posted by CFE on Sat, 24 Sep 2011 17:59 | # GW:
It looks to me as though the “crisis”, (deliberately engineered), will be used to bring about fiscal union, further consolidation of the de facto European government. The j-box has been talking about little else this week. The problem is described in terms that invite the audience to fill in the answer - stronger European and “global” leadership. Apparently, “we” have six weeks to “save the world”. Even as I write, Evan Davis on BBC R4 has just asked his guest whether the masses will accept European fiscal union. The guest suggested they would not be asked. 21
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 24 Sep 2011 19:55 | # CFE, The “trouble” is that the German, Austrian, Dutch and Finnish economies cannot carry Greece, Ireland, Italy, Spain, and Portugal in perpetuity ... and France and Belgium at least in the short-term. Even if the basic muscle-power existed in Germany, the will of the people doesn’t, and the sense of solidarity with the south doesn’t either. Furthermore, the rate of taxation would have to be so high, it would break the will of even the “disciplined” German worker to work. And then, if that wasn’t enough, the elites haven’t given up on the accession of Turkey to the EU, and beyond Turkey the ME and North Africa (under the Barcelona Process). There is no hope in the process, only slavery. It hasn’t got a chance without (a) a Soviet-style coercive machinery or, (b) a much more extensive deracination of Europe. The former would produce revolution and a second, much wider experiment in nationalism. The latter is still three to four decades into the future. The truth is that the politics of internationalism have run ahead of the economics, and the economics have run ahead of the demographics. It’s gone wrong. It can’t be mended. I think. 22
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 24 Sep 2011 21:14 | # Leon, I estimate that in about a year from now you will come to the realisation that your pragmatic conservative revolution has no revolutionary meaning. You will come to this realisation by way of the prior understanding that, actually, you are advancing not conservatism at all, but the American liberal model. Awhile ago, in our occasional conversations, you stated that, actually, Christianity was not the bottom line for you. The preservation of our people is. That was a worthwhile development, for it acknowledged the true role of faith in service to genetic interests. But there is another question to which you might want to attend, and it is this: if the American liberal model, so wholly dedicated to the quest for liberty as it is, has no “conservative potential”, how can it be the foundation of a conservative revolution? 23
Posted by Ambitious Outsider on Sat, 24 Sep 2011 21:50 | # Now for something completely different… Masterchef Synesthesia by Swede Mason 24
Posted by danielj on Sat, 24 Sep 2011 22:01 | # it would break the will of even the “disciplined” German worker to work. Is the disciplined German anywhere near as disciplined as the average American? I’ve yet to meet a hard working (by my admittedly American standard) European. 25
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 24 Sep 2011 22:02 | # I have nothing against individual Americans - in many ways they are far nicer than people are here in Blighty BUT their ‘worldview’ aka individualist liberalism plus bovine consumerism and disgustingly vapid religiosity is a pretty repulsive brew in toto. Sorry if that offends. And as I have said many times the UK is the most culturally degraded nation in Western Europe. For example, these people make me think retrospective abortions might not be such a bad idea. 26
Posted by danielj on Sat, 24 Sep 2011 22:18 | # Sorry if that offends. And as I have said many times the UK is the most culturally degraded nation in Western Europe. I’m not offended. I see myself (and most here) as above it all. We all have more in common with each other than we do with our fellows. This is why PF is so irked. He knows he’d have more fun with me or Uh than he would with the average Englishman. However, doesn’t disgustingly vapid irreligiosity offend you as deeply? I mean of course, that average folks in England cling tightly and instinctively to their belief that there is no God yet they do so without justification. Also, I’ve noticed there is a kind of madly niggerish consumerism extant in modern England; i.e. osession with brands and keeping one’s kicks clean. 27
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 24 Sep 2011 23:45 | #
I have to concur with Lister that the majority of comments here lately have been a parade of attention whoring, petty grievance mongering and deranged litmus tests; although my assessment is tempered with the understanding that the individuals in question mean well in that they all personally care for the survival of our race as well as the fact that they provided me with some hardy laughs. For myself, the comedic peaks of the ‘Richards thread’ were when GT showed up to upbraid some for their “unvarnished dysfunction” and then proceeded to threaten Linder and Parrott with an ass-kicking for wounding his feelings on an internut discussion board; and when Richards accused Hunter of comporting himself like an “asshat”. LOL. Of course, Graham, you can always do as we say in Amurrica, “If you don’t like what’s on, then change the channel.” P.S. Leon is clearly more intelligent than Lister, but Lister is not wrong when he says in not so few words than Leon is full of shit. 28
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 25 Sep 2011 00:27 | #
This just goes to show that at some level GW believes Krauts really are Aryan Supermen. LOL. 29
Posted by anon 357 on Sun, 25 Sep 2011 00:57 | # @Captainchaos on September 24, 2011, 10:45 PM | #
Yes, Captain, who couldn’t love GT? He keeps, or used to keep, the tension thick in the air here. LOL! Besides you Captain, GT and Fred Scrooby are/were my all-time faves at MR. All Hall of Fame candidates for sure! 30
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 25 Sep 2011 03:00 | # LH
No it isn’t. The central banking cartels are a financial crime syndicate run by people who have zero loyalty to the people of their nominal nations. They ran up trillions of dollars in bad debts and didn’t want to take the consequences of their actions so instead they bribed the politicians to offload the debt onto the tax payers. The consequent rolling crisis is a war between the banking cartels and everyone else. If you want to look at it in left-right terms it’s socialism for the rich. In nationalist terms it’s a bastion of power in the hands of people with no loyalty to the nation. .
I don’t think the original crisis was engineered but they’re using it now as an excuse to do what they wanted to do anyway. .
Agree. Stealth-mode is starting to come unstuck. They might still win but it’ll take gulags and a lot of killing. .
