|
|
Octopi Wall StreetPosted by Søren Renner on Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 08:26 PM in Comments:2
Posted by Reloader on October 11, 2011, 09:36 PM | # So have we, Leon. I suspect when it’s all said and done, you’ll be joining those multicult freaks lining the ditch, along with your bankster buddies. Then we can begin implementing an economic system that allows the new Ethnostate to flourish like never before, without leaving people to die or beg on the street. We’re waiting patiently on the sidelines too. Yes. 3
Posted by Shaw on October 11, 2011, 10:19 PM | # There are no “direct personal stakes in the free enterprise system” in the abstract. There are only direct personal stakes in the current anti-White system. Guys like Haller will have to hang. 4
Posted by danielj on October 11, 2011, 10:27 PM | # C’mon guys! He’ll make it out the other side of a reeducation camp unscathed! 6
Posted by Jimmy Marr on October 12, 2011, 12:18 AM | # “Resistance to the progressive distortion of America is merely passive - the resistance which any material whatever opposes to that which is acting upon it. Where the resistance is active - and the dimensions of such resistance are scanty - it finds little support, since idealism and heroism do not flourish in an atmosphere wherein economics is the ruling spirit.” - Francis Parker Yockey 7
Posted by anon / uh on October 12, 2011, 12:35 AM | # **NEW BOOK ALERT** The Muhdick Factor: How Negroes Unseat All Whitey’s Principles With a Click of The Tongue, and Whitey Spends Half His Time Bloggin’ ‘bout Dat Shit LOZLOZOZZZLZLZLZZ 8
Posted by anon / uh on October 12, 2011, 12:50 AM | # since idealism and heroism do not flourish in an atmosphere wherein economics is the ruling spirit.” - Francis Parker Yockey
ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm “idealism” and “heroism” arent concetps appliccbable to the land of cupcake shops & piss porn ozoozozzozlzlzzozz 9
Posted by anon / uh on October 12, 2011, 12:56 AM | # OZOZOZOZOZLZOZOZZLZZ SLOBO ZEEZEK IS RATHER SPERGIE WHAT IS THAT OLD, OVERWEIGHT, FIDGETY MAN HAVING THOSE DUMPY SWPL BROADS REPEAT ? lozlkzozlzlzlzlzlzzzzzz they aborted the white race lozozlzzz and that’s what’s “Left” BWAHAHAHAHAAA ZOZOZOZOZOZZLZLZZZ srsly i’ll side with the hallers if this is what excites you gentlemen “they aborted the white race, and that’s what’s Left” 10
Posted by Graham_Lister on October 12, 2011, 05:12 AM | # Just how many millions of Euro-Americans are on food stamps? How many are either without health insurance or are badly underinsured? Is it another of those difficult, real-world, empirical observations to note that median American wages/incomes have been stagnant for 30 years or so? It is an error of staggering banality to think that white America are ready to defend plutocrats, of all creeds and colours. The same globally orientated plutocrats that will sell out anyone or anything if they can make a buck from it and can get away with it. Goldmach Sachs et al., are the true parasites. Do they have the back of white America? Answers on a postcard. It is not that shocking that the usual suspects, Hayekian right-liberals, uncritically support ‘the system’ which is, to put it mildly, hardly isomorphic with the true, long-term, sustainable interests of ordinary Euro-Americans. If one is generous I might suggest we are dealing with blinkered, and rather dumb, ideological posturing - in a less generous mood I might suggest we are being trolled very hard indeed. As for ‘the right’ - I’m not ‘right-wing’. I’m a centrist but not a liberal one. I reject the reduction of all ideological discussion to those within liberal axioms. 11
Posted by Leon Haller on October 12, 2011, 07:45 AM | # How little you European idiots understand America! (If Reloader or Shaw are Americans, they are simply beyond clueless - maybe inmates in an asylum or something similar. Come the rightist revolution, such types will be liquidated very quickly, I assure you. We, the great mass of Middle American patriots, the real Americans, cannot and will not have the white prison/criminal class polluting the nationalist movement, and marginalizing our growth potential. That has happened too much in the past, which is why even responsible anti-immigrationists have a hard time making headway.) In this country, people believe in private property. Of those who do not, 99.9% are also on the multicultural, anti-racist, anti-fascist Left. That is an empirical assertion. Go visit one of these OWS sit-ins, and start talking about white EGI. See how far you get before you are booed, threatened, or asked to leave the vicinity. In the USA, there is no place for a non-private property Right. Who, exactly, would your base be?! Where are the masses of whites who are both anti-capitalist fools, as well as racial nationalists? They don’t exist, suckers! There is no possible alignment with these OWS hoodlums. Believe me, they would not want any of you anywhere near them! This is the hardcore, public sector parasite Left, trying to distract the conversation away from working people (real ones, which very much includes private sector business owners, corporate executives, professionals of all kinds - and not you fascist buffoons) recognizing how badly the vampire government screws them over. The American government is the enemy of white America both racially and economically. While I am no friend of the Federal Reserve system, and believe in the return to a gold standard, I, and tens of millions of my fellow conservatives, have direct stakes in the corporate capitalist economy - the white economy! We have worked hard to achieve and amass what we have, and believe me, we are getting very tired of this shitty, leftist-enervated economy, and Obama-depressed equities market. I hate both the Fed, and the criminals at Goldman Sachs, who greatly harmed me in 2008. That said, there is a world of difference between the GS bloodsuckers, and the millions of hardworking Americans who enable our corporate economy to function, and who want it to be successful, so that we can rebuild our battered portfolios. These OWS cockroaches threaten the very integrity of the markets, and I, and many others (a broad cross section, apparently, as I was just speaking to a friend about this, who in turn had been discussing the OWS with some of his all-white shooting pals, some professional, others working class, this past weekend; absolute disgust and hostility were universal), really would have no objection to seeing them all arrested (or, my preference, crushed by APCs and tanks, in the manner of Tiananmen Sq, with maximum bloodshed). But anyway, you speak for dozens, I, for millions. I really hope these OWS protests get out of hand, polarizing the country, forcing people to choose sides. On one side, vast numbers of normal, conservative white people, worried over their investments, jobs, and futures. On the other, racial minorities of all kinds, socialists, public sector union thugs, permanent homeless bums, welfare parasites, underclass hoodlums, anarchists, homosexuals, feminists, liberal academics, and Democrat politicians - and a microscopic number of neo-Nazis (“hey, we’re socialists, too!”)! We’ll see who hangs, we surely will. The only good socialist is a dead socialist. 12
Posted by Leon Haller on October 12, 2011, 08:00 AM | # Lister, You have trouble understanding things, don’t you? Most conservatives dislike Goldman (which heavily bankrolled Obama in 08), and hated the banker bailouts and TARP of 2008-9. The OWS protests have nothing whatsoever to do with those issues. They are conducted and coordinated by radical leftists and public sector unions trying to steer the public conversation away from ordinary persons noting how badly the private market economy has been crushed by government intervention, interventions favoring the Left, and paid for by the Right. OWS are trying to fundamentally challenge what’s left of our free market economy, after 100 years of American socialist assaults (begun in 1913, the year which saw both the creation of the Federal Reserve, and the inauguration of the fed income tax) have left us impoverished and ruined. You don’t respond to what I write because you either don;t understand the issues, or you do, and know I’m right, but hate to admit it. I will repost yet again what you flee from addressing. 13
Posted by Leon Haller on October 12, 2011, 08:02 AM | # 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. 14
Posted by Leon Haller on October 12, 2011, 08:23 AM | # The worthless Left: The Left’s Nervous Breakdown The White House is “bracing for the defeat of President Obama’s jobs bill,” the Hill reports. That’s hardly surprising, since Republicans control the House—except that it is the Senate, where Democrats hold a majority, that is expected to vote down the $447 billion Stimulus Jr. plan. Unnamed White House officials “emphasized their view that it is Republicans who are holding up the . . . plan, and they downplayed Democratic defections,” the report adds. “And officials warned that Republican presidential candidates who follow the lead of Congress . . . will be painted with the same brush as a GOP Congress that voted against the jobs bill at a critical time.” Run for your lives, Republicans! Obama’s got a brush! In contrast with the Hill’s anonymous swaggerers, Obama adviser David Plouffe is downcast, ABC News reports: “Plouffe said today on ‘Good Morning America’ that it would be ‘a tragedy’ if the bill fails to pass.” HotAir.com’s Howard Portnoy notes that the tragic view of Obama’s presidency is catching on among liberal commentators: Why are so many columnists beginning to refer to his presidency using the past tense? It’s worth noting that these references are not by conservative bloggers engaging in wishful thinking. Rather, they are emanating from the liberal commentariat. Portnoy’s examples include Ezra Klein’s interminable Stimulus Sr. apologia in the Washington Post, titled “Could This Time Have Been Different?” as well as Drew Westen’s much-ridiculed New York Times op-ed, “What Happened to Obama?” and a blog post by Mother Jones’s Kevin Drum describing Klein’s piece, which “looks back at the Obama administration’s response to the Great Recession and explains why it wasn’t enough.” Portnoy observes: “What I believe is happening is that the left is reading the handwriting on the wall and resigning itself to the harsh reality [that] the man they trusted to ‘fundamentally transform America’ is on the verge of being unelected.” We’d go a step further. Not only does Obama’s re-election look to be in serious jeopardy, but his presidency has been an almost unmitigated disaster for progressive liberalism, nearly every tenet of which has been revealed to be untenable either practically, politically or both. Stimulus Sr. discredited Keynesian demand-side economics—the notion that the way to produce employment and growth is through massive government spending. The real tragedy is that even after blowing hundreds of billions of dollars, Obama and many other Democrats failed to learn the lesson. ObamaCare proved a political fiasco, showing that there are limits to Americans’ willingness to tolerate the expansion of the welfare state. Because most provisions have not yet taken effect, the policy disaster is delayed and may be averted if either Congress repeals it in 2013 or the Supreme Court strikes it down as unconstitutional next year. The latter case would mark a huge legal defeat for liberalism. It would be the first time since the New Deal that the court has recognized a serious limitation on Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. Even something as small as Bank of America’s recently announced $5-a-month debit-card fee is liberal policy failure. The fee is intended to recoup money lost by price controls on merchant fees included in last year’s Dodd-Frank law. The power of unions has diminished, with Wisconsin, the first state to establish so-called collective bargaining for government employees, having abolished it. “Card check,” which would have enabled unions to take over workplaces without approval by secret ballot, couldn’t even get past a Democratic Congress. Neither could “cap and trade,” the administration’s plan to combat global warming—a phenomenon increasingly many Americans suspect is a hoax. The administration’s only major success has been in the area of terrorism. Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki are dead, and long may they rot. But their deaths were not the result of progressive liberal policies. Except in the area of interrogation, the current administration has largely kept its predecessor’s antiterror policies, albeit often reluctantly. We can think of just one area in which liberalism has enjoyed unambiguous success during the Obama years: gay rights. The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010 would not have become law with a Republican in the White House. The left got what it wanted in 2008: a liberal president with a sweeping agenda and big Democratic majorities capable of enacting it. The result has been a great and failed experiment in progressive politics and governance. In due course, one hopes, the left will absorb some lessons—but for now, they seem to be suffering a nervous breakdown. That is one way to understand why so much of the liberal establishment is rallying behind Krugman’s Army, as the “Occupy Wall Street” protests are known. Everything they believe in has failed, so they are turning nihilistic. Sometimes the nihilism is good-naturedly goofy. The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson: “Occupy Wall Street and its kindred protests around the country are inept, incoherent and hopelessly quixotic. God, I love ‘em. I love every little thing about these gloriously amateurish sit-ins.” Vaginal monologist Eve Ensler, at the Puffington Host: “What is happening cannot be defined. It is happening. It is a happening.” But there are menacing themes and tactics too. “We may, at long last, be seeing the rise of a popular movement that, unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people,” wrote former Enron adviser Paul Krugman last week. Krugman’s New York Times colleague David Brooks notes that Adbusters, the magazine credited with the idea of the protests, was “previously best known for the 2004 essay, ‘Why Won’t Anyone Say They Are Jewish?’—an investigative report that identified some of the most influential Jews in America and their nefarious grip on policy.” The demonization of “bankers,” “plutocrats” and “the 1%” echoes age-old anti-Semitic tropes. Politico reports that troops from Krugman’s Army “are planning to protest at the homes of J.P. Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, businessman David Koch, hedge fund manager John Paulson, real estate developer Howard Milstein and News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch.” Harassing people at home was a favorite tactic of Saul Alinsky and was also used by the extreme antiabortion group Operation Rescue in the 1990s, as the Los Angeles Times reported then. The People’s House is a target too, reports the Daily Caller: During an evening meeting at Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C., protesters discussed plans to storm Capitol Hill Tuesday and create chaos inside and outside House and Senate office buildings. “We will have all variety of creative actions including packing the elevators and pushing all the buttons and not getting out and stopping the hallways that connect the building to the other buildings and the banner drops and the song singing and don’t let them in the bathrooms and all the rest of it,” the aforementioned organizer said. The Caller notes that ” ‘Stop the Machine’ . . . is distinct from the Occupy D.C. movement currently occupying McPherson Square,” although it seems to us that such distinctions are likely to be lost if, as so many establishmentarian liberals seem to be hoping, the left-wing protest movement continues to grow. “Leading Democratic figures, including party fund-raisers and a top ally of President Obama, are embracing the spread of the anti-Wall Street protests in a clear sign that members of the Democratic establishment see the movement as a way to align disenchanted Americans with their party,” reports the New York Times: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the party’s powerful House fund-raising arm, is circulating a petition seeking 100,000 party supporters to declare that “I stand with the Occupy Wall Street protests.” The Center for American Progress, a liberal organization run by John D. Podesta, who helped lead Mr. Obama’s 2008 transition, credits the protests with tapping into pent-up anger over a political system that it says rewards the rich over the working class—a populist theme now being emphasized by the White House and the party. The center has encouraged and sought to help coordinate protests in different cities. . . . He said Democrats are already looking for ways to mobilize protesters in get-out-the-vote drives for 2012. “What attracts an organization like CAP to this movement is the idea that our country’s economic policies have been focused on the very top and not on the bulk of America,” Mr. Legum added. “That’s a message we certainly agree with.” What’s their slogan going to be, “Smash the system—re-elect the president”? One “senior House Democratic official” tells the Times: “That’s the danger with something like this—that you go from peaceful protests to throwing trash cans.” Throwing trash cans is an unlikely way to effect change, but it’s an even unlikelier way of preserving the status quo. 15
