|
|
|
Occupying a turning economic world
This is a claim on the OccupyWallStreet website. Here’s another:
For now, the Occupy focus is on activist organisation. A cynic would expect that the end of the road is approaching for the anti-capitalists and anarchists who have got it this far. Already, the unions are moving in. As a breed, so to speak, progressive but still mostly mainstream journalists are waiting to pronounce the defining words. But it is too early to say how the ideological platform will develop and around what it will coalesce, besides opposition to economic oligarchy. If as a movement Occupy retains its radicalism, and is not drawn into the system, and does not decline into a constructive engagement with the Democratic party as the Tea Party movement has through its engagement with the GOP, then there is an historic possibility open to it. It could, through the agency of its more radical intellectuals, formulate and evangelise a revolutionary alternative to neoliberalism in a post-market age. This is not impossible or improbable. All that is required is a little of the financial contagion one hears about to morph into ideological contagion. An Establishment whose sole purpose is to extract value from ordinary Americans and redirect it to the investor class could find its power to defend itself damaged, even compromised. It may not take much for the spirit of a recessionary age to turn to one of creative destruction. If that were to be the case, the Tea Party movement will have been completely sidelined. Look at the historical irrelevance of its “non-negotiable core beliefs”:
You see what I mean. So, if not from the Tea Party, from where would an alternative vision, an alternative solution arise? Well, six people have viewed this post on the A3P forum (yes, six - and one of them was me!).
No one has replied to it yet, though. So here is my reply (only posted here): Look, guys, forget joining the radical left’s protest. They do not want you. You are not really going to do it anyway. But you could get ahead of the radical left if you really wanted. The world is turning, you see, and the people – all the people, white, black, brown - are paying for another man’s crimes. And there’s no sign that the crimes or the payments are going to stop. Ever. And the people know. The people know and the world is turning and changing, and you, who pride yourselves as the elites of nationalism in the English-speaking world, need to break free of that damned political straitjacket now. It’s not impossible to escape. You just need to finesse your way past the Jew-talk and the white-talk long enough to focus on political economy, because that’s going to be 90% of the game, maybe 95%, maybe even 99%. That’s what people – our own people – are going to becoming receptive to as they become poorer, as they become angrier. The world is turning and you have the freedom and the amazing privilege to create a new economic model. You know the fundamentals as well as anybody. Show some intellectual leadership, if you are able. Comments:2
Posted by danielj on Sat, 08 Oct 2011 02:26 | # And as the Narrator grows weary of saying, we are, at most, the 65%ers. Or something. I’m sure he would gladly supply the data. 3
Posted by GenoType on Sat, 08 Oct 2011 03:13 | #
Are you sure about that, Daniel? Are you willing to bet your life on it? No? I didn’t think so.
Distributism in action. A little Wiki history, here. Shares extended to workers, not to remote speculators. I think Mondragon’s local managerial class has done quite well competing with the globalist Professional Manager Class mentioned by GW, here. Of course, political platforms that might facilitate the creation of companies like Mondragon would not be supported by brokers residing in the greater Los Angeles area whose very EZ money livelihood depends on fools buying Austrian School propaganda. ——- “The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.” – Murray Rothbard, Jew 4
Posted by anon / uh on Sat, 08 Oct 2011 04:17 | #
YESS!!!!OLZLZ WHITE OWERP genotype is like the bernanke of antibutthexing llzozlozlzozlzzlz now was tun?> abt all thre fiatmenschen cr eated by menschencxulture maxing carriynh capacity with EZ carbohydrtates n flooding our lebnesraum with exponentiatign superpopulartiuons!!lolzz? ;;LOLZOZLZZ poerw 2 the p;eople!!!! ... i cna has jiob now? ,lozlzozlzl!! 5
Posted by danielj on Sat, 08 Oct 2011 04:52 | # Syndicalism seems to better approximate the corporate phenomenon you’re describing GT. Fan of Sorel that I am, I fear the bourgeois require a little epater. And not of the Dada type. I’m just cynical. The regular Anglo I meet in my day-to-day is none too impressive. I love their race more than they do. 6
Posted by Bill on Sat, 08 Oct 2011 10:38 | # Maybe there are a few passing through who, like me, are trying to get a handle on what the Occupy Wall Street protests are all about. Perhaps the following will be of help.
Full story… I am most wary these days commenting on such material. as there is so much smoke and mirrors out there. The identifying features of the 21st century among our oligarchical ruling class are typified by lies and damn lies, obfuscation, disinfomention, corruption, hubris, narcissism you name it. I leave it to you to figure what OWS (Occupy Wall Street) is all about. 7
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 08 Oct 2011 11:23 | # Daniel, The defining characteristic of pre-revolutionary circumstances is this: the centre collapses. In America, the centre is neoliberal. America as a neoliberal experiment will come to its conclusion in failure. White Nationalism can and should develop the alternative to the likely product that will be pressaged from the anti-capitalist left. Tha’sall I’m sayin, man. Think radical, y’all. 8
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 08 Oct 2011 13:34 | # If that were to be the case, the Tea Party movement will have been completely sidelined. Look at the historical irrelevance of its “non-negotiable core beliefs”: 1. Illegal Aliens Are Here Illegally. You see what I mean. (GW) —————- No, I most certainly do not. That Tea Party list is excellent, and if actually implemented to some extent, would go a considerable way to renewing America as at least a semi-desirable place for the now-second-half of my life. Each of 1-15 is proper, necessary and correct (1 is rather redundant, of course, and God knows we need a #16: STOP LEGAL IMMIGRATION NOW). These principles are timeless and true. I’m beginning to think you don’t understand the evil of neoliberalism at all, which is simply this: at least in its pseudo-conservative (Wall Street Journal) version, it works!!! Suck it up and deal with it. Free markets work, strong American military produces great, if indirect, benefits for Americans, widespread gun ownership helps us deal with feral negroids, the bourgeois verities never grow stale, etc. The problem is that neolib contains the seeds of its own destruction, in its failure to recognize human differentiation, and its concomitant belief that humans can all be decultured and deethnicized and thereby transformed into homogeneous citizen-consumers. That is its core fallacy. If the foolish apostles of globalization could be made to support international non-immigration, then international free trade and capital flows would indeed greatly increase the world’s net wealth (while continuing to depress the wages of the Western world’s proletariats). Neolib must be destroyed because it is lethal to white GI. It also harms working and poorer (and increasingly middle) classes in Western nations, by forcing them to compete with extremely downtrodden Third Worlders. Learn something, please. Western laboring classes have been economically annihilated by four factors: immigration (worker insourcing), managed trade, the growth of socialism (size, cost, and regulatory intrusiveness of government), and (central-bank generated) inflation. Solutions? 