They’re nomadic conmen. Everything they do is a con. The welfarist aspect of the EU is a con to get everyone in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e01G1E7myl4&feature=related Then the cage comes down. The hippy idealist half of the stooges they’ve collected to help implement their con don’t get it but the sociopathic half of their stooges do. Cameron and Osborne’s position makes sense once you realise that. 31
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 25 Sep 2011 04:01 | #
We’re in the bolded part. Through bail-outs and inflation they’re sucking all the wealth of the western world into the banks. The middle class is in the early stages of being impoverished. The difference this time is they can try and use other inter-ethnic conflicts to distract attention from them when (not if) virulent anti-semitism starts to break out. 32
Posted by tontoalegre on Sun, 25 Sep 2011 04:56 | # High voltage verbosity on expounding multifarious ” theories-theorizing” as to why a fraudulent credit system is sputtering. In brief, the fraudulent credit pyramisd schem-program is breaking down ot not working. As to why and ifs and that; it is otiose to waste energy and try to score points as to the fundamental reason or cause. What is coming next ? What will this international credit fraud scam program give way to or be succeeded by ? . The system is stewing in its own juices. Anything that it is done it is of a temporary and ephimeral nature. The system has outlived its usefulness; it is collapsing, any interim measures are simply post poning the final collapse. Everyone is blaming the southern countries. The southern countries do not have anyhting to blame for that the Northern countries did not propitiate, initiate and negotiate themselves for their own benefit and expoitation of the southern countries. The EU is a failed internationalist project. The original idea was a good idea to begin with—economic facilitation of trade and create an interdependency ( there is the flaw- interdependency is a fiction , a propagandist slogan and ultimately it can only be detrimental to both interdependent parties—for interdependence there has to be a balance; this balance is sooner or later skewed and then the whole scam becomes exposed; why should there be interdependence between Finland and Portugal. The system is cracked, everyone is engaged in writing eloquent obituaries with diverse reasonings. It is dying. What man creates, nature obliterates. It is dying an organical death. It helps not one iota blaming the unfortunate Greeks ( enslaved and exploited by Brussels the moment the Greeks were pushed into a disadvantegous union with EU; now the enslavement has been deepened; the irony of it all is that Greek people had nothing to do with it but its discombobulated and degenerate political class,the corporate elite—partners in crime with Brussels—the facilitators, main sole benficiaries and national undertakers of the enslaved nation). The theory goes that a lender ( the EU) pours loans upon loans on an undeveloped-under resourced member, knowing full well that these loans will never be repaid. The underresourced member accepts these loans with alacrity, knowing full wellh it will never be able to repay it. Who is taking who for a ride ? The reponsibility for thi fiasco rest with the arcane and ossified leadership. They ought to be defenestrated and sent to oblivionl. 33
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 25 Sep 2011 07:44 | #
The problem is that it is seldom virulent and most often not particularly anti-semitic, with an appalling penchant to be vastly exaggerated. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n1p16_Smith.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_S._Gibson#Poland_and_the_Jewish_Question 34
Posted by Hunter Wallace on Sun, 25 Sep 2011 09:15 | #
The conveyor belt of secular and religious ideas in the West is overwhelmingly driven in one direction: the ideas tend to come from Western Europe to the peripheral colonies. It has always been that way. The idea of “anti-racism,” for example, seems to have evolved out of the Marxist intellectual tradition in the 1920s and 1930s. It was the doctrine of the Soviet Union in the 1920s and its various tentacles in the communist parties of Western Europe. The term “racism” first appears in the United States in the mid-1930s in an “anti-fascist” pamphlet. The problem of “racism” and “fascism” had been discussed at considerable length by the European Socialist Left in the 1920s and the 1930s before their American admirers brought that discourse over here. Yet another idea that came from Europe is “cultural anthropology.” That idea was exported here from Germany where “cultural anthropology” was popular in the 19C. It was the Germans who came up with this idea that every nation has a “kultur” and who started applying the term in the sense that it is used today to explain racial differences. “Sociology” is another export. When I drive around my community in the United States, I see Methodist churches, Baptist churches, Presbyterian churches, Episcopal churches, Lutheran churches, and Catholic churches - these churches all trace back to Western Europe. When I participate in a free market economy in the United States, I know that I am dealing with the intellectual legacy of Adam Smith and the whole liberal tradition of economics which is a mighty oak that sprouted in Britain. Everyone here speaks the English language. They are Protestants. Virtually all of them subscribe to republican political principles - this also came from Western Europe, it is the colonial legacy. There is one major difference though between America and Western Europe: the idea of a racial identity and the science of racial differences was always very much a colonial enterprise. That was something that was exported back to Western Europe from North America. The same is true of Darwinism and eugenics, which arose in Britain and withered and died there, but flourished in the U.S. during the early 20C. It was the Americans who were extremely proactive in exporting eugenics to places like Scandinavia and Germany. This is a well known story. Hitler’s anti-miscegenation law was borrowed from Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act. The same was true of a lot of other ideas which flourished in Germany during that period. 35
Posted by Hail on Sun, 25 Sep 2011 09:24 | #
The link you provide doesn’t work for me. I did some searching on that site, and find this link, which works: ‘Blood and Soil’ by A.Bramwell. Full book list on that site is here. 36
Posted by Hail on Sun, 25 Sep 2011 09:41 | # HW, Anyway, as far as pointing the finger at ‘Americans’: As any regular to this site knows, it is sure as heck not the descendants of the USA’s 1880 population that were responsible for turning the USA from what it was, to what it…is. 37
Posted by Hail on Sun, 25 Sep 2011 09:45 | #
See here for further elucidation. Or, if you prefer, see HW’s his most recent essay:
38
Posted by Foundation on Sun, 25 Sep 2011 12:32 | # Interesting article, on topic: Busted Europe, Busted Dream The European Monetary Union is going to break down. This will be followed by a break-up of the European Union. This is denied by the New World Order’s promoters of international unification. They have been planning for this since the end of World War I. They have been actively implementing this by stealth since the early 1950s. They used treaties to bring this political unification to pass. They used economic unification as the bait. The hook of political unification was always buried in the bait. The threat facing the NWO is that the economic bait has turned out to be poison. The EMU is based on a common central bank and a common fiat currency. But without a common system of government, there can be no fiscal union. There can be no central planning by Keynesian means. The nationalism implied by Keynesian fiscal manipulation has led to the Greek crisis. The EMU rested on an unlikely premise: the wisdom of Europe’s commercial bankers, who had spent their careers in highly regulated domestic markets. Always before, bankers in large banks could count on their national central banks to bail them out. But, in this new world banking order, the European Central Bank does not have the flexibility to bail out all of the large national banks that are now in big trouble. There are members of the ECB’s board who are part of the German-Dutch axis, which favors tighter money and stable prices. The Board must placate them to some degree. This reduces the ECB’s response time. The Party Line of the EU and the ECB is that there is no unity-threatening problem or series of problems facing the central government. They insist that the current problems are temporary. We have heard all this before. THE BREAKDOWN OF COMMUNISM The greatest event of my life was the suicide of the Soviet Union on December 31, 1991. The Communist empire went under without a shot being fired. The Communist Party’s senior officers looted the Party’s funds and sent the money to Swiss bank accounts. Then they privatized the state’s main economic assets so that they and their cronies became incredibly rich. The second greatest event was the decision of Deng Xiaoping in 1978 to free up Chinese agriculture. That led to the most rapid economic growth in human history. Nothing like it had ever happened to so many people. South Korea’s per capita economic growth, 1950 to 1990, was greater, but South Korea was a much smaller nation. Communism was the most powerful ideology of tyranny in man’s history. It failed operationally in the USSR in less than 75 years. It failed in Communist China in less 30 years. The cash nexus seduced the vanguard of the proletariat. The inevitable socialist victory was exposed as a gigantic fraud. The messianic religion of Marxism went down with the two Communist ships. Today, the rag-tag army of tenured Marxist professors in Western universities have as their only surviving models Cuba and North Korea. The satellite photo of the two Koreas – bright lights in the south, one light in the north – is the most powerful epitaph of Communism there is. Now another victory of liberty over centralized politics is unfolding. It is taking place in Western Europe. It is not going to be reversed. The New World Order’s number-one poster child – the European Union – has begun to fall apart. Nothing will reverse this. There are those in the West who will deny this. There are also those who from 1992 until today insist that the collapse of the USSR was in fact a gigantic deception. The Communists are still in control, they tell us. These people cannot bring themselves to admit that Communism lost the battle. Like the original Communists, they believe in the absolute sovereignty of political power. They believe that the West could not possibly have won, because the Communists were better at intrigue and military power. But the West did win, because the Communist leaders gave up the dream of a socialist