Posted by Leon Haller on October 12, 2011, 08:28 AM | # Is it another of those difficult, real-world, empirical observations to note that median American wages/incomes have been stagnant for 30 years or so? (Lister) But why has this occurred? (No one on the Right disputes this, btw. Both Murray Rothbard and Pat Buchanan had/have spoken of it for years.) Which is the primary culprit: a. immigration Explain yourself, please. 16
Posted by anon / uh on October 12, 2011, 08:34 AM | # Capitalism need not be thrown out. In any event, it cannot be. What might be done, in a world not in the grip of corporate interests: - revise Limited liability (Anglo) As with much of what plagues decent folk, corporate irresponsibility is a joint stock creation of England and America. Ignore the Englishmen protesting their eternal innocence. It isn’t as though their people invented tabloids, flagellant porn, women’s rights and so on. Basically, reintroduce real personal risk to the life of the corporate profiteer. Who would then simply flee to another country with those shields in place. Ultimately it is the raising of a new corporate class which feels itself beholden to the folk, and not tinkering with laws in a world-system almost universally favorable to speculation and profiteering, that might solve this problem. But then we would be living in a world of our own making. Ain’t no cure for the kaliyuga-time blues. 17
Posted by anon / uh on October 12, 2011, 08:41 AM | #
...should go without saying, because it is at root not an “it”. 18
Posted by anon / uh on October 12, 2011, 08:47 AM | # Hunter Wallace is your go-to guy for all welfare / employment / poll statistics: http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2011/06/01/the-ebt-card Feb 2011, forty-four million Americans with the EBT card alone. I can stand in line at a grocery store here and watch the differential as people swipe their cards — whites, credit/debit cards; everyone else, EBT. I myself had one for three years. Would not have survived otherwise. There are no jobs, and employers are trapped in a kind of hypergamous selection with the wealth of applicants, i.e. they can afford to be perfectionists in the selection of hires. 19
Posted by anon / uh on October 12, 2011, 08:59 AM | # Of course .... approximately half of the total population (~300,000,000) is 15 & under / 65 & older, which reduces the relevant population to something like 148,000,000 — 29% of whom are enrolled in food assistance alone. Would actually be rather more as parental dependence continues three to four years beyond age 15 in most cases. As Charlesz Martel said recently over at Roissy:
20
Posted by anon / uh on October 12, 2011, 09:28 AM | # “MANY SONS, LOTS OF GUNS — that is the philosophy of the Darra people!” http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1gizg_vice-travel-darra-pakistan_shortfilms 21
Posted by Hail on October 12, 2011, 09:51 AM | #
He’s got a point, gentlemen. Often-seen bumper sticker in the USA: “Work Harder! People on Welfare Depend on You.” 22
Posted by Mr Voight on October 12, 2011, 10:37 AM | # In the USA, there is no place for a non-private property Right. There is nothing wrong with private property, running a business or making a profit from actual work. The issue under debate is corporate capitalism. 23
Posted by danielj on October 12, 2011, 11:14 AM | # I don’t know if it was Thatcher in England and maybe GW could speak to that, but immigration truly ramped up in this country under Reagan and the easy money of the Clinton/Bush administrations. 65 wasn’t that big of a deal compared to 86. 24
Posted by danielj on October 12, 2011, 01:45 PM | # In the USA, there is no place for a non-private property Right. The shoreline, rivers, causeways, some forests, the air, the airwaves, oceans, some mineral deposits, other natural reserves…. Utilities, the military, etc. 25
Posted by danielj on October 12, 2011, 02:23 PM | # Basically, reintroduce real personal risk to the life of the corporate profiteer. Who would then simply flee to another country with those shields in place. Ultimately it is the raising of a new corporate class which feels itself beholden to the folk, and not tinkering with laws in a world-system almost universally favorable to speculation and profiteering, that might solve this problem. More importantly, the restoration of the small merchant and craftsman classes and a diminished (in all respects; size, import, etc.) corporate class. Service to the race is profit enough and we should let the race reap the rewards of our corporate, coordinated, tax-funded efforts. The activities of the corporate class should be a mere function of the state. Also, the abolition of the financier, banker and speculator. Cross-of-gold and all that. Wish lists… 26
Posted by anon / uh on October 12, 2011, 02:57 PM | #
As precedent perhaps .... but you’re right. ‘65 was an end to what was already a failed immigration experiment, and a rehearsal for normalization. ‘86 definitely worse in that respect. All the talk is of “normalization” because that’s all the political class has the will for, being white. But yo, you better believe I plan to take advantage of the K1 visa before WHITE NATIONALISSS take over lozozozozozzoz how much that shit cost n e wayz? like $400 to file and then wot??
SEI FASCISTA! !! LOZOZLZZOZ 27
Posted by anon / uh on October 12, 2011, 03:40 PM | # FILE UNDER: ASHKENAZI PROMOTION OF SODOMY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Kameny
LOLZZZOZOZOZOZLZOZOZZZ;ZOZOZOZZ “HER PERSONALLY DRAFTED” JEWS = FIAT BUTTHEXING 28
Posted by Jimmy Marr on October 12, 2011, 06:07 PM | #
I sure hope Leon isn’t having a bad hair day. 29
Posted by Guessedworker on October 12, 2011, 07:36 PM | # Leon,
You identify yourself as an American patriot. Nationalism is not patriotism. It is an unforgivingly liberal-hostile Weltanshauung. But your American patriotism, notwithstanding its superficial objection to “neolib”, falls squarely within the liberal paradigm. There is, for example, its allegiance to “the idea” of America, and its love of endless progress and other right-liberal desiderata. You could do a lot worse than read Sunic’s Homo americanus, which contains a straitening critique of Americanism.
Only an essentially liberal mind could make this statement. Look, Leon, in another thread our friend anon/uh made the following assessment of Dr Lister:
He is not wrong here. We on the old continent cannot be nationalists worthy of the name without knowing the people of our blood, and labouring for them at every intellectual and emotional level. For certain, politically this is the whole of us. When we encounter our American brothers we are apt to behave as though our blood values were the only values, and the old ceasura had never occurred. This places an unfair demand on you guys, but nonetheless the direction of travel we instinctivise in this way is a good one. Anon/uh can see this tendency well, I believe, because he is himself at a small distance, albeit a different kind of distance, from the northern European North American. In any event, he is right that the blood nationalism we can’t but help speak about posits a certain question to you, the answer to which is not anything to do with private property. That question is: Who are you?
Tell me first who you are. 30
Posted by Guessedworker on October 12, 2011, 07:58 PM | # Daniel,
I do not have an animus for Margaret Thatcher. I believe she was at war with the bulk of her party for most of her time in office. She was “supported” by the likes of Major and Portillo, who were play-acting, and by a small group of (often Jewish) neoliberals and social conservatives ... and by the electorate beyond. I think her instinct on immigration was good. Her ability to produce any real result, however, was very marginal. In any case, the Thatcher years were those in which the cultural left mobilised. That was the real event in the neo-Marxist half of the political equation. The great immigration attack came with the Portes Report of 2000, the existence of which was revealed by Andrew Neather. 31
Posted by Jimmy Marr on October 12, 2011, 11:11 PM | # Holy smoke! If blink rate is a sign of lying, I think Joe Biden just set a record for the number of lies that can be told in under a minute: 32
Posted by Hail on October 13, 2011, 12:15 AM | #
33
Posted by Desmond Jones on October 13, 2011, 03:37 AM | # Thatcher and her Sarkozy moment:
And this prophetic statement from Time in 1979:
34
Posted by Lurker on October 13, 2011, 04:55 AM | # I suppose its trite to point out that the OWS crowd pictured in that last video were hideously white. I presume they are cheerleaders for race replacement but dont any of them look around and wonder where all those earnest vibrant individuals are, the ones who are going to step up and share the burden of protest with them? 35
Posted by Leon Haller on October 13, 2011, 06:58 AM | # Instead of standing arm in arm with communists, trying to restart old debates about freedom v socialism that were long ago settled, perhaps patriotic Britons should be focused on the real issues surrounding race, immigration etc: 36
Posted by Graham_Lister on October 13, 2011, 12:29 PM | # I think this debate is really ‘drilling down’ to fundamentals, which is good. It seems to me that the American ideology, Americanism, the propositional nation or whatever one would call it is constitutive of a radically different sensibility to those of we ‘old Europeans’. It’s OK if you wish to assert the cardinal importance of individual liberty, or the ‘free-market’, global capitalism or whatever, but really from the European ethnocentric viewpoint all such values/goals are secondary to the primary question – can we secure the continuity of our own ethno-cultural groups in our homelands? Obviously how that is to be achieved involves both practical and intellectual efforts but the premise of collective continuity and well-being must be foundational. “For what is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” “Ah, Faustus, “The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus” by Christopher Marlowe 37
Posted by Robert Reis on October 13, 2011, 12:53 PM | # Mr. Lister, 38
Posted by Graham_Lister on October 13, 2011, 01:04 PM | # I also think there is a difference between those of us that think that something is deeply rotten in the trajectory of the West, in toto, and those that are of the mindset ‘stop immigration’ and then carry on with everything else as before, despite the fact that ‘everything else’ has brought us to the precipice. I think this second attitude, as outlined above, is merely treating a symptom of the underlying condition – albeit the most obvious and pernicious symptom. But it is epiphenomenal and the malaise is deeper and more fundamental. Perhaps America already has undergone an untreatable metastasis on the way to non-Western status? Brasília upon the Potomac? 40
Posted by Jimmy Marr on October 13, 2011, 01:27 PM | #
Yes, of course, and it is this mindset that made me so fearful that it could have been Leon who had attacked that Orange County beauty salon in a crusade to save the West. His approach, after all, is purely cosmetic. 41
Posted by Graham_Lister on October 13, 2011, 02:41 PM | # Jimmy as always your wit shines through! 42
Posted by Graham_Lister on October 13, 2011, 04:08 PM | # You know it’s funny reading back over this thread with Leon’s assertion that women and property are sacrosanct, and that ‘freedom’ equals the ‘free-market’, and anyone objecting is a crypto-Stalinist. I don’t mean this as an insult, honestly I do not, but Leon and people like him are so deeply, profoundly shaped by liberal theory that it’s almost comically tragedy that they think of themselves as big C conservatives. Is being a Hayekian liberal, that happens also to be a vulgar racist, a sensibility that anyone should aspire to let alone admire? One could hardly describe such a world-view as having anything of depth or substance. Really is the best we can offer ourselves is to be a maximally acquisitive, maximally hedonistic ‘individuals’. Shopping and fucking as the highest values, our narcissistic né plus ultra? Everything reduced to the logic of the transaction. What a dismally thin, and totally liberal, account of being in the world. Human life, both as an individual, and collectively as a community should have far more width and depth. What is possible if within a culture (in an anthropological sense of that term) the praxis of consumerism acts as a universal acid slowly destroying and superseding all other moral codes and values? Very little of genuine worth. In an age were shopping malls are the new cathedrals of Western man, the source of what is most sacred, we are in deep trouble. But I do think the customer can be wrong – paternalistic, elitist, undemocratic and so un-American as that thought might be, I do stand by it. We are slowly destroying ourselves and the foundations of our life-world because we are so lacking in cultural and political imagination to understand just how narrow our horizons have become and, if unchecked, how unsustainable our present delusions are. more productive 43
Posted by Reid on October 13, 2011, 04:42 PM | # What is meant by the term “capitalism”? Every economy uses “capital,” and economies also use labor and land. So why label the whole economy with just one of the aspects, capital? The implication of “capital”ism is that capital is in charge. Capital dominates labor. Defenders of “capitalism” agree that this is the reality. Unemployed labor is offered a contract by the owners of capital: sign it, or stay unemployed and hungry. “Capitalism” also mixes together financial capital, such as money, and capital goods, such as buildings and machines. Opponents of markets focus on the dominance of financial capital, while defenders of markets focus on capital goods. The term “capitalism” has the effect of blurring the mind and confusing analysis. 44
Posted by anon / uh on October 13, 2011, 09:50 PM | # Tell us more, Reid. In the meantime .... a note toward a psychopathology of the Ashkenazi race:
So ... how many hours in three thousand years of Jews doing what they do? 45
Posted by Captainchaos on October 14, 2011, 12:19 AM | # “Shopping and fucking as the highest values” Resource acquisition and procreation are not the highest values from an evolutionary perspective?
