|
|
Intelligence vs. control of the money supplyA recent proposal has argued that nationalists should try to seek reproduction with higher IQ whites so that: “They will naturally rise to the highest levels of society and victory will be inevitable. This is how the white race will be saved.” The prospects can be empirically evaluated. Richard Lynn has extensively summarized IQ studies on Jews. Most studies are non-representative. A representative American study reported a Jewish (Ashkenazi) verbal IQ of 107.5. Two representative British studies have reported Jewish (Ashkenazi) IQs as 108.5 and 107.7 (verbal = 107.3, non-verbal = 108.0). The best reading of American and British Ashkenazi IQ is 110. The average white IQ in these regions is 100. In the U.S., there are about 200 million whites and 6.5 million Jews. Assuming a standard deviation of 15 in both populations, we get the following.
As anyone can see, Jews haven’t achieved their spectacular success (e.g., control of the mainstream media, ZOG, etc.) as a result of IQ; they achieved it by acquiring control of the money supply. Nationalists are advised to target getting back control of the money supply instead of trying to increase IQ. I’m not against increasing IQ, but IQ just isn’t relevant to the matter. Posted by R-news on Wednesday, January 11, 2012 at 09:44 PM in Anthropology, European Nationalism, Global Elitism, IQ and Heredity, Jewish Diaspora, That Question Again, White Nationalism Comments:2
Posted by Just-So on January 12, 2012, 01:26 AM | # Yes. That old canard that so many Jews occupy positions of power and prestige because they are smart. lol. 3
Posted by Liberal Heresy on January 12, 2012, 06:49 AM | # The idea, as I understood it, referred to the desire to have those very high IQ individuals within our tent working towards our political ends, not to seed wider society at this stage. Breeding them and then nurturing them to flower is one (delayed) way to achieve that. Yes they already exist and in significant numbers, yet if they are really required.. the difficulty is to win those already existent individuals to the cause when they have a quantum physics Ph.D on their C.V. and are currently designing financial weapons of mass destruction for Goldman Sachs on a 500k basic a year or maybe best case in other more ethical high intellectual input careers with all the status and position they feel is their due. I still tend to believe that these individuals will be better suited to the engine room rather than the WN shadow cabinet but then where is that lesser creature, the shadow cabinet? 4
Posted by Lurker on January 12, 2012, 07:17 AM | # Google wasnt the first search engine, Facebook wasnt the only social networking site. But they have outclassed all others. Their engine rooms are full of bright whites but look who is in charge. Once the initial technology was good enough; well connected, well financed men of a certain ethnic group sprang to the fore. No tedious bootstrapping for them. Twitter is interesting as they dont seem to have that yet but its so dumbed down and inherently trivial perhaps it doesnt matter. And who knows what corporate changes in the pipeline there, a well financed buyout, more seats on the board? 5
Posted by Anon on January 12, 2012, 07:55 AM | # Gaining control of the money supply sounds like a difficult challenge. You would need lots of highly motivated intelligent people to pull it off. Now where would you get them from? Hmm. It doesn’t have to be a binary choice of either or. A larger number of white people genetically selected for the task of taking control of the money supply would improve chances of success.
You cannot rely on mainstream whites to do anything to save the white race. This task is up to nationalist whites alone. So nationalist whites must focus in on themselves to make themselves better on the genetic level so they are better able to do the task at hand. Nationalist whites must genetically change themselves to become the ultimate political activists on the genetic level. They must select for the genetic traits that go into making the ultimate political activist. Maybe having a high IQ is not the same as being the ultimate political activist. So not only traits such as high IQ but other traits such as: - Outgoing personality (for approaching people to convert) Once nationalist whites have built themselves a good strong genetic foundation specifically selected for the task at hand, things will become a lot easier. (Of course this must also be coupled with an upbringing specifically designed to raise a loyal white ultimate political activist) 6
Posted by Leon Haller on January 12, 2012, 08:19 AM | # Re: “what is white?” How about this (my longtime mantra, probably lifted from who knows at some distant decade past): IF A MAN LOOKS WHITE, ACTS WHITE, AND FIGHTS WHITE - HE’S WHITE! Really, people, can we avoid being complete fools? I’m more Nordic than all but a few of you, but growing up near very multiculti LA (even ‘way back’ in the 70s), I learned to differentiate who was white and who wasn’t. At the margins, cultural background replaces race. I considered the Armenian kid down the road to be white, and so would most people (in part because he was Americanized and Christian). I even considered a Persian kid white, again because he looked it (more so than many Italians I’ve known) but also because his family was very secular. Had he been a prayer kneeler to Mecca, I would not have considered him white. After all, there is no clear demarcation (at least that is visible, or, I bet, genetic) between a Swede and an Austrian, an Austrian and a Frenchman, a Frenchman and a Serb, or even a Greek and a Turk. Each successive group is a bit darker and less ideal-Nordic on average, but all are Caucasoids. Among such we only can speak in terms of averages. What finally separates is culture and psychological affiliation. 7
Posted by Leon Haller on January 12, 2012, 08:23 AM | # WTF?! I’m really beat. sorry. I posted the wrong comment here (this was supposed to be to another website). I don;t know what I just did. Richards don’t have a crap. If you want to move my comment elsewhere go ahead, although rereading it it might have some general value. 8
Posted by Leon Haller on January 12, 2012, 08:26 AM | #
YOU’re not Belize anon, are you? Anyway, are you fucking serious or putting us all on? What century are you talking about here? By the time WNs have a “good genetic foundation”, our lands will all be thoroughly colonized, and we’ll be outnumbered 50-1. And people think White Zion is unrealistic??? 9
Posted by Anon on January 12, 2012, 09:17 AM | # @Leon Haller on January 12, 2012, 08:26 AM No. I’m being serious.
Jews are massively outnumbered and it hasn’t stopped them from ruling the roost. 10
Posted by daniel on January 12, 2012, 09:57 AM | # Well, Leon Haller and Anon, You’ve incidentally implied the answer to a potential means of getting it done. Bold, cunning, intelligent, brave men with a plan and means to take the money from Jews so that it may be deployed on our behalf.
12
Posted by CL on January 12, 2012, 11:01 AM | #
Józef Klemens Piłsudski 13
Posted by Gregor on January 12, 2012, 11:42 AM | # Does anyone have the stats on the really salient metric, the EQ (Ethnocentrism Quotient)? Does anyone have suggestions for what it takes to increase that among our people? Is that even possible? 14
Posted by Bill Yancey on January 12, 2012, 03:46 PM | # That “Money Masters” piece is hilarious.
It has a whole lot more than three errors in it, but since it doesn’t reference its sources I won’t bother refuting it. Suffice to say that that’s why no one has “successfully challenged” it. Well, ok, I’ll offer one example. The theory is posited that the banksters were behind the American Civil War in order to divide the United States. The division was not attained. The banksters gained control of the US money supply. See what I mean? 15
Posted by Dan Dare on January 12, 2012, 04:36 PM | # Yes, the twerps that produced it don’t even realise that the yarn about Nathan Rothschild is lifted directly from Aktien auf Waterloo (UFA 1940) nor that the tale originally appeared in a novel by Balzac. Still, it’s hardly surprising given the casual manner in which Richards vets his sources. In another thread he even has a citation which purports to show that it was thanks to the Jews that the British Army overcame French resistance in Quebec, and that General James Wolfe was himself Jewish! It would indeed be hilarious if it weren’t so sad. 16
Posted by Bill Yancey on January 12, 2012, 05:37 PM | # The CW being my thing, I’ve had the theory handed to me by otherwise intelligent people many times since the advent of the internet. While I have little doubt that the banksters had much to do with the war, I’m continually confounded by the idea that they would purposely arrange to have to take control of two governments instead of just one. It must be a matter of faith, as the contradiction might tend to bruise the saintliness of Mr. Lincoln. Speaking of determining IQ, Responses to “Ron Paul’s America” by H. G. Fields 17
Posted by Colin on January 12, 2012, 08:04 PM | # One obvious problem with that analysis. The pop. distributions aren’t necessarily equal. It’s entirely possible they’re different. Morphologically, the Jewish pop. is quite tightly spread, so potentially, this could be also reflected in IQ. If strongly selected for higher IQ, which is likely, then expect the IQ to be tightly spread (evolution being an essentially parsimonious enterprise). I think the key issue is that Jews have high verbal IQ. Verbal IQ is really advantageous in some aspects. It’s the same reason why Chinese don’t do a lot better than Indians despite much higher IQ. 18
Posted by GenoType on January 12, 2012, 10:35 PM | #
Given the relative scarcity of functional men with families in the literary movement the proposal is naive. Let us wave a wand and change this, so that single white ‘nationalist men’ of high IQ are able to form functional families with high IQ white women and breed at replacement levels. If the foundational attitudes of whites are more or less unchanged from one generation to the next, then nothing changes in the political dimension. Given selection pressures an increase in social docility and submissiveness to authority should be expected, and reciprocity will continue its decline.
19
Posted by Greg Johnson on January 13, 2012, 12:24 AM | # This argument is based on a breathtaking obvious false alternative: either Jews are dominant because of high IQ or because they control the money supply. Taking IQ into account, Jews are massively overrepresented among the most powerful and influential people of our society. Therefore, IQ alone does not explain their power. But “control of the money supply” does not constitute a complete explanation either. First, is it even true? Second, if it is true, what explains it? Third, if it is true, it just reduces to another powerful sector in which Jews are dominant without explaining why they dominate. I think there are four factors that taken together explain a lot of Jewish power: 1. Intelligence, particularly of the verbal kind 2. High ethnocentrism, including nepotism (which is a huge part of why they are overrepresented in the Ivy League by a factor of 10) 3. A sense of destiny: Jews made up a God who promised them the world, and they are delivering on that promise. This explains why some market dominant minorities seek money and Jews seek money+power. Patels buy motels; Jews buy movie studios. When an Armenian bought a movie studio from Jews, he stripped it of its real estate assets and left the creative activity in the hands of Jews. 4. Materialism: Jews emphasize material power; compared to other peoples, there are few if any “spiritual” or “moral” values to which they will sacrifice their material power. Indeed, their religion and morality is merely an attempt to give a spiritual authority to base materialism and immorality.
20
Posted by Silver on January 13, 2012, 06:12 AM | # Johnson, Excellent points. (Of course, as “controlled opposition,” you would say that, wouldn’t you.) Financial power seems to have an irresistible allure for conspiracy theorists. Their mode of operation rests on understanding that most people can’t keep up with the technical details of the discussion but that this doesn’t matter since most people are simply concerned whether someone, something or some group is harming their interests; and since it’s a simple matter to create the impression that banks hurts people’s interests they plow on no matter how powerfully argued objections to or refutations of their positions are. At the extremes, rather than just propounding a questionable or fallacious interpretation of banking matter, money kooks like Eustace Mullins just make things up. For those who’ve been led to believe Richards just may be onto something (cough, cough, CapC, cough), here’s a link to a pro-gold (“goldbug”) site that picks apart Mullins’ Fed claims. http://www.usagold.com/federalreserve.html I link there because goldbugs tend to be go for (aracial) conspiracies-lite, believing in the existence of things like the “Plunge Protection Team” and, particularly, that the US government is active in suppressing the price of gold (which they used to say when gold traded around $300, but said even now, when it’s pushing $2000); so it’s telling that even this group would prefer to distance itself from outright frauds like Mullins. If you ask me, the similarities between Mullins and Richards are obvious. You’d have to be daft to take anything they tell you at face value. (As I’ve said, a real pity in Richards case, because when he sticks to subjects he knows something about he often makes good points.)
21
Posted by J Richards on January 13, 2012, 10:39 AM | # anon @5
No matter how difficult, it’s what matters. As to highly motivated intelligent people… look at the stats; intelligence is a non-issue. As to motivation, look at the Occupy movement as it burst on the scene. The sincere core comprises of whites. The Occupy movement hasn’t achieved anything, just like the 9/11 truth movement hasn’t gone anywhere, not for want of enough motivated people but because Jews set up both movements, pre-emptively, to lead, control and misdirect opposition. There’s no shortage of motivated and intelligent people.
As I’ve already cited elsewhere, most whites attach at least some importance to their race, including almost 40% of American whites who considered their race very important and 77% who wanted white culture preserved in a representative survey.
And nationalists have done a fine job thus far! For any nationalist group set up in good faith, Jews will set up two phony ones… again, to lead the opposition… they have the money to do this. And Jews will do everything possible to infiltrate the one set up in good faith. Natonalism is too vague. People need to understand the problem [control of money in hostile hands] and its solution [taking back control of the money supply], and once people understand this, non-Jews from across the politicial spectrum, including non-whites, can be brought together to work to take back control of the money supply… the other goodies will naturally follow.
The one thing that will pay dividends is to educate themselves about the root of the problem and target the infiltration.
Jews didn’t bother selecting for beauty, height, etc…. they went after wealth and worked on controlling the money supply. On ethnocentrism, if you run similar statistics on this variable, guess what? The absolute number of very ethnocentric whites will far exceed the corresponding number of Jews. So what’s preventing the large number of ethnocentric whites from joining together and taking care of the problem? Phony nationalist groups galore, infiltration, becoming victims to massive Jewish disinformation propaganda, etc. And the genetic changes you seek take many generations, whereas in a fraction of this time most Westerners will be living like people in the third world if the money problem isn’t taken care of. 22
Posted by J Richards on January 13, 2012, 10:43 AM | # Bill Yancey @14
But you attempt a feeble refutation thereafter. As to sources, it’s a video script, not an essay. Do you see videos packed with citations like a scholarly journal article? The video quotes numerous people existing and in the past. To organize the amount of history they have within a few hours, all they can do is to refer you to the authors/people, various documents and facts. They won’t spoon feed you. It’s up to you to research the details.
So you reject an idea you find outrageous, facts be damned… great job! If it were a mere civil war, why was the French army stationed at the Mexican border, the British army at the Canadian border, a Russian fleet in New York and another Russian fleet in San Francisco? You can look this up. Bill Yancey @16
So now you sing a different tune… that the bankers had much to do with the war. The rest bears no resemblance to the argument on the U.S. civil war presented in the video. The south would’ve been taken by France and the north by Britain. Both France and Britain were under banker control. So it’s not like they were going to set up two independent, different governments. And the whole intent behind the war was to avoid having to deal with a single powerful nation that wasn’t under their control. If this nation could be split, even if the split halves weren’t taken over by France and Britain and remained independent, Jews could more easily exploit the now-weaker independent nations, including pitting them against each other, and take control of North America than exploit a single powerful nation opposed to their control. 23
Posted by J Richards on January 13, 2012, 10:47 AM | # Dan Dare @ 15
You seem to cover your ass by mentioning that the German production wasn’t the first to mention it. The matter’s been known for a long time and was merely documented in the German film. Why should the German secondary source be relevant to the money masters movie? The money masters movie talks about a court case covered in the New York times. Being a video, you wouldn’t expect them to include the details, but they can be verified: “The New York Times, April 1, 1915 reported that in 1914, Baron Nathan Mayer de Rothschild went to court to suppress Ignatius Balla’s book [The Romance of the Rothschilds] on the grounds that the Waterloo story about his grandfather was untrue and libelous. The court ruled that the story was true, dismissed Rothschild’s suit, and ordered him to pay all costs. The New York Times noted in this story that “The total Rothschild wealth has been estimated at $2 billion” [note that the purchasing power of the dollar was more than a thousand times greater back then]. A previous story in The New York Times (May 27, 1905) noted that Baron Alphonse de Rothschild, head of the French house of Rothschild, possessed $60 million in American securities in his fortune, although the Rothschilds reputedly were not active in the American field. This explains why their agent, J.P. Morgan, had only $19 million in securities in his estate when he died in 1913, and securities handled by Morgan were actually owned by his employer, Rothschild.” You can read the book “The Romance of the Rothschilds” http://www.archive.org/details/romanceofrothsch00balluoft This book and the attempts to suppress it were discussed in the New York Times on Jan. 26, 1913: http://www.majorityrights.com/uploads/ny-times-rothschild-jan-26-1913.pdf The April 1, 1915 article in the New York Times mentioning Rothschild losing the defamation court case is here: http://www.majorityrights.com/uploads/ny-times-rothschild-april-1-1915.pdf So why is a German movie, a secondary source, relevant when an earlier and original source, “untainted” by an association with the National Socialists, which withstood attempts at suppression and legal trouble, is available? Or is it that you cite the German movie to somehow “taint” the argument as anything associated with the National Socialists must be suspect and lacking in merit?
From a Kosher source: The Jewish presence in Quebec City is over two centuries old. During the French period in the 1600s and first half of the 1700s, Jews were banned by King Louis XIV from settling in what was then New France. The first attempt by a Jew to settle in Quebec was unsuccessful. In 1759, after five unsuccessful attempts, the British army, under General James Wolfe scaled the cliffs along Quebec City and surprised the Marquis de Montcalm and his French troops defending the city. In a twenty minute battle on the Plains of Abraham, the course of history and the course of Jewish life in North America were irrevocably changed. The first Jew to arrive with the conquering British army was Lieutenant Aaron Hart… Heard of missing the forest for the trees? Someone [not me] describes an oak tree as a chestnut tree—and plenty of chestnut trees happen to be around—and you say that the existence of the forest this person described must be discarded. Well, there are other observers who haven’t made this error and they’ve also described the existence of the forest. I see you’ve been bitching about the ongoing Juden studies at MR. As you know, class attendance is optional. But the attendees are expected to be sincere. So I hope that unlike Haller, if you say you won’t be attending, then you mean it instead of repeating it over and over and disrupting class. 24
Posted by J Richards on January 13, 2012, 10:52 AM | # Colin @17
Indeed, but the burden of proof’s on you to cite evidence of the difference and show why intelligence would matter.