world and decided to go for the money. Let me tell you how I knew that the Communists had failed completely. First, the new Russian government changed major cities’ names back to their pre-Bolshevik names. Leningrad became St. Petersburg. Stalin re-named Volgagrad to Stalingrad in 1925. Khrushchev changed it back in 1961 as part of his de-Stalinization program. Both changes revealed the nature of politics in Russia. The names of cities were testimonies to the ruling power. That was why the name changes after 1991 were significant. Second, mobs of people pulled down statues of Soviet leaders. One of the statues that disappeared was that of Pavlik Morozov, the 13-year-old boy who informed on his father. He had been made a hero by Stalin after he was murdered at age 15. He had the boy’s relatives executed for the crime, although they all denied that they had done it. The Morozov story was taught to Soviet children until the very end of the regime. His statue has disappeared from the public park built in his memory. The fall of the Soviet Union was no deception. It was real. That was two decades ago. There is another fall coming. BREAKDOWN TO BREAK-UP I will state it again. The breakdown of the European Monetary Union will be followed by the break-up of the European Union. The EMS is breaking down. A few columnists in the West are now admitting this. On the whole, however, the Party Line of the media follows the Party Line of the EU bureaucrats: “The crisis in Greece is a temporary aberration. It will be solved by EU, IMF, and ECB policies.” The problem with the Party Line is that Greece keeps flaring up. Short-term interest rates are over 100%, indicating a loss of faith by investors in the Greek government’s ability to make interest payments in euros. If the EU, the IMF, and the ECB had a plan to deal with the underlying problem in Greece – its looming inability to make interest payments in euros – they would have implemented it. They keep announcing temporary bridge loans. These “bridge loans” are in fact sinkhole loans. Everyone presumably knows this, yet they do not invest accordingly. The various stock markets’ wild gyrations in Europe indicate that hope and fear are balanced, unlike any government’s budget. Hope will degrade into fear as reality sets in. What is reality? That large European banks bought Greek government bonds, because they assumed that no member of the EMU would pull out as a way to default on euro-based debt. But it is clear that this is exactly what Greece will do. The default is statistically inevitable. The sinkhole is a bottomless pit. The euro was the poster child of European unification, just as European unification was the NWO’s poster child for worldwide unification, the dream of the Trilateral Commission. The euro was rammed down the throats of Europe’s national central bankers in 1999. They had enjoyed considerable autonomy. National politicians also resented the fact that they would no longer have great influence in domestic monetary affairs. They would henceforth have to persuade the bankers at the European Central Bank to follow policies that would sustain national welfare state policies. That world is gone, but there are domestic politicians in PIIGS nations who would very much like to restore it. They are being pushed hard by voters to break free of the “austerity” programs being rammed down their throats by the IMF and ECB. The Bible teaches, “The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is the servant to the lender” (Proverbs 13:22). This ticks off the borrowers. The Bible also teaches, “The wicked borroweth and payeth not again” (Psalms 37:21a). This really ticks off the borrowers. “That’s an insult to our integrity!” Then, when their governments announce limited cutbacks in domestic spending, the threatened employees take to the streets. “You owe us what you have promised!” In short, voters want to impose austerity on the creditors. They do not want creditors to impose austerity on their welfare state governments. Some interest groups are going to get stiffed. The Party Line at the EU, ECB, IMF is that employees of high-deficit countries are going to get stiffed. The Party Line in the Greek trade unions is that the ECB, IMF, EU bureaucrats are going to get stiffed. Politicians in PIIGS nations claim that no one is going to get stiffed if the ECB, IMF, and EU will just lend more money to tide them over. The commercial bankers want the EU and ECB to serve as lenders of last resort to banks, so that, when the PIIGS default, the bankers will not lose their bonuses. Voters in Germany don’t want to get stuck with the tab for bailing out PIIGS or banks. Investors in European stocks keep sounding like Rodney King. “Can’t everyone just get along?” The New World Order’s promoters are wringing their hands and pleading, “We worked so hard to sneak through this deal. We are not quite finished with our plans. Now voters are trying to kill it. It’s just not fair!” I think of a classic video scene that best describes the present predicament of the NWO. THE BEST-LAID PLANS The Wall Street Journal published a report on the breakdown of the EMS. I liked the way it started out: When the history of the rise and fall of postwar Western Europe is someday written, it will come in three volumes. Title them “Hard Facts,” “Convenient Fictions” and – the volume still being written – “Fraud.” The author says that the first hard fact was military necessity in the post-War period. The Cold War began. The next hard fact was hard money. He correctly identifies this as “the gift of Ludwig Erhard, author of the economic reforms that created the Deutsche mark, abolished price controls, and put inflation in check for generations.” Erhard was a disciple of Wilhelm Roepke, who was a disciple of Ludwig von Mises. In mid-June, 1948, Erhard unilaterally abolished the entire Allied military system of price controls, fiat money, and rationing. The next day – literally – the “German economic miracle” began. The author continues: “The third hard fact was the creation of Jean Monnet’s common market that gave Europe a shared economic – not political – identity.” The author has fallen for the ultimate fraud. Monnet had been working for political unification ever since he and Raymond Fosdick, John D. Rockefeller, Jr.‘s agent, sat together at the Versailles Peace Conference in 1919. In 1919, Fosdick sent a letter to his wife. He told her that he and Monnet were working daily to lay the foundations of “the framework of international government.” [July 31, 1919; in Fosdick, ed., Letters on the League of Nations (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1966), p. 18.] Fosdick returned to New York City in 1920, where he took over running the Rockefeller Foundation for the next 30 years. Monnet was the front man for the New World Order. He promoted political unification by wrapping it in the swaddling clothes of economic unification. The author accurately describes the suicide of Western Europe. In 1965, government spending as a percentage of GDP averaged 28% in Western Europe. Today it hovers just under 50%. In 1965, the fertility rate in Germany was a healthy 2.5 children per mother. Today it is a catastrophic 1.35. During the postwar years, annual GDP growth in Europe averaged 5.5%. After 1973, it rarely exceeded 2.3%. In 1973, Europeans worked 102 hours for every 100 worked by an American. By 2004 they worked just 82 hours for every 100 American ones. He argues that “It was during this general slowdown that Europe entered the convenient fiction phase.” One fiction was that adding new members to the EU would enable the European economy to rival the output of the United States. Another fiction was that there was a central core of outlook and values that would unify the new collective. Here, he is woefully naive. That had been the assumption of the United Nations Organization from the beginning, and the League of Nations before it. That was the heart of Monnet’s vision. It did not start in 1973. And there was, finally, the whopping fiction that Europe had its own “model,” distinct and superior to the American one, that immunized it from broader international currents: globalization, Islamism, demography. Europeans love their holidays and thought they were entitled to a long holiday from history as well. Then he lists the frauds. First, Greece was allowed into the European Monetary Union. But that was not a fraud. The critics in the 1990s said that all of the Club Med nations would run deficits. They warned that the euro could not hold. There was no fraud involved in letting in the PIIGS. This was basic to Monnet’s vision from 1919. It had to work. It must work. It is ordained to work. This is the NWO’s religion. The non-PIIGS bankers thought it would work. They loaded up on PIIGS sovereign debt. This was not fraud. This was the implementation of a deeply political religion. This was self-deception on a continental scale. Yet he is right on this point. There was the fraud of the so-called Maastricht criteria – the fiscal rules that were supposed to govern the euro only to be quickly flouted by France and Germany and then junked altogether in the current crisis. There was the fraud of the European Constitution, overwhelmingly rejected wherever a vote on it was permitted, only to be revised and imposed by parliamentary fiat. What is now happening in Europe isn’t so much a crisis as it is an exposure: a Madoff-type event rather than a Lehman one. The shock is that it’s a shock. Greece was never going to be bailed out and will, sooner or later, default. The banks holding Greek debt will, sooner or later, be recapitalized. The recapitalization will be borne by German taxpayers, and it will bring them – sooner rather than later – to the outer limit of their forbearance. The Chinese will not ride to the rescue: They know not to throw good money after bad. And then Italy will go Greek. Europe’s crisis will lap on U.S. shores, and America’s economic woes will lap on Europe’s – a two-way tsunami. He sees that this fraud is not going to hold together. There is a reason for this. The “fiscal union” that’s being mooted will never come to pass: German voters won’t stand for it, and neither will any other country that wants to retain fiscal independence – which is to say, the core attribute of democratic sovereignty. Conclusion, next post. 39