46
Posted by Hunter Wallace on October 14, 2011, 12:26 AM | #
I’m not sure. I am kind of surprised though to come to MR and see liberalism, capitalism, and materialism identified with the United States. Every bit of this was exported from Britain and the Netherlands to the American colonies. London and Amsterdam were the world capitals of international finance for centuries. It was only in the 20C that New York City (aka New Amsterdam) replaced London in the international pecking order of world finance. Just what the hell was the West Indies? The British East India Company? The Virginia Company? I shake my head when I hear Europeans decrying “materialism” ... when the Spanish looted Latin America of all its gold and silver, when King Leopold II of Belgium turned the Congo into a rubber plantation, and when England got its start in the Americas engaged in piracy and slave trading. Evangelical Christianity was also exported to America from England. The same is true of Enlightenment philosophy and the old storied tradition of “philanthropy” that travels under the label “human rights” in our own times. The British and French were the pioneers of the “anti-slavery movement.” America was a peripheral area in the West until the 20th century. It was during the 20th century that Europeans decided to collectively immolate themselves over ideology and national rivalries. 47
Posted by Captainchaos on October 14, 2011, 01:18 AM | # I don’t think English critics of American liberal economism themselves aspire to that radical of a departure from a bourgeois social model. Neutering the international thrust of finance capitalism seems to be the scope of their ambitions, with maybe the pursuit of “autarky” within the confines of a trading block of nationalist European nations thrown in. If that is indeed what they intend they should just say so sans all the nebulous bluster. Btw, what happened to the html tag buttons at the top of the comment box? Restore please. 48
Posted by Captainchaos on October 14, 2011, 04:22 AM | # The English Master Plan: 1. Deport all muds and mongrels. 2. Neuter international finance capitalism. 3. Reinvigorate the nuclear family and traditional gender roles with economic incentives and mild social pressure. 4. No stones to actually breed out the “faith gene”. 5. A few university courses and BBC specials on Heideggerian ontology. Anything more ambitious shades dangerously into Krauty “debasement”. Ain’t that right? Just admit it and Leon can get the twist out of his panties. LOL 49
Posted by Captainchaos on October 14, 2011, 04:45 AM | # “big C conservatives” “so lacking in cultural and political imagination” LOL Following the English Master Plan, filching from the filthy Kraut Heidegger (cuz the English don’t do deep thinking well, as Nietzsche pointed out) and seeing to a “restoration” of (essentially liberal) English Moralism hardly entails much “imagination”. P.S. Upon reading the fine print, I see it is xhtml and not html. Still, the buttons are a big convenience. Restore please. 50
Posted by Captainchaos on October 14, 2011, 05:01 AM | # “Every bit of this was exported from Britain and the Netherlands to the American colonies.” The Dutch are basically Krauts that out English the English. Krauts can’t win for losin’. LOL 51
Posted by Leon Haller on October 14, 2011, 07:35 AM | # [someone needs to restore the font commands as they were previously] Calling someone with my views ‘liberal’ betrays monumental ignorance of that aspect of the Western intellectual tradition. Ditto conflating value-free economics with libertarian (or rather different, and still more objectionable, neoliberal) ideology. I do not agree with the ideological position defended in the following (though I would hardly reject all such allegedly ‘liberal virtues’ out of hand, either), but it might prove a useful read for purposes of better ‘situating’ the discussion: —————————————————————- Finding Forster From the NOV-DEC 2010 issue | More Ian Buruma | October 20, 2010 Part I For the stakes of culture, too, were high, not least in Paris, where Ehrenburg, a fervent Communist, was beaten up in the street by André Breton, the surrealist writer, for having denounced all art that was not suitably proletarian. The defense of culture at the writers’ congress was in fact synonymous with the defense against fascism. That is, it was a conference firmly of the left. Ehrenburg had his little moment of vengeance; Breton was excluded. The English novelist E. M. Forster, one of the speakers at the Palais de la Mutualité (others included Heinrich Mann, Isaac Babel, Bertolt Brecht, Boris Pasternak and Tristan Tzara), soon got bored with the overheated leftist rhetoric. Forster recalled having “to sit through many eulogies of Soviet culture, and to hear the name of Karl Marx detonate again and again like a well-placed charge, and draw after it the falling masonry of applause.” No wonder his speech on the importance of free expression failed to excite the crowd of fellow intellectuals. He must have cut a quaintly old-fashioned figure, dressed in his tweed suit, talking about literature in a soft, reedy voice. The leftists regarded him as a bourgeois individualist, hopelessly out of touch with the important struggles of his time. In the account of one sympathetic observer: “It was as if the audience considered Mr. Forster and all his kind . . . already as extinct as the dodo.”1 In truth, Forster was anything but an old fuddy-duddy. His defense of literary freedom was sparked by a strong desire for sexual freedom, in his own case, freedom for homosexuals. But he was undeniably a champion of individual liberty rather than something so abstract as the people’s revolution. Forster was a liberal. Perhaps the term humanist would be better. “Liberalism” is open to conflicting interpretations. In the United States it is associated with leftism, and the view that the state should play a powerful role in building a more equal society. In Europe, the classic sense of liberalism means the exact opposite—conservative, laissez-faire economics. But liberalism for Forster and others of his ilk is as much a state of mind as a political program, something that might be described best in three key words: (individual) freedom, moderation and tolerance—themes that are much under attack these days, not just from Islamist and other religious fanatics, but also from some of those who have set themselves up as defenders of the West against the Islamic threat.
IN 1935, as now, this type of liberalism was under fire from both political extremes. Though in our current moment—in the wake of the death of Marxism—certainly more from the right than the left. But the lines of attack are similar. First of all, from the radical point of view, moderation—toujours, pas trop de zèle, in the phrase of Talleyrand, avoid zeal at all costs—is soft, wishy-washy and hopelessly inadequate in the war against fascism, for the rebirth of the race, the reconquista of the true faith, the proletarian revolution or whatnot. There appears to be nothing heroic about moderation or tolerance; on the contrary, they are antiheroic. The liberal temperament lacks Romantic appeal. And the stress on individual liberty, instead of collective progress or national vigor, smacks of bourgeois complacency. A radical cause demands sacrifice. The typical bourgeois is assumed to be too addicted to his comfort to sacrifice anything, least of all his own life. I believe it was Werner Sombart (1863–1941), a German thinker of the early twentieth century, who coined the phrase Komfortismus, and he did not mean anything positive. It was certainly the French radical lawyer Jacques Vergès who once described social democracy as disgusting and debased because of its banality, its lack of grandeur.2 The search for happiness, he said, is typical of bourgeois social democracy, thus despicable. A radical leftist himself, Vergès was inspired in this attitude by one of the extreme right-wing assassins of Walter Rathenau, the liberal German foreign minister in the Weimar period. In the words of the murderer, a young naval officer: “I fight to give the people a destiny but not to give them happiness.” Here is the antiliberal stance in a nutshell. But liberalism is also denounced by others as a fraud; to their mind, liberals pretend to be tolerant and moderate, with a real agenda of protecting their own elitist interests. Tolerance, such antiliberals claim, suggests an attitude of superiority. You tolerate, but are not prepared to engage seriously with people and views you consider to be beneath you. And moderation is a deliberate ploy to neutralize radical critiques of the status quo, or indeed anything that might challenge the Komfortismus of the liberal elites. In fact, as Forster’s speech in Paris made clear, the case for individual freedom need be neither bourgeois nor complacent, with his stress on the importance of pleasure and the freedom to enjoy life, physically, spiritually as well as intellectually. When the Rolling Stones performed in Prague in 1990, less than a year after the Velvet Revolution ended Communist rule, Václav Havel and more than a hundred thousand fans celebrated the event as a liberation—from official puritanism, from bureaucratic oppression, from a tyranny over the human spirit. Tom Stoppard wrote a beautiful play inspired by this occasion called Rock ‘n’ Roll, cast in the form of a debate. On one side were those, like Havel himself, who saw rock music as an essential tool of liberation in an oppressive society: Mick Jagger and Frank Zappa sticking their tongues out at the commissars. Others saw the sensual pleasure of rock records (smuggled into the country at some risk) as a form of frivolous individualism, politically meaningless, a naive illusion. Only direct, political action would do. Stoppard’s play nicely echoed the Paris writers’ congress of 1935. The reason, however, that rock and roll was not trivial for Havel was his liberal conviction, which matched Forster’s, that the freedom to enjoy pleasure was as much worth fighting for as the freedom of opinion or belief. And his fight did involve serious self-sacrifice; he spent years in prison for sticking to his liberal principles.
THE ANTILIBERAL case has two more angles, which are actually contradictory. One is that liberals tolerate everything, but don’t believe in anything. Belief in pleasure doesn’t count. That is just a form of Komfortismus. Liberals, so the reasoning goes, are even prepared to tolerate intolerance. Since they don’t believe in anything strongly enough to defend it, let alone sacrifice their lives for it, they end up inviting more vigorous enemies to destroy the very liberties they claim to enjoy. The barbarians will triumph precisely because they do believe in something, unlike the decadent Romans at the end of their self-indulgent empire. This particular argument is often heard today from men and women who claim to be defending Western civilization from the Islamic barbarians. They attack Islam for its intolerance, its hatred of the West, its oppression of women; but they attack liberals for their languid indifference and their cowardly appeasement with equal, if not greater, zeal. One even detects a peculiar tone of envy in these polemics, envy of the true believers, as though we Westerners need our own form of submission to an absolute faith. The irony of this position is that the maquis of the West often claim to be fighting for so-called Enlightenment values, as though these were synonymous with Western civilization. But even if we were to grant them this self-congratulatory view of the West, much Enlightenment thinking, if anything, sets great value on individualism, skepticism, tolerance and moderation. Radical versions of the Enlightenment might have justified the burning of churches, the killing of priests and other forms of revolutionary terror, but I hope this is not quite what the anti-Muslim defenders of the West have in mind.