1. End all nonwhite immigration (deport illegals, seal Mexican border with military). 2. End inflation (and macroeconomic business cycles) by abolishing Federal Reserve and criminalizing private fractional reserve (fraudulent) banking, and redefining the dollar as a unit weight of gold. Abolish legal tender laws, too. 3. Deregulate private economy, privatize government activities, simplify tax code, eliminate all business taxation, open up constrained resource extraction, end affirmative action, and limit tort damages. Watch greatest boom in US history follow. 4. Changing trade is by far the most difficult and complex of this already very radical list. One can discourage future outsourcing, but interfering with existing corporate investments would be enormously destructive, especially at this time. Anyway, Tea Party is on right track, but inadequate due to silence on LEGAL immigration. These Wall St protesters are nothing but multicultural rabble who want to steal private wealth and redistribute it through the mechanism of communist government. Just looking at news footage is enough to see ENEMY written all over them. 9
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 08 Oct 2011 13:48 | # Instead of attacking the private market, the Right needs to stigmatize immigration (which would be correct economically, as well as politically). Joining this type of protest would be strategically discrediting to an almost unimaginable degree. I am really amazed at how stupid so many people are around here. Not necessarily in terms of basic IQ (not that I’m much impressed there, either), but in terms of ease of being suckered, whether by wild-eyed conspiracist nonsense, simpleminded scapegoating, mindbogglingly wrongheaded predictions, or complete strategic blindness. Or perhaps it’s just extreme alienation from the Middle American mainstream. The glory of the TP is that it’s fairly close to the white mainstream (if too conservative compared to the whole country). If the neoliberal consensus is to be broken constructively, it must happen on immigration. That is one issue where the Far Right has huge potential scope for influence and real (and useful) change. Confronting or breaking neolib on economic lines will only benefit Obama and the apostles of ever greater white to nonwhite wealth redistribution. As such, the Far Right would lose any influence it might have with normal whites. 10
Posted by Foundation on Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:27 | # Y’alls take a look, see what I found: http://southernnationalist.com/blog/2011/10/05/unite-against-white-people-says-wasserman-schultz/ Seriously though the comments section reveal an embattled people who would vote for secession tomorrow. Culture and ethnicity trumps politics every time, especially now when it’s under so much stress. Me, I’d fight for the South. 11
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:40 | # OK, here we go, good stuff from the Ziocons on these idiot Occupy Wall St types: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/eyewitness-history_595200.html Exactly as I’d thought. The neocons are useless for teleology, but they can be good for reporting. 12
Posted by Bill on Sat, 08 Oct 2011 16:11 | # Idiots guide to Occupy Wall Street - take 26 or is it 56 - I dunno I’ve lost count. I won’t take up column inches. http://www.thedailybell.com/3052/Hope-for-Occupy-Wall-Street PS I’ve been puzzled by the liberal (no pun) use of the term consciousness. Isn’t that the language of the New Age Movement? Or is it just a new buzzword? 13
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 08 Oct 2011 16:23 | # Dr. Jerome Corsi speaks on the subjects of: canceled 2012 elections, staged race riots, phony birth certificate, “Fast and Furious”, and more. 14
Posted by tc on Sat, 08 Oct 2011 17:17 | # The worst, the better… I have absolutely no doubt, that there is not a political, social, economical, cultural, military or any other strictly systematical life line available to us. If the OWS gets “out of hand”, it may be allright, though I do not give it much of a chance. It will be controlled. I TRULY hope for an “apocalypse”(me not “religious”, but the terminology is widely understood), since THAT will be spontaneous, as human nature is given within the scope of the special breeds. It, and the logistics will absolutely dictate the outcome. What I TRULY believe is, that You, me or God can do nothing constructive with the available population. Only the “devil” can. Thus kudos to the genius creating the present “us”. ——————————————- This present population will die short of breath within two minutes, without water in two weeks, without food in two months…and so on. Those are the pessimistic numbers. In reality they will drop like flies. Prepare to isolate yourself from them, and You and I might have a chance for a future, without the need for extensive interaction. Have a nice day! 15
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:25 | #
True, Leon, but you can change all that with the stroke of a Magic Marker. Make yourself a small sign that says “It’s the Jews, stupid” and head down to Wall Street. Those four words alone will instantly get you a larger audience than all the intellectual drivel in the world. Why is that? 16
Posted by tc on Sat, 08 Oct 2011 19:02 | # Indeed: it is the jids - are You stupid? Why are we still talking? - Is it likely to have any effect on the outcome?
What makes Your heart bleed for them? What have You got invested in this state of affairs as we know it? Have You no hope for better? 17
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 08 Oct 2011 22:31 | # On the foolishness of regionalist ‘nationalisms’: I disagree with Stormfront in its neo-Nazism, even though I acknowledge (as any honest man must) the heavily disproportionate role that disproportionately intelligent, and thus wealthy, and thus influential - in finance, media and finally government - Jews have played in the dispossession of both white and Christian America. America is increasingly secular and nonwhite directly because of the role of liberal Jews in pushing those agendas. There is no advantage to white/Christian/Aryan/Southern/American/ and/or Western patriots ignoring this. On the other hand, expressing too much hatred for other groups can cross the line into unChristian rhetoric and behavior; it is also tactically foolish. The White Man is Ethical Man, which I regard as our glory, not as a weakness (though today our moral superiority over all other peoples is being used against us; the answer, however, is not to reject Christian morality, as the Nazis and neo-Europagans do, but to reform/increase the faith’s understanding of the rightness of biologically and culturally distinct peoples living autonomously on their own ancestral soils). On another note, while I would strongly morally support any Southern (or any other white American) secessionist movement, I do think that particular focus is foolish and distracting, however, for the same reasons enunciated by the late Southerner, Dr. Samuel T. Francis, around a decade and a half ago. The primary issue in America (and the Occident) today is white racial survival. I am not a Southerner by birth or culture, though I still have family there. I have known a number of