A tighter Jewish spread would mean that whites outnumber Jews at the higher ranges of IQ by an even greater margin!
Already acknowledged and accounted for… it’s practically irrelevant. Greg Johnson @19
There’s no such alternative. The post’s about rejecting the intelligence argument. I could’ve left it there and some would wonder what’s the reason for the success. So I linked to the reason, control of the money supply, an argument developed elsewhere, not in the post.
As the IQ figures show, IQ is hardly relevant.
If you have to ask, why bother?
The post isn’t intended to explain how the Jews came to control the money supply, nor what motivated them.
Intelligence is hardly a factor, as the calculations clearly show. If you run similar calculations on the ethnocentrism variable, whereas Jews may be more ethnocentric, there are a lot more whites, and the absolute number of ethnocentric whites easily far exceed the number of ethnocentric Jews. As to sense of destiny or materialism, these are too vague to waste time on. Undoubtedly, there must be a sizeable number of materialistic whites and whites driven my money, too… why bother with all this when one could read history and see how the Jews ended up controlling the money supply?
If the Patels had the money to buy movie studios, they would. 25
Posted by J Richards on January 13, 2012, 10:56 AM | # Silver @20
Some refutation! The serious points are ignored. There’s an attempt to address two issue to discredit the entire work. One claim that’s addressed, the ownership, is a safe claim to address as it’s impossible for the ordinary reader to definitively verify it because the Federal Reserve banks are private and even if one could attempt to use the FOIA (Freedom of information Act) to get the details of the actual ownership of these banks, one would be denied the information on national security grounds. The other claim about the Fed returning most of what it earns in profits to the government is seen for what it is. Any reasonable person can think about it. This is an institution that has never been audited and can make any claims it wants without having to prove it. We are supposed to believe the following: A government that could issue its own money, just as it issues bonds, doesn’t. Why go through this circuitous route when the government could simply issue the money, by creating it out of nothing, just as banks do, and thus not be under debt? Thinking minds can figure out who are the frauds. 26
Posted by Dasein on January 13, 2012, 01:03 PM | # JR, Though you are right about the absolute numbers, how do you know that concentration isn’t important? The friends and family of a high-IQ white will likely be lower IQ than would those of a jew with the same IQ. This means that the weakest link in a group of whites (be that a group looking to control the money supply, take over a newspaper, etc.) is likely to be weaker than in a group of jews. Maybe that’s important. I agree with you that intelligence alone doesn’t explain jewish domination of certain fields, but the argument based on absolute numbers is limited. 27
Posted by Dasein on January 13, 2012, 01:51 PM | # Related to my previous comment, one weakness in the absolute numbers argument is that regression to the mean is regression to the population mean, so it will affect jews and whites to different degrees. The offspring of a white couple with 140 IQs will on average be lower IQ than the offspring of a jewish couple with 140 IQs. In the business world, where children have often inherited the family business, this would be important. 28
Posted by Greg Johnson on January 13, 2012, 05:13 PM | # I am sure there might be more ethnocentric whites than ethnocentric Jews in absolute numbers, but the reason why whites do not work together as a group is not the number of ethnocentric whites, but the relative scarcity of them and their thin distribution in the overall white population. This means that white ethnocentrism is not likely to be reciprocated, which means that even ethnocentric whites will eventually adopt non-ethnocentric behavior patterns. When I was in India, I always made a point of speaking to other whites, but I received a frosty reception enough times that I became less friendly. If ethnocentric whites could concentrate themselves in geographical locales, or find other ways of interacting with one another in reciprocal, highly ethnocentric manners, that could be a game changer. The regime surely is taking precautions to prevent that from happening, the most effective being the online troll who creates a madhouse atmosphere and sows distrust so that most people will not risk taking online racialism into the real world. 29
Posted by Dan Dare on January 13, 2012, 05:36 PM | # Surely the obvious difference between ethnocentric Jews and non-ethnocentric whites is that the former are a small minority in western countries whereas the latter aren’t. It’s unclear who the whites were that you interacted with in India, but from my own experience in Singapore, where I lived for several years, white expatriates in a diaspora setting tend to become highly ethnocentric. We had separate clubs and other social arrangements for Britons, Americans, Germans, French and so on. Naturally there was some interaction between the groups socially, but almost never with the locals, who themselves tended to congregate in their own ethnic enclaves. Parhaps as European-Americans themselves approach minority status there will be a corresponding increase in ethnocentricity, even internal separation on grounds of ‘nationality’ (or regional affiliation, or perceived ethnic background). 30
Posted by Bill Yancey on January 13, 2012, 05:41 PM | # J Richards, your prove-it-isn’t-so logic sounds rather Weisenthalian and you use too many adjectives. We could go round and round with theory forever, but you chose your format, I didn’t. If you expect to be taken seriously, be prepared to substantiate your case with references. I’ll make a last foolhardy attempt regarding the CW. Since your theory has the Jews breaking up the US in order to gain control of the money supply, and since they ended up gaining it without a successful breakup, is it not more likely that they were behind the further consolidation of the central government and therefore likelier to have behind behind the unconstitutional and Soviet-style actions of the Lincoln administration? Why did their poised-for-action pawns in England and France not assist the Confederacy? Why were Germans and Irishmen flooded into the US to fight for the union? I mean, they were the string-pullers in Europe, according to you. Don’t tell me, their defeat in 1848 was a charade designed to make it look as if they had less power than they actually had. Right? They certainly didn’t go to New York, or anything like that, did they? 31
Posted by Graham_Lister on January 13, 2012, 05:44 PM | # What I find depressing about MR, particularly of late, is the seemingly relentless descend into the world of conspiracy and monomania – it hardly conveys a sincere wish or desire to tackle rather complex and difficult questions. There is no single overriding causal factor at work in human history – unless one is a fanatical ideologue of one sort or another – then there is always a simple answer. But what is distressing is the intolerance of any dissent from the monomania – ‘controlled opposition’ and the like. That really cannot be the basis for any serious enquiry or discussion. Rather the effect of such as attitude is similar to when the stereotypical ‘pub nutter’ attempts to rope anyone into his favoured conversational territory and the other sensible pub goers back away as quickly as possible in order to avoid his rants. On the question of the frequency of ethnocentrically orientated behaviour – I dub this the ‘intra-group coordination problem’ – it certainly is an important issue that requires serious analysis. 32
Posted by Liberal Heresy on January 13, 2012, 06:38 PM | # ‘intra-group coordination problem’ Good idea for an educative thread.. 33
Posted by Bill Yancey on January 13, 2012, 07:42 PM | #
Perhaps. I think it rather more healthy to occasionally entertain. Sort of as how the workday is separated from drudgery by lunchtime. So long as participants know the difference. 34
Posted by Dan Dare on January 13, 2012, 08:08 PM | # J Richards @ 23
This particular German movie, as you should be aware, can hardly be cited as an objective source for reasons which should be obvious. The fact that it retails exactly the same legend in exactly the same hyperbolic manner as your preferred source, which has itself been debunked on numerous occasions, should have been a warning to you to desist from further foolishness. But since you persist in wanting to undermine your own credibility, I will post separately Niall Ferguson’s full account of N.M. Rothschild’s financial transactions for the period between Napoleon’s escape from Elba in February 1815 and the late summer, following the French defeat at Waterloo in June. Hopefully after reading this you will think twice in the future about posting unattributed fairy tales in the guise of historical commentary.
Responding to criticism of one source by introducing another, completely different one indicates that either the writer is being mendacious, or that he thinks his readers are idiots, or both. In any case, this is the citation that I objected to:
Your anonymous blogger claims that General James Wolfe was Jewish. Is that a claim you would wish to stand by, and if not, what about the rest of the article in question? Have you verified for yourself the various assertions contained in it and if not, why did you cite it? Do you customarily accept the words of ananoymous bloggers without other corroboration? We know you do so with ‘movies’ so it would come as little surprise to learn that you do.
Referring to other contributors as members of your class is in itself quite telling, although it’s difficult to discern any pedagogical content in your monomaniacal ravings which are perhaps more suited to a venue like Stormfront or VNN than here. I can see now that I was perhaps over-hasty in announcing my departure, and that it would be better all-round that I and others remain as contributors in order that some sense of balance may be restored to what should be (and has been in the past) a valuable resource for nationalists generally. I’d appeal to other above-the-fold contributors who have also fallen away in recent months to return with useful and interesting content that will stimulate adult discussion that avoids the myopic parochialism, melodramatic antics and mean-spirited personal attacks exhibited by Richards and his coterie. I would also appeal to Guessedworker, wherever he may be, to consider reining in your propensity to harrass and bully other members who happen to disagree with the Standard Narrative as laid down by your goodself. We have no need for latterday Kapos here.
35
Posted by Leon Haller on January 13, 2012, 11:19 PM | #
Yes, thank you, Greg. Some of us refer to one variant of this proposal as White Zion. Glad you’re coming ‘round. I’ve written on this somewhat extensively. The white race is toast - extinction - unless we figure out how to become sovereign, somewhere. I support all racial secessionist/sovereigntist movements, but I think the only realistic possibility, outside of an ethnonationalist renaissance in some Continental European country whose language few of us in the Anglosphere want to have to try to learn (especially as life in the US, Canada, even Britain, is still more acceptable than the hassle of having to move to Latvia or Hungary or wherever), is for serious WNs to be modern pioneers and emigrate and demographically/electorally conquer a small country, or an area of such at first - exactly as Latinos are in the process of doing here in CA, and nonwhites as a group throughout the US. The only way we will achieve sovereignty in the US is either if the whole country collapses, with ‘all bets off’, or through an ‘underground sovereignty’, by which nonwhites are completely unofficially kept out of white zones of habitation through private harassment, such as took place (and to some extent still does) in many parts of the country, esp the South, even without legal ‘Jim Crow’. I happen to have more faith than many WNs, I admit, in the ability of the system to self-correct in the short-term, albeit continuing its long term trend towards being ever less hospitable to white norms and society. As the US becomes ever more nonwhite-dominant, we will see several more white electoral cycles, with whites of all classes and regions becoming ever more Republican. Each of these electoral eruptions of implicit whiteness will retard (but probably not end) the macro-process of nonwhite domination leading to eventual white extinction (mainly through miscegenation, not murder). I see no way whites will be saved without defensible, WN (or white-ethnonationalist) controlled sovereign territory. White Zion, the White Republic, the Racial State, or whatever it is called, must be our final goal. The only real question is whether we work towards domestic secession or foreign demographic conquest. For the latter, we need to build up a critical mass or network of supporters/pioneers here (or throughout the web-connected world), and then begin emigrating en masse, preferably targeting one area before branching out to others within the new country. Trying to get masses of easily and already indoctrinated whites on the warpath of counter-Semitism strikes me as much less likely to succeed. 36
Posted by Leon Haller on January 13, 2012, 11:31 PM | #
First part of the sentence is right, and something I have predicted for decades (though, admittedly, I;m still waiting for increasing implicit whiteness to become explicit ...); second part possible, but probably less likely. The reasons whites will probably not break down into ethnonationality is that we are all so ethnically mixed already. There are still white ethnic enclaves around (Little Italys, Irelands, the Amish, the Mormons to some extent), but obviously nothing like in the old days pre-WW2. Most white Americans see themselves as ‘white’, not German, English, Polish (though whites seem to retain greater ethnic consciousness the more genetically dissimilar they are from the Anglo-Aryan Founders). On the other hand, where your scenario could come about (something I have also reflected upon as a possible ‘way in’ to race consciousness), is if increasingly region-minoritized whites want to affirm some kind of protective group identity for themselves, but still can’t bring themselves to “stand up and say it loud, I’m WHITE and I’m proud!”, because of effete worries over ‘rayyyycism’. Then maybe some might resuscitate old ethnic identities in lieu of asserting their racial one (I’ve occasionally wondered if the Celtic Games and Renaissance Faire phenomena aren’t undeclared examples of this).
37
Posted by Leon Haller on January 13, 2012, 11:36 PM | #
Um, yes, well put, thank you Graham, hello? I don’t recall your exactly rising to my defense when I was bearing the brunt of this style of attack, or supporting my criticizing Richards and his retarded acolytes for precisely these offenses. I do look forward to more persons working their respective ways to my positions over time (and I’m not primarily referring the the JRichards Problem). 38
Posted by Leon Haller on January 13, 2012, 11:50 PM | #
Perfect. Of course, not to be the broken record here, but I have complained about this for quite a while now, and have long been warning about MR’s steady deterioration under the Richards + Stooges onslaught. Disagreeing with JRichards does not in itself indicate one is: 1. malicious No one is the ‘last word’ in very complex discussions involving history, evolution, politics, economics, psychology, sociology and multiple other disciplines. Threatening or trying to run off persons who are engaging topical matters seriously violates the spirit of free speech as well as inquiry, and really is the death knell of internet discussion sites. Let the other Powers That Be take appropriate heed. 39
Posted by Captainchaos on January 14, 2012, 12:16 AM | #
Niall Ferguson is a rentboy of the Jews. Will you be posting his thoughts on the veracity of the Holohoax as well? 40
Posted by Dan Dare on January 14, 2012, 01:32 AM | # Passing over the Capn’s trademark banalities for the moment, here is Ferguson’s account, which may be a little too lengthy for his gnat-like attention span, but then, there we are..
Part II to follow
41
Posted by Dan Dare on January 14, 2012, 01:37 AM | # N.M. Rothschild and the Battle of Waterloo - Part II
42
Posted by Jimmy Marr on January 14, 2012, 01:54 AM | #
You’re absolutely right, “Leo”. No one needed J. Richards to point out the obvious. Captcha = “degree 32” Shine on you crazy diamond. Captcha = “means 88” 43
Posted by dc on January 14, 2012, 03:10 AM | # ad J Richards Well, well. The jew wailing chorus is in full cry, so I am sure you are on the right track. All the same the frogs are an annoyance and distraction. Can something not be done to limit the input of the obviously dishonest, Haller, Dan Dare, etc.? On topic: I like the statistical approach but there are a couple of caveats which you might address. First, we have no way to verify the actual size of the jew population. In my opinion the number is very likely closer to 5% than 2%. The Twain quotation is apt. Second the jew population is concentrated in the urban centres: rural whites, however bright, are not competing with jews. 44
Posted by Liberal Heresy on January 14, 2012, 08:00 AM | # @Dan Dare Presented historical facts need answering or placing in context where possible but considering the closeness of Ferguson to those whom are under criticism here, would you expect any perfidy to be fully outlined? He is an insioder not a scabrous outsider. In a similar way, I have a vague memory that you are a defender of Churchill and a critic of Irving. Now without opening up a long discussion regarding your views on David Irving, since Churchill’s War I/II many other books have taken a different stance, starting with Charmley. Should we still say that due to his access, Martin Gilbert, the official biographer of Churchill has told us all that we need to know? If not, should Ferguson be considered the key source here?
“In 2003, former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger provided Ferguson with access to his White House diaries, letters, and archives for what Ferguson calls a “warts-and-all biography” of Kissinger.” Above this it says ‘unprecedented access’. Should we expect the Machievellian tale of HK to be described fully by Ferguson? “He is currently a contributing editor for Bloomberg Television and a columnist for Newsweek.” “Ferguson wrote two volumes about the prominent Rothschild family: The House of Rothschild: Volume 1: Money’s Prophets: 1798–1848 The books won the Wadsworth Prize for Business History and were also short-listed for the Jewish Quarterly-Wingate Literary Award and the American National Jewish Book Award.” http://www.businessweek.com/1998/49/b3607071.htm “With access to all extant Rothschild archives, Ferguson is well-positioned to separate myth from reality”.