THE HISTORY of antiliberalism is, of course, as much a part of European civilization as the Enlightenment. In fact, it has its roots in the anti-Enlightenment. Joseph de Maistre (1753–1821), a diplomat and philosopher steeped in classical European civilization, denounced liberals for their “indifference in the guise of tolerance.” Liberals, Protestants, scientists, indeed all men who believe in reason as a positive human quality, are the enemies of Maistre’s ideal state, whose perfect order is imposed by the authoritarian rule of Church and Monarchy. Anything that threatens authority, and thus unity, has to be crushed. The hero of Maistre’s utopia, a kind of nationwide concentration camp, is the hangman, to whom falls the distasteful but essential task of enforcing public order. In Maistre’s view, freethinking always leads to anarchy. Man needs the authority of the Church and God’s firm commands as much as he needs the hangman. The very idea that people should be encouraged to think for themselves is a threat to society. Tolerance signified to Maistre, as to all antiliberals, a lack of belief, hence the idea that tolerance means indifference. And lack of belief, more than anything, signifies the Fall of Man.
ONE CAN go back much further, certainly, than Maistre’s counter-Enlightenment to find similar examples of loathing of the skeptic or the unbeliever. Disbelief has been associated with materialism since biblical times, and thus, quite logically, with merchants. Tolerance is an essential part of doing business. If there is money to be made, it does not pay to interfere in the beliefs or habits of others. One of the things Voltaire, as a fugitive from the Church and Monarchy of prerepublican France, admired about Britain was the relatively high status enjoyed in society by merchants. To him, businessmen and scientists were pillars of a society based on reason and enlightened self-interest. He took a positive view of the London Stock Exchange, where, as he put it, Jews, Christians and Muslims happily engaged in business together, and the only infidel was the bankrupt. Karl Marx had a different opinion of course; he described the stock exchange as the symbol of all that was rotten, and Jewish to boot: “What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.” A strong dose of anti-Semitism always infected both left and right varieties of antiliberalism, because Jews, as a minority—or worse, a minority which had supposedly infiltrated the elites—stood in the way of unity. To the fascists, Jews were Bolsheviks who would destroy the organisms of nation and race. To the Communists, they were capitalist parasites who forged Zionist plots against the Soviet Union, or the united workers of the world. In all cases, the humanist (or liberal), the bourgeois individualist (or the tolerant believer in pluralism), is the enemy. Of course, taken to its logical extreme, the moral neutrality of business interests is not a good thing even to a devout liberal: we are rightly critical of businessmen, or indeed governments, who happily deal with mass murderers and dictators in search of a fast buck. But logical extremes are always noxious. There is no question, at any rate, that money loosens the bonds of tribe, race or faith, which is why those who seek to preserve, strengthen or revive those bonds are almost always opposed to commerce. Contempt for commerce also played a key role in early-twentieth-century German nationalism. The most famous antiliberal text expounding this view is Werner Sombart’s Merchants and Heroes. Businessmen, Sombart explains, prize moderation, law, discretion and other things that “vouch for a peaceful co-existence of merchants.”3 This he finds despicable, typical of such degenerate countries as France, the United States and England, where, to quote a friend of Kaiser Wilhelm II, citizenship could be bought for two shillings and six pence by “every Basuto nigger.” The hero, by contrast, is a man of action, who is not crippled by doubt or reflection, and least of all by any effete leanings toward moderation. He is guided by instinct and faith. This type of hero, typically German in the eyes of Sombart and others of his persuasion, is the opposite of the free individual prized by liberals. There is no room in the heroic society for individual autonomy. The heroes, in this vision of the perfect order, are like the fascist sculptures of Arno Breker, or those outsize, socialist, realistic men of stone: all muscle and brawn, square jaws and piercing eyes, fanatical but without any real individual character, like soldiers marching relentlessly toward a distant but clear goal—the racially pure society, the Communist utopia. The heroic vision can be intoxicating, to be sure. One of the things antiliberals like to harp on is the banality, the mediocrity, the dullness of liberalism. Liberalism lacks a common dream, a vision of grandeur. But there are several things to be said about this. First, heroism doesn’t necessarily require the submergence of the individual spirit into a martial mass, or the victory of instinct over thought. The individuals who put their lives on the line to fight for the civil rights of black Americans, or indeed for freedom under Communism, seldom fitted Sombart’s notion of the hero, yet they were anything but complacently bourgeois.
52
Posted by Leon Haller on October 14, 2011, 07:38 AM | # Part II
LIBERAL TOLERANCE is not the same as indifference either. Compromise, though almost always desirable in politics, has its limits, even for liberals. The civil-rights movement in 1960s Alabama was a case in point. The Israeli philosopher Avishai Margalit, in his book On Compromise and Rotten Compromises, argues that slavery is so cruel and dehumanizing that the refusal of the American Founding Fathers to abolish it should count as a rotten compromise, thus utterly unacceptable. Margalit defines the border that cannot be crossed as institutionalized inhumanity. He distinguishes two pictures of politics, the economic and the religious. The economic picture of politics, like all business transactions, is flexible, open to give-and-take. It is essentially about interests, often but not always material interests. There are rules and laws, but the business of this type of politics is negotiation. The religious picture is quite different. There, one is dealing in ideas of the sacred, literally in the case of religious practices, or metaphorically in the sense of absolute principles which cannot be compromised. An example of politics of the sacred is the uncompromising conflict over holy places in Jerusalem. Neither a devout Muslim nor a pious Jew finds it possible to negotiate in good faith about the Noble Sanctuary (to Muslims), or the Temple Mount (to Jews), because to give an inch of ground is to compromise the sacred. And to do that is to dilute the purity of the faith. If secular liberals—or humanists—had no absolute principles, given their skepticism toward the sacred, it would follow that they would indeed compromise on anything to further their material or individual interests. But of course liberals do have absolute principles, and thus a religious picture of politics, too. Rotten compromises were made before World War II (the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) and afterward as well, but they were not usually forged by liberals. Hitler’s agenda—even before the Holocaust was set in motion—was already such an assault on civilized life, indeed a perfect example of institutionalized inhumanity, that by 1940 any negotiated settlement with him would have been a rotten compromise. Winston Churchill understood this, whereas otherwise perfectly decent British statesmen such as Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax, who wanted to make a deal, did not. About Britain, or the British “race,” Churchill was a Romantic, a man of action, a hero not a merchant. On matters to do with empire and colonial peoples, he was far from liberal. Nonetheless, Churchill’s use of religious politics, as it were, to defend the freedom of Britain and its allies was liberal. His idea of England, underneath all his bellicose growling and Romantic prose, was still one of a society based on tolerance, moderation and individual liberty. And it was his liberal supporters, not the Communists, let alone the radical Right, who first realized that compromising with the Nazis was not an option. A notorious postwar example of an intellectual rotten compromise was Jean-Paul Sartre’s refusal, for ideological reasons, to criticize Stalin’s institutionalized inhumanity, even though he was perfectly well aware of it. He did not wish to give critics of Communism any satisfaction: “It was not our duty to write about the Soviet labor camps.” Again, as in 1940, it was often liberals, such as Raymond Aron and Albert Camus, who were the more principled voices when the horrors of Communist dictatorships became known. In the early 1970s, when Maoism still had a wide appeal among the left-wing Western intelligentsia, it was the liberal scholar, Simon Leys, who had to take it on the chin in Paris and elsewhere for drawing attention to Mao’s atrocities.
TODAY’S DEBATES on the dangers of Islam are becoming as intense as the debates in the 1930s about fascism or the 1950s about Communism. Parallels are also intentionally drawn. The term “Islamofascism” has gained currency among people who see 9/11 in terms of 1933, or 1938, or even Pearl Harbor, 1941. And liberals, who advocate moderation and tolerance, and argue that an effort must be made to accept Muslims as fellow citizens, are denounced as “appeasers” and “collaborators,” as though they are the Chamberlains and Halifaxes of our time, while the likes of Geert Wilders, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Newt Gingrich, Pamela Geller and Sarah Palin are imbued with the bulldog spirit of Winston Churchill. The plan, approved by the mayor of New York City, to build an Islamic cultural center several blocks away from ground zero, led by a moderate Sufi imam who denounced the 9/11 attacks, was compared by Newt Gingrich to Nazis setting up a sign next to a Holocaust museum. Given the traditional animosity of radicals, from all political extremes, toward liberals, it is not surprising that Gingrich and his ilk have found allies among people who used to be proudly on the left. On the “Muslim problem,” the Left and the Right often see eye to eye. As the former-left-wing-journalist Christopher Hitchens put it to me: “The fascists are the only ones who are right about the Islamic threat to Europe.” Quite clearly, the stakes are high. The murderous attacks on New York’s Twin Towers, commuter trains in Madrid, a discotheque in Bali, a Dutch filmmaker, the London Underground and more were carried out in the name of the Muslim faith. There are revolutionary ideologues all over the world prepared to kill and die for a utopian Islamic state. And Iran, aspiring to be the dominant Islamic power in the Middle East, might be close to developing a nuclear bomb. None of this can, or should, be dismissed. Even a small number of terrorists can do untold damage. But is it true that liberals, calling for moderation, individual liberty and tolerance, are inadequate to face this challenge? Is a more radical form of heroism required? Is the threat of Islam to Western liberties so severe, for example, that the individual freedom to wear a veil should be sacrificed to the unity of social and cultural values within Western borders? Does the tolerance of religious orthodoxy spell surrender to a new form of fascism? Are liberal moderates “useful idiots” helping our enemies destroy Western values, Enlightenment principles or the West tout court? I believe that a liberal approach to Islam and Islamism is best, for both tactical and philosophical reasons. Tactically, it would be a disaster to view the problems posed by Muslim radicalism in the West as a “clash of civilizations.” The only way to fight the violent extremists, for whom their religion is a revolutionary ideal, is to keep law-abiding Muslim citizens firmly on the side of liberal democracy. If we decide that we are, in the words of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, “at war with Islam,” we force allies and potential allies into a corner, creating more sympathy among alienated Muslims for the extremists. Philosophically, every person’s right to free thought and expression must be defended, and that includes the right to think in ways we might find distasteful, even abhorrent. The line must be drawn where behavior is in breach of the law. The French scholar of Islam Olivier Roy takes the view that citizens need not share the same values in pluralistic societies, but must abide by the same laws. Honor killings, even if justified by cultural or religious mores, cannot be tolerated. Nor can incitements to violence. But the wish to ban the building of an Islamic cultural center near ground zero, and to compare the peaceful, law-abiding Sufi Muslims who want to build it with Nazis, is illiberal, foolish and, in terms of defending our freedoms against extremists, counterproductive. Radical populists of the right, in Europe as well as the United States, claim that orthodox Muslims threaten our Western way of life, not only because of their different notions about social and sexual behavior, but because of their assaults on free speech. These assaults are aided and abetted by liberals who tolerate intolerance and fail to criticize Muslims with sufficient zeal. Freedom, to the anti-Muslim populists, means freedom to be as offensive as one likes about Islam. Any hesitation in this regard is quickly denounced as a form of appeasement. It is true that Muslims, like many believers, can be touchy when infidels attack or mock their faith. And intimidating critics of Islam is clearly a threat to free speech. So here, too, the law should apply. Death threats and other forms of violent intimidation are against the law and should be punished. But as long as people refrain from threatening or using violence to impose their views, they should be tolerated. Does this mean that freedom of speech means the freedom to offend? In terms of the law, especially under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the answer is yes. The liberal answer is more complicated. Since tolerance goes with moderation, as well as individual freedom, a certain degree of restraint is sometimes essential to maintain a civilized society. People may be legally entitled to claim that all Jews are greedy, and all blacks lust-filled criminals at heart, but in polite society they would not do so. Toujours, pas trop de zèle, therefore, is still the best guideline, especially at a time when hatred is being spouted with ever-greater intent to cause offense. The legacy of Forster is still to be preferred over the legacy of Ehrenburg. Whatever threats might yet come from radical Islamism, domestic or foreign, their impact will be made far worse by crass polemics against the faith itself, or by calls for heroic gestures in the war of civilizations. As always, I believe, the most effective defenders of liberal democracy are the liberals themselves.
Ian Buruma is the Henry R. Luce Professor at Bard College. His latest book is Taming the Gods: Religion and Democracy on Three Continents (Princeton University Press, 2010).