Posted by Foundation on Sun, 25 Sep 2011 12:35 | # He makes a forecast: “What comes next is the explosion of the European project.” Then he makes an assessment: “Given what European leaders have made of that project over the past 30-odd years, it’s not an altogether bad thing.” I’ll say not. It is a great thing. It is, in fact, the greatest thing that is likely to happen in the first two decades of the 21st century. It is the extension of the two break-ups of the 20th century. But it will come at a massive cost. The riots of Athens will become those of Milan, Madrid and Marseilles. Parties of the fringe will gain greater sway. Border checkpoints will return. Currencies will be resurrected, then devalued. Countries will choose decay over reform. It’s a long, likely parade of horribles. CONCLUSION The price of the break-up of the ECB, the EMU, and the EU will be high because of the frauds and convenient fictions that preceded them. If Europe’s voters had not created welfare states, if they had not consented to a common fiat currency, but instead had abolished all central banking and had allowed competing private currencies, and if they had abolished tariffs and not created a bureaucratic monstrosity of non-governmental agencies with the power of government – the WTO and its peers – there would be low transition costs. But they listened to Monnet. They will now pay the price. So will all of its trading partners. So will the large American banks that sold credit default insurance to European banks. Gary North, September 24, 2011 40
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:20 | # anon/uh, Thanks for your comments. No need for excessive (false?) modesty. Osborne and Oborne are different people. This is curious to me: This integration will be so complete that taxpayers in the more prosperous countries will be expected to pay for the welfare systems and pension plans of failing EU states. This is the final realisation of the dream that animated the founders of the Common Market more than half a century ago – which is one reason why so many prominent Europeans have privately welcomed the eurozone catastrophe, labelling it a “beneficial crisis”. How can paying for welfare and pensions be construed as the “dream” of the EU CM founders?? Sounds like a madness the author of the above is retro-projecting onto them. This seems to be confirmed by the next statement that: David Cameron and George Osborne have both indicated that they, too, welcome this fundamental change in the nature and purpose of the European project. the Financial Times describes ... as “metropolitan and socially liberal. He is hawkish on foreign policy with links to Washington neo-conservatives and ideologically committed to cutting the state. A pragmatic Eurosceptic.” Soooo he’s “committed to cutting the state”, yet “has indicated” that he welcomes a European super-welfare state.(ANON/UH) Without rereading the Oborne piece, I think he was referring to some original dream of the CM founders that Europe would eventually evolve into a European superstate, the (foolish) implication being that such a supranational entity would be governed along what we today call neo-liberal lines, a continent-wide free enterprise zone bound together by economic ties, and thus unlikely to devolve again into continental civil wars. I must say, I’m not altogether opposed to such a vision, though I always would have thought it dangerous (and for good ‘classical’ liberal reasons!). It is a cardinal tenet of all true libertarian thought that power should be restricted to the lowest possible administrative levels. I can understand the ‘purist’ vision - let’s preclude warfare among European states by encouraging continental economic integration. Apart from particularistic ethnonationalist objections, there is a logic to this. Of course, the danger is that if the superstate should no longer remain committed to the original limited vision, there is little recourse through your own (no longer fully sovereign) nation. This seems to be what has happened, in addition to the now realized danger facing economically responsible countries yoked to irresponsible ones in a (fiat!!!) monetary union (there would be nothing wrong at all - quite the opposite - with a monetary union based on a shared commodity money standard, like gold, where each national currency would in fact be defined simply as a unit weight of gold, with complete intra-union convertibility). Excuse my verbosity. Essentially, I think what the CM founders wanted was a free-market Europe, tightly economically bound, with no ability for ‘renegades’ (the obvious concern, ironically, was with Germany; that is, the economically powerful, not the weak, like Greece) to go their own economic (and thus potentially political - and military) ways. I think they assumed that the superstate structure would always be governed according to sound monetary and free market principles, and that such principles could be imposed from the responsible center onto the more marginal countries. Didn’t quite pan out, did it? I think what really did in the original vision was the failure to foresee the general leftwing drift of postwar Europe (and America, and everywhere). Anyway, the euro is dying, and soon thereafter the EU, I think and hope. But will that demise, and the recovery of sovereignty within the old nations, issue in a resurrection of ethnonationalist feeling? I hope so, but won’t hazard a prediction. However British Dr. Lister may be, I think he dislikes me for the reasons I enumerated. 41
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:23 | # When I responded immediately above to anon/uh, I hadn’t seen the article posted by Foundation, which tracks my own thinking rather nicely (I had previously read that piece in the WSJ by chosenite neocon Brett Stephens). Amusing how thoughts get crossed like this. 42
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:31 | # I almost choked the first time I read GW’s comment.
43
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:36 | # LH No it isn’t. The central banking cartels are a financial crime syndicate run by people who have zero loyalty to the people of their nominal nations. They ran up trillions of dollars in bad debts and didn’t want to take the consequences of their actions so instead they bribed the politicians to offload the debt onto the tax payers. The consequent rolling crisis is a war between the banking cartels and everyone else. If you want to look at it in left-right terms it’s socialism for the rich. In nationalist terms it’s a bastion of power in the hands of people with no loyalty to the nation. (WANDRIN) ——————————————————————- I don’t disagree with what you have written, but you’re confused about what I was originally referring to, which was the then ongoing US Congressional battle re raising the national debt ceiling. The GOP in that battle was properly insisting that any increase in the ceiling, which in the past was usually routine, this time (and with precedent, henceforth) be coupled to corresponding fiscal spending reductions, the purpose of that being to stop the constant increase in the public debt (and thus America’s slide into socialism by default). The Republicans were correct. You have confused this micro-issue with the broader problem of debt throughout the West (and especially the sovereign debt crises of the PIIGS countries). Different issues. 44
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:47 | # P.S. Leon is clearly more intelligent than Lister, but Lister is not wrong when he says in not so few words than Leon is full of shit. I’m not sure that is true. Lister is admirably well-read; he references all the apposite sources; and he has a higher level of education than I do (and in a hard science, which is always impressive). On the other hand, he is overly dismissive of whole traditions of (Western) thought, like theology, the truths of which are admittedly difficult to establish, especially to the overly scientistic intellect, as well as of other realms, like capitalist theory, whose truths can be and have been readily demonstrated to those willing to put in the effort to learn them. But in what areas exactly, sir, am I full of shit? My unwillingness to denounce Jewry as the primary culprit in the fall of the white man, perhaps? 45
Posted by Mr Voight on Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:48 | # You cannot have the ‘free market’ and national sovereignty. It is just as anti-national as Marxism. It is a completely degenerate system. Once a nation establishes the system of corporate law required to enable the ‘free market’ and give personhood to financial entities, the natural rights of that nation’s people are done for. 46
Posted by anon / uh on Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:54 | #
That’s the first thing that has to go. Legal personhood is one of the most pernicious fictions of recent history, allowing the greedy few to dodge responsibility for all kinds of crime against the folk — any folk. 47
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 25 Sep 2011 14:50 | # Ex-Pro White Activist Oh diddums did that comment of mine offend you? So liberalism, which has developed into a form of hyper-liberalism and is foundational in how the Western world works is at the heart of the problem and your ‘solution’ is: A Jewish brand of hyper-liberalism which utterly condemns and is hostile to all collective identity and agency which will be enabled and brought into being by Euro-Americans acting in a more collectivist way than perhaps they ever have done outside of war. All under the leadership of an idiot that has neo-Nazi fantasies about killing all the Jews and screaming ‘nigger’ in the streets with half a dozen rednecks in wife-beaters cheering him on. Wow how can that utterly coherent and flawless plan possibly fail? HOW FUCKING STUPID ARE YOU? YOU KNOW WHAT OFFENDS ME -THAT I HAVE TO SHARE A PLANET WHICH SUCH UTTERLY CONTEMPTIBLE, IDIOTIC FUCKWITS LIKE YOU. How’s that for ‘offense’. So ONCE AGAIN your ‘solution’ to the insanity of liberalism is have an even more hyper-individualist anti-white Jew version of it. ARE YOU A FUCKING RETARD? 48
Posted by danielj on Sun, 25 Sep 2011 14:54 | # I’m not sure that is true. Lister is admirably well-read; he references all the apposite sources; and he has a higher level of education than I do (and in a hard science, which is always impressive) Yeah… If that kind of thing gets you off. If you are going to pursue this in the context of Catholic theology, fine. But why do you then ignore such major Catholic political-economic moral philosophers as G.K. Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc and E.F. Schumacher? Your obsessive fixation with the Judeo-Austrian School and a straw man “Adam Smith” economics strikes me as contradictory to your stated goals. Indeed. It is telling. I thought distributivist economics was the official economics of the Church. I was surprised at how critical and prescient Smith was when he talked about what the effects of capitalism would be (the waning of the martial virtues, feminization, monopoly, materialism etc.) 49
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 25 Sep 2011 15:21 | # Leon, I estimate that in about a year from now you will come to the realisation that your pragmatic conservative revolution has no revolutionary meaning. You will come to this realisation by way of the prior understanding that, actually, you are advancing not conservatism at all, but the American liberal model. Awhile ago, in our occasional conversations, you stated that, actually, Christianity was not the bottom line for you. The preservation of our people is. That was a worthwhile development, for it acknowledged the true role of faith in service to genetic interests. But there is another question to which you might want to attend, and it is this: if the American liberal model, so wholly dedicated to the quest for liberty as it is, has no “conservative potential”, how can it be the foundation of a conservative revolution? (GW)