45
Posted by MOB on January 14, 2012, 08:06 AM | # Speaking of intelligence and money power, here are some paraphrased excerpts from an article about Mitt Romney’s ties to Israeli military intelligence. The expressions on Romney’s face in several photos are noteworthy. One shows him speaking at the Mossad’s (IDC) “Herzliya Conference on Israeli Security” in 2007, another shows him and Bill Bain in the Bain corporate office, and another shows Romney greeting his old friend, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu; Romney and Netanyahu worked together as consultants at Boston Consulting Group early in their careers. The Bain photo shows me a guilty weasel; the other two reveal Romney’s gratitude and humility toward these powerful people who’ve accepted him into the fold. MOB http://www.bollyn.com/the-iowa-caucus-and-iran Mitt Romney’s Ties to Israeli Military Intelligence Romney’s Israeli Handler - Orit Gadiesh, former “War Room” assistant to Ezer Weizman and Moshe Dayan, is the daughter of Israeli Brigadier General Falk Gadiesh (born Falk Gruenfeld, Berlin, 1921) and his Ukrainian-born wife. Gadiesh is chairman of the management consulting firm Bain & Company, the parent company of Bain Capital, and was the company’s managing director under CEO Mitt Romney in 1992. Bain Capital owns Clear Channel, the largest radio station group owner in the United States. Clear Channel owns the networks which air the most popular radio talk shows, including The Rush Limbaugh Show, The Glenn Beck Program, The Sean Hannity Show, America Now with Andy Dean, Coast to Coast AM, The Savage Nation, The Mark Levin Show, and The Dave Ramsey Show. Mitt Romney was a co-founder of Bain Capital along with Bill Bain. Bain was ousted in 1991 and Romney served as CEO in 1991-1992. While Romney was CEO, Gadiesh was named chairman of Bain & Co.’s Policy Committee, which set the company’s business strategy and policy, and then managing director. Orit Gadiesh, born in Israel in 1951, has worked closely with Mitt Romney since at least 1991, and probably much longer since she joined Bain & Company in 1977, when she was 26. Romney appointed her to his transition team when he became governor of Massachusetts in 2002. Prior to joining Bain & Company, Gadiesh served in Israeli military intelligence. Her first position in the Israeli military was as assistant to Ezer Weizman, the deputy chief of staff who later became president of Israel. During the early 1970s, she worked in the war room, a bunker where Gen. Moshe Dayan was in charge. As a war room assistant to Weizman, Orit provided military leaders with documents and correspondence. She is on the board of directors of the Peres Center for Peace, an organization headed by a former chief of staff of the Israeli military, Lt. General Amnon Lipkin-Shahak. The high-level Mossadnik Avner Azulay, managing director of the Marc Rich Foundation, is also on the executive board of the Peres Center. Romney’s close relationship with Orit Gadiesh and Israeli military intelligence is the real reason he is the chosen candidate of the Zionist establishment. Romney is being supported by high-level Zionists, Israeli military intelligence, and their controlled media network. This relationship between the Israeli military and Mitt Romney, a presidential candidate, should be of great concern to all Americans because this is how the Israeli military plans to drag the United States into a war with Iran. Henry, Lester and Susan Crown of Chicago, a family of Zionist war profiteers who became rich on U.S. defense spending in WW II and have profited on every war since. The Crowns are key financial supporters of Republican Mitt Romney and Democrat Barack Obama - both Zionist-controlled pro-war candidates. As major shareholders of General Dynamics the Crown family profits from war. As Zionists they support sanctions and Israeli warmongering against Iran. The Crowns invest in Mitt Romney because he is willing to wage war to please his Zionist supporters. 46
Posted by Helvena on January 14, 2012, 09:24 AM | # J. Richards, you’ve got the bees swarming. Well done and don’t stop! 47
Posted by Helvena on January 14, 2012, 09:45 AM | # dc, Mark Twain said a lot, which quote are you referring to, this one? “I am convinced that the persecution of the Jew is not in any large degree due to religious prejudice. No, the Jew is a money-getter. He has made it the end and aim of his life. He was at it in Rome. He has been at it ever since. His success has made the whole human race his enemy.”
48
Posted by Jerry on January 14, 2012, 11:55 AM | #
Can you give a citation for that? I’m surprised that such a high number of Whites would admit to such things. 49
Posted by Liberal Heresy on January 14, 2012, 12:03 PM | # Having now come back and read this snippet as a series of laments about just how unlucky they were, followed by a suprising consensus of a different level of profits but “the trouble is that it is almost impossible to say precisely how the Rothschilds performed financially in this period because they had no idea themselves. So tumultuous were the events precipitated by Napoleons return from Elba, and so enormous the turnover of their various transfer operations during 1814 and 1815, that their already rudimentary accounting procedures collapsed altogether.” You can almost see a friendly, twinkle eyed man telling you the story with a shrug and upturned palms. And of course you’re utterly convinced. The rest here, where I assumed you grabbed it from rather than typing it all up. 50
Posted by Dan Dare on January 14, 2012, 01:13 PM | #
Feel free to add your preferred account, but bear in mind we’ve already seen der winzige Doktors and found it somewhat fanciful. 51
Posted by Dan Dare on January 14, 2012, 01:17 PM | # Liberal Heresy @ 44
There is plenty of ‘perfidy’ associated with the Rothschilds and their various financial manipulations and Ferguson does not shie away from discussing it. You should not assume that my preference for historical accuracy rather than apocryphal yarns of the sort peddled by Richards et al blinds me to the reality of the Rothschilds and their baneful influence, but that is matter for a separate discussion.
The book was researched and written in the mid-90s when Ferguson was still a serious historian and not yet a transatlantic televison personality. It’s unclear what insider/outsider means in this context but certainly anyone overtly hostile to the subjects would not have been given access to the Rothschild archives. That much at least is clear, but the work should be judged on its merits not on whether one partisan faction or another finds its conclusions agreeable.
No, neither Irving-Charmley nor Gilbert, being character assassins and hagiographer, respectively, tell us anywhere near to what we need to know about Churchill; the best and most balanced source is Roy Jenkins, a card-carrying liberal and political adversary of Churchill who nevertheless was able to transcend his own prejudices in producing what is still the authoritative text on the subject.
Are you aware of a better one?
52
Posted by Liberal Heresy on January 14, 2012, 01:31 PM | # @DD
From what I have seen Dan, you are using the royal pronoun there.
As I am not the Rothschild’s accuser here but outlining why I think it is sensible not to give full credence to Ferguson’s account, I don’t need to. I point out that the official nature of the biography (& also Kissinger’s) makes a cause for utmost caution. If I make some historical accusations against the Rothschilds I will make a defence for my sources. Regarding Jenkins, it is my understanding (having not wished to spend money in such a direction) that he used Martin Gilbert’s writings as one of his key sources and acknowledged it in the book. If that’s true then of course he’s partially reliant on hagiography, is he not? 53
Posted by Dan Dare on January 14, 2012, 02:09 PM | # Jenkins does indeed identify Gilbert as a essential resource in his acknowledgments, but then anyone making yet another attempt at a ‘definitive’ biography will have to consult Gilbert, at least. Or that should really read Churchill and Gilbert, since the first two volumes were compiled by Randolph. What Jenkins identifies as being particularly useful is not the biography itself, but rather the companion volumes which collate the official documents and other sources. Gilbert has of course come under fire from various quarters for the conclusions he has drawn about Churchill’s supportive attitude towards the Jews and Zionism, a conclusion which is not borne out by other evidence including Churchill’s own writings. As for Aktien auf Waterloo, I suppose you are correct. Few of those Third Reich Nostalgics who still offer it up as a valid historical account will have actually seen it, but will be relying on ‘word of mouth’ reviews from venues like VNN and the like. 54
Posted by Liberal Heresy on January 14, 2012, 04:18 PM | # Dan, I fail to see what point you are making to me specifically regarding the film ‘Aktien auf Waterloo’ in your last reply and also the relevance of your making it in that post. Perhaps that’s why the sentence appears somewhat contorted. I personally had never heard of the film although most people will have heard of the ‘yarn’ about Waterloo, it even appears on their Wiki, so they obviously do not still retain their litigious feelings towards its dissemination. In looking at the issue under contention outlined above, I cannot see why the inclusion of it in a Nazi propaganda film is here or there if the telling has a much earlier lineage and from various sources. Including those elements seems to be solely for the purpose of besmirching by association, that suspicion is reinforced by your bringing VNN in too. Of course, respectfully, the scorning of the Nazis and valiant defences of Churchill are two of your mainstays. I wouldn’t for instance discount the mutiny on the Potemkin, because Eisenstein had made a propaganda film on the topic. From J Richards comments at 23, it appears that what I’m sure we can both agree will have been some very highly paid, leading lawyers of their day tried to demand the court suppress the book. Yet they failed and in a court of law where they, more so than the general historian we must assume, would have had recourse to carefully review all the details and come to a decision based on the evidence that was put in front of them. They then judged that the event had occurred and also ordered that Mr Rothschild or his agents were to pay all costs. Maybe they were wrong, maybe they were rabid Jew haters at the weekend but for the reasons that I have stated above regarding the access Ferguson enjoyed and his choices of subject, his contesting these events from, I understand, the ‘extant’ records of a family who denied the veracity of these events and have to furnish him with any evidence he wishes to use in his book is not in itself sufficient for me to agree with you this is a fanciful fairy story (as I think you sort of phrased it). Further the excerpts you have provided where Ferguson states that contrary to the widely known story, the Rothschilds actually financially lost badly during the war, that regardless of this fact, very soon after it could be seen that they had actually made a surprisingly significant profit but due to the nature of the time their ‘rudimentary accounting systems broke down’ and therefore they could not detail the source of that income, does not have a convincing effect upon me. 55
Posted by Liberal Heresy on January 14, 2012, 04:38 PM | # As for Jenkins, I would have to review his book. I would find his trilogy interesting no doubt except for the fact that the man presence either on television or in print creates in my being a sort of primeval horror that would make grappling with him more of an effort than it would otherwise be. I feel this has more to do with his real life self, but I confess it may be that his Spitting Image puppet created a traumatic impression in my very young mind that is emotionally recalled upon encountering him. I assume and hope not as Kenneth Baker does not have a similar effect, but regardless I fear I will never be able to sit down and engage with him. 56
Posted by Dan Dare on January 14, 2012, 04:52 PM | # Having made the points that I wished to make I’m happy to let matter of the ‘Rothschilds at Waterloo’ rest, but would like to note in closing that Ferguson is not referring simply to the ‘profits’ from transactions in the immediate aftermath of Waterloo, but rather the increase in the Rothschilds’ capital base over the period from 1810 to 1818, and that the bulk of that increase is likely to have predated the Battle of Waterloo. As for the NY trial cited by Richards, unfortunately his links go nowhere so we don’t know what the grounds for the libel suit were or why the court dismissed it. Perhaps the judge believed, like Richards’ other source, that Nathan Rothschild was indeed actually present on the battlefield, as the legend would have it. 57
Posted by Liberal Heresy on January 14, 2012, 05:20 PM | # OK. Re links, JRich did not write the full address in the link above, you need to include the uploads folder, i.e. http://www.majorityrights.com/uploads/ny-times-rothschild-april-1-1915.pdf 58
Posted by Silver on January 14, 2012, 05:23 PM | #
He seems to me more a neocon true-believer than anything else. Neocons are wildly disproportionately Jewish, of course, but apart from their aracialism (or anti-white racism, if you prefer—though it’s much less central or pronounced that that of liberals/left-liberals), immigrationism and fanatical zionism, their worldview and the economic positions they take are fairly sound. Ferguson’s married to a negro (and outspoken ex-muslim) so it’s understandable Jews would promote him. But it’s unfair to mark him as a “rentboy” , as though he sold out his convictions for a quick buck.
59
Posted by Liberal Heresy on January 14, 2012, 05:31 PM | #
Well after the completion of his Empire book he probably considered that as he had placed Scots at the heart of one empire, he may as well saddle up and ride with another.
Which? 60
Posted by Silver on January 14, 2012, 06:45 PM | # Richards,
Yes, any reasonable person can think about. Seems to me, though, that’s the last thing you want anyone doing. Let’s see. What would a reasonable person think? Perhaps he’d begin by setting forth that the Fed’s transfer of profit to Treasury represents the minimum such profit figure under consideration because obviously Treasury either receives that transfer or does not. Nobody disputes that Treasury actually receives the transfer of profit from the Fed (or have I spoken too soon?). So our reasonable person would understand the claim that Fed makes up its numbers refers to the Fed making profits in excess of what is transferred to Treasury. Our reasonable person would then consider the likelihood or profits wildly exceeding the figure that is transferred to Treasury. Wall St analyst firms routinely forecast companies’ profits with an accuracy often within one or two cents per share. It’s reasonable to think then that analysts would have at least a rough idea of the profit that the Fed would turn, especially when one considers that the General Accounting Office has access to a great deal of (though not all) Federal Reserve inside information. Our reasonable person would conclude that the likelihood of the Fed actually earning precisely what the Fed’s income statement claims is fairly high. Our reasonable person would find support in the audits of the Fed’s financial statements like those of Deloitte for 2007 and 2008 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/BSTFRcombinedfinstmt20072008.pdf).
Our reasonable person would consider it prudent to force governments to borrow funds they wish to spend but do not have, and to prevent governments from printing money at will. Our reasonable person would be aware that granting governments permission to print money at will would be a straight ticket to the very sort of inflation that proponents of “monetary reform” supposedly so much wish to avoid. (Our reasonable person would surely conclude that such proponents are either woefully ignorant of basic economics or maliciously mendacious.)
Our reasonable person would realize that government bonds are purchased through existing savings (nobody borrows from banks in order to buy bonds, since the interest owed the bank almost always exceeds the interest earned from the bond).
Our reasonable person would be aware that profit turned over to Treasury by the Fed is piddling amount that comes nowhere near the amount the government wishes to borrow. (In recent years, some eighty billion dollars Fed profit versus over one trillion dollars government financing requirements.)
Let’s hope so. Richards, why don’t you play around with this simulator a little. http://www.novapoly.com/articles/finance/fractional-reserve-banking-model/ Hopefully it will slowly dawn on you that while loans are assets to banks, the deposits they take are liabilities. Play around with the numbers and you’ll realize how razor sharp margins can be, and hot utterly pointless it is for banks to loan money to people to buy homes that they then default on which allows the bank to pick up those properties for “pennies on the dollar.” What good is a property a banks picks up from $50,000 if it’s lent $100,000 to the defaulting debtor? The bank’s out of pocket $50,000 and it has still liabilities to cover. Do that, and perhaps then you’ll deign to reflect on the profits of commercial banks, roughly $100 billion in the US. Distributed across the 310 million Americans, it doesn’t exactly add up to a life-altering sum of money. Or consider banks’ equity (ie the banks’ claim on banking assets), some $1400 billion; again, across 310 million Americans, not really a princely sum. The idea that Americans would be oh so much better off if the banks weren’t “impoverishing” them doesn’t have a leg to stand on. One more thing: wages and salaries have more or less kept pace with inflation; at times more, at times less, but there has been nothing like the “alarming” decline in purchasing power that Money Masters claims. (Of course, they get away with such populist appeals because most people are aghast at any decline in purchasing power. Too bad Bill Still doesn’t have the guts to take on immigration. Isn’t it curious that he’d avoid that topic if preserving a high wage economy is so important to him?)
61
Posted by anon103 on January 14, 2012, 09:46 PM | #
If Richards is correct that banks buy bills from the Treasury at a price roughly equivalent to the Treasury’s cost in paper and ink, then the bank is out of nothing - especially if the debtor made a down payment and monthly payments before defaulting.
62
Posted by Leon Haller on January 15, 2012, 12:29 AM | # I grow more bored here by the day. Keynesians and Money Masters: both = idiots. Want to understand banking? I’ve already provided the bibliography, but just read this one little monograph: Rothbard, The Case Against the Fed Says it all, very briefly. 63
Posted by anon103 on January 15, 2012, 12:44 AM | #
I’d love to be in a position to lend fools colored paper bits for real property and call the “loan” an asset for accounting purposes. I’d also love to call your meager savings account, acquired through years of labor and backed by more colored bits of paper purchased at cost from the Treasury, a liability simply because you might -heaven forbid! - withdraw it and open an account with my partner next door. Seriously now, wouldn’t you? Assuming, of course, that Richards is correct. 64
Posted by anon103 on January 15, 2012, 12:52 AM | #
Why yes I do! But your bibliography is much too difficult reading for non-Ivy League mouth-breathers like myself. So could you, esteemed sir, explain it to me using simple terminology that I can comprehend? You could start by answering the following question: How much do “federal reserve” banks pay for those colored bits of paper printed by the U.S. Treasury? And thank you for your kind indulgence.
65
Posted by Captainchaos on January 15, 2012, 12:59 AM | #
That assumes he had other “convictions” than venality and self absorption to begin with. In Ferguson’s book The War of the World, which purports to provide a penetrating analysis of the great catastrophes (really one catastrophe he says, and I agree) which befell the West from 1914-1945, there are lavish descriptions of alleged atrocities committed by Germans; yet conspicuously, the name “Lazar Kaganovich” is not listed in the index nor anywhere to be found in the text of the book. A glaring but innocent omission? I think not.
66
Posted by anon103 on January 15, 2012, 01:12 AM | #
I’ve heard that A. Linder - Mr. No Jews, Just Right - is an Austrian. Would you happen to know if that is true, Mr. Haller sir? 67
Posted by Dan Dare on January 15, 2012, 01:23 AM | # I don’t have the particular volume to which the Cap’n alludes (actually I think I do, but haven’t as of yet got round to reading it) so it might be of interest to learn which particular ‘great catastrophe’ is being referenced here. I suspect that the Capn’s version might be rather different to my own. If I were to be pressed to point to such an event I would propose that the ‘greatest catastrophe of all’ occurred well before 1914, and arose from the failure of Britain and Wilhelmine Germany to reach a modus vivendi. The most interesting aspect in all this, and one which has bedevilled historians ever since, is to whom should the preponderance of blame be attached for the failure to cement an Anglo-German Alliance in the period after 1890? Regrettably, for much of MR’s current readership, perhaps, the answer is not ‘It were the Jews what done it’; the answer is infuriatingly complex to divine. But it is there, for those who trouble to seek it. 68
Posted by anon103 on January 15, 2012, 02:29 AM | #
Yup. J Richards has done something I never thought possible. Driven off those quality folks, he has, with two simple questions: 1) How much do “federal reserve” banks pay for those Treasury bills? 2) Cui bono? May I offer you a sody for sticking around? ——————— Just musing here, but it has to be difficult for estranged Republican conservatives (small “c” conservatives, that is) of so-called white nationalist bent to accept the possibility that a cherished “private” industry - banking - just might control the federal government and not vice versa. Can’t have that now, can we? I mean, the idea that banks may be buying colored paper bits at cost shines a whole new light on things. Can’t have that! And cui bono? Well, if I were a gambling man… So, until the truth is discovered J Richards must be ... well ... you know, “called bad names” and such! Welcome to the world of non-quality folks, J Richards!