1 Frances Stonor Saunders, “What Have Intellectuals Ever Done for the World?,” The Observer, November 28, 2004. 2 Le salaud lumineux (Paris: M. Lafon, 1990). 3 Aurel Kolnai, The War Against the West (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd., 1938). 53
Posted by Administration on October 14, 2011, 01:37 PM | # We apologize for the loss of rich text formatting options here at MR. While this change may place some minor limitations on your ability fully express yourself, we hope that you will see this as a reflection of our commitment to textual austerity and an acceptance of our inevitable transition from Majorityrights to Monetaryrights. 54
Posted by Graham_Lister on October 14, 2011, 03:28 PM | # @Hunter Wallace No-one is dumb enough to think that modernity, free-markets, capitalism, the Enlightenment, democracy, liberal theory, instrumental rationality et al., are uniquely American phenomena. Yes we can trace the origins of many of those things back to Europe, but this is the difference. In Europe we have real and deep histories of being non-liberal organic societies. Look at an obvious example of that pre-modern history in the institution of monarchy. However attenuated modern European monarchies are they remain an obvious reminder of a pre-liberal, non-democratic, non-mass, organic order. And monarchy remains an unimaginable phenomenon for Americans. There are Canadian, Australian etc., monarchists but an American one? All of this pre-modern history, however faintly, is still is part of our tradition and cultural memory in Europe. It is not part of any American sensibility. In Europe we simply have deeper roots. America was conceived as a socio-political experiment in Enlightenment liberalism, in particular maximally enacted individualistic liberty – liberal theory provides its foundational commitments in a way that no European nation can match. But enjoy free-markets and individual liberty while Brasilia on the Potomac emerges with the super-rich of every creed and colour hiding in gated communities and with everyone else thrown into a quasi-Hobbesian world of dog-eat-dog chaos. Remember all forms of collective identity and agency are ‘evil’ – Ayn Rand told you so. Anything else is un-American. 55
Posted by Cumulative Hierarchy on October 14, 2011, 03:49 PM | # Leon Haller is a tedious, one-dimensional, country club Republican, and 4th rate bore. His critics are less kind. 56
Posted by anon / uh on October 14, 2011, 05:23 PM | #
That’s a very dim reminder. Your picture of English history is extremely selective, anyway. Your ‘England’ is not the ‘England’ I find in old books & periodicals, nor in new books, nor websites, nor movies, nor the ‘England’ I saw in person, nor the ‘England’ others are talking about. If all these ‘Englands’ don’t match the one of which you speak, either they are all wrong, or they are all right if yours is included. America is fiatrepublik. I know. England is urwasimmer. Roots. Identity. All that rich loam of race-kulchur. Ayn Rand founded Ameristan in 1492, when Columbus sailed the ocean blue, and Fernando expelled th’eternal Jew. Very white-powerful it was. But it was merely a presage of Hitler’s Error; scattering the arme yidls to the four winds of Evropa, causing much mischief in the lands of the goyim. Not white powerful at all, was it. So mischievous was this action of the Spanish crown that some safaradim found their way to Niue Nederland by way of Portuguese Brasil, mingling with the Dutch, Africans and white colonials there and cementing the racial character of that place.
OLZOZLZOZOZOOZOZZLLZLZZOZOZLZ 57
Posted by Leon Haller on October 15, 2011, 01:19 AM | # I don’t know why I should care, but why is it that persons like Lister refuse to address my very simple and forthright assertions? To repeat:
But why has this occurred? (No one on the Right disputes this, btw. Both Murray Rothbard and Pat Buchanan had/have spoken of it for years.) Which is the primary culprit: a. immigration Explain yourself, please. My point is that there is a world of difference between supporting, say, free trade or free immigration, or even between internal free markets and economic globalization. What is it about the following assertion that is not understood? Economics is a value free academic discipline, whereas neoliberalism and libertarianism are ideologies (that is, they have clearly indicated normative assumptions built into them; they are not neutral attempts to explain aspects of reality). If someone disagrees with the above, then demonstrate its falsity (ie, no more vague and irrelevant non-sequitur talk about Americans worshipping the shopping mall , or Ayn Rand, or Europe’s monarchical past, etc).
58
Posted by Leon Haller on October 15, 2011, 02:48 AM | # To GW or other editors at this site: Might I suggest posting Ron Unz’s appalling article from The American (un)Conservative magazine on the end of white America? I think it would be a good focus for discussion and critique. 59
Posted by Leon Haller on October 15, 2011, 06:04 AM | # Posted by Guessedworker on October 12, 2011, 07:36 PM | # Leon, We, the great mass of Middle American patriots, the real Americans, cannot and will not have the white prison/criminal class polluting the nationalist movement, and marginalizing our growth potential. That has happened too much in the past, which is why even responsible anti-immigrationists have a hard time making headway. (Leon) You identify yourself as an American patriot. Nationalism is not patriotism. It is an unforgivingly liberal-hostile Weltanshauung. But your American patriotism, notwithstanding its superficial objection to “neolib”, falls squarely within the liberal paradigm. There is, for example, its allegiance to “the idea” of America, and its love of endless progress and other right-liberal desiderata. You could do a lot worse than read Sunic’s Homo americanus, which contains a straitening critique of Americanism. In this country, people believe in private property. (Leon) Only an essentially liberal mind could make this statement. Look, Leon, in another thread our friend anon/uh made the following assessment of Dr Lister:
He is not wrong here. We on the old continent cannot be nationalists worthy of the name without knowing the people of our blood, and labouring for them at every intellectual and emotional level. For certain, politically this is the whole of us. When we encounter our American brothers we are apt to behave as though our blood values were the only values, and the old ceasura had never occurred. This places an unfair demand on you guys, but nonetheless the direction of travel we instinctivise in this way is a good one. Anon/uh can see this tendency well, I believe, because he is himself at a small distance, albeit a different kind of distance, from the northern European North American. In any event, he is right that the blood nationalism we can’t but help speak about posits a certain question to you, the answer to which is not anything to do with private property. That question is: Who are you? Heidegger and ‘deep challenges’ to liberal ontology are all well and good, but what actual legislative changes issue from them? (Leon) Tell me first who you are. (GW) 60
Posted by Leon Haller on October 15, 2011, 07:04 AM | # Sorry about that. I meant to interpolate replies to GW’s comments above. Let me try again, only copying GW’s comments. ———————————————————————————————————————————————————— You identify yourself as an American patriot. Nationalism is not patriotism. It is an unforgivingly liberal-hostile Weltanshauung. But your American patriotism, notwithstanding its superficial objection to “neolib”, falls squarely within the liberal paradigm. There is, for example, its allegiance to “the idea” of America, and its love of endless progress and other right-liberal desiderata. You could do a lot worse than read Sunic’s Homo americanus, which contains a straitening critique of Americanism. In this country, people believe in private property . (Haller) Only an essentially liberal mind could make this statement. Look, Leon, in another thread our friend anon/uh made the following assessment of Dr Lister:
He is not wrong here. We on the old continent cannot be nationalists worthy of the name without knowing the people of our blood, and labouring for them at every intellectual and emotional level. For certain, politically this is the whole of us. When we encounter our American brothers we are apt to behave as though our blood values were the only values, and the old ceasura had never occurred. This places an unfair demand on you guys, but nonetheless the direction of travel we instinctivise in this way is a good one. Anon/uh can see this tendency well, I believe, because he is himself at a small distance, albeit a different kind of distance, from the northern European North American. In any event, he is right that the blood nationalism we can’t but help speak about posits a certain question to you, the answer to which is not anything to do with private property. That question is: Who are you? Heidegger and ‘deep challenges’ to liberal ontology are all well and good, but what actual legislative changes issue from them? (Haller) Tell me first who you are. —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————- There is so much that is wrong here, as well as so many implicit issues unmentioned. How to begin? 1. I’m not sure your statement re the relation between nationalism and liberalism is necessarily historically or even philosophically correct. Your version of nationalism may be deeply inegalitarian and illiberal, but not all varieties, either in theory or practice, have been so. Many European nationalists were liberals of one type or another who wanted a world of self-governing nations, that is, one bereft of empires or aristocracies (eg, Mazzini), but with the constituent nations governed in accordance with liberal principles. Classically, nationalists were considered to be on the Left. I think you are best described as an “authoritarian ethnonationalist” - that is, one who believes nations are racially and often ethnically (as well as historically) delimited; that such entities should be self-governing; and that it is strategically necessary and thus morally appropriate to subordinate the autonomy of individuals to the longer term survival requirements of the collective nation. The irony here is that I agree with this doctrine as outlined above. (Like Sunic, btw, I too am against democracy and equality, as my many comments at MR over the years attest.) 2. As I reread your comment, I’m finding it less and less clear. What, exactly, are you asking me when you ask “who are you?” in this context. I am a man of the West, a white man who identifies strongly with my race and my civilization and, yes, my own nation, which very much does have an ‘organic’ component to it. To suggest otherwise, as Lister does interminably, betrays not only an ignorant, shallow and remarkably prejudicial leftist understanding of who and what is an American, but even a poor understanding of ethnonationalist theory: over centuries in the New World, whites have fashioned their own unique cultural identity, laid their own ‘roots’, as your own theory ought to lead you to suppose, an identity British-derived, but adapted to our own history and conditions. White Americans, after so much interethnic genetic mixture alongside cultural and linguistic homogenization, now truly constitute our own ethnonation, just like modern Brazilians. My EGI concerns focus on advancing universally justifiable interests of white Americans, the first of which being preserving the ‘whiteness’ (or slowing down the ‘browning’, if you will) of America, to the extent possible. Of course, I would also like to see Europeans preserve the whiteness (and glorious cultural heritage) of their own nations. 3. How can you say that “only an essentially liberal mind” could state that “in this country, people believe in private property”? For one thing, I was in part making a simple factual assertion. Most whites strongly support private property, and that is a fact of strategic political significance for even anti-capitalist WNs. If WN Americans come out against defending property and free enterprise, they will alienate a potentially receptive mass base, while , I assure you , making few if any recruits among leftists, for whom anti-whiteness is possibly the cardinal virtue. More broadly, are you suggesting that defense of property is in conflict with ethnnationalism? It certainly is not wrt conservatism, including British conservatism (recall Adam Smith’s remark upon Burke, that he had little to teach the latter about the importance of markets and property). More to follow. Serious responses only. 61
Posted by anon / uh on October 15, 2011, 09:01 AM | #
What’s funny about that is the UK has a slightly higher rate of home ownership than the US, with better equity, yet this gain was made with a 30% surge in the years ‘51 - ‘81 — which means the US has an historically better rate of home ownership. Why does it matter? I guess that Graham is channeling old resentment of the landless proletariat for a nation that had room to expand and held out real opportunity to its people for living the dream of proprietorship. There is no English equivalent of Steinbeck’s East of Eden. Only where the Englishman’s descendant, finding himself with thousands of miles of virgin territory at his disposal, determined to break free of the imperial yoke — America, Rhodesia, Canada — did this adventure and its shadowing narrative occur. It comes back to the cramped English garden. Expansion is by nature “liberal”. Can’t expand so much on a 300 x 600 mile island. There is a vivid geopolitical basis for Graham’s attitude, which may be briefly described as communitarian-populist of necessity. Thrift is their longstanding virtue. It is no wonder Graham finds the insistence upon private property intolerable; the assumption of the lower class to ownership was never a reality for his fathers’ generations, whereas it is one of our founding experiences ... which of course led to the housing bubble. This geopolitical difference is plainly visible in your respective attitudes. Homes, guns, bizarre Christian offshoots, moral earnestness, corn — those are the fundamental data of America.
I’m sure reams and reams have been printed over to show that the American founders’ ideology was a product of the Enlightenment, but I don’t believe — only because I’ve read a lot of Diderot, Voltaire, Rousseau, d’Holbach and so on, and lately more Jefferson, Adams, etc., and don’t see much evidence of descent or overlap. I don’t find Voltaire in Jefferson. I find the two were similar men in respects, but dissimilar enough in others. So this insistence that America = “Enlightenment project” is an error got from the Continent. You can’t just take everything that involved self-authorship from a certain date and chuck it into your ideological rubbish bin called “Enlightenment”. History is not in error, you are. Has it never occurred to you that certain Englishmen were just bloody sick of living on your island? Populations exploit resources no matter what. If you argue that the Englishmen — and let’s observe that you dodge England’s responsibility by referring instead to “Europe”, thereby also asserting a mostly false identity of England and the Continent — that the Englishmen who took to the seas to escape England, or the Europeans who escaped Europe, were misguided or “wrong” to exploit a new biosphere, well Graham my friend, you argue against life itself.