Two issues. First, I have never renounced my 60/40% Christian faith. I am aware of various anti-theist arguments (and will be much more cognizant of them, and of possible responses, in a few years, or sooner), but I still give the benefit of the doubt to God. My God is relatively purified, however, of various obviously human and historical accretions. I also don’t believe in miracles, or petitionary prayer. After my doctorate in Catholic Studies, I may even find myself ending up some kind of Protestant (or perhaps not, for professional reasons). Still, as I’ve noted previously, my intuition, which I’ve always trusted, and which enabled me to see through the race-propaganda already being shoved down children’s throats in the 70s (probably even earlier, before my time), leads me to think the New Testament is historically accurate (I’ve elaborated on this before). Of course, my awareness of secularist discourse, and my fundamental rejection of what most think of as “faith” (my faith in the resurrection of Christ is of the same type as your faith in the stand of Leonidas and the 300 at Thermopylae, or any historical event for which the ‘sources’ are limited), is what prevents me from being a 100% Christian. I’m on the fence, but will always ‘throw in’ finally with the Lord. When I stated that Christianity was not my bottom line, I meant that in a strictly political sense. The preservation of the white race - understood as the permanent repository of the possibility of the spiritual/cultural renewal of Western Civilization - is indeed my political bottom line, the foundation of all further, lesser political interests, whether Christianist (eg, abortion, sexual morality, etc), capitalist, national security statist, or whatever. But saving my soul through ethical (Christian) behavior is my final existential bottom line. My main intellectual (as opposed to personal, practical) interest in these political questions centers on establishing the moral parameters of racialist/WN activism from a Christian view, for I do not admit of the effective possibility of a non-Christian morality (even though I also hold that morality, like math or logic, inheres in the nature of things, independent of God, although it is God alone which gives the pursuit of morality its intrinsic meaning- no, Graham, that is not self-contradictory). What must a man do to attain Heaven? and, what may a man do in service to his race, and still attain Heaven? These are the bottom-bottom line questions for the true Christian / true conservative. Answers to these questions do not yet, to my knowledge, exist to my satisfaction. Hence my current studies. As to the other issue. What do you understand by ‘conservatism’? And by “the American liberal model”? Are you saying there is only a small ideological difference between Obama and Bush (agree) - or between Obama and Reagan or Thatcher (maybe, or maybe not) - or between Obama and Pat Buchanan or Enoch Powell (wildly disagree)? I think you and Graham rather confuse small government conservatism, such as existed for most US history, with modern liberalism, simply because both speak the language of individual rights (while arriving at totally different policy conclusions). But how would you classify Thomas Jefferson, who believed in individualism (one of the crowning glories of Western Civ, if you ask me), but who clearly articulated racial boundaries for communities, including the nascent USA? In other words, where does Jefferson, a libertarian and a racist, fit? 50
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 25 Sep 2011 15:45 | # GW states in the post that “this is the time to talk about economics”. OK, I started off doing so. I offered the following formulation, as a foundation to criticize, or build upon: What the nationalist wants is maximum economic efficiency within the meta-economic parameters of perpetual ethnonational survival, ecological preservation, and material benefits for the deserving national majority. Agree or not? Once we gather community sentiment, I will elaborate further (eg, yes, I know about the Distributists, Small is Beautiful, etc, and am in great agreement with them, but before you can build a political economics, or a moral economics, you first must understand the logic of human action, as Mises taught (his Jewishness, incidentally, is irrelevant to his value-free economics, which stands or falls on its own merits, as with Einstein)). 51
Posted by MOB on Sun, 25 Sep 2011 15:58 | # I confess I haven’t read the Comments in this thread, but since one of my grandsons sent me this today, and it has something to do with money, and it’s nicely put together, I’ll post it, saying: Meanwhile, on a somewhat larger scale: http://www.ted.com/talks/niall_ferguson_the_6_killer_apps_of_prosperity.html 52
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 25 Sep 2011 21:14 | # LH
Fair enough. 53
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 25 Sep 2011 22:27 | # Off topic reminder: Season premiere of “60 Minutes” Murder of an American Nazi at 7:00 p.m. ET/PT. This will no doubt be a hit piece centered around the alleged shooting of Jeff Hall by his 10 year old son. I first met Jeff at an anti-immigration march in Phoenix AZ in November of 2009. Because I was wearing clan tartan, he assumed I was either a piper or a drummer. I was loathe to admit that I was neither, and the cadence for that march was provided by a solo drummer, but Jeff’s assumption lingered in my imagination and I began to think that bagpipes might indeed be a useful addition to such an event. Shortly after my return to Oregon, I presented a seminar on NSM at University of Oregon. Jeff later invited me to speak in Los Angeles in the Spring of 2010. We began to collaborate on the idea of introducing bagpipes at NSM events. By Fall I had purchased some pipes and Jeff and I agreed that I would try to debut at the 2011 St. Patrick’s Day rally in Riverside CA. An unexpected snowstorm interfered with my travel plans for that rally, and I felt really bad to telling Jeff that I wasn’t going to make it. I promised him I’d keep working on the pipes for a future event. Neither of us would ever have imagined that that event would entail the spreading of his cremated remains, but such is it scheduled to be. Details available through NSM88.org 54
Posted by anon / uh on Mon, 26 Sep 2011 00:39 | # Wandrin, You must have a look at this Jew at Unqualified Reservations (Mencius Moldbug):
— “The Undiscovered Jew”
file under: chutzpah di tutto chutzpah 55
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 26 Sep 2011 00:42 | # #29 Replace your models of reality with models as reality.
Don’t despair at the absurd, go with it.
Exploit banality. 56
Posted by Republicrat on Mon, 26 Sep 2011 02:24 | #
Hitler did employ Jewish talent. Something along the lines of 150,000 Jews or Jewish michlings served in the Wehrmacht. Mendacious Moldbug is going to have to try harder. 57
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 26 Sep 2011 02:52 | # How does one determine the number of a particular thread comment? I see no numbers listed. 58
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 26 Sep 2011 03:09 | # It is disappointing that few wish to rise to GW’s challenge re developing a new nationalist economic paradigm. It is badly needed. I agree with the deficiencies of neoliberalism uber alles, in terms of racial and civilizational (and even national) preservation. I also understand the technical deficiencies of central planning and allied economic interventionist regimes (we’re being ploughed under detritus from both failed models right now). What is needed is an economic paradigm which utilizes the knowledge, now empirically proven as well as deductively demonstrated, we have painfully garnered in the field of catallactics (the science of exchange), so as to advance the genetic collective, as opposed merely to advancing certain individuals at the expense of the larger group. This is a worthy intellectual pursuit. We must begin by answering the question: what is the purpose of a specifically nationalist economics, and how does it differ from both socialism and laissez-faire? I suggest discussants begin with two seemingly unrelated concepts: efficiency, and sustainability. A nationalist economics is, I think, to be sought at their nexus. Ideas? 59
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 26 Sep 2011 03:16 | # Sorry to hear about your friend, Jimmy. Each WN’s death “diminisheth me”, even when I may have had particular strategic and/or tactical disagreements with this or that person and/or his tradition. We are too few in number, and the burden of our race, our civilization, and quite possibly humanity itself rests on our shoulders. I recall the ancient Anglo-Saxon poetic fragment ‘Maldon’, which is what we have left to commemorate the Battle of Maldon (993): Thought must be the harder, the heart, the keener, Courage must be greater as our strength grows less. The Destiny of the West, in embryo. 60
Posted by anon / uh on Mon, 26 Sep 2011 03:57 | # Leon, Might I direct you to the same link I brought to the attention of Wandrin above, which in addition to many chutzpathic wonders, is in its latter half predominantly an economic discussion — with focus, lacking from your script, on what could be done with all the unemployable negroes lurking in our concrete jungles: one of the greatest sustainability problems we face. 61
Posted by anon / uh on Mon, 26 Sep 2011 04:02 | #
FAMILY = COERCION Where have we heard that one before. And does this make all those tomcat negro fathers — Rothbardians? 62
Posted by Gudmund on Mon, 26 Sep 2011 04:44 | #
“Not an alien presence” is very debatable imo. Jewish culture has its origins in the Levant, not in Germanic Europe as does the West. Would anyone seriously deny this? Or that Jewish culture and worldview are generally alien to those of the West? As for the other part, it is ahistorical. I’m not even particularly pro-Christian, and yet I cannot fathom how anyone could consider Christianity to be a vehicle for Jewish interests. Modern secular humanism is far more so, and this latter doctrine is only partially Christian in origin. I suppose this fellow never heard of pogroms and such. Christianity produced a hostile environment for Jews in many cases, it wasn’t until the early modern times when Jews achieved a more respected position in European life. Just about the only benefit Jews enjoyed in the middle ages (i.e. Christian Europe, capital C capital E) was the ability to practice usury and the tenuous middle class existence which accompanied it.