69
Posted by anon on January 15, 2012, 06:44 AM | # The point made in the header is important even if it ought not to be because a lot of people are innumerate - even a lot of the otherwise intelligent ones. If you say white people have a higher average IQ than black people then many take that to mean every white person has a higher IQ than every black person. Those same people could get conned the same way by talk of the higher average Ashnazi IQ so explaining that there are going to be more whites with the same IQ at each level is worthwhile. The critical point is the ethnic nepotism - news editors and producers don’t need a 180 IQ so why are so they overwhelmingly Jewish? However the average thing needs to be addressed because a lot of people are dumb. 70
Posted by MOB on January 15, 2012, 07:40 AM | # http://finance.yahoo.com/news/election-2012—how-rich-are-these-guys.html Mitt Romney - Total net worth: $85 million to $264 million With no regular day job, Romney still earns a tidy income in the form of dividends and interest from his investments, and records filed with the Federal Election Commission show that the former Massachusetts governor commands between $20,000 and $68,000 on the speaking circuit. Much of Romney’s wealth is tied up in a blind trust, but some assets remain under his control—including a few quirky items. For example, the FEC lists between $250,000 and $500,000 in horses, an asset the campaign says belongs to the candidate’s wife. He owns another $250,000 to $500,000 in gold. Romney has degrees from both Harvard Law and Harvard Business School, and had successful careers at the consulting shop Bain & Company and private equity firm Bain Capital before joining the Salt Lake City Olympics effort in 1999. Note: I recommend my Comment #c121236 dated January 14 at 8:06 a.m. I think it’s both more interesting and more contributory than the theorizing this thread has again fallen into; if the theorizing culminated in some form of collective action, that would be one thing. But it doesn’t. Intelligence of the IQ kind is not worth talking about beyond mentioning that differences exist; the differences by themselves predict neither political propensities nor behavioral likelihoods. Intelligence of the infiltrating and controlling kind, as in the article I posted, is worth noting and trying to do something about.
71
Posted by Papa Luigi on January 15, 2012, 07:45 AM | # As a member of British Mensa I can state that there while there are a number of Jews within that societies ranks, they do not feature anything like as disproportionately as the figures originally posted would suggest. Based upon those figures, and all other things being equal, one would expect the membership of a society such as Mensa to be comprised roughly 30% by Jews and this is not the case. Of course it is possible that some peculiarity of character means that highly intelligent Jews are disproportionately deterred from seeking Mensa membership, but in any event I would be surprised if the composed more than 5-10% of the membership British Mensa. The reason for Jewish success in commerce and finance is not the result of superior intelligent at all, but simply the result of Organised Minority Advantage (OMA). In order for minority to benefit disproportionately in all respects from their endeavours in all fields, does not require them to be smarter, stronger, more talented or more courageous than the average within the host society, all that is required is for them to act as an organised group, placing the interests of their group above the interests of the rest of society. Please find below an article that I have written explaining the efficacy of OMA. Organised Minority Advantage – An Exposition This article describes the way in which organised minority groups operating within a weakly cohesive host community gain a commercial advantage that provides them with disproportionate wealth and influence at the expense of their hosts. Paradise Island Paradise Island is the home of a relatively small community of 10,000 people. The people of Paradise Island are famous for their production of high quality widgets, which they sell as components to larger manufacturing client companies on the mainland. The population of Paradise Island has been changing in recent years. The widget business has been depressed for some time and competition for contracts on the mainland has been fierce. A number of widget companies have imposed a wage freeze in order to keep wages down and their prices competitive. The wage freeze has cause a number of families from Paradise Island to emigrate to the mainland in search of more lucrative employment, thus creating housing vacancies and one of the widget companies, Acme Widgets has taken to employing cheaper immigrant labour. The immigrants from Auslandia have taken up the vacant housing and now compose 5% of the population of Paradise Island. The Islanders are polite and friendly people and for the most part have welcomed the Auslanders into their community. The Auslanders are hard working people and they appreciate the opportunity to better themselves on Paradise Island. They do their best to live harmoniously and for a while at least, life on Paradise Island remains good. The island is served by 10 grocery stores that are fairly evenly distributed across the island and each store attracts on average 1000 customers. The grocery store owners are conscious of the fact that times are difficult for the island’s main industry and that many workers have not had a pay rise for several years and therefore they have tended to keep their profit margins low, to around 2.5% of turnover. On average each islander spends £1000 per year on groceries, and this means that each grocery store has a turnover of £1,000,000 per annum and as a consequence, each grocer makes a profit of just 2.5% of £1,000,000, which equates to £25,000 per annum. Not a princely sum, but enough for an honest man who cares about his community. A day comes however when one of the grocers has grown too old and his health has begun to fail. He decides to retire and advertises his shop for sale. He places his shop for sale at auction with an expected sale price of £200,000, and when the auction takes place there is vigorous bidding from the nine remaining island grocers who are all keen to expand their businesses. There is an upset at the auction however because the highest bid comes not from the existing island grocers but from a consortium of Auslanders who manage to outbid all of the grocers. The vacant grocery business is sold to the Auslander consortium for £250,000, more than any of the islanders could afford to pay. The strong group loyalty of the Auslanders means that they will in future all buy their groceries from the Auslandic Grocery Store. They will do this out of a strong desire to see their store become successful. This tendency on their part however begins to create an imbalance within the community on Paradise Island. The Paradise Islanders have been raised to treat others fairly and not to discriminate, and this means that Paradise Islanders continue to distribute their custom fairly equally between the ten grocery stores on the island. The Auslandic store however, also has the benefit of the turnover from the Auslandic community, which amounts to 500 x £1,000 = £500,000 per annum. The Auslandic store therefore has a turnover of £1,450,000 compared to the turnover of just £950,000 enjoyed by the other indigenous islander store keepers, and while the indigenous storekeepers incomes have reduced to just 2.5% of £950,000 = £23,750 each, the Auslandic store made a profit of 2.5% x £1,450,000 = £36,250. It is the group loyalty of the Auslanders that made the Auslander Grocery Store instantly the most profitable grocery store on the island. While this means that their profits will not initially be quite as great as they might have been (just 2.0% of £1,000 x 1,450 = £29,000 per annum), their store will still be more profitable than any other island grocers and they will be able to undercut the other island grocers on price and thereby attract a greater share of the island’s custom. * Note: A 2.0% profit margin based upon original price levels equates to slightly over 2.01% of prices once they are reduced by 0.5%. To Be Continued ... 72
Posted by Papa Luigi on January 15, 2012, 07:46 AM | # ... Continued from above. Another Island Business Folds One day, one of the indigenous storekeepers having suffered a 10% reduction in his income finds that with the needs of his family to consider he just cannot remain in business. He decides to sell up and emigrate to the mainland in search of better opportunities and his business goes to auction. Profit Margins Are Squeezed Again The ten island grocery stores currently enjoy the custom of 900 indigenous islanders each, and operating now with the 2% profit margin forced upon them in their efforts to compete with the Auslandic stores, each indigenous island grocer now has turnover of just £895,500 and profits reduced from their original level of £25,000 per annum, to just £895,500 x 2.01% = £18,000 per annum. The Auslandic stores however are going from strength to strength and with the 2.5% reduction in wholesale prices are now able to increase their competitive advantage by reducing their retail prices further. Originally wholesale prices amounted to 50% of retail prices, i.e. 50p in every £1.00 spent by customers. With retail prices discounted by 2.5%, this means that the Auslandic store now only pays £48.75 for every £100.00 worth of produce sold at the original retail prices, increasing the potential profit margin from £2.50 per £100 worth of produce, to £3.75. To increase their competitive position further however the Auslandic stores reduce their prices by a further 0.75%, pitching their profit per £100.00 of produce sold at the original prices to £2.50, and thereby returning to the original norm of £2.50 per £100.00 of produce sold, i.e. a 2.5% profit margin. With the custom of just 900 islanders each, spending £1,000 per annum on food at original prices, the indigenous grocers are now making just £11,250 per annum in profits, while the Auslandic stores with a total of [(2 x 900) + 500 + 500] = 2,800 customers are making 2.5% of 2,800 x £1,000 = £70,000 in profits, £35,000 per store. A Commercial Empire Is Born As the months and years pass, the Auslandic stores expand buying up more of the indigenous stores and the indigenous grocers go broke, until the Auslandic consortium own six out of the ten original stores. The Auslandic stores adopt a brand name based upon a combination of the first letters of the surname of the original Auslandic founder Mr Cobana and the first letters of his wife’s forename, Bess, and the chain of Auslandic stores become known as Besco Stores, thus obscuring the obvious Auslandic origins of his business from public consciousness. Some of the remaining indigenous grocers complain about unfair competition and point to the unfair advantage that Mr Cobana enjoyed due to the ethnocentricity of his compatriots, but they are admonished by the ‘great and the good’, who crave the friendship of the now wealthy and influential commercialist, and by the local newspapers who fear losing his vast advertising revenue. What can it be though, this illusive quality that commentators find so difficult to pin point? As we can see from the story outlined above, it is easy for an organised minority to prosper disproportionately and gain undue influence within a weakly cohesive host community. They don’t need to be commercial geniuses, they don’t need to work harder than others, they simply need to give preference to their own group, and to do it covertly, so that no one objects until it is too late. The only answer is a separation of the races and of ethnic groups and of religious groups that project an ‘in-group, out-group’ mentality among their followers. Judaism and Islam project an in-group, out-group’ mentality and this is why they tend to stir resentment among host populations. Christianity and some other religions do not have the same effect however, and this is why the various Christian denominations have happily co-existed within the same societies in recent times, albeit that there had been discord in historic times, before the Reformation. A multicultural or multiracial society is all that is required in order for racial or religious supremacy to manifest, in which one group, more ethnocentric than the others begins to dominate society at the expense of the others in this ‘zero sum game’. Racial and religious separatism is the answer. 73
Posted by Leon Haller on January 15, 2012, 09:04 AM | #
I don’t know what you’re getting at. The question has no meaning to me. The Fed needs to be abolished; FRB should be declared a violation of traditional fraud laws; the dollar should be defined as a unit weight of gold (in the approx amount to soak up the current money supply in all its forms); the Fed Gov should be forced to disgorge all its gold stock to dollar holders; legal tender laws should be repealed. In other words, we should have a pure free market in money as with any and all other commodities. The only role of Gov in money in the future is to enforce fraud claims against banks engaging in secret fractional reserve practices. Re Linder, I think he’s a racist libertarian. I don’t know if he’s an Austrian School adherent. I’m a race realistic + white preservationist Catholic paleoconservative with a strong free market / property rights (Austrian) orientation. 74
Posted by Leon Haller on January 15, 2012, 09:26 AM | # Papa L, Your OMA essay looks very interesting, and I’m going to read it closely. That said, my own experience of Jewry only partially jibes with this:
I’m familiar with ethnic nepotism, and I’ve long witnessed Jewry’s proficiency in that regard. However, in my Ivy League university, around 30% of my class was Jewish, and this included many of the smartest students. The dumb kids were usually either affirmative action nonwhites, ‘legacies’ (one or both parents had attended), or recruited athletes. Most of the Jews I knew did not fit the latter categories (though a few did wrt legacy background). Many of the Jews were extremely intelligent. Of course, we can conceive of certain culturally favorable traits, like a competitive emphasis on educational prestige among Jewry that is comparatively greater than that among Gentiles, that may give them a relative ‘leg up’, in addition to OMA. It is also possible that Jews have evolved some particular ethnic gift for moneymaking, as the German people seem to have for industrial engineering. But I don’t think exceptionally comparatively high Jewish IQ can be seriously denied. Most honest psychometricians acknowledge it.
75
Posted by MOB on January 15, 2012, 11:29 AM | # I, too, am a member of Mensa, and it was through my several years of participation on high iq lists, including Mensa, ISPE, and the British Mensa Philosophical Discussion Group that I learned that high iq does not in the slightest degree predict political propensities or behavioral outcomes. I eventually left them, having realized it’s only valuable to seek interaction with high iq people within one’s own area of interest or related thereto; there, of course, we run into less objectively determined hierarchies, but always hierarchies, which appears to be the human brain’s default data management system, a major player in the ongoing struggle to maintain psychological homeostasis. Jews have control of the money supply because Jews set the goal of having control of the money supply and steadfastly focused their intelligence and their efforts toward fulfilling that goal. Effort steadfastly applied to a measurable goal has a high rate of success. High intelligence increases the odds. Alliance increases the odds even more. Talking about things doesn’t do much. 76
Posted by Jimmy Marr on January 15, 2012, 12:20 PM | # I have little doubt that J. Richards is correct in his assessment of private central banking. It seems so obvious to me that I haven’t wasted any time discussing it. He understands it much better than I do, and is doing a fine job of presenting it. The only question I have entertained is whether or not criticism of private central banking is worthy of singular pursuit in lieu of a more general discussion of the J.Q.. When I consider this question I am reminded of the words of James Bowery in his interview with Jim Giles. After explaining his theory of horizontal transmission, Giles asked him what ought to be done. Bowery answered that persecuting Jews could only lead to further evolutionary adaptations through more horizontal transmission. He further stated that the only means of treating a horizontally transmitted parasite is to discover its “metabolic pathway” and embolize it. I had no idea, at the time, what such a “metabolic pathway” might be be in relation to the J.Q., but am now beginning to understand that J.R. is fishing upstream of the J.Q. in precisely this pathway. 77
Posted by anon103 on January 15, 2012, 01:51 PM | #
I don’t understand why you don’t know, Mr. Haller. You’re a worldly, self-described Austrian economics expert, investment wizard, Catholic convert, lover of exotic, high IQ women, and argue like a lawyer. Even a mouth-breathing idiot can Google “federal reserve currency circulation,” which led me to “How Currency Gets Into Circulation” by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. On that page we are told, “The Federal Reserve Banks distribute new currency for the U.S. Treasury Department, which prints it.” I simply want to know the price paid for the currency by the FRB and who controls the FRB? These are very important questions that have much to do with the direction we take and it seems J Richards’ assertions have discombobulated the estranged Republican investors on this blog for numerous reasons: 1. Political philosophy: The bogeyman is banking, not government. This blog’s estranged Republican investors seem hell bent on avoiding or discrediting Richard’s assertions through misdirection and threats of leaving. Obviously, these tactical maneuvers are intended to browbeat Richards into conformance and influence the opinion of mouth breathers/idiots like myself in a negative direction. After all, mouthbreathers like myself are expected to do the dying for the Cause. We can’t have them disaffected now, can we? All I am asking for is honesty, Mr. Haller. Do you really not understand the two questions, above? Is there something I can do to make it easier for you to communicate with someone of low intellect, like myself? Thank you, kindly. 78
Posted by GenoType on January 15, 2012, 03:01 PM | # A new book by Charles Murray: Elite and Underclass Reviewed by F. Roger Devlin, here. By citing Tocqueville’s “social science” which ignores the hypocrisy of the old elite, downplays the importance of class, promotes the notion of high social mobility in early America; by insulting “dimwit” socialists and limiting examples of dishonesty to the underclass Devlin has bought the ‘classically liberal’ interpretation of American history promoted by MR’s commentariat. Still, the review is useful. FWIW, I advise reading it and obtaining the book. 79
Posted by Ivan on January 15, 2012, 03:51 PM | # No serious and honest observer would deny that Jews are highly intelligent bunch. Evidence for it is all over the place. The so-called Russian chess champions are almost 100% Jewish or part-Jewish. The best physics course in the US is authored by Richard Feynman - a Jew; the same is true for the former USSR - Lev Landau and Evgeny Lifshits, the authors of the best course of theoretical physics ever, are both Jews. Almost everyone in the top tear of the Manhattan project, starting with its director Robert Oppenheimer, was a Jew. And on, and on, and on. But as many commenters here have already pointed out, higher than average intelligence is just one part of Jewish mindset that gives them advantage over the host population: they are unscrupulous people with morals utterly at odds with that of gentile people. And that is true not only in business, but in every walk of life, including science. Nobody in his right mind would deny that Einstein was a highly gifted physicist. I want to apologize for posting so many videos in Russian, but this one illustrates best what I am trying to convey: Einstein has stolen theory of relativity from Poincaré Here are some excerpts from the conversation between Academician of the Russian Academy of Science Vladimir Arnold (Jewish) and the host of a popular educational TV program Sergey Kapitsa (a well-known Russian physicist himself and the son of Nobel Laureate in physics Leonid Kapitsa) Arnold: In 1895, 5 years before Gilbert, Poincaré published theory of relativity - 10 years before Einstein… In this article Poincaré already had all the formulae of the theory, except the famous E=mc2. Poincaré had a friend in Zurich who was a professor there - Minkovsky. Poincaré discussed his paper with Minkovsky, and Minkovsky had advised to his disciple to read this paper if he wants to be a physicist and work on similar subjects. Kapitsa: It was Einstein? Arnold: It was Albert Einstein - a disciple of Minkovsky. And Einstein had read Poincaré‘s paper and added the missing in it formulae which became the famous Einstein paper of 1905. But in that paper there is no mention of Poincaré at all. Mention of Poincaré has appeared only in 1940, or even later, when Einstein reminiscent the history of the discovery of the theory. There he said, of course, I have used heavily Poincaré‘s insights, but being a young man, for some reason, I haven’t mention it in 1905 paper. In the meantime, the original Einstein paper was sent to Poincaré for review. Poincaré read that paper and wrote a highly positive comments saying that it was an absolutely ingenious work. When Minkovsky learned about Poincaré‘s comments, he asked a question to his friend: “Why didn’t you mention about your priority?”. And Poincaré replied to him: “Our duty is to help and encourage young generation”.