This is exactly what I mean. America was an “experiment in Enlightenment liberalism”. If you had said this to any American settler, or any of the attendants at the Fifth Virginia Convention, they would’ve been like “lol wut”. America was not your “experiment in liberalism” bogey — it was an experiment in liberty. And it worked for a while ... I like to think the die was cast when the Anti-Federalists lost ... but as light still travels to us from dead stars, the thing worked out for a couple centuries before power and wealth consolidated and the Jews bought all the media and wormed into the universities.
How’s that kebab stand down the road doing? I read on the tottenhamlad blog that residents of that section fear to so much as step outside. How in fuck are we different here? You need to work on your grudges, bro. Tell us about science, or something else you didn’t swallow whole from Gallic assholes. If we had no other sources for England, the English, English history, by reading these two one might come away with the impression that England was for a very long time a happy cooperative little place that only just recently went into decline. Never any tragedy or injustice within their shores. No internal strife, no questionable doings, no problem at all. Those Englishmen who left, thousands and thousands of them over the years, they were delusional traitors to “deep identity”, nefarious Hobbesian experimenters in “liberalism” .... 62
Posted by anon / uh on October 15, 2011, 09:41 AM | #
As to American wages .... eh .... this country’s a welfare sink ... third world nation inside a first world nation .... Dixie has the lowest wages because of their ethnic and economic history ... the Dakotas have the highest because they’re Germans sitting on massive shale deposits. 63
Posted by GenoType on October 15, 2011, 05:31 PM | #
Contrary to your neoliberal, libertarian propaganda – contrary to the “value-free” propaganda of all post-enlightenment economists suffering from physics envy – economics is value-laden. It is not a science. Economics cannot be divorced from the human. Its “truths” are circular and incapable of full integration into higher truths. Economics is broken into various warring factions with no arbiter of truth between them. The principles held by these factions are dogmatic statements with little connection to reality. All of this can be easily demonstrated to the open mind. The closed mind of the narcissist is a different matter.
64
Posted by anon / uh on October 15, 2011, 06:39 PM | # GenoType, Hellz yea. lozlzozozozzoz olzozozozozz @ “physics envy” 65
Posted by GenoType on October 15, 2011, 07:29 PM | # Uh,
Post-enlightenment economics is driven by physics envy. Economics is about social provisioning. Markets are based on preexisting social orders and can only help in directing them. They do not generate order. They can help to destroy it, however. The assumption that all things can be based on self-interest, for example, destroys the very virtues of the social order presumed by the market. To function markets require fully socialized and ethical participants. A pure market has never been implemented because it cannot ever be attempted. Any attempt to establish one would displace the most fundamental, traditional source of economic order – the family and its shared values. It is no accident that as the force of custom and virtue diminishes, the role of law – and lawyers – increases. So too does the role of politics and bureaucracies. Force, legal or political, must replace the virtues undermined by a “pure” market system. If economies require fully socialized participants and if economics is about social provisioning, then the question of family/ies cannot be divorced from economic questions. For economic actors, producers, and consumers are “produced” and socialized within the confines of family. Without families there would be no next generation or future for economists to worry about. The very idea of a “value-free” economics would be laughable if it wasn’t taken seriously by so many neoliberal, libertarian fools.
66
Posted by anon / uh on October 15, 2011, 08:18 PM | # It puzzles me too. How anyone can call it “value-free” with a straight face, as though it’s a text on angelic manifestations by Swedenborg. This is partly why I’m always loath to delve into it. I sense something false in that claim that trips an alarm, nearly as strong as when a sociologist claims to be neutral. They are either missing something or genuinely deceptive. Something about building these big rational theories over the human foundation is highly suspicious. But, I don’t froth at the mouth when I read Haller. He isn’t the enemy, though whatever about his ideology may be harmful or has been harmful. I see him as a sort of Gottfried Feder of online ethnonationalism. Needs to tighten his game though. Stop excerpting so damn much, for one. I don’t “know” if I am “for or against” this phenomenon called “free market” because I am wary of people abstracting preferences from a given state of affairs. If I had my choice — if I were the Kaiser — I would restrict such trading to basic necessities. Whatever can’t be got from the earth we’re on, would naturally be imported. I also tend to be against any product which still requires constant human drudgery to manufacture or maintain it, or generates premium prices by its complexity, quality, or rarity. Some of that is inevitable, there are always possession disparities and limited resources, but consumer capitalism just makes it so much worse with fiat prestige objects like watches, shower heads, fast cars, etc. All of this would have to be strictly controlled. A certain bohemian corporal agreed with me, if the “Table Talk” book is trustworthy. Too much “choice”. Too little breeding.
Well, there will always be Jewish families, and they can all trade with each other — just as it was in the Levant.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0GER/is_n94/ai_21260228/ 67
Posted by Mr Voight on October 15, 2011, 10:43 PM | # My point is that there is a world of difference between supporting, say, free trade or free immigration, or even between internal free markets and economic globalization. Yes, but you have insulted the Greeks relentlessly because their economic behaviour impacts your speculative investments. Kinda implies you have a penny riding on economic globalisation. A man in America shouldn’t be economically impacted by a bar owner in Santorini who doesn’t like to pay taxes. Nor should he have any right to insist that his bar be sold. That’s the ‘socialism’ I’m advocating. 68
Posted by GenoType on October 15, 2011, 11:13 PM | # Uh,
Haller’s not a dupe like TabuLaRaza. His “value-free” economics is a self-serving game inconsistent with the interests of white children (except, perhaps, for his own) and the social teachings of the Catholic faith. It is a gimmick valued highly for its effectiveness in uniting one group of post-enlightenment gangsters in seeming opposition to another group of post-enlightenment gangsters - capitalists v. socialists.
He can’t. Racialism is inherently inconsistent with a “value-free” economy and the consistent application of the libertarian non-aggression principle. Either Haller adopts a social nationalism consistent with racialism or he and his ilk succeed in convincing (or intimidating) the white literary movement into counterproductively adopting an anti-EGI political economic perspective.
69
Posted by Leon Haller on October 16, 2011, 07:43 AM | # Here’s something from AR on the OWS assholes: ———————————————- Lori, Feministing, October 4, 2011 By now, I’m sure most of you have heard about Occupy Wall Street. Inspired by Adbuster’s call for action in July, protesters have occupied Zuccotti Park near Wall Street in New York City since September 17th. {snip} Occupy Wall Street’s General Assembly operates under a revolutionary “progressive stack.” A normal “stack” means those who wish to speak get in line. A progressive stack encourages women and traditionally marginalized groups speak before men, especially white men. This is something that has been in place since the beginning, it is necessary, and it is important. “Step up, step back” was a common phrase of the first week, encouraging white men to acknowledge the privilege they have lived in their entire lives and to step back from continually speaking. This progressive stack has been inspiring and mind-boggling in its effectiveness. {snip} On October 1st, the Occupied Wall Street Journal, founded by Arun and Jed of Indypendent and supported by over $40,000 of Kickstarter funds was released. {snip} Hopefully The Occupied Wall Street Journal will abide by the zeitgeist of this movement, which is radical inclusivity. Anything claiming to represent the General Assembly should be subject to the same governing principles, which would include a progressive stack. If this is a revolution of white men, it will not succeed. In the words of Kevin Alvarez, a Latino blogger and activist who has been occupying wall street for over a week now: “Without the voices of the disenfranchised people of color, lgbtq, differently abled, and other marginalized groups then this will become a revolution of those with privilege against those with privilege. There is a difference between revolutionary change and just being allowed access to the power, status, and wealth of the dominant culture. And Occupy Wall Street should not be co-opted by those seeking a watered down version of this systematically murderous economic and political system.” —————————————————————————————————— Yeah, let’s join these creeps, that’ll advance the White cause. God, you people are such idiots it’s almost mind-boggling. You have no rejoinder to me, because there is none. In the US, anti-capitalism is firmly allied to anti-racism. Period. Whether that alliance is philosophically inevitable, as I believe, or merely a current sociological fact, is an interesting abstract issue. Pragmatically, however, no white movement in the USA that does not also defend private property, business, limited government, private wealth creation and entrepreneurship, as well as oppose welfare state socialism, will ever go anywhere politically. You have neither a mass electoral base, nor the possibility of one (plus your views are completely wrong, analytically as well as historically - and politically: Big Govt is the friend of liberals and nonwhites, not middle-income whites stuck paying for them). Those who continue to argue against me merely reveal their ignorance and embarrass themselves. 70
Posted by MOB on October 16, 2011, 08:53 AM | # From elsewhere: http://imgur.com/gallery/uyF5l My opinion: As long as Majority Rights grants Leon Haller Amazing Space, it’s difficult to get a bead on just where the MR target is. I mean, how does LH differ from the mainstream or the rapidly becoming mainstream? 71
Posted by Leon Haller on October 16, 2011, 09:15 AM | # This back and forth is not productive for me. There is a definite need to develop a specifically nationalist form of political economy. The content of such is not immediately ascertainable or at least obvious. What type of economic and legal arrangements would best suit the perpetuity of either a particular nation, or the whole white race? A case could be made for several versions, the viability of each in part depending upon local political and economic conditions. What type of economy is best for white GI in the US may well differ from what is best for white GI in the UK. The two main issues in political economics are wealth maximization and sustainability. What system will lead to the greatest national prosperity (most efficient use of resources) that is likely to endure over a very long period? I hold, for reasons adduced by Mises (economic calculation) and, to a lesser extent, Hayek (dispersed knowledge), that laissez-faire capitalism is the most efficient system. History bears this out. Given the complete economic (as well as moral and social) failures of all command economies in the 20th century (going right the way up to present day ‘Obamunism’, with its now widely-regarded as having totally failed ‘stimulus’ of 2009 - we free enterprisers predicted that failure, of course), I think it only fair to assign the burden of proof to those who claim that some other system is more efficient at generating prosperity than capitalism. If this burden cannot be met (as I believe it can’t), that does not mean surrender to laissez-faire, let alone open-borders libertarian nonsense. It does mean, however, that any subsequent nationalist economics needs to justify its infractions of individual liberty and laissez-faire; that is, to recognize that pursuing nationalist economic aims will lower GDP, and then demonstrate that such lowering of material living standards is acceptable in light of other objectives. 72
Posted by Leon Haller on October 16, 2011, 09:21 AM | # My opinion: As long as Majority Rights grants Leon Haller Amazing Space, it’s difficult to get a bead on just where the MR target is. I mean, how does LH differ from the mainstream or the rapidly becoming mainstream? (MOB) I differ in that I believe in extreme laissez-faire, while the mainstream consists of idiotic Keynesians. However, I believe in a laissez-faire that is delimited by national security concerns, the first of which is racial preservation. Thus, I completely oppose nonwhite immigration, even if it could be demonstrated that such immigration was economically beneficial to native-born whites. I believe in many other infractions of libertarian economic orthodoxy. But I recognize the reality of economic logic, as well as the morality of private property (though the latter is not fetishized or absolutized; infractions are acceptable when necessary to preserve the overall system). 73
Posted by GenoType on October 16, 2011, 09:42 AM | #
A value-free economy sabotages the social order and freedom Haller claims to value. It can’t help but do so. Both Hayek and Marx wished for a “withering away of the state.” Now shrinking government is a laudable goal. But Hayek’s theories have been tested as much as the theories of Karl Marx, and have yielded almost the same results: more government power, less economic freedom. Under neither theory did the state wither away, but rather it became an all-encompassing behemoth. Both Hayek and Marx delivered great leaps in government power. Under the free-market rhetoric of “conservative” regimes, the government has not shrunk. It expanded, so much that now we have a government of near imperial power and privilege headed by an imperial presidency that ignores not only the laws of Congress and the Constitution, but even basic human laws such as the law against torture as an instrument of state policy. Government expenditures as a share of GDP are about the same as they were before the conservative ascendancy, but the cost of government has far exceeded its tax base. The result has been an increased dependence on borrowing. At the start of the Reagan administration the national debt was about $700 billion’ at the close of the Reagan-Bush era it tripled to $2.1 trillion. The debt has doubled again and again. In 2010 stood in excess of $12 trillion! Borrowing is taxing too. So this increased debt represents an effective tax increase shifted onto the next generation of white children. The answer to your question, Marge, is Haller doesn’t differ from the mainstream. He IS the mainstream. 74
Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on October 16, 2011, 10:16 AM | #
This is because you are just another disciple of yet another Jewish-created cult. And you expect everyone to accept your pronouncements like Law handed down from Sinai. For my part I long ago learned not to argue with cultists likes Moonies, Hare Krishnas and Amway-type multi-level marketing fanatics. Or with Libertarians. These are all people whose minds are truly controlled by alien forces.