Well, it definitely is now, if for no other reason than the conditioning which has led Europeans to automatically associate anything antisemitic with “evil.” But we all know this was not the case throughout much of European history. 63
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 26 Sep 2011 06:34 | # anon/uh, I’m too busy to read someone called mencius moldjew or whatever. As to blacks, that is a huge problem, though most did some form of work pre-welfare state. Granted, the welfare state has been terribly dysgenic, probably more so wrt blacks than any other group, for sociological as well as biological reasons. So the innate predisposition towards work ethicism may now be lower among at least today’s underclass than among the general run of negroes in times past. Still, as Mises pointed out, in a free market there is no unemployment except among retards, who can be taken care of through private charity (or their own families), again as in the past. If we could lower wages enough, perhaps even the worst homey could find employment. But would he, even if the ‘carrot’ of welfare is removed, too? Or would he turn to crime? Mises had in mind normal whites. Today’s underclass blacks may literally be economically obsolete. Mandatory eugenic sterilization is the only solution that comes to mind, perhaps to be accompanied with generous welfare bribes to placate weepy white liberals. 64
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 26 Sep 2011 07:02 | # GenoType, Beware the conflation of weirdo, ultimately philosophically incoherent libertarianism (despite what they would have you believe) with Austrian economics. Austrian economics is amazingly rigorous, and I believe a true analysis of reality. If I have garnered any measure of respect due to my comments here at MR over the years, then persons interested in economics should follow my advice and study that school of thought (go to mises.org). As noted, the conceptual gap that the Austro-libs blithely ignore is that between their value-free economic analysis, and their blatant normative assumptions and motives. Austrianism is economics; libertarianism is ideology (obviously). This simple distinction is always being ignored (usually by socialist types who wish to discredit markets by yoking economic rationality to repulsive ‘moral’ agendas, as you did above). Rothbard’s The Ethics of Liberty is actually a brilliant work, even if finally flawed. But read his Man, Economy and State if you want a solid and thorough grounding in economic science. The latter in no way depends upon, or implies, the former. I’m familiar with the Catholic Social Thought books you cited, and intend to study that tradition as it applies to economic questions at greater length in the future. That said, I find the Catholic Austro-lib historian Thomas Woods’s views as to the perfect compatibility between Catholicism and Austrianism to be more persuasive. I had some online debates years back with Medaille, and found him to be neither nationalist, nor well-versed in economics. He and Ferrara are more interested in theological defenses of Catholic economics (as they understand it, and, of greater importance, think it must be - in fact, the economic views of the Church are not set in scriptural stone, but have been amended through time, and could be so again, possibly favoring Austrianism as opposed to greater collectivism), than in economics per se. Of course, there is no reason why the Church (or nation or race) need back that system which is maximally efficient (in a global sense; ie, take all humanity as a whole, and unfettered global capitalism would maximize living standards to the greatest extent; arguments to the contrary are sheer ignorance). The Church will back that system it believes is most just; the nationalist, that which will best serve his EGI. My only point is that either group (or liberals, socialists, or anyone at all) should understand what is being sacrificed in terms of wealth maximization by adopting any particular economic ideology short of pure laissez-faire. Wealth is not the end-all for Christians, nor do I argue that it should be for nationalists. But it is important to understand the effects of any given policy approach, and Austrian methodology is superior for doing so. 65
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 26 Sep 2011 07:53 | #
Paul conveys that very message:
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4705 If Jews were treated, by the CC, like heretics and pagans, Jews would not exist today. The papacy, for century after century was their protector. 66
Posted by danielj on Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:20 | # But the constant frame of reference should be whether it’s good for the Madonna and her child and not whether it’s bad for the Jew. But the two so often coincide. 67
Posted by maunder on Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:12 | #
This is a good point. There is a recently published economics paper that discusses this: “How economic theory came to ignore the role of debt” by Michael Hudson http://rwer.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/rwer-issue-57-michael-hudson/
68
Posted by TabuLa Raza on Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:27 | # Rothbard is mainstream. The Money Power and its libertarian dupes The amoral libertarian desirous of EZ money I do not understand. 69
Posted by TabuLa Raza on Mon, 26 Sep 2011 19:40 | # “. . .4. Repay the bond and guilt markets. . .”
The following pages provide information on the gilt market. If you are a member of the public who is interested in knowing more about investing in gilts please go to the page on how to buy and sell gilts 70
Posted by Foundation on Mon, 26 Sep 2011 20:16 | # Oh dear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC19fEqR5bA&feature=player_embedded 71
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:37 | # Dancing Jew-Perry: http://www.weeklystandard.com/daily/daily.asp I get the distinct impression Perry is dumb. Others? (Sorry for digressing from main topic.) 72
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 28 Sep 2011 00:18 | # Leon,
The answer is simple. You’ve got to give everyone in your constituency what they want, economically. Now, if you can figure out how to do that, you’ve cracked the mystery of nationalism sans the Fuhrer Principle: how to cohere all the interests in society. 73
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 28 Sep 2011 04:42 | #
A shrewd politician will say he will do that in a convincing manner. And when his promises inevitably fall short he will obfuscate so as to convince his constituency that he actually did deliver what was promised.