80
Posted by GenoType on January 15, 2012, 04:03 PM | # 1. What is the cost of currency printed by the Treasury? The “Federal Reserve System” pays 9.6 cents for each currency “bill” printed by the Bureau of Printing and Engraving. These “bills” are issued by and coded for the 12 individual regional Federal Reserve Banks. They used to have the names printed on them (Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, et al). With the Internet word spread and the names were changed to code letters. The New York Fed is the bank that conducts all FOREX manipulation and bond operations for the Board of Governors. In this eBanking era “bills” are a mere fraction of all the money ‘created’ by the Federal Reserve System.
Each regional bank is controlled by a Board elected by member commercial banks. Link, here. Note: There are a lot of coincidences between the rank ordering on the above list and Charles Murray’s “Superzips” clusters. 3. Attacks on fractional reserve banking and the implementation of a gold/commodity standard simply don’t get to the heart of the matter. Having something to exchange and a place to do so on honest terms is more important.
81
Posted by Graham_Lister on January 15, 2012, 04:11 PM | # @GenoType From the review you cited: “I can think of one significant fact which seems to fly in the face of the religiosity-happiness correlation: Denmark, with the highest self-reported happiness in the world, is also the most secular nation in Europe. I have no explanation for this.” American’s really do have very limited horizons don’t they? I have no explanation for this (obviously I’m not going to attempt to find one either). As someone that has lived in both the USA and Denmark I could discuss why I think Denmark is, in many ways, a rather more healthy society than the USA. But really why bother? After all Denmark is a ‘socialist hell-hole’ (copyright Mr. Haller - thank you for that insight), so no further thought or inquiry is needed. 82
Posted by Dan Dare on January 15, 2012, 04:16 PM | # Unfortunately, the principal difficulty with Papa Luigi’s entertaining parable is that it fails at the first hurdle of any test of reality. There were never anywhere close to enough Auslanders in the real Island to support Besco in its formative years, so OMA would have been a very doubtful business strategy for its founders to have relied upon. Instead, of course, their aggressive pricing attracted mainly customers from the indigenous population, who placed their own economic welfare above any concerns about ethnic solidarity. It’s been quite a number of years, of course, since Besco passed out of the control its founders (major shareholders are easily found online) and during the period in which it rose to market dominance (i.e. the last 15-20 years) its senior management has been composed almost exclusively of indigenous Islanders. Nevertheless, top marks for an interesting yarn, well-written and imaginatively presented . 83
Posted by GenoType on January 15, 2012, 04:29 PM | #
The 12 Federal Reserve Banks New York $1.106T Richmond $257B San Francisco $224B Atlanta $162B Chicago $124B Dallas $88B Philadelphia $80B Cleveland $69B Boston $59B Kansas City $55B St. Louis $42B Minneapolis SuperZip clusters “The four largest clusters surround New York, Washington, San Francisco and Los Angeles, which together account for thirty-nine percent of America’s SuperZip inhabitants. Smaller clusters are associated with Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Dallas and Houston. Large swaths of America contain no such zip codes.”
Sheer coincidence, probably. 84
Posted by GenoType on January 15, 2012, 04:43 PM | # I could discuss why I think Denmark is, in many ways, a rather more healthy society than the USA. But really why bother? Mr. Lister, I disagree with you on some matters, but am hardly antagonistic - except when you’re acting in a condescending manner toward me. There is, in fact, more common ground than not between us. I agree with you re: Haller. And no, Denmark is not a “socialist hellhole.” Please ask GW or J Richards for permission to post a “guest blogger” article addressing the matter. 85
Posted by Thorn on January 15, 2012, 04:43 PM | #
Bingo! That’s one of the most accurate and straight to the point practical explanations of why Jews are so successful I’ve read here in a long time. You can add Jews’ aggressiveness as a major factor to their goal oriented formula for success too. In fact, Jews’ hyper aggressiveness is key to their success. 86
Posted by Graham_Lister on January 15, 2012, 05:06 PM | # @Dan Dare I agree that the outlined OMA hypothesis is far from satisfactory but the intra-group coordination problem (IGCP) is a legitimate topic for serious thought. If we take our starting premise than any ‘mass’ society will always have many forms of stratification, cleavages and differentiation (even the most homogeneous ones under the best of all possible circumstances) and given that state of affairs will have competition and potentially explosive tensions between various groupings in society for power, status, wealth etc. The next question that arises is how do differentiated groups within society solve (or not) the IGCP in order to maximise their effectiveness in various forms of inter-societal group competition (ISGC). Some groups are seemingly very good at solving the IGCP much more effectively than most other groups. How and why these differences emerge is a key question (without tipping over into conspiracy nonsense etc). There are obviously subtleties involved in that a society is not always a ‘zero-sum game’ – the pie can get bigger, but how the pie is divided up at any one time is a zero-sum game. Anyway developing the idea of the IGCP moves into the territory of focusing on the precise mechanisms which do (or do not) enhance collective, ‘communitarian’, or group identities that, in turn allow for more efficacy viz ISGC, and also opens up ideas on how to boost and maintain sustainable and robust European ‘group’ identities (both culturally and politically). As little Denmark demonstrates religiosity is not an essential component in this process. Perhaps in the USA, sociologically if not intellectually, religiosity is a far more important element in the mix, but America isn’t the world. 87
Posted by Liberal Heresy on January 15, 2012, 06:34 PM | # LH
They do not need to be affirmative action placements. In a European population that significantly outnumbers Jews, at most levels of IQ there will be many more whites than Jews within the population with that level of IQ. Average IQ, notwithstanding, due to the gross numbers involved. So, as suggested, if Jews are a tiny fraction of the population and yet make up 30% of placements, they are not likely there solely because of IQ. If this has been covered above, apologies. Half way through the thread. 88
Posted by anon on January 15, 2012, 06:43 PM | #
group cohesion is like mass density, mass per unit volume group cohesion = (personal cohesion + cultural cohesion) / numbers ethnic cohesion cultural cohesion
89
Posted by jamesUK on January 15, 2012, 06:49 PM | # Jews are just too damn smart which without there input we would still be living in European monarchs like Mid East countries do under there Sheiks. The best course of action would be to make an alliance like nationalist groups do in Europe being pro-Jewish and pro-Israeli including 100% support for the war in Iran and pilgrims to Holocaust events including re-enforcing Holocaust denial laws while stopping Muslim immigration into Europe and removal of the welfare/nanny state. 90
Posted by Dan Dare on January 15, 2012, 07:32 PM | # Graham, I like the terms you have introduced for intra-group and inter-group relationships (IGCP and ISGC) which are both elegant and succinct. It seems to me that one of the key determinants in whether a particular group is able to resolve its IGCP derives from its status within the society as a whole. A minority group, especially one in a diaspora setting, will have less difficulty than a numerically-dominant majority, which will tend to have many more potential fault-lines along which to fracture simply because it has been around longer and has had more opportunity to develop in different directions. The more diverse a society becomes, exacerbated perhaps through the ‘assimililation’ of various minorities (the United States being the extreme outlier in that respect), the more pronounced the fault-lines become and the greater the challenge becomes in resolving the IGCP. In the case of the US (and perhaps also the other white settler countries too) it is now almost certainly irresolvable and this is why we have the uniquely-American phenomenon of ‘White Nationalism’, which is an attempt to re-animate an ethnonational sensibility which has not existed for over 150 years. Turning to Western Europe where, for the most part, most people live in countries which still remarkably homogeneous ethnically (even more so in Eastern Europe) and the trend is if anything towards the creation of yet more ethnically-based nation-states than fewer, the problem does not seem to be quite so daunting. The ancient stratification on lines of class and, to a lesser extent, Christian denomination, is no longer as apparent and the real danger is from minority infiltration, which is why the so-called ‘cultural nationalism’ espoused by the likes of Lee John Barnes has to be resisted at all costs.
91
Posted by Liberal Heresy on January 15, 2012, 07:40 PM | #
Yes, and let’s have really prove ourselves, perhaps some more laws to prevent discrimination, more laws to make sure our speech does not cause anyone to cry or feel distress, increase the duty on public and private bodies to encourage equality for all our citizenry, but can we really get their help in cutting down on emigration from Pakistan, yes? OK, excellent, please raise your hand up anyone who disagrees? No, OK carried.. ~~~ IGCP: Locally we can agree on some degree of IGCP, from the general perspective of EGI, hence discussion of various social network groupings in wider society or on periphery in PLE/WZ . In a less threatened time in a wider homogeneous society though of course that breaks down. 92
Posted by Papa Luigi on January 15, 2012, 08:03 PM | # In response to Leon Haller on January 15, 2012, 09:26 AM, while I accept that a comparatively large proportion of Jews exhibit very high intelligence compared to Whites, this phenomenon is not as disproportionately exaggerated within the ranks of British Mensa as the statistics in the founding article of this thread would suggest. As for my Paradise Island parable, the mistaken assumption that you and others make is that the Auslanders are specifically and only a euphemism for the Jews. In the UK we can see evidence of OMA acting in favour of several minority groups and where we once saw Jewish groups cornering the grocery and supermarket trade during the middle and second part of the last century, we now see Asian families (Indian and Pakistani) mimicking that process. For a prime example of this we need only look at Two Sisters Food Group, who supply almost all of the fresh and frozen chicken sold in British supermarkets. Clearly this latter phenomenon cannot be attributed to higher intelligence and the efficacy of OMA is more readily apparent. Regarding Dan Dare on January 15, 2012, 04:16 PM
Just in case you haven’t realised Dan, Besco is a fictitious company and therefore it’s progress will not be directly comparable to that of any actual company. If in your remarks you are referring to Tesco, the well known supermarket chain, then you may not be aware of all of the factors that played into the hands of John Cohen during his early establishment of that business, which while not directly comparable to factors in my fictitious story, are manifestations of group preference that bear comparison with OMA. Furthermore, while it is true that Jewish ownership of Tesco is no longer as direct nor apparent as it once was, you may wish to investigate the spouses of individuals holding senior management positions and you may wish to investigate the ownership and control of investment companies owning large shareholdings in Tesco before you make any emphatic assertions.
93
Posted by MOB on January 15, 2012, 08:12 PM | # http://vnnforum.com/video.php?do=viewdetails&videoid=3579 94
Posted by Dan Dare on January 15, 2012, 08:36 PM | # As a matter of fact PL, my first thought on reading your piece concerned the takeover by South Asian immigrants of much of the small, privately-owned retail sector in the UK, which I think might actually have been a better angle to pursue. And of course I did understand that ‘Besco’ is fictional however the parallels with Tesco seemed too obvious to dismiss. As for Tesco’s development, I’m uncertain how old you are or which part of the country you hail from but it is important to note that the company’s dramatic growth and indeed its national profile is a fairly recent phenomenon that has likely had little to do with the ethnicity of the founders or OMA. The major shareholders are a matter of public record so there is no need to perform any major investigation or to play Cherchez le juif. 95
Posted by Wild Bill on January 15, 2012, 10:13 PM | # Those who plan on having a high IQ baby better plan on having that child at home. If you fail to use a mid wife at home your bundle of joy is going to get at least one of the new vaccines which if it does not install cancer, can destroy the child’s ability to feel basic human emotions. Its really a sinister development. 96
Posted by TED on January 15, 2012, 11:55 PM | # Some insight into the methods and means involved in Jewish takeover and control of certain key niches can be garnered in the following article. Hollywood and mass media are key information dissemination and moral indoctrination niches. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/russell-t2.1.1.html
97
Posted by J Richards on January 16, 2012, 01:09 AM | # Silver @60 You’ve repeated the same lies that I responded to and refuted and have waited more than a month for you to respond to: http://www.majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/money#c118964 At first you told me that you won’t bother responding [see: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/vdare_and_counter_currents_donations_pitch#c120878 ], and now instead of going back to where the discussion was, you repeat the same lies here. I’ll have to respond to your lies again.
This is an unverifiable claim as the Fed has never been audited. I’ll return to it.
This is pure nonsense. Nearly all money is created as debt, by bankers; I’ve cited all relevant legislation in the money FAQ. If banks can create fiat money, then so can the government. Assuming that creating fiat money causes inflation, if the government does it, not the bankers, then at least the government wouldn’t be under debt and wouldn’t need to tax people to pay off its debts. Since 1863, bankers have created American money, except for coins issued by the Treasury. Over this period, the dollar has lost close to all of its value. So why should money creation by government be worse as far as inflation goes? But does creating fiat money cause inflation? Money is established by law. What reason does a government have to create more money than needed for commerce and distribute it to the public so that it causes inflation? Absolutely no reason as it comprises of people with term limits who aren’t appointed as a function of heredity. The real reason for inflation is as follows. Every year the government borrows a massive amount of money for its needs. It does so by selling bonds to the public. The amount of money borrowed by the government is added to the economy by bankers, who issue it as debt: the Fed buys 10% of the bonds from the public by creating this money with a few keystrokes and commercial banks loan at least 10 times the amount, again creating the money out of nothing. So the government spends the borrowed money and the bankers add money, i.e., the money supply is clearly expanded way beyond need. This is what causes inflation. The key is to eliminate fractional reserve banking when the government issues money. Remove FRB, and thus the ability of banks to create money, and debt-free fiat money created by a government wouldn’t cause inflation.
Again, how many people use coins to buy bonds? Coins are issued debt-free, but paper money and electronic money created by banks represent money issued as debt. Even if an ordinary person has earned $20,000 in paper money, this paper money was originally issued to someone as debt, which has to be paid. This is why one doesn’t literally have to borrow money from a bank to buy bonds in order for this money to represent debt; the money represents debt even if the person earned it as paper money or electronic money; the money doesn’t represent debt only if it comprises of Treasury-issued coins and was earned.
Again, any claim about the Fed turning over most of its profits to the Treasury is unimpressive as the Fed can make any claims as it isn’t accountable to the government. I’ll return to this.
A bank lending $100,000 has created this amount out of thin air. So if it picks up a house worth $50,000 on a default, that’s a killing for creating a loan out of nothing. You’re promoting the banker lie about fractional reserve banking. So these folks are supposedly lending 90% or more of the money of the depositors so that interest earned increases the amount of depositor money to counter inflation. Whoops, but if someone places $2,000 in a bank, and the bank without telling this person lends $1,800 of it, then the amount on deposit for this person doesn’t say $200; it continues to say $2,000. The bank simply created, out of thin air, the $1800 it “loaned” and has come up with a B.S. excuse for charging interest on the loan. The bank won’t be saying look, we created the money for the loan out of nothing, now you also need to pay interest. The second lie is that interest earned counters the devaluation caused by inflation, but as shown above, it’s fractional reserve banking that’s causing the inflation in the first place. The major reason banks charge interest is that it’s never issued. So the moment someone pays off his debt and interest, because the amount of money created only covers the principle sum of the debts, there has to be at least one person who will default, and the bankers get to foreclose on him or acquire his assets for pennies on the dollar. When people struggle with paying off monthly installments, their interest rate goes up and fines and late fees are added. Any entity that provides the money for loans by creating it out of thin air has no valid justification for charging interest. All it can legitimately ask for is a service fee, and when it creates the money for the loan, it will also create the service fee associated with the loan and use this service fee for its expenses and employee salaries. This way the amount created as debts will also be the amount available to pay off the debts. But banks don’t do this. Incidentally, if all commodities could be monetized and there were no interest, just a service fee, community-owned banks could create money, out of thin air, as debt, and this would be sound money, just as debt-free money created by a government. This makes one better understand what the fraud of fractional reserve banking really is. Again, your lie is more thoroughly exposed by John Turmel: http://johnturmel.com/bankmath.htm
I’ve responded to this at least twice now. I’m not advocating nationalization of banks. As you very well know, equity is assets minus liabilities. And if “assets” is an euphemism for loans, then what debt does a bank equity of $1,400 billion in America correspond to? Around $50 trillion (out of which $15 trillion is the government or national debt), courtesy of fractional reserve banking. It’s the staggering public debt that matters because when you have a people under this kind of debt, it’s the bankers who control society.
Even the Jews acknowledge that wages haven’t kept up with inflation for most people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class_squeeze [lower class has it much worse].