The discredited Judeo-libertarianism you peddle requires a vast state apparatus to facilitate it. It is purely mendacious to claim otherwise. And without it the continental and international financial markets that in your muddled mind are “free” cannot function at all. Internal contradictions rising to the level of schizophrenia are inherent to all Jewish-promoted belief systems. Marxism was a classic example. Reduced to its essentials it implies that a mechanic (“labor”) was at irreconcilable war with his toolbox (“capital”). Leon, I am unimpressed with either your Libertarian celebrity name dropping or your snotty attitude. It’s not that I’m not familiar with Libertarianism. My high school government teacher - moderate Democrat though he was - had me reading Libertarian anthologies when I was a junior. I considered it and rejected it. The truth is the kind of locally oriented social nationalism that GT & I advocate will need a far smaller government than your esoteric national Libertarianism does. 75
Posted by GenoType on October 16, 2011, 10:53 AM | # MOB, Don’t be misled or chastened by the parroting accusations of SOCIALISM from the libertard camp. Every corporation and family-run business in America is a socialist enterprise. It is easily demonstrated that the intersection of EGI and the Distributism of Catholic social teaching is racial social nationalism. To learn more about distributist economics I recommend the following books: Toward a Truly Free Market: A Distributist Perspective on the Role of Government, Taxes, Health Care, Deficits, and More - John C. Médaille Vocation of Business: Social Justice in the Marketplace - John C. Médaille Jobs of Our Own Building a Stakeholder Society: Alternatives to the Market and the State - Race Mathews Equity and Equilibrium, The Political Economy of Distributism - John C. Médaille 76
Posted by TabuLa Raza on October 16, 2011, 01:02 PM | # The Trouble with Catholic Social Teaching [Thomas E. Woods, Jr.] 77
Posted by Graham_Lister on October 16, 2011, 05:12 PM | # The mythos of ‘rugged individualism’ is as American as apple pie and mom. It must be hard for the average American to concede that perhaps, just perhaps, their socio-political experiment in individual liberty is in danger of ending in the sociological equivalent of a slow-motion car crash? After all they have been subjected to USA #1 propaganda since birth. It would be a mild irony of history if America was the first of the New World nations to slip into non-Western status (to be fair South Africa was never at any point 90% Euro). It must be a distinct possibility, yes? Certainly in terms of political demographics minority groups plus ‘progressive’ whites are surely within touching distance of forming a potentially unassailable voting block within a relatively short time. Especially if another ‘conservative’ gives all those illegal aliens citizenship. After all didn’t that slime ball Karl Rove think that the future of the Republican party was, in part, to be found in courting the Latino vote due to them becoming more aspirational/middle-class and their Catholic derived social conservatism? Enjoy the Tea Party and Glenn Beck! I wonder why that phenomenon reminds of this story. No, on second thoughts, that’s way too big a complement to the Becks and Palins of this world. Try Elmer Gantry but without the credibility. 78
Posted by anon / uh on October 16, 2011, 06:16 PM | #
You’ve never spent a Winter in the Midwest, hoss. I assure you — it is no myth.
Who in their right mind, especially here, would say America is anything else? “Third world nation inside a first world nation”, beginning to burst. Whatever Grahamy. I don’t know what you want from us. 79
Posted by GenoType on October 16, 2011, 07:31 PM | # Uh,
Having spent several winters in the rural Dakotas and one in Alaska I can assure you that behind the purchase of heating oil by every “rugged individualist” is several millennia of social capital.
80
Posted by anon / uh on October 16, 2011, 07:55 PM | # Having spent several winters in the rural Dakotas and one in Alaska I can assure you that behind the purchase of heating oil by every “rugged individualist” is several millennia of social capital. Ha. Not my style. Ax and a wood stove, forcément. But it is good to remember that sort of thing, thank you. Point stands: colonists and settlers, as even Guessedworker has acknowledged, were solid folk. Rugged individualism was not a mythos. It happened. Don’t you live out West, GT? You’ve seen the old wooden homesteads. 81
Posted by GenoType on October 16, 2011, 08:22 PM | # Uh,
Point falls. I’ve dug more trenches than you can count. Still do. That’s nobody’s style at MR. Guaranteed. Behind every rugged individual on the frontier was millennia of social capital - axe, knife, gun, ball, powder, clothing, construction technology, farming, food processing, storage, trade links, etc. ad nauseum. There were/are rugged individuals. Many live/d. Many die/d. Rugged Individualism, however, is a mythical concept as error-filled as the myth of the Noble Indian and Value Free Economics. 82
Posted by anon / uh on October 16, 2011, 08:33 PM | #
Wasn’t disputing that. But that, also, was not Graham’s meaning, which was instead a caricature employed to simply dismiss certain experiences that certain Europeans had in America as nothing but myth. I don’t know what your problem with that is, but you’re becoming as peckish as Graham in your own way. You don’t have to teach me the lesson that prior to the ax is the foundry and so on. I get it. Means of production and so on. When I go chop wood with my Swedish ax, I shall be duly chastened by the knowledge, which might otherwise have escaped my notice, that a factory in Sweden produced it, and some developers replanted the trees to be chopped to increase the value of the land, and the boots on my feet came from cows killed in Hungary or Haryana and rubber trees in Brazil. 83
Posted by GenoType on October 16, 2011, 09:21 PM | # Uh,
Well, then, that settles it. Obviously I’m mistaken. 84
Posted by Desmond Jones on October 16, 2011, 10:39 PM | #
Rugged individualism is not about sentimentalizing (the Noble Savage) the frontiersman as he settled America. It is a political philosophy or moral stance founded in Europe and transplanted to America.
Lister is jealous that at every measure of personal freedom, his beloved Scotland fails miserably when compared with the car crash that is the American experience. Even this website is hosted in the failed experience that is ‘rugged individualism’. LOL.
What do you charge per lineal foot? My basement is leaking. 85
Posted by Guessedworker on October 17, 2011, 04:29 AM | # GT, Uh, I think Desmond has captured the meaning of it. But, yes, the European, turned to his own being, will make a life of creative power and meaning. It may take him across the oceans in a tall-ship or over the Carson Range and the Sierra Nevada. It may not manifest in physicality at all. It may cause him to push the boundaries of scientific knowledge through intellectual adventure. However it manifests, it is what we do as a race and it is what we need to do. There is a place in it for all of us. Now, when an ideology - let’s say fascism or Manifest Destiny - prostitutes it for its own purposes, something is added and something taken away. But the nett effect always becomes one of inauthenticity and, of course, negative consequences flow. To avoid this, one must appeal not directly for the end-product ... not for glory or mastery or ruggedness, or whatever. One must create the conditions in which the turn to being may occur. That is the only way our particular human truth can return to the life we are leading now. 86
Posted by Leon Haller on October 17, 2011, 06:29 AM | # There is something very obtuse about most of you. I defend free markets as the most wealth maximizing form of economic organization, and in response I am accused of being a libertarian - despite endlessly repeated disavowals of that ideology. What is the inference to draw from such non sequitur responses? Obviously, that my accusers understand nothing of the relation between economics and political ideologies (eg, that one can defend economics as a value-free social science, while opposing free markets; or that one can support free markets, without embracing libertarianism). Apparently, distinguishing between a mode of analysis of social and exchange phenomena, on the one hand, and particular ideological advocacy, on the other, is too subtle a mental operation for many here at MR. My opponents here also exhibit an appalling lack of familiarity with the thinkers they overconfidently refer to, as well as with any relevant discipline (history, economic history, economics, polisci, etc). Consider the following from GenoType (apparently a critique of me), a monstrosity of forensic and factual error:
Both Hayek and Marx wished for a “withering away of the state.” Now shrinking government is a laudable goal. But Hayek’s theories have been tested as much as the theories of Karl Marx, and have yielded almost the same results: more government power, less economic freedom. Under neither theory did the state wither away, but rather it became an all-encompassing behemoth. Both Hayek and Marx delivered great leaps in government power. 1) Note the elision of any distinction between an assertion of the ‘value-free’ nature of economic science (as, ideally, is the case with any academic discipline: what is sought is an accurate description of some aspect of social reality), and the imputation to me of supporting a “value-free economy”. Where did I ever advocate that? 2) Is GT implicitly holding that a free market economy “sabotages social order and freedom”? You see, my interlocutors are invariably vague about what they are asserting, and (deliberately?, unlike me) slippery in their vocabulary choices. A “value-free economy”, whatever that is, might indeed be subversive of liberty and order - or not. I’m not sure what I’m arguing against. If, however, what is really being asserted is that free enterprise sabotages freedom, then this statement needs to be proven. How does allowing men the freedom to hire and fire, buy and sell, and do what they will with their own persons and property subvert liberty? It might be possible to make that case, but it would have to be highly detailed and specific (eg, allowing military companies to sell nukes to terrorists). One cannot simply assert such nonsense as a general claim, leave it hanging, and expect agreement from those of us who really do know what we’re talking about. 3) Moving right along ... Every statement in the larger paragraph if GT’s excerpted above is incorrect. EVERY ONE. a. Hayek never stated he wished for a “withering away of the state”. Just over on the “Occupying a Turning World” thread, I posted a lengthy critique of the semi-social democratism of Hayek by the militant libertarian Hans-Hermann Hoppe (did GT bother to read it? of course not) pointing out some of Hayek’s many deviations even from the minimal statism of the old classical liberals (obviously, GT, probably like Lister, hasn’t actually read Hayek, or Mises, but only caricatures of them by their opponents). b. Marx of course only expected (not per se, “wished for”) a “withering” as an endpoint after mankind had passed through the stage of totalitarian communism. He was no libertarian. c. “Shrinking govt” is only a “laudable goal” when govt is too big. What is the standard to make that determination? I would go by this: govt should only perform those tasks necessary to the maintenance of the particular social order itself (mainly, this means national security, under which rubric I place keeping out genetically unassimilable immigrants, as well as military defense). Govt should not perform tasks that free markets can perform better. By that standard, there are indeed vast aspects of the govts of all Western nations that can be eliminated. d. Hayek’s theories (I assume you really mean Mises’s, given Hayek’s rather weak and inconsistent libertarianism) have never been fully tested anywhere (GT’s grasp of modern world political and economic history must be weak to nonexistent), let alone to the same extent as Marxism, and only substantially approximated in past centuries (esp the 18th and 19th) in Britain and the US, which experienced by far their most rapid economic growth during just those periods of near laissez-faire. In those advanced economies which did legislate very slight adjustments in favor of capitalism and at the expense of prior interventionism - the US, the UK, and New Zealand in the 80s - fairly significant and conventionally measurable economic improvements occurred in very short order. e. Oh wait, excuse me. There was indeed a place where something like Austrianism was implemented. I refer to the German economic miracle following WW2. Ludwig Erhard, the father of that miracle, had been heavily influenced by Wilhelm Ropke, who in turn had been a student of, and greatly influenced by, Mises. Erhard did not follow a bunch of Keynesian and social nationalist nonsense, and Germany prospered. Their rate of growth has gone way down precisely since they abandoned the moderate laissez-faire of the 50s (that Germany is the economic workhorse of Europe today is a testament to the basic biological and cultural superiority of us Germans - not to the incidental deformations caused by Germany’s modern welfare/regulatory state, which we can logically infer substantially depress German growth rates). f. There were actually many places in the 20th century which did offer up ‘experimental’ examples of side by side comparisons between socialism and capitalism: North and South Korea, East and West Germany, Hong Kong (or Taiwan or Singapore) and China, China under Mao and China under Deng and his successors, Cuba pre- and post-revolution. In every case the comparative discrepancies in results were stunning in magnitude (do I really have to point this out?!). g. The notion that implementing quasi-Hayekian policies “delivered great leaps in governmental power” is so factually wrong, as well as counterintuitive, that such a claim, again, must be demonstrated. How would reducing the role of the state in regulating the economy, or lowering tax rates, or privatizing national airlines, etc constitute an increase in govt power? I know what you could argue (superficially; liberals make the argument all the time), but I’ll let you do it (and you’d be wrong anyway in terms of your larger critique). Finally, to compare Hayekian doctrine with Marxism in terms of the loss of liberty is so absurdly stupid as to be beneath consideration. It is not counterintuitively clever, as this simpleton doubtless believes. Should I go on? Here’s another paragraph: Under the free-market rhetoric of “conservative” regimes, the government has not shrunk. It expanded, so much that now we have a government of near imperial power and privilege headed by an