Southerner transplants out here in CA. Rest assured, I had far more in common with them culturally than I do with my own “native” Filipino and Latino neighbors, people who in some cases grew up within a few miles of me. Race is rooted in real biology, and that (genetic) bond is far stronger than mere mass culture, shared experiences, or same geography. The white American problems are common to all white Americans, and as we are gradually transformed into a national demographic minority, we need to think in national/racial terms to organize to protect our interests in this diversified, dysgenic and therefore declining country. Regionalist movements like Southern nationalism are merely stopgap or ‘feel-good’ lesser alternatives to what’s really needed, which is ALL-AMERICAN WHITE NATIONALISM: a nationally organized, morally responsible, defensively racialist movement to end immigration, affirmative action, and welfare-based interracial wealth transfers, support tough-on-crime and pro-gun laws, and fight to maintain the traditional cultural understanding of the US as an Anglo-European Christian country in the face of relentless anti-white, secularist and multiculturalist agitation. All white Americans must recognize themselves as a unique nation. Emphasizing intra-white differences merely weakens us all. (posted at southernnationalist) 18
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 08 Oct 2011 22:56 | # I suspect you are right, Jimmy - though a lot of those OWS types look Jewish to me (just like the faces of the Sixties). BTW, all this economic collapse talk is just so much (never properly explicated) idiocy. The dollar is not going to collapse (maybe if it did it might be a good thing, in terms of building race-consciousness - though maybe not; tough to say). This is all just a matter of overspending, and now the inevitable need to cut way back, like nursing a hangover after a party. Expenditures must be brought back in line with productivity. True economic collapse only comes in the wake of natural disaster (historically, mainly plague or famine), or war. The one factor that is truly worrying, and thus that all libertarians, goldbugs, survivalists, etc ignore, is the economically obsolescent, human parasite army (eg, welfare created and receiving dysgenic minorities) we have allowed to fester in our midst. What happens when the welfare checks run out? That’s when you get insurrection (war), and ensuing economic collapse. But bank failures leading to food riots? Who cares if Greece defaults - that means General Foods or ConAgra or Microsoft or 3M or ExxonMobil go under? How? Are some of you people that stupid and ignorant (yes, unfortunately)? There are going to have to be writedowns. The longer this is delayed in order to protect the oligopolistic Money Powers, the worse it will be. Yes, the euro will have to go. So what? That’s a good thing, economically as well as politically and racially. I am more worried about inflation. The Fed’s QE has merely delayed the sharp mini-depression that was needed to clean out the state-created waste of the housing boom and bust. At some point, interest rates must be sharply increased, or inflation will take off badly. So the choice will be between necessary significant deflation, and still much greater unemployment, or unprecedented inflation (and longer delays in the malinvestment cleansing process). The one answer to this is monetary tightening to prevent inflation, combined with radical deregulation and return to laissez-faire in order to pump up real economic growth as much as possible. 19
Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on Sat, 08 Oct 2011 23:00 | # GW, This happening strikes me as far short of spontaneous. Really spontaneous revolutionary upheavals have little to no connection with the ancient regime’s political calendar. The street rabble has no coherent message. So perhaps they are the message? That is, someone is demonstrating to someone else their power to summon forth large dissatisfied mobs. How does “Occupy Wall Street” differ from the “Battle of Seattle” 12 years ago at the WTO meeting in 1999? That was also a street struggle against the forces of Neo-liberalism. This prior event had a lot more energy behind it. And it even featured a swan song dalliance by paleoconservatives before they started entering their assisted living facilities en masse. Remember Pat Buchanan’s appearance there? At best this strikes me as a very minor event in a larger saga. I doubt it will even rate a footnote or a chapter end note when the histories of the era are written. 20
Posted by anon / uh on Sat, 08 Oct 2011 23:31 | # Have a look: http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/
llozlozlzozlzlozlozlzozlzolzozlzzlz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11 OCCUPY WALL THTREET EVERYOOONE!!!! 21
Posted by anon / uh on Sat, 08 Oct 2011 23:37 | # those are some pampered SWPLs in uh’s opinion “When I was 22 my husband and I gave up our baby for adoption because we weren’t healthy enough to raise him, and couldn’t afford help on the pittance we were making.
no one taught you there’s no starting over in history? grain stores = commodities = record keeping / fiatmenschen = speculation = BUTTHEX MATRIX / wall thtreet lolzozlzozlzlzzQ!!! 22
Posted by anon / uh on Sat, 08 Oct 2011 23:52 | # “revolutionary” rhetoric is indulgent nonsense they’re all just a pack of whiners one is an orphan (poor blondie!!! u look SOOOO “disadvantaged”) fucxk em all., regard the comment i quote above: “tear it down” — wah wah wah, i’m a pampered white baby, so frail and needy, wah wah wah wah wah, i don’t see an nyone agitating here in miami-dade LOLZOZOZOZZLZLZ these SWPL fags should have GAMED THE SYSTEM like uh, instead of payinhg $5 for belurberyr muffins betweenb clasisiss at uni take all the money AND SPEND IT ON SOMETHING ELSE hahahaha aba !L!Olollolz wot honorable response is there to a dishonorable state of affairs which forces one’s participation? there’s suicide, playing along, or playing dirty these weepy exhibitionist whites played along and live in fear of an abstraction called “debt” bc they are fiatmenschen too afraid to cut ties with the system, go off the grid pussies all, cannibals all
LOZLOZLZOZLZLZZZ FIATFAGBOY DESTROYDS HIS TEETH WITH OATMEAL ON THE SHORT PATH TO JEW ASS-CANCER lolzozozlzlz 23
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 08 Oct 2011 23:56 | # The OWS people are their own worst enemies. They are attacking the PRIVATE sector - the source of wealth creation. Why aren’t they attacking Washington, the White House, the Fed? This is a leftist movement of disappointed leftist assholes finding no job market for “gay youth coordinators” who want to loot the private wealth of people like me who have always lived responsibly and frugally. How dare they blame the wealth creators? Why not blame the real wealth destroyers in government regulatory agencies? Why not blame the Third World immigrants coming into the country in the millions, competing for precious jobs and lowering native born wage rates? Rightists had better transform this ‘narrative’ into one about the costs of socialism and diversity, or the Left will use this crisis as FDR did, to push the country further into socialism and ruin. Where is Pinochet when he’s needed? 24
Posted by anon / uh on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 00:09 | # another thing you will observe about these pampered palefaces is that their handwriting is invariably ornate like a high school girl’s cartoonish lettering, exclamations, underlining, colored marker, truly excellent margins ....