There’s no need to specifically target immigration because Patrick Carmack (the brains, not Bill Still) is going after the root cause of the immigration problem in Western nations. Bankers are behind it, and they use it to undermine ethnic solidarity in the West and to keep the people occupied with the distractions that accompany racial diversity. Their devastation of the Third World creates plenty of would-be economic immigrants. And now that your lies are exposed again, let’s return to the issue of the Fed turning over most of its profits to the Treasury. We have the following 4 things. 1. A government that could issue its own money, just as it issues bonds, doesn’t. The first 3 are true. If #4 is also true, what sense does it make? Why wouldn’t the government just print its money instead of going 1-4? And why would the bankers who get the government to do 1-2, turn over the bulk of their profits to the government in #4? I want you to finish this specific debate in a civil manner, including addressing all the money issues in this comment and the others on the money question that I’m waiting for you to reply to. Notice that the issue of what amount the Fed is turning over to the Treasury is the less important one because there’s no way to verify it. All I can do is point to the oddity of the claim and you will counter this by citing widely held beliefs and the Fed’s own claims. But the issues of fractional reserve banking and whether government-issued money will cause inflation are the important ones, and what the law has to say about FRB is known. There are many other comments above that I need to reply to, and I don’t wish to be wasting my time refuting the same arguments over and over. Understand clearly that if you don’t engage in civil debate and don’t respond to all the points with either a refutation or acknowledgment that you’re wrong or lying, then you may not repeat the same lies in the future, and if you do, you’re going to the trash bin, and once you go there, coming up with a new username won’t help as you’ll obviously be indulging in similar behavior and still end up in trash, and if you change your behavior, then it’s a matter of what lies you come up with. 98
Posted by TED on January 16, 2012, 01:13 AM | # Money of course is another key niche. Money mediates all commercial trade. It tends to be monopolistic - an economy settles on one or few standards of money. As universal media, it is involved in every transaction in an economy. There is a huge network effect. And as something that is desired and acceptable by everyone, by definition, it has enormous power to exploit. Everybody is vulnerable to it since everybody wants it and will accept it by definition. If nobody wanted it, or if only some did, then it wouldn’t be money. This is why many traditional cultures around the world have often disdained money and those who dealt extensively with it, such as merchants. Because people are vulnerable to money and it can override things such as honor, loyalty, kinship, and other values. This makes it analogous to things such as drugs, alcohol, pornography, sexual license, entertainment, etc., many of which Jews have often been associated with, and which are associated with civilization. Jews of course have a long history of co-evolution with civilization. 99
Posted by Papa Luigi on January 16, 2012, 04:17 AM | # Dan Dare on January 15, 2012, 08:36 PM:
Then you should have remained somewhat with your first thoughts, as the analogy that I intended to convey was to broadly encompass all minority ethnicities that have prospered in that way. I was not specifically focusing on Jews and I was not specifically focusing on Tesco Stores, and although the inclusion of ‘Besco’ stores might suggest otherwise, I merely included this in order to illustrate the way in which innocuous names are often created to deliberately hide the ethnic origins of ethnic minority businesses.
I’m not sure how old you are either Dan, but it might interest you to know that Tesco Stores were already the largest supermarket chain in Britain by the late 1960s. If I may quote the Author Stephen Aris, from his excellent history, “The Jews In Business”, published in 1970;
Dan Dare on January 15, 2012, 08:36 PM:
Indeed! Furthermore, as I have already made clear, I did not want my Paradise Island parable to be exclusively focused upon one ethnicity, nor upon any one company. Its value is that it illustrates how OMA is efficacious in gaining an unfair advantage whenever and wherever organised minorities co-exist within an atomised and deracinated host community. 100
Posted by anon on January 16, 2012, 05:13 AM | #
That was the way the Asians did it too. Extended families would move in together to save and pool money to buy a shop for each. It’s not an evil strategy in itself but it’s something a host population should understand and be aware of in terms of cost/benefit for their own people. Diaspora populations want to be a minority within a host and need to be a minority within a host because they can trade a feeling of security for the competitive advantage gained by a feeling of insecurity. The base advantage is a natural consequence of a naturally higher sense of threat but then close inter-marriage, consciously created cultural isolation and a culturally induced exaggerated sense of threat e.g. “the whole world dances in the blood of the jews,” maximizes the advantage. A military analogy would be esprit de corps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esprit_de_corps
101
Posted by anon on January 16, 2012, 05:22 AM | # I should add, Jews aren’t the only people who use the strategy but they perfected(?) or at least maximized the short-term advantage through adding the induced paranoia part. However that part, through also inducing massive hostility to the host as a side-effect of the paranoia, also cause the strategy to self-destruct. As far as i’m aware Asian trader castes in Africa or Chinese trade castes in SE Asia don’t try and destroy the host? So maybe not so much perfected the diaspora trader strategy as made it better short-term but worse long-term. 102
Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on January 16, 2012, 10:15 AM | # J. Richards,
Charles A. Murray has made this the theme of his latest book: “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010” The release date is January 31. Rumor by review says Murray documents the emergence of a hyper divided “Two Tier” white America. I’m curious about one statement you made:
This is a recurrent Judeo-Marxist canard. And it is typically used to induce ‘white guilt’ and justify various ‘aid’ and ‘refugee’ programs. Where’s the real evidence of this? Let’s look back 200 years in sub-Sahara Africa. The date is 1812. The negroes in most regions haven’t even seen a wheel yet. Rwanda style mass slaughters are normal periodic events. This seems pretty devastated to me. And this devastation was accomplished entirely by the natives. They didn’t require any external intervention from central bankers or their minions. The facts are that species will be “would-be economic immigrants” to Europe and North America under all conditions they’ve experienced in the last 10,000 years. 103
Posted by Tim on January 16, 2012, 01:25 PM | #
The Negro population of sub-Saharan Africa was very small at the time. And it was in equilibrium with its environment. The population was engaged in primitive horticulture and hunting and gathering. To the extent that bankers were involved in external intervention that sought to integrate the Negroes economically in some fashion (as slaves, labor, consumers, etc.), they do bear some responsibility for it and its consequences such as population explosion, migration, etc. 104
Posted by Dan Dare on January 16, 2012, 01:54 PM | #
I don’t have any evidence to counter this, and can’t really be arsed to go and find it, but I do find it somewhat surprising. Tesco had next to no presence in the North and the Midlands at that time, I don’t recall ever seeing one until maybe the late 80s, early 90s. If asked to place a wager on it I would guess that the Co-op was still the largest food retailer (as opposed to supermarket chain) nationally in 1969, but I could be wrong. 105
Posted by Papa Luigi on January 16, 2012, 02:27 PM | # Dan Dare on January 16, 2012, 01:54 PM:
Actually Dan, if you read the quotes from Stephen Aris again, you will see that in 1969 Tesco were the largest supermarket chain based upon their turnover:
I don’t just come on here to spout bollox you know, I do actually know what I’m talking about! 106
Posted by Dan Dare on January 16, 2012, 02:50 PM | # Papa L - I don’t mean to be argumentative, and its all mice-nuts anyway, but supermarkets were not as ubiquitous in 1969 as they are today and certainly the out-of-town US-style behemoths that are now the norm were very rare indeed. So it’s quite rational to believe, in the absence of any really conclusive data, that being the largest supermarket chain in 1969 was not necessarily synonymous with being the largest largest food retailer. But let’s crunch a few numbers anyway. According to Wikipedia, Tesco has now around 31% of the total supermarkets revenue. Its UK revenues are around £45 billion, giving a total market size of £150 billion. Their 1969 revenues were, according to your source, £186 million. We don’t what market share that represented, but let’s make a wild guess and say 20%, giving a total market size of £1 billion, in round numbers. So, we’re looking at supermarket revenues of £1 billion in 1969 and 150 times that in 2012. According to my handy online inflat-o-meter price inflation in the UK was 12x over that period, which would give a national market size of £12.5 billion in 1969 for the segments that Tesco currently operate in. This is not of course an exact apples to apples comparison, since supermarkets peddle much more than food today, but it does point to a sizeable gap between the size of the ‘supermarket market’ and the food retailing sector generally in 1969. I’d suggest that, in reality, Tesco was at the time in question a big fish in a relatively little pond and a far cry from the leviathan that it has become since. Over and out. 107
Posted by Graham_Lister on January 16, 2012, 04:47 PM | # Re: my comments on competition and cooperation - I think that evolutionary game theory could prove insightful especially with regard to the mechanisms required to punish ‘free-riders’. Is GW OK? Can we ask why he seems to be absent? 108
Posted by danielj on January 16, 2012, 04:54 PM | # GW is fine. I’ve been in contact recently. Worry about your damn selves. 109
Posted by Papa Luigi on January 16, 2012, 08:02 PM | # Posted by Dan Dare on January 16, 2012, 02:50 PM:
Until 1992 Tesco operated solely in the UK, but it now has almost 5,400 stores worldwide, approximately half of which are located abroad. Furthermore the overseas stores account for c. 2/3rds of the company’s shop floor space and I think it would be fair to estimate are responsible for approximately half of the company’s annual sales turnover. Tesco is undoubtedly a much larger concern than it was in 1969, but so what? What relevance does the company’s present size have to a discussion relating to the company’s ethnic minority origins? Clearly Tesco’s was started by Jack Cohen, who was given much support by his extended family and the Jewish community in getting his business established, in a manner similar to that which I have illustrated regarding the Auslanders in my Paradise Island parable. Furthermore Jack Cohen remained the Chairman of the company right up until 1973, by which time the company had become established as the largest supermarket business in the UK and Cohen had been knighted, in line with my hypothesis regarding OMA. You can prevaricate and obfuscate as much as you like Dan, but there is no getting away from the fact that while I did not specifically model my parable on Tesco, the company does fit the model that I outlined. Lastly, if we return to Stephen Aris and his book, The Jews In Business, we find him writing in the final chapter of that book:
I think my point is made. 110
Posted by J Richards on January 16, 2012, 10:14 PM | #
So now it’s about concentration. In the early part of the twentieth century, there were far fewer whites in America and there was less urbanization. The people noted that there were an increasingly larger number of aliens from southern and eastern Europe. They aimed to do something about it. Jews opposed and mobilized their resources [business and industry; forces to reckon with], but Jews lost in the 1920s and immigration of undesirable aliens was clamped. So much for concentration! The reader need look no further than what changed between the 1920s and the 1960s [immigration “reform”]: 5 decades of a private central bank, lingering consequences of WW1, massive amounts of loot from the Great Depression, WW2, more thorough control of the mainstream media and a stronger grip on the government. “Concentration” begs the question. What comes first? Concentration leading to success or success leading to concentration in areas where the seats of economic power lie? You’d have to trace back in history and notice plotting and scheming that was supported by many Jewish community members [a type of concentration] that led to success, which in turn created concentration around the seats of power. So the proximate variable of interest is success [control of money], not concentration. The ultimate variable of interest may be concentration, but this can’t be concentration of intelligence. History reveals how the Jews got their wealth… the events didn’t require high intelligence; they needed a relative lack of morals, a pro-criminal orientation, sociopathic attitudes toward non-Jews, etc. 111
Posted by J Richards on January 16, 2012, 10:22 PM | # Greg Johnson @28
If… The one thing that would work is taking back control of the money supply, which doesn’t require concentrating in a geographic locale but educating people toward mass peaceful protests against the bankers, or resorting to narrowly targeted deadly violence against the bankers: http://www.majorityrights.com/money#implementation
What’s preventing people from taking racialism to the “real world” is fear of persecution and demonization, both from the Juden. The white dupes fed horror stories about the evil Nazis will go after activists, too. So you have to target the Juden and expose their lies, but your website protects the Juden! And you’re giving me a lecture. Educated people aren’t mislead by phony “real world” activists such as Matt Parrott. Bill Yancey @30
If you go through my comments and postings, you’d note that I prefer to deal with data and the theories I’m interested in are those that emerge from the data. So if you’ll be accusing me of theorizing without data, I don’t see the point of spoon feeding you. Nor do I care if you don’t believe a single word of what I say. I didn’t prepare the money masters script. It was prepared by Patrick Carmack, who made a strategic decision to not use footnotes and endnotes when he released the script. Many of the excellent references that he would need to include for a scholarly presentation have specifically mentioned Jews, which opens him to accusations of anti-Semitism. Now, if the thesis is true, its importance is obvious, and it’s not worth it to have attention deflected away from the thesis to anti-Semitism. So, it’s up to anyone intrigued with the thesis to investigate the matter further. He even includes the line, “It remains for each man to do his duty, consistent with his state in life.” This should give any interested person a clue. I don’t have the time to be spoon feeding people. But if I encounter specific criticism related to facts in the money master script, I’ll respond as you can observe in my reply to Dan Dare above and also below. 112
Posted by J Richards on January 16, 2012, 10:29 PM | # Dan Dare @34
Can hardly be cited? Guess who cited it? Not Patrick Carmack, the lawyer who prepared the script, and not me. You have no evidence that Carmack took his argument from the German movie. So who brought in the movie? You did!
And thus you reveal your motive for bringing in the German movie, which was obvious anyway. A lame attempt at using a guilt-by-association argument to discredit a thesis, but it only works with those who believe in Jewish lies about the National Socialists and WW2.
Responding to criticism of a thesis by citing acknowledgment of part of the thesis by Jews themselves is indicative of the rigorousness of part of the thesis, not mendacity. Let’s look at the thesis first, not the details. Jews acknowledge that they made multiple failed attempts to settle in Quebec and finally it was war that allowed them to settle there. This is part of the thesis. Now think about it. It’s not that Jews are expelled and they wanted to be let back in. You have people who move to a land far, far away and build a decent, wealthy society. These people make it clear that they don’t want Jews among them. But the Jews are hellbent on living among these people! Now why would you want to live among people who don’t want you around when your own community is a small, spread-out community that happens to be controlling the economy of a number of European nations, thus allowing you to have your choice of residence? This is the critical thinking question. The answer, as always in Jewish history, is that the Jews wanted to steal the wealth another people created by any means necessary. This is the other part of the thesis, which the Jews don’t acknowledge. Thus, by citing the other article, I show that part of the thesis, and the crucial part, is correct. Now let’s look at the details. You ask
You repeated this question, pretending that I never answered it, but I already did @23. Note the part about Chestnut and Oak trees. That answered your question the very first time. The author isn’t anonymous; he’s Dr. Diego Rodriguez. 113
Posted by J Richards on January 16, 2012, 10:37 PM | # Dan Dare @40, 41 There are some interesting things about your attempts to argue against the money masters’ thesis. You pick one claim, how a Rothschild got his fortune, and attempt to show that it’s incorrect and then try to discredit the entire thesis. Well, there’s redundancy built into the money masters thesis, making it robust, and it can withstand attacks on some of the details. One of the best examples of the robusticity is a reality check. When the typical government prints paper money but doesn’t issue it, letting banks issue it as debt, and issues bonds to borrow money for its expenses instead of issuing the money it needs for its expenses, something is clearly wrong and this isn’t a sovereign government but one that’s controlled by the hand that gives, bankers. Major events of great significance must have transpired in order to arrive at the present situation… this is the reality check and also the gist of the details. But this doesn’t mean that all details are correct. So you attempt to pick one of the details and take it apart. But not in your own words. The excerpt is full of details that would be too much trouble to verify or refute, and in some cases verification would require access to restricted materials. Details like these can sometimes be used to give the impression of scholarship whereas false claims may be mixed in or some truths buried within mounds of details, making it difficult to arrive at the gist. In cases like this, one must also compare the argument [Ferguson’s] to what it’s criticizing, which is claims of inordinate wealth possessed by the Rothschilds [trillions in today’s dollars] and the utilization of unscrupulous and criminal acts to acquire this wealth. This is where Ignatius Balla and his book on the Rothschilds comes in, which is the argument that appears in the money masters script, and it’s freely accessible (see link posted in #23). You didn’t properly respond to a Rothschild attempting to suppress this book, then suing the author for defamation and losing the Court case. Whereas the uploads folder was missing from the links to the reports from the NY Times that I uploaded, another reader pointed to you that the files are accessible if you include the uploads folder, and I corrected the links shortly thereafter, but you still haven’t responded properly, nor attempted to look into the defamation lawsuit further. Ferguson refers to Balla on page 14 [The House of Rothschild: Volume 1: Money’s Prophets: 1798-1848, published 1999; the second volume apparently doesn’t refer to Balla], where he says, “... benign dispensers of largesse, have echoes in some of the twentieth-century popular works about the family, particularly the books of Balla, Roth, Morton, Crowles and Wilson. The consciously (and sometimes cloyingly) positive tenor of such works can be inferred even from…”... not much. I can’t find a discussion of the lawsuit. Maybe you can tell me if it’s discussed in the book. If Ferguson hasn’t discussed the lawsuit, then this would be consistent with his being a propagandist for the Rothschilds, and considering other issues the commenters have brought up, including Ferguson’s dubious treatment of history where Jews are negatively implicated [e.g., @65], he’s probably promoting Jewish lies on some important counts. I’m not in a position to criticize Ferguson’s book in significant detail, but in light of the reality check of how money is created and who gets to create it and other issues Liberal Heresy brought up @49 and @54, I side with the argument of Balla as probably correct in its essence if not all details. This probable conclusion is also reinforced by your bringing in the German movie, reference to VNN and mockery, “Perhaps the judge believed, like Richards’ other source, that Nathan Rothschild was indeed actually present on the battlefield, as the legend would have it.” 114
Posted by J Richards on January 16, 2012, 10:44 PM | # dc @43
I’ll soon get rid of Haller. In spite of repeated requests, then repeated warnings, then a final warning and two instances where I overlooked his violation of the final warning, he has failed to provide justification for the most fundamental premise of the Austrian school, and violated the final warning for the third and fourth time above @62 and @73, and he also managed to do another thing I’ve asked him not to, i.e., quit complaining about the poor quality of MR or leave. He won’t change, but I’ll get rid of him in my own way. I’ll refer him to a book and ask him to summarize each chapter of the book to indicate that he has read it and then either acknowledge each chapter or refute it, and I’ll also ask him to provide justification for the fundamental premise of the Austrian School. Unless Haller does this or acknowledges that he has been promoting Juden propaganda, and promises not to do it again, his comments will continue to be sent to the trash bin. Dan Dare’s not behaving like Haller. Dare’s bitching at serious criticism of Jews. Ignore it. If you look at his last two entries, there’s a limited amount of misdirection you could effect with it, and this would be either shifting the focus to non-Jewish non-whites or to intrinsic deficiencies of whites, but this is more the style of Kievsky. Dan Dare is articulate and presumably well-educated. As long as he doesn’t resort to the foul tactics of Haller, Silver, etc. and the name-throwing-but-lacking-in-substance Dr. Graham Lister, he’s an okay opponent. If he gets out of hand, I’ll deal with it.