With propaganda, physical coercion and general material plenty - just as the Fuhrer did. A political leader working from a script more consonant with English Moralism would merely place more emphasis on the latter than the former. Still, there will be no reinvention of the political/economic wheel, and anyone who claims differently is lying or naive; or a politician. 74
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 28 Sep 2011 04:49 | # GT, I think it is more probable that very many more people could be gotten to pull the lever for a proper nationalist party in Britain than could be gotten to become self-employed machinists if only for the reason that the former would take much, much less effort on their part. If only a negligible proportion of the population can be motivated to build microcommunities then the effect of this will of course be negligible. 75
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 28 Sep 2011 05:07 | #
If these few tasked with controlling the capitalist market were EGI minded then why would that be a problem? The problem with the microcommunity model is that if it is intended to forever eschew the acquisition of state power, being in effect or by intent an anti-state ethnic/racial strategy in perpetuity, it would eventually be destroyed on the geopolitical stage by those with, you know, state power. State power is needed to secure EGI in perpetuity, something which microcommunities cannot hope to achieve. 76
Posted by anon / uh on Wed, 28 Sep 2011 05:09 | #
http://collectifpdc.blogspot.com/2011/09/reflexon-la-necessite-detre-enracine.html 77
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 28 Sep 2011 06:06 | #
The problem is that the lemmings don’t explicitly/consciously give a shit about EGI. If they did, all one would have to do is say something to the effect of, “Vote for me and I’ll expel all those muds!” They do, however, care about money. GW’s unstated goal is to inject his populist rabble-rousing message into a reconstituted BNP once fat fuck Griffo has been shown the door. “The reason you don’t have any $$$$$$$$$$, my fellow Englishmen, is because of those bankers with all the $$$$$$$$. Vote for me and I’ll take it from them and give it to you!” That is the road to power. Once you’ve got their attention with promises of $$$$$$$$$ the lemmings will be putty in your hands. 78
Posted by TabuLa Raza on Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:07 | # Can liberty be reconciled with racial exclusion? America was founded on liberty. Yet the naturalization Act of 1790 states (paraphrased): >>>The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were “free white persons” of “good moral character”. It thus left out indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and later Asians.<<< Some comments about certain libertarian’s mentalities- lettuce start with one Robert LeFevre. I heard him speak at the first libertarian conference at Cal State University (Long Beach California,1969) (organized by now Congressman Rohrabacher) (Mises was there). Here is a typical claim of LeFevre’s: A killer is pointing a gun at a potential victim. You are nearby. Are you allowed to grab the shooter’s arm to try to stop the homicide? According to Mr. LeFevre- NO!! Most emphatically not!! Why? According to Bob LeFevre, GRABBING THE SHOOTER’S ARM WOULD VIOLATE THE SHOOTER’S GOD-GIVEN FREE WILL. (LeFevre says his views came from Christianity). Now I have heard everything. If the murder is allowed to proceed, it seems that the killer has more rights than the victim. . .WHAT ABOUT THE GOD-GIVEN FREE WILL OF THE VICTIM? LeFevre’s talk was about protection. You have the right to protect yourself mightily- like erecting a screen such as the protector that appeared in the movie Forbidden Planet. Apparently there is no right to arrest, as this would violate the God-given free will of the murderer! More LeFevre. Suppose a person breaks into your house and ties you up before leaving. You find a knife. One hand is free enough to cut. Do you have the right to use the knife to cut the rope? NOOOOH. OH NO. Why not? BECAUSE THE ROPE IS THE INTRUDER’S PRIVATE PROPERTY AND PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE ABSOLUTE!! Sounds like psychosis to me. What we have here is monumental context-dropping. What makes this possible is the ethical notion of intrinsicism. (Many, not all) libertarians believe that 1) free-will/voluntary is intrinsically good 2) private property rights are absolute in all circumstances and 3) force is in-and-of-itself evil. This leads to the context-dropping and these absurd conclusions. For example, grabbing the shooter’s arm (per above) would be “force”, therefore evil. A cop using “force” to arrest a mugger would be in the wrong Mr. Libertarian Walter Block has recently written a book about private highways. As private property rights are absolute, he cannot believe in eminent domain. Say a road company is buying up properties for a new road. Uh Oh, someone won’t sell. This is the famous hold-out problem- “society” or any else cannot force a sale. The “magic of the market ” will save the day. How? The road builder will construct a 400 foot tall tower over the hold-out’s property. . .OMFG. . . This is to prove that there is no split between theory and practice. I say it proves the exact opposite. >>>An Objectivist wrote Libertarianism: a Perversion of Liberty. Here critiqued by a congoid in England (one may want to read the original) http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/philn/philn031.pdf Rand quoted in VDARE 3/4/2002: From: A California Reader In your review of Death Of The West, you mentioned how Reason’s Brian Doherty was baffled by Buchanan’s alleged “obsessions with nationality and ethnicity,” and you added, “But they aren’t in the Ayn Rand playbook, you see.” I don’t doubt for a moment that the Objectivist establishment simply will not touch this issue. However, I cannot help but recall this quote from John Galt’s speech in Atlas Shrugged (1957, hardcover, p. 1055).... You have reached the blind alley of the treason you committed when you agreed that you had no right to exist. Once, you believed it was “only a compromise”: you conceded it was evil to live for yourself, but moral to live for the sake of your children. Then you conceded that it was selfish to live for your children, but moral to live for your community. Then you conceded that it was selfish to live for your community, but moral to live for your country. Now, you are letting this greatest of countries be devoured by any scum from any corner of the earth, while you concede that it is selfish to live for your country and that your moral duty is to live for the globe. The word “Now” was emphasized in the original, but today one cannot help but emphasize the rest. March 04, 2002 There is no entity of “Libertarianism”. There are many flavors. There are wars. There are disagreements. Many think Rothbard’s view of parental obligations is just wrong. Most libertarians oppose open borders. I see that Hans Hoppe was not mentioned. 79
Posted by anon / uh on Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:02 | # Genotype,
Precisely at 15 I had my own flirtation with the typewriting tikkunist. I read fifty or so pages into
and sensed something amiss, indeed, several things missing. Then I discovered something called “the Libertarian Party” and sent away for their brochures. On receiving this material I read a few sentences, and immediately wondered what I was doing reading these scraps. Parties always made me uneasy. Too many presuppositions and omissions. The blanket is always too large to properly cover reality.
I dug into that for the first time at 16 as well. Can’t say I understood it; I had read too much of “individualism” to grasp the lessons of folk and belonging. But it did lay the groundwork for a reading two years later after randomly picking up and devouring The Holocaust Industry. Anyway, it’s amazing to see how our intellectual paths converge.
Strictly speaking, he is not wrong: a mother, at least, is “coerced” by natural impulse and social expectation to care for its young. She is not free to do otherwise, while those that do otherwise are quite rare, nearly always negresses, but prove the point that an instinct-defective mother can yet abrogate the compulsion to care for young, in which case she is merely slave to one or another passion (libido, fear of costs, drug addiction). The error is not in Rothbard’s nihilist logic, but in the negative valuation of the principle of aggression / coercion. Life itself is coercion, it ought to go without saying. Herr Rothbard would not have found himself writing that parents are theoretical slaves to their young if life had never coerced other life to serve its ends. And here of course is the error of ethical pacifism alike. Basically, an organism that has lost its will endeavoring to declaw itself. So again, not a descriptive error, but a prescriptive error, a spurious “ought”. The presupposition is that coercion is “evil”, a reflex of the myth of the “freely acting agent”, the “rational actor”, and ultimately of that central delusion of all humanity — “free will”. All the worse in that Rothbard was writing of these matters from a legal standpoint. 80
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 29 Sep 2011 22:01 | # Just a quick reply to CC on September 28, 2011, 05:06 AM. A nationalist government must have power over its money, or it cannot be nationalist. It will be internationalist. With power over money comes the power to shape everything because everyone wants money. Money, when it is not given as debt, is necessarily given as payment. A cynic might say money given in a political context is given as bribe, and he might be right. Money is a tool for political actors. For those to whom money is an end, it is always the principal source of their manipulation. Because we nationalists cannot achieve our great ambitions by direct political appeal - the political “market” is too distorted - we will have to manipulate. We will have to give everybody what they want, in return for their ear, their interest, eventually their desire, and finally their action. You were, not for the first time, perfectly correct. This line of reasoning, of course, is not an answer to the kind of economy and the kind of social structure nationalists want to see. It’s purely a “get you into power” mechanism. The real economic debate awaits. 81
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 29 Sep 2011 22:10 | # GW did you get round to reading that economics article I send you? As for politics, well think of it in game-theory terms - people have to think that they will get something out of what a political party offers in order to support it. It has to have ‘mass appeal’ and credibility in the collective mind of the masses on those promises, otherwise it’s rather pointless. 82
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 29 Sep 2011 22:46 | # The Levellers? I started, got to the philosophy. It seemed more like analysis than proposition, but I never got to the end (it was long) because, as always happens in my life, other winds collected up my attention and dropped it somewhere else. I must say I think the French guy Jean-Luc Gréau might be more creatively interesting. What am I missing, Graham? 83
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 29 Sep 2011 23:13 | # GW I was thinking of Jean-Luc Gréau in this instance. I’ll email you when I get the chance, and yes I do think he’s quite an interesting figure. 84
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 30 Sep 2011 01:36 | # GT, I see no reason to remove your comments. You made some pertinent observation. You asked a good question about the market. I will think about it and give you an answer - one, I hope, that will be consistent with a philosophy of our European nature. But that’s for tomorrow. It’s already 1.35am here. Good night. 85
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 30 Sep 2011 06:24 | # GT, before you go skulking off in a fit of butthurt you should pause to understand that your criticism of libertarianism as according to its own tenets not being conducive to the continuity of the life of a people capable of sustaining a society in which libertarianism would be conceivably workable at all is understood and appreciated. However, it is your unstated ameliorative to what ails - microcommunities - which is received with substantial scepticism. And that is only because such scepticism is profoundly merited. 86
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:47 | # I don’t necessarily disagree with everything or even most of what GenoType has to say, but, like most here, he is deeply unsystematic. For the majority of you who really do not understand economics (God forbid if we started discussing finance or business theory), why don’t you do yourselves a favor and read the literally incomparable Rothbard, one of the great men of our age, whatever his ultimate fallacies or inadequacies, on the greatest economist of all time, his mentor Ludwig von Mises. (Even Dr. Lister might just learn some things about the incontestably superior intellects he ludicrously presumes - without any demonstrated familiarity - to criticize). http://mises.org/daily/5697/Ludwig-von-Mises-Scholar-Creator-Hero I knew Rothbard slightly towards the end of his life, and I am good friends with a man who was good friends with him for over 30 years (and who is both a WN and an anti-chosenite). Rothbard was a fantastic intellect, phenomenally productive, a sparkling writer, a brilliant conversationalist, and a very, very politically incorrect fellow who was perfectly acquainted (and most in agreement) with all manner of race-theory, and who said once in my presence that he thought the Jews were too powerful in America, and were generally a malign force. A wonderful man (I disproved his position on abortion in a study group with him in 1990; the late Joe Sobran was there, and he congratulated me afterwards, saying it was one of Murray’s rare weaker moments; Lew Rockwell got very upset for some reason). 87
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:54 | # Kindly remove my comments, seek Leon’s economic advice, and pay close attention to Hunter Wallace on political strategy.(GT) He would be very wise to heed my economic thoughts. On the other hand, I suspect I have forgotten more about economics (and libertarian theory - I know Hans Hoppe pretty well) than you will ever know, GT, which is why my criticisms of radical libertarianism might actually prove fruitful (hint: one must start with sound knowledge of wertfrie economics, before basing one’s normative political economy on other than wealth-maximization grounds). 88
Posted by anon / uh on Fri, 30 Sep 2011 15:18 | #
Christ. WRITE SMALLER.