LIFE IS INHERENTLY AN UNFAIR CAPITALISTIC ENTERPRISE DON’T LIKE? THEN STOP EATING BLUEBERRY MUFFINS hahahahahahahahahaha YOU ARE PROTESTING YOUR CLOTHES “I am 28yrs old. Though I now live with a loving partner (who works as a public school teacher) I still identify as a single mom.” AND YET!!!! “Cursed with genetically bad teeth, I haven’t seen a dentist since 2004.” YOU ARE THE 99% : YOU ARE THE CULPRIT. YOUR NEEDS ARE TOO MUCH. <big>DIE FETTEN JAHRE SIND VORBEI</big>
It’s the script that’s been running since 196x. That is their UMWELT as their UMGEBUNG becomes Johannesburg.
zozlzozlozlzlzz what these palefaces need is a Li Peng 25
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 00:24 | # Leon, The Tea Party is party politics. It protests “Washington”, ie “the left”. That means it observes the usual political conventions. It is wrapped and bound in the default liberalism of the rest of the political system. The Occupy phenomenon is extra-political - it protests capitalism - but it is not metapolitical. That is, it functions outside the political system as a challenge to that system, but it is still situated within the liberal paradigm. Anarchism and anti-capitalism are rooted in the usual notions of radical individualism and fairness. Nationalism, however, is genuinely metapolitical. It does not exist within the liberal paradigm, is anti-liberal, anti-egalitarian, often anti-democratic. I only mention this to help you grasp why, to so many here, your economism is pointless and establishmentarian. Ex-Pro White Activist, The national Occupy phenomenon: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/nyregion/wall-street-protest-spurs-online-conversation.html?hp I think Occupy does have more meaning than mere protest-fashion. Unlike the Seattle protest, this is non-violent and already has a much broader base. The world has changed too, and the meaning of globalisation is now within the experience of a lot of middle-class Americans. This is a new situation. Give it six months. If it survives the cold wind blowing off the East River, it should become significant. 26
Posted by anon / uh on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 00:25 | #
I am in total agreement with you here. WNs tend to overperceive trends like everyone else waiting for EZ salvation. The late NeoNietzsche in 2009 believed the recession had run its course. In 2011 we say Recession, and double-dip is no longer just a Seinfeld reference. At the time I told him: I’m an idiot and don’t understand economics, but my instinct says no, the logic of the system and of this lapse point to continued economic lag; this is a systemic failure, not an anomaly. There is no way to capitalize on this minor disturbance, whose importance is quickly exaggerated by social media, because they’re just the same anti-white white eaters of blueberry muffins and butthexing Mac users as we encounter in debate threads and everyplace else. These are not our people. They are not anyone’s people, for they are not a real people. They are a nation of soft fiatmenschen who subsist on caffeine drip and blueberry muffins. They lose their heads for the new “cupcake shop” on the corner. There are too many people being brought into existence by the grain industries. Corn is as culpable as Jews. When there are too many cells reproducing too fast, it is cancer. C’est juste la Kwa, rien plus. 27
Posted by anon / uh on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 00:33 | # Guessedworker — Very well put in response to Leon. If one could only speak that way all the time, to everyone. But you are dead wrong about Occupy. Give it six months. Ok. Let’s make a gentleman’s wager; I’ll even give you odds. If in six months this thing is still going, or has morphed into something even weightier, I will ____ (here you stipulate payment). If in six weeks anyone even remembers OccupyWallStreet, you will obtain a sheet of red construction paper, fold it, and cut out a little heart which you will then sign, “To uh; in observance of your raw, unguided, badly educated, yet curiously superior intelligence; love, GUESSEDWORKER”, and dispatch to me. Deal? 28
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 00:50 | # Uh, What would I do with a couple of million bucks? Since I hit the road in 1967 I’ve had the horizon for a living room and the stars for a ceiling, and I’m as free as a bird. And if the worst comes to the worst I can always sell my shares in Goldma… Oh shit! Well, I’ll tell you what, if Cain can cane the Obamanoid in 13 months from now there’s no way the radical left will be held in check. You might be right, though, if the Democrats still hold the White House. 29
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 01:16 | # The Tea Party is party politics. It protests “Washington”, ie “the left”. That means it observes the usual political conventions. It is wrapped and bound in the default liberalism of the rest of the political system. The Occupy phenomenon is extra-political - it protests capitalism - but it is not metapolitical. That is, it functions outside the political system as a challenge to that system, but it is still situated within the liberal paradigm. Anarchism and anti-capitalism are rooted in the usual notions of radical individualism and fairness. Nationalism, however, is genuinely metapolitical. It does not exist within the liberal paradigm, is anti-liberal, anti-egalitarian, often anti-democratic. I only mention this to help you grasp why, to so many here, your economism is pointless and establishmentarian. (GW) ——————— I did not say “salvation lies with the TP”, merely that it is a force for good that really would make America better if empowered. It would not, however, stop the immigration invasion, the sine qua non (along with either white secession + sovereignty, or a renewed white supremacism) for saving traditional America. Studying Austrian economics is a wonderful way to avoid getting suckered by a lot of economic nonsense, as studying racial science is for multiculi crap. I think I’m going to have to start my own blog, just so my wisdom can be made easily accessible. Increasingly, I think my approach (classical conservatism, Catholic natural law, plus sociobiological insights) is correct (though pragmatically, the Taylor approach re publicizing racial facts is best). The really basic issue is whether saving the white race requires the complete destruction of existing Western Civ, and whether that would be worth it (and something I personally would want), or whether matters can be turned around with only a minimum of violence, based on white awakening and lawful politicking. 30
Posted by tc on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 02:16 | # “Complete destruction of the so called “WC” - ...what does that mean in practice man??? Does it mean, that since there is no more economical benefits for immigration - it is OVER? If so, it is welcome, yes? NOW Without any legislation…and shootn’ New term introduced: Demigration…:-) 31
Posted by danielj on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 04:02 | # I think I’m going to have to start my own blog, just so my wisdom can be made easily accessible. Seriously bro? Increasingly, I think my approach (classical conservatism, Catholic natural law, plus sociobiological insights) is correct (though pragmatically, the Taylor approach re publicizing racial facts is best). Have you read MacIntyre’s After Virtue and Whose Justice? Which Rationality?? They are right up your alley. 32
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 04:03 | # If Catholicism could help White men muster this kind of guts, I’d be headed for confession tomorrow, but alas, I fear its more a matter of genetics: 33
Posted by anon / uh on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 04:46 | # In reality a million bucks are good for little beyond personal extravagance. Could I arm or fund the ___ of ___ with a mere million? To any game-changing extent, no. A couple dozen FIM-92s perhaps, less if they want the ammo. Would upset things for a while and make great spectacle. Now three million would do it. Mhm. For a mere three million zogbux, we could actually bewaffnet das volk ... at which point .... i don’t suppose ontology would be entirely necessary ... nor webzines .... nor Greg Johnson’s GaySStapo. werhwolfin’ in the streets nahmsayin??? you think the boys wd hesitate to use my hardware? europe’s so target dense you could fairly aim blind and tag something lolzozlzlz bewaffnet das volk 34