Regarding the statistical calculations, whereas the actual population size may be different, I can only go by what’s reported. But even if you double the reported Jewish population size, the number of times whites exceed Jews for the IQ ranges in the table is only halved, which means that when it comes to people with IQs at or greater than the level associated with spectacular success in life overall as far as college education-related jobs go (130-plus), there will be 4 times as many whites as Jews, and among geniuses (145-plus), there will be twice as many whites as Jews. Regarding concentration, see my reply to Dasein and Greg Johnson @110. MOB @45 Mitt Romney, like the typical prominent contender for President, has to prostrate before Jews or be supportive of their schemes else he wouldn’t be a contender. But beware of Christopher Bollyn, whom you cited. Jews kidnapped him a couple of years ago and now his writings are good/insider information mixed in with Jewish deception or propaganda. Jerry @48 The citation you’re looking for is here: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/tony_lecomber_on_the_future_of_nationalism#c120185 115
Posted by troy on January 16, 2012, 11:14 PM | #
I wonder who exactly these industry insiders are, and where or how the writer of this article was able to hear that the fortune is in the trillions. The writer of the article is Paul Vallely. Background on him is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Vallely Vallely does seem to have some access to elite circles. 116
Posted by Captainchaos on January 17, 2012, 12:30 AM | #
There is something you fail to understand, JR. Dare’s father flew missions under Bomber Command over Germany and is personally responsible for burning innocent German children alive. Dare is not only motivated by defending the honor of his ethny but his beloved father and his family name. Perhaps his tactics are less than genuine but his motivation for employing them is honorable. Dare is one of the finest nationalist bloggers out there and there is nothing to be gained by forcing him to grovel in the dirt other than a perverse delight to be taken at the spectacle. Leave the man his dignity as he does what he can as he sees fit to carry the burden of our cause forward with us. That burden can only be the heavier without him. 117
Posted by J Richards on January 17, 2012, 12:51 AM | # Ex-Pro white activist @120 Here is the reply: http://www.majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_economics_of_mass_immigration 118
Posted by Jimmy Marr on January 17, 2012, 01:04 AM | #
Good luck. I tried to befriend Haller, and would gladly have sent him a nice book myself, but when I asked for his mailing address he high-tailed it off this site and didn’t show up again for about a month. 119
Posted by Dan Dare on January 17, 2012, 01:54 AM | # Thank you those words of support, Cap’n. With our doctrinal differences being so great it was very magnanimous of you to speak out in such a fashion, almost English, in fact. But rest assured I have no intention of bending the knee to the likes of J Richards so he can huff and puff to his heart’s content, but I shan’t be going anywhere. 120
Posted by Ivan on January 17, 2012, 02:23 AM | # J Richards seems about to embark into Stalin style Great Purge of Juden. I like that - it’s long overdue. My only concern is that, due to the sheer amount of them at MR, after the purge there’ll be left very few commenters to debate with. My humble recommendation is to leave some of them for useful beating. I agree that Leon Haller has exhausted even that kind of usefulness. It is refreshing to know that there is at least one non-Jewish person at MR who is not here just for high IQ chitchatting, but clearly goal oriented. 121
Posted by Leon Haller on January 17, 2012, 02:35 AM | # JRichards, What your nonsense coupled with constant, authoritarian attacks (are we sure JRichards is not GW - anyone notice that more Richards = less GW?) has forced me to do is pack up as many of my Austrian money books as I could find, and bring them with me back to my new school. As I find the snatches of time to reread them, I will eventually do up a formal post on my views on the Money Question, and how the latter fits into a white nationalist framework of thought. One hopes GW will have returned by then, so that my essay does not get ‘lost’ in the cyber-ether.
I’ve always been very polite and encouraging towards you, though I’m not often reciprocated. Ivan, You were smoked out as a false-flag Israeli, here to sow discord and bring discredit, though even if you are the Muslim you allege, you have no business trying to insinuate yourself among white men. Go away, and never return. 122
Posted by Ivan on January 17, 2012, 03:32 AM | # Leon, I might just heed your advise (not sure if that’s the right word here) and go away for a while - too many interesting thing to do out there. For example, I have discovered recently an exceptionably interesting and comprehensive Concept of Societal Security developed by major-general Konstantin Pavlovich Petrov. This fellow, who created his own party, has really captivated my attention. I have to look closely to what he has to say. But I’ll be back. P.S. J Richards, have you heard of this Petrov guy? He was a deputy director of the Baikonur Cosmodrome and died (killed?) in 2009. Petrov was a supporter of Vladimir Putin who is not only aware of his Concept of Societal Security, but there are some signs that he is encouraging Russian Academia to adopt and teach the concept to students at universities. 123
Posted by Dasein on January 17, 2012, 04:24 AM | #
At the risk of offending some people’s sensibilities, isn’t that what Breivik did? 124
Posted by Silver on January 17, 2012, 05:42 AM | # hards,
Irrelevant. Treasury itself can tell you whether the Fed transferred funds (and how much) to it—whether the Fed’s ever been audited or not. As I said, the only question is whether this sum represents the total of all the Fed’s profits owing to Treasury (ie or whether the Fed, unaudited, as you assert, has been hiding some portion away).
I’m not disputing that governments could issue fiat money to cover their expenses. I said that the “reasonable person” would consider it prudent to deny governments the power to because such a reasonable person could easily foresee the hyperinflation that would eventually result (as governments cave in to temptation to print ever more fiat money to please an ever-expanding range of constituents/clients). On the other hand, you’re correct that the debt problem would vanish. I can’t imagine why you think this would be good for racialists, though. Just think of armies of leftards who’d salivate to lavish yet more welfare on their nigger pets. It’d be a straight up case of redistribution many time worse than conservatives’ worst nightmares.
I’m not concerned about mild rates of inflation. I’m in favor of “inflation-targeting” (the present policy of all western central banks, and many others across the globe). Inflation at these levels isn’t a problem. Indeed, inflation at three, four or even five time these levels isn’t a great problem (for me, though many would disagree). But at some point the risk of hyperinflation becomes very real. Hyperinflation, unlike mild inflation, is economically destructive as it throws economic calculation into turmoil. It also makes the masses very anxious and fearful, and, from a capitalist/market economy perspective, ripe for recruitment and indoctrination by leftists. The risk of hyperinflation, it seems to me, is much greater when a government has free rein to print as much as it wants. If I were to favor any change over the present system it would be to metals-backed currency (or even energy-backed currency). Perhaps debt-free government currency would be acceptable under a racialist regime, but you’d need to get one first; advocating debt-free monetary reform in the hopes of getting doesn’t seem like a sound strategy to me.
This is dangerously naive. Everyone would like more money and the effect this has on politicians is to want to give it to them (because then people will like them and vote for them); with every incentive to do so and no incentive not to, that’s what politicians will do, very quickly exceeding that amount “needed for commerce.” The “amount needed for commerce” is misleading. Beyond a certain absolute minimum, any total amount of money in an economy is just as good as any other. There’s no “need” to expand the money supply at all. The money supply is expanded under FRB because of FRB’s structure; under debt-free government issuance it would expand because of politicians’ incentives to expand it. In neither case is there a “need” from the general economy’s point of view.
As I said, I’m not worried about inflation. The Money Masters people and Austrians are upset about inflation, not me. (The former are “upset” because they see it as a great recruitment tool [“Cars were only $1995!!! What’s the gubmint done to our money!!:(]; the latter are upset because of the economic distortions and redistribution that tends to result—way overstated, imo, but that’s their claim.)
Irrelevant. It doesn’t matter that the money was originally issued as debt. It doesn’t stay debt. If I’ve earned $20,000, it’s mine; I don’t owe it to anyone. If debt ceased being issued the money presently in circulation—regardless of its origin, as debt or not—would eventually circulate debt-free. That’s unrealistic, since people will always wish to borrow and some will always wish to lend (and some still would even if the government issued all money debt-free), but it’s theoretically possible.
It would have been a good idea to get a grip on how the system works before setting yourself up as an expert because it’s clear your grasp of things is unsound. If a bank lends $100,000 it does’t have then picks up the house on a default for $50,000, that specific bank might make a killing, but the banking system itself could never survive every bank doing this. The $100,000 in loans is somebody elses $100,000 in deposits, for which one or more banks is responsible (perhaps even that same bank that made the loan, in another customer’s account). If the banking system were to do this en masse it would self-destruct. Customers with time deposits except interest paid on the monies they’ve lent to the banks; if that interest can’t be paid a bank is insolvent. If the banking system can’t pay the interest it owes, the banking system as a whole is insolvent. That’s why the whole story about “banksters” crashing the economy and picking up assets for “pennies on the dollar” is so misleading.
I don’t know what you’re talking about here.
It’s not a “fraud.” It’s openly acknowledged. People put up with it because they (a) see an advantage in it and (b) no reason to panic. Realistically, banks could announce “There is not enough cash in our vaults to meet your cash needs if you attempt to withdraw your deposits” and it wouldn’t necessarily be the end of the system, because the announcement could add “But don’t worry. We know, based on experience, that not all of you need it right now. As long as you don’t, you’ll still be able to get it when you want it” and it’d work because enough people would realize the truth in it. Just like “every American” has the right to visit Washington’s National Mall, but not “everyone” can visit it at the same time because they simply wouldn’t fit; everyone gets it and no one would pretend his rights are being abrogated by the announcement. Play around with the numbers as I suggested and you’ll see how difficult it is for banks to make a profit on interest (interest paid in vs interest paid out) as the reserve requirement increases, having to charge vastly higher rates of interest to remain profitable. That’s not even counting non-interest expenses, which are substantial.
I make the point to demonstrate the upper limit to how much better things could be if banks were nationalized (and performed just as well, which shouldn’t be assumed). As you can see, it’s not much.
Even the Jews? Most American yids are leftists and democrats. They have every incentive to magnify the middle class’s alleged “misery.” There are a number of factors that need to be considered when analysing how well wages and salaries have kept pace with inflation. Things like hours worked, two-income families, income from savings etc. It’s not as simple as it sometimes seems. But on the whole, there’s been nothing like a drastic decline in the purchasing power of income that the Money Masters claims.
That’s some fancy footwork there, Richards ma boy. When anyone else leaves out relevant information it’s pure malice. When your side does it, there’s nothing to see here.
125
Posted by Graham_Lister on January 17, 2012, 06:38 AM | # @Dasein I was not implying anything of the sort. Murder is not a sensible nor appropriate mechanism politically, culturally, or morally. BTW just when did MR become Richard’s personal site? I’m to be ‘dealt with’? Fine. Well I can simply go away, if that’s the consensus feeling, I’m not all that bothered. My sensibilities and outlook is not informed nor interested in paranoid monomania of any sort. Frankly it comes across as, at best somewhat silly, to at worst totally bonkers and very boring. If that’s the future for MR then carry on by all means, but I doubt you will be talking to anyone but a tiny and extremely marginal group of ‘true-believers’. But as I have suggested before I do suspect that many people actually enjoy the jouissance of being part of tiny and reviled sub-culture. Going mainstream would spoil all their fun. Let alone we have all seen the articles and Youtube videos of Israel organising ‘cyber-agents’ to go online to disrupt and prevent sensible discussions about Israel et al. American’s call it ‘astroturfing’ I believe. Richards might almost be the perfect invention of such a mirco-operation in ‘black propaganda’ – the waters are so muddied by his style of over the top monomania that any sensible discussion of such issues is, ipso facto, discredited by proxy. Not that I’m accusing him as such, but just doing a little ‘thought experiment’ and thinking about the circumstances under which his activities could be considered rational. 126
Posted by Jimmy Marr on January 17, 2012, 07:35 AM | #
How dare you say such a thing after I offered you my Think and Do Book from my first grade class in Washington DC. It’s not like I went on to Ivy, you know? That book is almost as precious to me as the short poem I learned there from a classmate there, whose father worked in the Eisenhauer White House: My father is a Nazi 127
Posted by MOB on January 17, 2012, 07:39 AM | # JR @ 114 I’m aware that Bollyn is a mixed bag, but I thought the material was well-documented, and I was especially impressed by the slimy character that I saw in the photos of Romney at work among the Jews. Every contender does have to publicly kiss the ring, butt, and both feet of the mighty Jew and his holy places (wailing wall etc.), but Romney seems to have gone deeper inside the Jewish syndicate over a more sustained period of years and reaped greater rewards than any of the rest. The impression I have of him is that there is nothing in the world he wouldn’t do for Jews, simply because he’s perfectly comfortable lying in bed with them. I find the intrusion of Jews and Israel into the affairs of the United States surreal in its blatancy, its matter-of-factness. It falls into the same category as the utterly Jewish Homeland Security enterprise: Why is SPLC a formal part of the Department of Homeland Security? Why is there an “alliance” between “the governmental security agency” (DHS) and “a faith-based community (Jews) to address the threat of terrorism”? http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/article.php?p=95018 - Orthodox Union Joins In White House Meeting To Launch New Campaign For Security Awareness (June 14th, 2011) 128
Posted by Leon Haller on January 17, 2012, 08:41 AM | # How does JRichards manage to alienate such widely and wildly different commenters as Fred Scrooby, Silver, uh, Dan Dare, Greg Johnson, Graham Lister, and myself? There is very little in common between this group beyond our having earned the wrath of Reichsfieldmarshall Richards - surely a badge of honor, that! 129
Posted by Ivan on January 17, 2012, 09:34 AM | #
There are patterns in seemingly unrelated and seemingly random things, Leon. Seeing and recognizing those patterns is called intelligence. And making things look random and unrelated is the art of the obfuscator. General Petrov calls it mosaic (aka true) vs. kaleidoscope (aka induced on purpose with malice intent) view of the human society and the universe at large. 130
Posted by danielj on January 17, 2012, 09:56 AM | # Well I can simply go away, if that’s the consensus feeling, I’m not all that bothered. My sensibilities and outlook is not informed nor interested in paranoid monomania of any sort. I don’t want you to go Graham. When you aren’t reflexively anti-American I enjoy your style thoroughly. However, agreeing with Richards that there is no way out of our mess except thru the Jew and by solving the JQ doesn’t mean that I’m a monocausal monomaniac. I spend a majority of my day absorbed by electrical theory and troubleshooting electrical problems and not “obsessing” over Jews. The idea isn’t that Jews are entirely responsible but rather, that they are the main impediment to be overcome before we can overcome any others. 131
Posted by Ivan on January 17, 2012, 11:08 AM | #
danielj, Could you elaborate a bit on what you call “electrical theory” please. Do you imply that there is something amiss in classical electrodynamics of Maxwell or in quantum electrodynamics that would require your intervention and correction? Or, perhaps, you are working on your own version of electrodynamics altogether. Please don’t take my question as sarcasm. I am serious for I have good reasons to believe that there are problems and inconsistencies in both orthodox versions of electrodynamics. But please be short - we don’t want to anger J Richards. Or better yet, we could ask him to open kindly a special thread for those of us interested in the subject. I believe J Richards is a just and reasonable person of many virtues. 132
Posted by Foot Soldier on January 17, 2012, 02:17 PM | #
Things appear to be up in the air with Danielj at the moment, so drawing deeply from my Think and Do past, I’ll postulate that transposition of the power equation, while swinging in the wind between 110kV transmission lines is not as easy as PIE. 133
Posted by Dasein on January 17, 2012, 02:58 PM | #
Graham, I wasn’t suggesting you approve of what Breivik did. But if we are to analyse what he did dispassionately, from a neo-Darwinian perspective, isn’t it a good example of altruistic punishment? 134
Posted by danielj on January 17, 2012, 03:01 PM | # No more transmission for me right now. I’m a 16kv guy presently. If only we all had think and do experience… The battle would be won. Instead we have an army of computer programmers and basement dwellers. 135
Posted by Dan Dare on January 17, 2012, 03:12 PM | # Still, 16kV that’s Real Mans’ Electricity, not like that namby-pamby light-current rubbish favoured by fairies and chinkies. 136
Posted by danielj on January 17, 2012, 03:24 PM | # The funny thing bout the 16 is it’ll blow you in the clear so the muscles don’t contract and grab. It’s usually the associated fall down the pole that’ll do it. Or, if we are being technical, the abrupt stop does the dirty work. My old local just an apprentice yesterday. 137
Posted by danielj on January 17, 2012, 03:29 PM | # http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article/186080/2/Lineman-killed-after-fall-from-utility-pole 138
Posted by Less IQ than a Jew on January 19, 2012, 12:56 PM | # Is the average Ashkenazi IQ really closer to 110 than 115? Also, I think that the percentage of those with IQ above 145 might be more significant than the percentage of those with IQ above 130. IMHO Jews with ultra-high IQs are about 30% to 40% of the ultra-high IQ people in the U.S.A. Jews are intellectual and mercantile. I think that their genetic propensity to mercantile success is far above average even apart from pure intellectual ability. IMHO there are 4 international conspiracies: 1) Jews against non-Jews, 2) cultural Marxists against Whites who are pro-White, 3) rich against poor, and 4) lawyers against non-lawyers. What do readers of this blog think about my opinion of international conspiracies? 139
Posted by J Richards on January 20, 2012, 06:17 PM | # Jimmy Marr @118 The book I have in mind for Haller to review is freely available online. Ivan @120
This is interesting because I’ve thought about this, too. Suppose there were a section at MR which countered various Jewish lies and deceptive techniques with hard evidence. If MR were then to adopt a commenting policy that promoting the ideas refuted in this section or adopting the malicious techniques mentioned there is prohibited unless the reader counters it, then I’d say that even if the website traffic were to double, the number of comments posted here would be absolutely less that at present, not just relatively less. Haller @121
Thus you reveal in your own words you’ve been promoting propaganda. You strongly insult alternatives, promoting things you can’t defend because you don’t know what it is exactly that you’re promoting! You just have a basic understanding that it’s good for Jews and the bankers.