89
Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 30 Sep 2011 15:48 | # Anyone that can prattle on about children being ‘coercive’ and and affront to their parents ‘freedom’ as libertarians do obviously are moral cretins but additionally do not understand W.D. Hamilton or inclusive-fitness theory. I might point out that Hamilton’s work is amongst the most robust in the field of behavioural ecology/evolutionary biology. From now on I’ll leave right-facing Hayekian liberals to there own devices. But just as a final aside…according to the learned Mr. Haller dear Ronnie R was ‘duped’ in given millions of illegal aliens citizenship…please my nigga…I thought all these libertarians are all about maximally enacted individual autonomy and responsibility - you know the entirely self-authored individual which forms the foundational ontology of liberalism. Well given that please Mr. Haller and others let Ronnie R retrospectively take full responsibility for his decisions. The illegal amnesty was not an aberration if you consider he was a right-facing Hayekian liberal. But sadly some people never grow out of hero worship. 90
Posted by anon / uh on Fri, 30 Sep 2011 17:15 | #
Grahamy-wahamy, perhaps you can recommend some all-inclusive lolzlzozlzz text for me to understand this important concept? I cannot afford the 163-volume Narrow Back Alleys of Genesburgh or whatever he wrote, and just as well, being all too dense to make my through such thickets of empirical data. A W.D. Hamilton for Dummies, if possible. Please don’t mock me, sir, my ego is small and flimsy as it is! 91
Posted by anon / uh on Fri, 30 Sep 2011 17:20 | # My Chinese friend is really blowing his lid on the “IQ puzzle” thread. ;lozozozlzlzlzz It is the true face of their feelings for us. Many Chinese have nothing but contempt for whites. They hide it better than most, but it’s ever just beneath the surface, especially among their highly literate. 92
Posted by TabuLa Raza on Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:21 | #
The American Pledge of Allegiance was written by the National Socialist, and racist, Francis Bellamy (1892). 93
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 30 Sep 2011 21:21 | # TR, I’m pretty sure the Nazis thought they were copying their stiff-arm salute from the ancient Romans. anon/uh, Yes, the only Chinese who are favorably disposed to Americans and the white man generally are the (thankfully growing) number of Christians. It is disgraceful and treasonous that our neoliberal regime has encouraged so much American corporate development of China’s economy. ABCs tend to be different, more anti-black than white in my experience, though they are now being multiculturalized into general victimhood and resentment by the PC regime. Mass interracial fraternity is a liberal utopian myth. At best, there can be global tolerance and trade. Dasein, No one has been more critical of Randian ‘morality’ than Christian traditionalist conservatives, though her depictions of the sinister motives so often lurking behind liberal ‘do-gooderism’ were spot-on. But when you use apt phrases like “moral vacuity”, what is your normative standpoint? “Vacuity” in light of what ethical foundation? Lister, On the campaign trail in 1980, Reagan famously stated that “a nation which has lost control of its borders can scarcely be called sovereign at all”. Reagan, it is true, was not a racist or even a racialist, and he did speak glowingly of immigrants - though whether he had in mind hordes of Third Worlders, and without thought to absolute numbers, was never clear. Reagan was hardly an intellectual, and his main concerns were defeating communism, and limiting government overreach in the economy. He was no radical libertarian, as Rothbard always pointed out, and his defense and foreign policies proved. I think Reagan could have done more to advance conservatism, but he did a lot nevertheless, especially given political constraints. It is the race problem which led me to reject mid-century American conservatism, despite all its attractions - though it is important to note race can handled within the intellectual parameters of traditionalist conservatism (as I shall be arguing in an article I hope to publish in TOQ in the future). Conservatives emphasizing the importance of maintaining traditions, and social harmony (not to mention national security), can hardly be indifferent to the science and sociology of racial differences. A whole book could and needs to be written on the subject of race and the Reagan presidency, and twentieth century conservatism more broadly. But there was a great deal of value in that political tendency, as indeed there is in Hayekian liberalism, too. The trick is to synthesize what is valuable with WN’s deeper understanding of biology and its social and political implications. Thus is intellectual progress made. 94
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 01 Oct 2011 05:50 | # re Greau (How does one do accents and other obscure punctuation at MR?): I’m going to read this article on “capitalist contrarian” Greau tonight, alone in a strange city as I am: http://www.newleftreview.org/?view=2897 It does look promising. There are few tasks more important than the development of a nationalist political economics, to go along with a future nationalist political economy. Of course, one must try to learn the facts of economics before subjecting existing arrangements to normative critique. On that note, I hope some are reading the Rothbard eulogy of Mises that I linked to above. It would constitute a useful hour or so. I think I’ll re-read that as well (as with so much else, I have the original in monograph form somewhere in book storage). Finally, bored, alone and needing a study break, I saw three movies last night: Straw Dogs (a mediocre remake of the now-classic Peckinpah/ Dustin Hoffman film from the early 70s; notable in this context only for its almost reactionary-liberal portrayal of Southern rednecks; the director must think it’s still 1971 (if not ‘31) out there); The Debt, a well-made and suspenseful film about - what else, when Germans are involved? - Jews and Nazis (which reminds me, like every third or fourth film I see, what a great PR boom the Holocaust was for advancing Jewish EGI); and lastly, the much more interesting Contagion (about a global disease outbreak). The latter film was well-made, if less action-oriented than I had hoped (actually, the same indictment holds for all three movies). But it does graphically bring home a line of nationalist attack that I’ve had in the back of my mind for several decades: to wit, the dangerously easy transmission of disease in our neoliberal, borderless world. I think infectious disease, and biological (ecological) issues more broadly, is/are the Achilles heel of the liberal tradition. Strictly economic arguments against free markets are easy to defeat, as are challenges to autonomous individualism (though the latter are not impossible). But understand man’s activities as embedded in a reality far larger than himself, and one bursts through to a standpoint from which human action can be more accurately assessed. 95
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 04 Oct 2011 08:38 | #
Then give me the room to work which does not entail deleting my comments (this is not Mangan’s but MR, correct?). How I oft do that is…I ascribe base motives to people that plausibly fit their motivation for not explicitly supporting racial preservation (i.e., “racial purity”). I can think of no reason for them to reject straight racial preservation, by whatever means or form of presentation, other than that they are deluded or chickenshit. The function of MR is not now to protect the ill-formed sensibilities of the deluded and the chickenshit, is it? We’ve got Mangan’s for that! Post a comment:
Next entry: The Jew and the gypsies
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 24 Sep 2011 04:01 | #
Definitely.
Good list.