Posted by danielj on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 05:25 | # Uh is my long lost twin. See you in the MIA niggah. 35
Posted by norm on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 07:46 | # Some homeless type guy at Occupy Wall St. in NYC causes a scene arguing with Jews and screaming at people, “The Jews control Wall St.!”, “Google it!”, “Google Wall St. Jew!”, etc. 36
Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 14:51 | #
“Diversity” was designed for precisely this kind of “in case of emergency break glass” situation. The now fading “Tea Party” was a Red State America phenomenon. “Occupy America” is a Blue State America movement. This may look spontaneous to you from your vantage. It doesn’t look that way to me. There are far too many professional Leftists already involved. A truly revolutionary movement will not be led by Michael Moore, Naomi Klein and the Jewish labor bosses of government employee unions. They’re not out to overthrow “The System”. They ARE the system. But let’s assume for a moment the dissatisfied followers slip the leashes and leap over the stock chute rails already laid out for them. What’s the end game here that leads to real consequences for the regime? There are only a very few. 37
Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 15:22 | # p.s. The possible end games are: 1. Occupy America quickly get channeled into the traditional partisan political sphere. In my opinion the timing of this bogus “spontaneous” movement originating in New York City is designed to keep this option open. I think that George Soros, Michael Bloomberg and some other Jewish plutocrats are orchestrating this as a means of pressuring Obama, of potentially replacing Obama, of keeping Blue & Red State America well divided against themselves and ensuring the collaborationist GOP Conservatives stay on the Judeo-Neocon straight and narrow. This last won’t be hard given the identities of Mitt Romney’s principal advisers. All the usual “velvet” and “color” revolution tactics are being deployed. And all the usual Professional Left Jews and shabbos goys are appearing. If they’re ‘there’ then their masters are also quietly present behind the scenes. 2. Occupy America overthrows (bear with me and try not to laugh) the “regime” by unspecified extra-electoral means. It’s difficult to construct a “movement” that will have less sympathy with the mercenary-professional police and military forces. I see no indication that these forces are at all disaffected. 3. Occupy America dissipates in impotence like E. Ross Perot’s far larger “Reform Party” did, and as the Tea Party is now doing. Don’t interpret this to mean I don’t think vast numbers of Americans aren’t very dissatisfied. I just don’t think new wine will long stay inside old wine skins. And I don’t believe a truly regime changing event will be led by all the usual biological canaille issuing forth from the Jewish Plutocrats’ networks of 501c3 entities. 38
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 16:48 | # Ex-Pro White Activist, If you can demonstrate the Jewish ideational lineage of anonymous and adbusters, which appear to be the organisations that got Occupy rolling, you will have proved your point. 39
Posted by Marwinsing on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 17:52 | # To Guessedworker and to all the rest of you pieces of white fucking filth: Isn’t it funny you were all so fucking quiet when THE WEST chose to send their WHITE BROTHERS to sleep in South Africa 20 years ago? Fuck you cunts. Honest. Fuck you cunts. Fuck the white fucking race. Marwinsing from South Africa. 40
Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 18:56 | # http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=26914 Adbusters & Soros. All the other Soros presstitutes and assets are busily promoting “Occupy Wall Street”/“Occupy America”. Here’s a prominent one: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/ This Susan Webber in particular is a trip. Here’s her Lower Manhattan based consulting firm: http://www.auroraadvisors.com/our_clients.htm Among which clients are Soros Fund Management. Any time I want to know what Soros’ current line is, I tune in Susan Webber and Marshall Auerback. Any lingering questions I had about OWS/OA were removed by the recent news cycle. New York Times owned properties are busily promoting the advance time and place of OA events in their market areas. This is the internet age. Come on, GW. For real, I mean. It’s all the usual suspects from the sameo-sameo network of 501c3s. They just decided to put on some “V” style Guy Fawkes’ masks this time. 41
Posted by anon / uh on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 19:11 | # uh has long <3’d old Marwinsing, who taught him to say “kaffir” and “spiesgooier”, though he is still unsure how to pronounce the latter lolzozlzozlzz but u know the english weren’t merely quiet about it ..... the blueprint for “kill the boer” was imperial policy ..... lozlzozlzlzlzzlzz .... as it was for rhodesia in ‘65 toward their very own lolzozlzlzz butthexing albion lzlz 43
Posted by Marwinsing on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 19:38 | # @ anon / uh : me kick yer fukkin head in yer piece o’ shizen bye bye. 44
Posted by anon / uh on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 19:50 | #
Indeed. As I say, it is nothing but a rhetoric & facade of revolutionary or zeitgeist-kritisch ethos. Yes, Adbusters identified the neocons as a pack of warmongering Jews, alone among popular magazines, some years ago — but so did Ha’aretz! I’m amazed anyone would ascribe “permeable boundaries” to this movement given the provenance, the supporters, the mere style of it. A maxim is in order: If it is popular among the goyim, it is bound to be anti-goy, or interpreted as such by their minders. They may be agitating in their best interests, but that doesn’t mean they understand the full breadth of their best interests, nor would tolerate a widening of their concept.
Perfect analogue. The goyim could just as effectively be Kyrgyz mobbing the streets in anger at high utility & rent costs. 45
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 21:34 | #
The view I get here in my college town microcosm, supports this assertion. The local movement is occupied by the same cabal that worked long and hard to get Pacifica Forum expelled from the University. 46
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 23:19 | # It’s helpful, in some ways, to live in a small town where there is an opportunity to observe social phenomena in miniature. In July of 2006, there was ostensibly a protest against the Israeli invasion of Lebanon at the local Federal Building. This came at a time when I was in the early stages of discovering that the “Holocaust” was a hoax, so having a background in structural design and fabrication, I made a lightweight, wind permeable sign that read “Lebanese Holocaust: It’s no hoax”. The sign was so large that I had to assemble it on the courthouse lawn on the morning of the demonstration. It was eight feet wide at the top and extendable to a height of twelve feet. Even though it was quite large and highly visible, I could manipulate it single-handedly. Aside from my personal predisposition toward economies of scale, my motivation for making the sign in this way was due to the proximity of major traffic arterial to which I wanted to make a visual appeal. The demonstration itself was of very modest size and confined to a semi enclosed triangular courtyard. My strategy was to station myself at the apex of the triangle where I would be most visible to automobile traffic on a one-way boulevard. Being new to Holocaust denial, I had a great deal of anxiety about the possibility of being interviewed by the news media. I needn’t have worried. I discovered that my presence actually forced a media blackout of the entire event, which had, in fact, been organized by the media in the first place. They were not there to “document the event”. They were the producers of the event, and they had a tightly woven script and choreography by which it was to unfold, but I had inadvertently occupied the focal point from which it was to be filmed. I discovered this gradually over the course of the day by observing a number of strategies developed by the various collaborators and a local television station to remove me from my position, and from the fact that, due to the failure of those strategies, no video news coverage of the event appeared on television that evening. I realized, at that point, that the entire purpose of the event had not been to protest the war, but to subvert any honest, spontaneous outpouring of anti-war sentiment and provide damage control for the invasion. As a result of this experience, I’ve become very skeptical about the origins and nature of public protests. 47