I couldn’t care less for your views. All I’m interested in is a refutation, in your own words, of the specific issues I’ve identified in the numerous discussions we’ve had on the money question. 140
Posted by anon103 on January 20, 2012, 08:14 PM | #
well, let’s take a look: Fred Scrooby, a half-jewish misogynist with a pot belly. reasonable people can disagree. the above aren’t reasonable. 141
Posted by J Richards on January 20, 2012, 11:02 PM | # Silver @125
Whether the Treasury says it or the Fed, it’s the same thing. The Treasury is subservient to the bankers and is even headed by people coming from private banking (Geithner, Paulson,...). But the issue is clear, and you didn’t respond to it [see the questions by anon103]. If the Treasury prints a $100 bill for 9.6 cents, sells it to the Fed for 9.6 cents, and the Fed issues it for $100, is it believable that the Fed is turning over most of its profits to the Treasury? If so, why go this route when the Treasury could just as well issue the money it prints?
On what basis can the hyperinflation be foreseen? Historical examples would be useful. There was hyperinflation in Germany in the 1920s, which is when the bankers were in control. When the National Socialists took over the money supply, prosperity was rapidly attained, notwithstanding an international boycott, while other nations were mired in a Depression. Another example is pre-revolutionary-war British colonies in America. Impoverished by a gold standard, they used fiat money issued by local governments and rapidly attained prosperity. Bankers in England had it outlawed and the colonies were impoverished again. The colonies were forced to go back to fiat money, and the bankers waged war, counterfeiting the money in massive quantities and shipping it by the bale to the U.S., which is the reason why there was hyperinflation. So history isn’t very kind to you assertion. And why would a government print more and more money to please the constituents? Do you think that the government will just print money and distribute it to the public? The government will only create money for the goods and services that can be exchanged.
As you’ve surely comes across the evidence by now, a very small amount of people subscribe to leftism extremism. So put the matter to democratic vote and there’s no way leftards could get away with imposing their extreme views on the majority of the public. It’s different in the present because the government isn’t sovereign and the bankers have it impose policies that favor the community that the core of the international bankers come from. A sovereign government [which will be the case when it creates money and prevents bankers form doing so] and democratic vote prevent leftards or any extremists from imposing their views or lifetstyles on the majority.
Again, favoring a policy that favors bankers… no surprise here. When money is based on a commodity, bankers can work it to their advantage by subjecting this commodity to hoarding, exporting, importing, cornering or throwing upon the market; the scarcer the commodity, the easier it is to manipulate and the better it is for the bankers. I’m sure you don’t have iron or aluminum in mind but a scarce metal that the bankers already disproportionately possess (Haller can spell it out) or the fossil fuels that bankers effectively have control over because of their ownership of oil/gas/coal companies.
An aracial regime will work very well, too. See reply to your stated fears about the leftards.
So just print it and hand it out like candy? Here’s how it’ll be. A new airport needs to be built for the public. The government determines that only some of the existing money can be directed toward the project. So it creates the extra money needed and pays people to build the airport. The amount added to the existing sum diverted for the purpose is just what’s needed to build the airport, and the amount added circulates as legal tender. This is how it was when Lincoln created greenbacks and it circulated as money in America; the money was used by the government to pay for goods and services rendered, not handed out like candy.
So if the population size doubles, there’s no need to expand the money supply? 142
Posted by J Richards on January 20, 2012, 11:17 PM | # Silver @125
Yet again, you digress from the point. You started the debate elsewhere and justified fractional reserve banking and interest in terms of the need to fight inflation, but it’s fractional reserve banking and interest that are causing inflation in the first place! So you’ve repeatedly refused to address this point, insisting on not being worried about inflation. The point is about your lame justification for fractional reserve banking and interest. John Turmel has a mathematical model for you about the bankers’ interest-inflation lie. I dare you to refute it: http://turmelpress.com/bankmath.htm
You’re playing with words, fooling no one. In a system where paper and electronic money are issued as debt and this is the type of money that’s expected to be used to buy bonds, then the system doesn’t care which individual possessing this money buys bonds; all that matters is that some do, and whoever does uses money that represents debt even if he’s not in debt to another individual. Just because you earned $20,000 that someone borrowed to pay you, which was created out of thin air, doesn’t mean that the money doesn’t represent debt to the system because somebody owes it if not you. It makes no sense for a government to not issue it’s money but issue bonds that people pay for using money issued as debt [it’s debt to society even if the buyer earned it, and we’re discussing society, not the individual] unless the government is owned by the bankers. You even ridiculously claim that if debt ceased being issued then the money presently in circulation would eventually circulate debt-free! Most money existing or being used at any given time represents debt. So if new debts aren’t issued, the money available to pay off existing debts is rapidly removed and society collapses because not issuing debt is the same as not issuing money under the current system.
The system couldn’t survive every bank doing this? Let’s start with two people borrowing $50 each from a bank to buy things from each other, and there’s no interest. The banks create the $100 out of thin air. After these individuals are done, they just pay back their loans, which the bank then destroys, and they’re done with what they wanted to purchase. You can extend this to any number of people. So creating money out of thin air by itself doesn’t collapse the banking system. Now what if the system adds interest? You’ll note that in a similar manner, many people will be able to pay off their loans and interest and some won’t because interest isn’t issued and must come out of the total principal sum created out of thin air. So the banks get to foreclose on those who default or acquire other assets for pennies on the dollar. The banking system so far survives, but if it starts giving out fewer loans, then many more people default, and it’s only in this case that some banks will collapse, usually the smaller ones, which is fine with the bankers as they’d rather have a few large banks than lots of small banks, the bankers make hay with the rash of foreclosures and other acquisition of property, a bank collapse is simply the people losing their deposits rather than the bankers suffering, and when a bank collapses, a government has to pick up the tab of compensating the people, which the government can only do by borrowing from the bankers. So yes, it’s the bankers that periodically crash the economy and they do so by simply loaning less. The point remains that bankers create the money for loans out of thin air as part of fractional reserve banking; they just come up with a B.S. justification that they’re lending most of a customer’s deposit when what they’re doing is creating money. I gave you Turmel’s simple mathematical model that I dare you to refute.
Of course you do. When nearly all money is created as debt, most money out there represents debt and no one issues interest, where is the money to pay interest on loans going to come from? It has to come from the total pool of principal sum created out of thin air, which means that some people are bound to default and then bankers foreclose/get their goodies. This is the real reason for why banks charge interest.
No surprise that it isn’t fraud to you. People don’t put up with it for any of the two reasons you’ve stated. They have no choice and most don’t even know.
What a freakin’ lame-ass justification for fractional reserve banking! If banks were to tell this to people, you’d think they’d want to put their money in banks? The average person thinks he’s putting his money in a bank for safe storage.
Already addressed. Creating money out of thin air, then charging interest on it is making a killing, not a very difficult way to make profit.
For the umpteenth time, I’ve never argued for nationalization of the banks and neither has Carmack. You brought up the notion on your own, and have repeated it ad nauseum. You keep focusing on the equity but not the assets, which is banker-speak for loans. The question is what kind of freedom do a people have when they are $50 trillion in debt (bank assets), just for the privilege of getting to use money?
When I said “even the Jews,” I meant the wikipedia Jews [wikipedia doesn’t publish arguments harmful to the Jewish community] don’t lie in your manner. On most American Jews being leftist, their lefty champion Noam Chomsky emerged as a Zionist Jew when it came to the matter of who did 9/11 and its significance. So much for superficial leftism! The wikipedia article has plenty of references that can be verified, someone mentioned Charles Murray treating the topic in a book-length argument, and there’s plenty of examples that the readers would’ve observed themselves over time or learned from their elders. The criminal bankers have enriched themselves at the expense of the masses, forcing debt slavery on people.
Nice response to hard, verifiable data on the long-term deterioration in quality of life for the masses because of the filthy, criminal bankers.
Carmack has a note on bankers using immigration to undermine possible nationalist resistance in some nations. So he doesn’t ignore the issue, period, but he doesn’t dwell on it like you suggest he should have, and there’s no need for him to dwell on the issue because his argument is about the money situation, not immigration, which is a very small part of the totality he’s synthesized. Needless to add, it’s obvious that effecting monetary reform would eliminate the root cause of the immigration problem. So he has rightly focused on the nature of money, how we got here and what can be done about it. 143
Posted by Leon Haller on January 21, 2012, 12:20 AM | #
——————————————————————————————————- 1. What is the free online book you’re referring to? I don’t recall your presenting it to me. 2. I was an economics/history double major in college. Unfortunately, a lot of my core econ was a Keynesian waste. I didn’t discover the Austrian School until shortly after college graduation, though I had long been a Friedmanite monetarist, both as a matter of economic theory and preferred free market policy. Once I discovered the Austrians, I quickly came to accept their economic (and for a time, libertarian political) doctrines, even though (as I have pointed out here on several occasions, long predating Soren Renner’s recent discussion of Malthusian concerns), I was always uncertain about the proper relationship between Austrian microeconomics and ‘holistic’ scientific ecology (and in terms of political theory, I never accepted the libertarian open borders position, or other untraditional views on questions of both national security and the importance of public, legislative commitment to the maintenance of Christian and patriotic/national virtue). Methodological individualism, most perfectly developed in the catallactic sphere by Mises and his school, is the appropriate starting point for microeconomic study, and, as a corollary, I argue that free exchange is the most efficient wealth-allocating mechanism, for reasons to which I have variously alluded (economic calculation, dispersal of knowledge, correct or realistic incentives). I am less certain at the macroeconomic level, where I tend not to agree that what best explains behavior at the level of individuals and firms necessarily best explains large-scale effects, at least in relation to the scale of industrialism when set against the absorptive capacity of the natural environment, whether particular ecological niches, or the biosphere as a whole. The classic illustration of this is an overweighted boat. A boat can sink from two causes: a hole in the hull, which I suppose is most common in sinking cases, or simple, excessive weight placed in the boat. In terms of maximizing allocative efficiency at the microeconomic level, the free market cannot be improved upon. But is it possible to “overweight the boat”? That is, might the sheer scale of human economy reach a point where, despite constant wealth maximization between individuals, the economy as a while threatens human survival, considered in ecological terms? I don’t know the answer, but the ecological economists’ questions cannot be readily dismissed (as notions of “Keynesian stimulus”, the alleged ability of central banks to direct monetary policy more efficiently than the ‘uncoordinated’ free market, various industrial policies, and similar interventionist nonsense can be). Anyway, while I thoroughly studied Austrian Econ two decades ago, I have not bothered much with it in a long time, beyond reading general articles on the Mises website extolling free markets. My point re rereading my Austrian texts was that I want to make sure again of the theory, so that I will be able to to present correct monetary theory and not mislead people. One can understand the basics of a body of knowledge - and the policies stemming from them - while still needing the occasional review if one is to present something formally (esp insofar as I have never made any claim as to originality in my money and banking views, which are pure Mises/Rothbard). In order properly to refute you, I will indeed have to “start over”; that is, make at least a very basic presentation of Austrian money and banking theory, so that other readers can gain a grasp of the precise points at issue. I don’t really have time to do this, but I will make time, as I think it would be a useful exercise for me in the long run, esp as I’d like someday to write something significant What would be useful for you to do is present a 500 word or less summary of your money doctrines, minus lengthy historical excursions. If you encounter critics, you can refer them to your longer file. Frankly, it remains rather difficult for a number of us to grasp precisely what you advocate (I know: “end the Fed; end FRB; print debt-free money by Govt”). I’d like to hear precisely how this would work. 144
Posted by Silver on January 21, 2012, 01:36 AM | # Richards,
This is why I called you dangerously naive. Sure, your system could work for a while. Fiver years, ten years, twenty, maybe even fifty (if you’re extraordinarily lucky). But sooner or later the temptation to discover “needs” and throw money at them will prove impossible to resist. The result is total economic distortion of price signals, hyperinflation and redistribution to political clients who are first served by the newly minted money (“money created out of thin air,” btw, which it’d be only fair if you acknowledged, rather than misleading readers into thinking you’re some sort of crusader for “sound money”).
Yes, that’s right. As a strict technical matter there is no essential economic requirement for the money supply to expand (beyond a certain minimum). Of course, in the context of a growing economy, this means continual price deflation. (Prices keep falling.) Deflation can be problematic in the context of an expanding money supply, but I’m not aware of any essential problem it poses in the context of a fixed money supply. By a “certain minimum” I mean there has to be enough of whatever is used as money to go around. For example, if the supply of gold were fixed (all that can be mined has been) and the population kept growing and growing for hundreds or thousands of years, then eventually the portions of gold used for payments would become so small that many would fairly begin to doubt their existence. (You know, if you need a microscope to see it…) Electronic fiat money avoids that problem, of course. In this case, if the “supply “of it were fixed (ie legally prevented from rising), you’d just keep moving down the decimal ranks (perhaps “renormalizing” periodically for aesthetic purposes). Can’t be bothered replying to rest of your post. There’s nothing much of substance there anyway, just your typical shrieking whenever someone contradicts you or exposes your faulty understanding. Anon, I’m not reasonable, you say? Let’s see: I agree that race-replacement is occurring. If everyone were as “unreasonable” as this I really have to wonder just how of much of a problem there would be. 145
Posted by Captainchaos on January 21, 2012, 05:06 AM | #
Uh is a pretentious swarthoid who dreams of having a harem of Nordic women under his nut sack and hates the world for not delivering it to him. It is his odious personality quirks which bar him from any but the most menial and marginal employment.
No reasonable person can possibly disagree that microcommunities are “the only way forward” for the White race. LOL
146
Posted by danielj on January 21, 2012, 05:39 AM | # Uh is a pretentious swarthoid who dreams of having a harem of Nordic women under his nut sack and hates the world for not delivering it to him. It is his odious personality quirks which bar him from any but the most menial and marginal employment. Hilarious. Not true. But hilarious. 147
Posted by Leon Haller on January 21, 2012, 05:47 AM | #
This is likely true for the US, but why must it be true for European nations, esp small ones? Why is it thought to be impossible that they might one day awaken, and demand that the aliens among them GO HOME?! I see nothing far-fetched about that scenario (though I don’t think it will happen, either - and due to the same basic psychological maladaptiveness of whites, neither will white microcommunities, except by default, and then they won’t last long, being either attrited through peaceful miscegenation, or finally slaughtered like aged oxen, no longer good for forced labor). Whites are only going to survive in perpetuity if they achieve a racially segregated/homogeneous Racial State. The only question pertains to the route to take towards that end: secessionism or White Zionism (foreign immigration colonization and demographic conquest)? I lean towards the latter, though of course I would support the former. Microcommunities are only temporary measures, straw shelters facing an eventual gale. 148
Posted by Dasein on January 24, 2012, 04:25 PM | #
All this suggests is that concentration is not sufficient. I didn’t say it was. And one could also argue that the decades between the 1920s and 1960s were needed to build up their influence. Would anyone expect jews to come in large numbers and right away be invincible? It takes time to build up influence.
You’re putting the cart before the horse. The question under discussion is how were they able to do those things.
No question has been begged. I’m talking about the concentration of IQ in the jewish community. How do you know that “the events didn’t require high intelligence”? Look at the state of the Yemeni or Ethiopean jews. Has anyone read ‘The International Gypsy’? ‘The Eternal Gypsy’?
Next entry: Key issues Previous entry: Public Schools, Cash is Trash, and the New World Order |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. zhrcwuwmkq commented in entry 'The end of Mel Gibson's career?' on 05/23/12, 11:46 PM. (go) (view) SEO Services commented in entry 'The Cubans of Miami' on 05/23/12, 11:11 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:08 PM. (go) (view) xiaolily commented in entry 'Maltese Incident' on 05/23/12, 10:12 PM. (go) (view) Cockouche commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/23/12, 09:40 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 09:13 PM. (go) (view) assundaGymn commented in entry 'A Line in the Sand' on 05/23/12, 08:41 PM. (go) (view) GlablePax commented in entry 'University official sentenced for child porn, blackmail' on 05/23/12, 08:23 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:47 PM. (go) (view) cuiseur automatique seb commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/23/12, 07:43 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'Indian beauty' on 05/23/12, 12:52 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 12:45 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/23/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:43 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 11:32 AM. (go) (view) Mellaba Pechios commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:55 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 03:51 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:26 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:23 PM. (go) (view) 7 Year BA commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 09:19 PM. (go) (view) DARYL commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/22/12, 08:57 PM. (go) (view) Thorn commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 08:31 PM. (go) (view) Church of Jed commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 07:40 PM. (go) (view) Selous Scout commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 05:56 PM. (go) (view) Silver commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 11:37 AM. (go) (view) AnalogMan commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 11:29 AM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 07:42 AM. (go) (view) Srakotraqu commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/22/12, 07:30 AM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 07:19 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 06:26 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 02:34 AM. (go) (view) Stephen commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 06:33 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/21/12, 02:02 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Posted by Eumaios on January 12, 2012, 12:27 AM | #
Yes to this, if the goal is extremely high IQ. I’m in the 269K, but I am useless so far as the power to save us is concerned. +1 SD Jews have more cunning and ambition, coupled with the network needed to leverage those traits.