Posted by anon / uh on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 23:45 | #
A+. 48
Posted by danielj on Mon, 10 Oct 2011 00:05 | # If a tree falls in the forest and Olberman isn’t outraged, did it really advocate for social justice? 49
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 10 Oct 2011 01:29 | # Ex-Pro White Activist, I very carefully wrote:
And, of course, the word that matters there is “ideational”. Obviously, Jews did labour in the anarchist vineyards, particularly at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, and have cropped up at at all times since. After all, anarchism holds out the possibility of destruction. But anarchism is not Jewish in the sense that the Marxisms are, or second-wave libertarianism (a product of the anarchist tradition). That tradition pre-dates Marxism, and has its origins in Godwin and Proudhon - indeed Marx was greatly influenced by it. Bakunin is probably its most important figure. It is, therefore, a European intellectual tradition. You will not prove it otherwise. This means that Europeans are appropriately engaged in it, regardless of whether a particular vehicle is in some regard “Jewish”. This current anti-capitalism protest probably sits, for the most part, in the mutualist, collective-anarchist tradition authored by Bakunin. We can’t know for sure because there is no clear policy statement, no manifesto, no collectively signed statement whatsoever by which we can say, yes, this is what these people stand for. The debate here appears to be about whether such a statement will be forthcoming, and whether it will lead to something concrete. If it does not, you will feel that your military-strategic-think will have been borne out, and you will remind us of the Jewish ethnic motive wrapped up in that. If it does, you will doubtless find some Jewish motive in that, instead. All I am saying is that Europeans exist too, author and pursue politics, and seek to be consequential in the political world. In your world, apparently, that isn’t true. 50
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 10 Oct 2011 04:12 | #
The White people engaged in the Occupy Wall Street movement are fundamentally deluded. They are primarily exercised over a decline in their material standard of living. A more varied and refined division of labor is what simultaneously makes possible their cherished modern conveniences and sunders their social capital from that found in the tribal state of nature. Want in one hand and bullshit in the other, see which gets filled up first. The Jews will always be happy to provide steaming piles of the latter for lemmings. It is that more lemmings by the day hold out their hands expectantly which provides space for nationalism to work. The hope is that lemmings will see what they are being given for what it is: bullshit. Although apparently Maguire is not holding his breath. 51
Posted by anon / uh on Mon, 10 Oct 2011 04:34 | #
lolzozlz;z;zlzozlz;zzlzlz BLUEBERYYR MUFF INS COFFEE DRIP BUTTHEX zozlzozlzozlz < AGRIKULCHUR < CHEM FERT < FIATMENSCHEN < AGRIKULCHUR < CHEM FERT < FIATMENSCHEN ..... 52
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 10 Oct 2011 04:48 | #
The Old Testament.
53
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 10 Oct 2011 11:18 | # Desmond, Not sure what that actually means. But from wiki:
The Han, it should be said, are the most conformist and least individualist of all the races of Man. CC, Is it also deluded for nationalists to protest globalisation, the ties between Wall Street and Washington, the socialisation of banking losses, the impoverishment of the people by sovereign debt, the flaw of the fractional reserve system, etc? What makes anti-capitalists deluded and nationalists reasonable, in your view? 54
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 10 Oct 2011 11:22 | # So I take it Ex-Pro White Activist and others do not consider big business or corporations as part of ‘the system’? It’s a rather odd blind-spot but not all that shocking. David Cameron rewrites immigration speech after resistance from industry Trying to overcome hyper-liberalism by only attacking the left-facing manifestation of it is incoherent and doomed to failure. Rather like boxing with one hand tied behind your back. That at the centre of ‘free-market’ ideology are a deeply, profoundly, liberal set of values and normative assumptions seems to be very hard for large numbers of people to either grasp, understand, or acknowledge. It bemuses me why this is so as it is an obvious insight. Markets, like attenuated liberal values, have an important place in our life-world but not to the exclusion of other values let alone foundational, axiomatic status. If a post-liberal ideology/politics with an ethnocentric focus is to emerge and be successful it is likely to have to have cross-class appeal as all Western societies/polities structurally all have a large degree of economic stratification. So even on a purely pragmatic level it would need to offer a range of substantive real-world policies that appeal to the lower-middle class and the working classes. After all such a politics will sociologically be a ‘bottom-up’ populist phenomenon. Simply ‘being white’ isn’t enough by itself to have very much traction in the real world. Only the deluded, oddballs, and the politically naive would think otherwise. One can can have a core position that you always wish to work towards but also be ruthlessly pragmatic and flexible on any secondary issues with regard to aiding the achievement/acceptance of that core goal/value. Think Gramsci meets Machiavelli. P.S. Doctrinaire libertarianism really does have a vanishingly small, but very noisy, number of supporters. Without getting into that debate again, even if you are a true believer in such ideas the potential market penetration for them is extremely limited in scope. After all, rightly or wrongly, most people think that the complex range of societal problems and issues cannot be adequately addressed by, in their perception, a rather narrowly focused and overly simplistic set of ideas. 55
Posted by Bill on Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:40 | # Occupy Britain Website OccupyBritain.co.uk - A site dedicated to providing up-to-date information on events, assemblies and gatherings, relating to the Occupy Movement within the UK 56
Posted by dex on Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:50 | # Radicals for the System http://www.westernyouth.org/articles/radicals-for-the-system/
57
Posted by Awake on Mon, 10 Oct 2011 20:35 | # Jews! It’s Jews, and no one wants to say it. The Tea Party rallies against the Federal Reserve and Socialism, OWS against Wall Street and corporate banks, Arabs against secular despots, European nationalists against the EU… and it’s Jews all the way around. It’s been Jews for the last two centuries, and it continues to be Jews. Throngs of bitching, moaning, whining gentiles pouring into the streets around the world, with a hundred different ideologies, solutions, and angles… and they can not utter the word. 58
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 10 Oct 2011 21:16 | #
I agree, Awake, but people still fear what the think they remember about the last time Europeans uttered those words en masse. Ultimately, I suspect there will be no choice, but meanwhile I suggest you learn to enjoy watching Whites, especially the so-called Nationalists, squirm and equivocate to delay the realization. 59
Posted by anon / uh on Mon, 10 Oct 2011 21:55 | # uh spricht!
60
Posted by GenoType on Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:28 | # GW,
Noted. And so is the wriggling. Shame on you. You are understandably desperate to find a national solution for Britain. Jared Taylor “very carefully” wriggles with the word socialism when absolving jews of responsibility for Marxism. We know you are better - a far more honest man than he is. I believe you will let this hobby horse go, eventually. —— Graham Lister XPWA won’t be baited with nonsense. 61
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Oct 2011 01:01 | # GT, I will let it go if it fails the test of time, obviously. Right now, my estimation is that it has some considerable discontent to draw upon - the historical moment is ripe for a counter to a corrupt system. And not just in America. There is little optimism among the educated young throughout the West. There is a sense of betrayal. There is the impoverishment of the middle-class family. There is austerity and debt and the completely justified sense that it is unjust and must be challenged. This has the potential to be shaped into something with considerable ideological clout - and that’s what the ideological left do well. We will see in six months who is right. 62
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 11 Oct 2011 02:24 | # @Genotype OK I can’t sleep so, despite my better judgement, let me ask you to explain in methodologically neutral language (if possible) what specifically in my comments to which referred would you or others regard as nonsense and why? Are multinational and national corporations based in the USA ethnocentric in any substantial way? Indeed in anyway at all? How are they, for good or for bad, not a crucial part of ‘the system’ of our hyper-liberal, unrooted, post-modern condition? Do you really disagree that the modern concept and ideology of the ‘free-market’ is one that emerged from classical liberal theory? Do you really think liberal theory, old or new, adequately accounts for the full complexity of the human subject or the full nature of social relationships? Do you really think that economic stratification is not an important dimension in shaping socio-political dynamics and the formation of ideologies? 63
Posted by GenoType on Tue, 11 Oct 2011 04:06 | # Graham Lister, You ought to know we don’t buy Leonomics. We’re really very sympathetic to GW’s position. Truthfully. I think you’ve misunderstood the nature of the disagreement. In any case you haven’t a dog in it. Try to sleep, if possible. 64
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:10 | # Why do I have to keep repeating myself?! My estimation of the intelligence of contributors here is getting lowered daily. Dr. Lister: What exactly do you disagree with in the following reiterated comment of mine? Start with that, so I have something to critique, and I will see if I cannot convince you of the superior merits of my position. “I’m beginning to think you don’t understand the evil of neoliberalism at all, which is simply this: at least in its pseudo-conservative (Wall Street Journal) version, it works!!! Suck it up and deal with it. ... The problem is that neolib contains the seeds of its own destruction, in its failure to recognize human differentiation, and its concomitant belief that humans can all be decultured and deethnicized and thereby transformed into homogeneous citizen-consumers. That is its core fallacy. If the foolish apostles of globalization could be made to support international non-immigration, then international free trade and capital flows would indeed greatly increase the world’s net wealth (while continuing to depress the wages of the Western world’s proletariats). Neolib must be destroyed because it is lethal to white GI. It also harms working and poorer (and increasingly middle) classes in Western nations, by forcing them to compete with extremely downtrodden Third Worlders. Learn something, please. Western laboring classes have been economically annihilated by four factors: immigration (worker insourcing), managed trade (globalization), the growth of socialism (size, cost, and regulatory intrusiveness of government), and (central-bank generated) inflation. Solutions? 1. End all nonwhite immigration (deport illegals, seal Mexican border with military). 2. End inflation (and macroeconomic business cycles) by abolishing Federal Reserve and criminalizing private fractional reserve (fraudulent) banking, and redefining the dollar as a unit weight of gold. Abolish legal tender laws, too. 3. Deregulate private economy, privatize government activities, simplify tax code, eliminate all business taxation, open up constrained resource extraction, end affirmative action, and limit tort damages. Watch greatest boom in US history follow. 4. Changing trade is by far the most difficult and complex of this already very radical list. One can discourage future outsourcing, but interfering with existing corporate investments would be enormously destructive, especially at this time. Anyway, Tea Party is on the right track, but inadequate due to silence on LEGAL immigration. These Wall St protesters are nothing but multicultural rabble who want to steal private wealth and redistribute it through the mechanism of communist government. Just looking at news footage is enough to see ENEMY written all over them.” All you ever talk about are the “classical liberal normative assumptions” of free markets. OK, so what exactly would your political economy look like? Let’s get specific. How would you get your country or mine out of the economic doldrums? Heidegger and ‘deep challenges’ to liberal ontology are all well and good, but what actual legislative changes issue from them? Others who presume to criticize free markets feel free to join in. 65
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:41 | # HAYEK NOT A RADICAL LIBERTARIAN (Lister and others might wish to read this): Why Mises (and not Hayek)? by Hans-Hermann Hoppe Let me begin with a quote from an article that my old friend Ralph Raico wrote some 15 years ago: Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek are widely considered the most eminent classical liberal thinkers of this century. They are also the two best known Austrian economists. They were great scholars and great men. I was lucky to have them both as my teachers.… Yet it is clear that the world treats them very differently. Mises was denied the Nobel Prize for economics, which Hayek won the year after Mises’s death. Hayek is occasionally anthologized and read in college courses, when a spokesman for free enterprise absolutely cannot be avoided; Mises is virtually unknown in American academia. Even among organizations that support the free market in a general way, it is Hayek who is honored and invoked, while Mises is ignored or pushed into the background. I want to speculate — and present a thesis — why this is so and explain why I — and I take it most of us here — take a very different view. Why I (and presumably you) are Misesians and not Hayekians. My thesis is that Hayek’s greater prominence has little if anything to do with his economics. There is little difference in Mises’s and Hayek’s economics. Indeed, most economic ideas associated with Hayek were originated by Mises, and this fact alone would make Mises rank far above Hayek as an economist. But most of today’s professed Hayekians are not trained economists. Few have actually read the books that are responsible for Hayek’s initial fame as an economist, i.e., his Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle and his Prices and Production. And I venture the guess that there exist no more than 10 people alive today who have studied, from cover to cover, his Pure Theory of Capital. Rather, what explains Hayek’s greater prominence is Hayek’s work, mostly in the second half of his professional life, in the field of political philosophy — and here, in this field, the difference between Hayek and Mises is striking indeed. My thesis is essentially the same one also advanced by my friend Ralph Raico: Hayek is not a classical liberal at all, or a “Radikalliberaler” as the NZZ, as usual clueless, has just recently referred to him. Hayek is actually a moderate social democrat, and since we live in the age of social democracy, this makes him a “respectable” and “responsible” scholar. Hayek, as you may recall, dedicated his Road to Serfdom to “the socialists in all parties.” And the socialists in all parties now pay him back in using Hayek to present themselves as “liberals.” Now to the proof, and I rely for this mostly on the Constitution of Liberty, and his three volume Law, Legislation, and Liberty which are generally regarded as Hayek’s most important contributions to the field of political theory. According to Hayek, government is “necessary” to fulfill the following tasks: not merely for “law enforcement” and “defense against external enemies” but “in an advanced society government ought to use its power of raising funds by taxation to provide a number of services which for various reasons cannot be provided, or cannot be provided adequately, by the market.” (Because at all times an infinite number of goods and services exist that the market does not provide, Hayek hands government a blank check.) Among these goods and services are “protection against violence, epidemics, or such natural forces as floods and avalanches, but also many of the amenities which make life in modern cities tolerable, most roads … the provision of standards of measure, and of many kinds of information ranging from land registers, maps and statistics to the certification of the quality of some goods or services offered in the market”. Additional government functions include “the assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone”; government should “distribute its expenditure over time in such a manner that it will step in when private investment flags”; it should finance schools and research as well as enforce “building regulations, pure food laws, the certification of certain professions, the restrictions on the sale of certain dangerous goods (such as arms, explosives, poisons and drugs), as well as some safety and health regulations for the processes of production; and the provision of such public institutions as theaters, sports grounds, etc.”; and it should make use of the power of “eminent domain” to enhance the “public good.” Moreover, it generally holds that “there is some reason to believe that with the increase in general wealth and of the density of population, the share of all needs that can be satisfied only by collective action will continue to grow.” Further, government should implement an extensive system of compulsory insurance (“coercion intended to forestall greater coercion”), public, subsidized housing is a possible government task, and likewise “city planning” and “zoning” are considered appropriate government functions — provided that “the sum of the gains exceed the sum of the losses.” And lastly, “the provision of amenities of or opportunities for recreation, or the preservation of natural beauty or of historical sites or scientific interest … Natural parks, nature-reservations, etc.” are legitimate government tasks. In addition, Hayek insists we recognize that it is irrelevant how big government is or if and how fast it grows. What alone is important is that government actions fulfill certain formal requirements. “It is the character rather than the volume of government activity that is important.” Taxes as such and the absolute height of taxation are not a problem for Hayek. Taxes — and likewise compulsory military service — lose their character as coercive measures, if they are at least predictable and are enforced irrespective of how the individual would otherwise employ his energies; this deprives them largely of the evil nature of coercion. If the known necessity of paying a certain amount of taxes becomes the basis of all my plans, if a period of military service is a foreseeable part of my career, then I can follow a general plan of life of my own making and am as independent of the will of another person as men have learned to be in society. But please, it must be a proportional tax and general military service! I could go on and on, citing Hayek’s muddled and contradictory definitions of freedom and coercion, but that shall suffice to make my point. I am simply asking: what socialist and what green could have any difficulties with all this? Following Hayek, they can all proudly call themselves liberals. In distinct contrast, how refreshingly clear — and very different — is Mises! For him, the definition of liberalism can be condensed into a single term: private property. The state, for Mises, is legalized force, and its only function is to defend life and property by beating antisocial elements into submission. As for the rest, government is “the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisonment. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.” Moreover (and this is for those who have not read much of Mises but invariably pipe up, “but even Mises is not an anarchist”), certainly the younger Mises allows for unlimited secession, down to the level of the individual, if one comes to the conclusion that government is not doing what it is supposed to do: to protect life and property. And the older Mises never repudiated this position. Mises, then, as my own intellectual master, Murray Rothbard, noted, is a laissez-faire radical: an extremist. —————— Hans-Hermann Hoppe, an Austrian School economist and anarchocapitalist philosopher, is professor emeritus of economics at UNLV, a distinguished fellow with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and founder and president of The Property and Freedom Society. 66
Posted by TabuLa Raza on Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:17 | # Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy by Murray N. Rothbard Introduction to the 2011 Edition The idea that corporate interests, banking elites and politicians We have seen this paradox at work in the aftermath of the The Tea Party right is also hesitant to examine the corporate Many on the right call Obama a “socialist” as many on the left Never afraid to slaughter sacred cows, Murray N. Rothbard This fantastic wrtten work is the definitive answer to many Peddlers of oversimplified conspiracy theories will be uncomfortable On the other hand, unlike moderate libertarians who regard One thing I get asked fairly often is whether the Iraq war Even the radicals sometimes mistake neo-mercantilist wars Flawed economic comprehension coincides with a poor reading 67
Posted by danielj on Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:16 | # BLUEBERYYR MUFF INS COFFEE DRIP BUTTHEX zozlzozlzozlz Actually, it’s banana chocolate chip coffee cake, spinach and feta egg white wrap and a Green Machine Naked juice. 68
Posted by anon / uh on Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:47 | #
69
Posted by Bill on Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:38 | #
Just read where journo witnessed the following chant at an owser rally. ‘Wadda we want? Don’t know. When do we want it? - Now!’ IMO, these people are railing about the manifestation of liberalism and how it is affecting them in their real lives. Liberal protesters themselves will never go down this route of enquiry as they have swallowed the liberal Kool aid. They will never question or dot-connect their grievances with the tenets of their liberal beliefs, the very values they have imbibed and espouse. Non liberals in the owser crowds are also feeling effects of liberalism but in a more abstract instinctive manner, such as not connecting their grievances to loss of natural rights and to loss of freedom of association or freedom to discriminate, or rail in general against the effects of liberal political correctness. As a consequence, both sides are distilling their demands into the pragmatic - student loans and tax the rich, Occupy Wall Street. These demands of course do not and cannot address the cause and effect of their discontent and therefore will have no bearing on the status quo. Neither left or right will connect the dots to liberal’s totalitarian gilded cage or to its higher authors. You will never hear the word liberal uttered by Alex Jones or Max Kaiser. Alan Watts, David Icke, Webster Tarpley or any of them. It’s a brave person who could safely say that such a disparate group can be cattle herded into the same pen. Once started, this mass could career off anywhere. It will be interesting to see how many non liberals wake up and smell the coffee and vote with their feet, or better still, form their own movement. FWIW, I think this owser movement at its core is New Age mullarkey. Multiculturalism, group rights, communitarianism/big society, agenda 21, in fact the whole liberal/UN/global ball of wax. I cannot see this bunch coalescing around a smoke and mirror consensus for long. We shall see. 70
Posted by Lurker on Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:57 | # From Bill’s quote -
. Looking at the videos, that certainly isn’t true right there. Post a comment:
Next entry: Suicide Watch - The Diary of an Anti-Racist
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by danielj on Sat, 08 Oct 2011 02:22 | #
Aren’t you from Europe?! You can’t talk about ‘Merica like that!
My thoughts:
Nobody speaks for me. Did they poll the American populace and find 99% of people agreed with their petulant, half-coherent list? Democracy is the problem so I’m slightly reserved about the prospect of more democracy approaching anything resembling a solution. These are the same idiots who enthroned Wall Street when the pulled the lever for President Goldman Sachs and now they are screaming for their heads. They aren’t capable and don’t deserve a say. They should go home and let real men handle the lynching.
?99% of the 99% ers couldn’t explain what a joint stock corporation is, what a dividend is, how the derivatives market operates, what day trading is, what factors determine the M1 money supply, etc. The protestors are bought and paid for.