imperial presidency that ignores not only the laws of Congress and the Constitution, but even basic human laws such as the law against torture as an instrument of state policy. Government expenditures as a share of GDP are about the same as they were before the conservative ascendancy, but the cost of government has far exceeded its tax base. The result has been an increased dependence on borrowing. At the start of the Reagan administration the national debt was about $700 billion’ at the close of the Reagan-Bush era it tripled to $2.1 trillion. The debt has doubled again and again. In 2010 stood in excess of $12 trillion! Borrowing is taxing too. So this increased debt represents an effective tax increase shifted onto the next generation of white children. (GenoType) I agree with most of this. Does GT think any libertarian would disagree? Obviously he is unfamiliar with libertarian critiques of the Reagan presidency. Does GT think that these stats constitute an argument against free markets? Or might it rather be the case that, eg, Reagan, talked about free enterprise, but did not, or was unable to, translate his rhetoric into legislative reality? huh? waddya think more likely? I could go on and on, dissecting everything written in response to me. But I’m dealing with persons who are unknowledgeable, unlearned, unintelligent and totally unable to make even slightly subtle forensic or academic distinctions. Thus I am wasting my time. I merely wish to reiterate my larger (totally unrefuted, or worse, unacknowledged) thesis. None of this matters because, at least in the US, my approach (also Jared Taylor’s, I believe - he told me over 15 years ago that he is basically libertarian on economics) to saving the white race is the only one likely ever to gain any real political traction. The only possible base for genuine White GI advance in the US is to be found among conservatives. Liberalism today is virtually defined by its commitment to racial equality and ‘diversity’. The old days of sizable numbers of racist ‘hard-hat’ Democrats - those who were both racists and opponents of free markets - are long gone. There are very few persons anymore who are supporters of both liberal/socialist Big Government, and white nationalism (or even just its more conservative aspects, like deporting illegals, and ending affirmative action). Defense of private property, economic growth through free markets, and much less government, esp in terms of the economy and taxes, are all bedrock principles widely shared among all types of conservatives: Christians, free marketeers, racialists. Who among the current crop of GOP candidates is not, at least rhetorically, a strong defender of capitalism? Who would advance in the primaries if he announced himself hostile to capitalism? What GT and XWPA seem to want politically does not exist -and there is no apparent possibility of creating it. All the momentum in the real world of conservatives/Republicans is towards a return to capitalism, not its rejection. On the other hand, there is unbelievable potential for the kind of conservative racialism I advocate. White Americans are being screwed, and the biggest culprit is not black street criminals, but the Federal Govt itself. It is the main dispossessor of Middle America, whether through ‘civil rights’, immigration, affirmative action, or enforced multiculturalism. Most Republicans at the grassroots are like me, only less extreme. They want both economic growth, and immigration termination. A mainstream conservatism that also embraced radical immigration reductions is what we can realistically hope for at this time. Tying anti-capitalist rhetoric to the pro-white agenda is a ticket to continued political irrelevance (and thus constant loss of racial status and power due to the ongoing invasion, which must be stopped at all costs, and beyond anything else). 87
Posted by MOB on October 17, 2011, 11:03 AM | # GenoType: The answer to your question, Marge, is Haller doesn’t differ from the mainstream. He IS the mainstream. hmmm, you thought my question innocent . . . ? Recently, in another forum, my comment involved the Susan (Goodman) Komen breast cancer pink ribbons that one finds on many products in the U.S. For me, they’ve been most noticeable on the various yogurts, seemingly all produced by Jews. A few days ago I was happy to discover (way down at the end of the shelf) a new Yogurt; perhaps the name is familiar to the Europeans among you: it’s Ehrmann—Christian Ehrmann, no less. Here’s what I found this morning: http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20110323/NEWS01/103230301/New-yogurt-plant-opens-today-Brattleboro US: Ehrmann constructs Vermont dairy German yoghurt maker Ehrmann is eyeing growth in the US with the construction of a yoghurt dairy in Brattleboro, Vermont. The US$32m 39,000-square foot dairy processing facility will use of alternative energy and accept milk from the open market as well as segregated local and organic sources. It will manufacture yoghurt for other companies under private label and co-pack arrangements as well its own all-natural, rBST-free yoghurts under the Mountainberry brand. Marketing for the brand will focus on the local, Made in Vermont nature of the product, the company said. The facility, operated by Ehrmann’s US subsidiary Commonwealth Dairy, is expected to create 24 jobs within three years. “We are committed to making Commonwealth an industry leader,” said Ehrmann chairman Christian Ehrmann. “Like the state of Vermont, our company has built its reputation on quality, and we are looking forward to continuing that legacy here.” 88
Posted by anon / uh on October 17, 2011, 01:48 PM | # Danon of course was a Jewish start-up. Despite the subtle gag reflex induced by this fact, and the gaudy pink yid-ribbon, and probably some little “U” or “K” for which I’ve not bothered to look, I manage to slurp down tub after tub of the stuff. In my defense I can make my own yogurt without starters. I wish I could recall who recently described Vermont as a Jewish vassal state. Was on OccidentalDissent methinks. Obscene real estate prices, lefty organic everything, puling quasi-secessionist local politics, etc. So hard being white(y). By the way, where all da bitches at? 89
Posted by Leon Haller on October 17, 2011, 02:27 PM | # [I need to keep posting articles here in order to teach the ignorant some basic facts about our very un-free market fiscal disaster.] A Historic Flood of Red Ink Obama’s mind-boggling budget Jeffrey H. Anderson After proposing his third straight budget calling for more than $1 trillion in deficit spending—no other president has ever proposed even half that much (although, in his last year, President George W. Bush did end up spending that much)—President Obama complained to reporters, “You guys are pretty impatient.” In truth, Obama has gotten way too much of a pass on his deficit spending, which is so far outside of America’s historical norms as to be mind-boggling. In a fair accounting, President Obama is responsible (along with the then-Democratic Congress) for the $1.3 trillion in deficit spending in 2010 and the estimated $1.6 trillion in deficit spending in 2011. He is responsible for the projected $1.1 trillion in deficit spending in his recent budget proposal. He is also responsible for the approximately $200 billion that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that his economic “stimulus” added to the deficit in 2009. He should not get credit, moreover, for the $149 billion in TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) repayments made in 2010 and 2011 to cover most of the $154 billion in bank loans that remained unpaid at the end of the 2009 fiscal year—loans that count against President Bush’s 2009 deficit tally. The Treasury Department says that all but $5 billion of the TARP bank loans has now been repaid. The portion of repayments that was for loans issued in 2009 should be deducted from Bush’s deficit tally, not credited to Obama as deficit savings. Add it all up, and Obama is responsible for $4.4 trillion in actual or projected deficit spending in just three years in office. Let’s try to put that into historical perspective (the source for all of these figures is the White House Office of Management and Budget’s historical tables): * In actual dollars, President Obama’s $4.4 trillion in deficit spending in just three years is 37 percent higher than the previous record of $3.2 trillion (held by President George W. Bush) in deficit spending for an entire presidency. It’s no small feat to demolish an 8-year record in just 3 years. * In inflation-adjusted dollars, President Obama’s $3.8 trillion (in constant fiscal-year 2005 dollars) in deficit spending in just three years is nearly double our $2 trillion (in constant fiscal-year 2005 dollars) in deficit spending in the five fiscal years during which we were fighting World War II (FY 1942-46). It’s no small feat to nearly double the United States’ inflation-adjusted deficits during the largest conflict in human history, and to do so in less time than it took American GIs to fight that two-front war. * As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), President Obama’s average annual deficit spending is 9.7 percent of GDP. That’s higher than during any single year of the Great Depression, the Cold War, the Korean War, or Vietnam. In fact, the only deficits in more than 200 years of American history that have exceeded even 6 percent of GDP have all involved either the Civil War, World War I, World War II, or President Obama. * In average annual deficit spending as a percentage of GDP, the nearby chart shows how President Obama stacks up against other presidents who have served during the past four decades.
* The Obama deficit legacy, moreover, will be felt well beyond his tenure in office, especially if that tenure extends beyond a single term. First, Obama’s spending through 2012 essentially doesn’t include Obama-care. The CBO projects that Obama-care will increase spending by more than $2 trillion in the overhaul’s real first decade (2014 to 2023). That’s more than $2 trillion that could -otherwise be used to pay down the debt, rather than allowing the debt to rise continually and then piling a massive new entitlement program on top of it. Second, President Obama’s gargantuan deficit spending will hamstring future efforts to make ends meet. Under Obama’s own projections, interest payments on the debt are on course to triple from 2010 (his first budgetary year) to 2018, climbing from $196 billion to $685 billion annually. Under his projections for 2018, interest payments on the debt will exceed all defense spending, including wartime spending. Think about that: In the first budgetary year after the next presidential term, our creditors are projected to get more money than our military. At the end of 2008, just before President Obama took office, the national debt was $9.986 trillion and 69 percent of GDP. Under his projections, eight years later it will be $20.825 trillion and 104 percent of GDP. That’s right: Our debt will soon exceed our national economic output for an entire year. And that’s even if you believe the president’s rosy projections of 4 percent real GDP growth over the next four years, considerably higher than the 2.7 percent achieved over the past quarter-century and the 3.2 percent over the past half-century. To correct our course, we need to advance real entitlement reform and repeal the looming entitlement that could be the boulder that breaks the camel’s back: Obamacare. House Republicans need to produce a serious budget that offers real entitlement reform, as they appear poised to do. Actually enacting entitlement reform, however, will require presidential leadership. The most effective champions of bold fiscal prudence on Capitol Hill and in the statehouses, respectively, have been Representative Paul Ryan and Governor Chris Christie. In the wake of President Obama’s wildly unprecedented deficit spending, such leadership is now needed at the presidential level. Jeffrey H. Anderson was the senior speechwriter for Secretary Mike Leavitt at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
90
Posted by Rogue on October 17, 2011, 03:35 PM | # Whenever I hear the words “free markets” I reach for my pistol. Free Markets are what allowed Jews to penetrate the glass ceiling; free markets are what allowed Negros to stay in America after they outlived their usefulness; free markets drive our shallow materialistic and consumerist culture; free markets have encouraged the push toward globalization, free markets contribute to individualism; free markets eradicate high culture to cater to the artistic tastes of the lowest common denominator; free markets give us an aristocracy which values greed, corruption and manipulation, over one which values tradition, honor, and integrity; free markets rationalize immigration. Need I continue? This OWS nonsense is absolutely hilarious; these young kids, many in debt for materialistically overvaluing the name on their diploma, get in their most posh clothing, tweet and update their Facebook status to condemn consumerism and corporate greed from the latest iPhones purchased via credit cards, and savings accounts. Many of them want Wall Street to be punished because they feel they’re entitled to all the money, yet they have the gall to rail against greed. Perhaps the funniest part of this whole charade is that the very progressives marching in droves in NY are the very people who have worked tirelessly over the past 60 years to destroy America’s Western cultural heritage and to replace it with a nihilistic, rationalistic, materialistic, hedonistic cultural abomination. Yet they feel that they can march against the very values they instilled in the American psyche?! Nevertheless I see potential in this nascent, misguided movement, we on the far right just need to become more adept at “discourse poisoning” to borrow the phrase. Most of these young kids have never been objectively exposed to ideas of the far right, we need to go on their website point out their hypocrisies and guide them in the proper direction. Many whites know that there is something deeply wrong with America today, but the risks are too great of probing deeper, meanwhile people get diverted into false movements such as blaming the bourgeoisie or the government for their problems. We need to point out that everything is a consequence of culture, and as long as our culture is devoid of values we will never have a society of accomplishment, respect and order. Reactionaries, Neo-Fascists, Counter-Revolutionaries, White Nationalists, Monarchists, etc. need to spread our message far and wide, it’s true that most of those on the left are idiots, why not make them into useful idiots? We’re not getting anywhere engaging in esoteric philosophical conversations or harboring dreams of a White Zion, we need to pound the pavement and have articulate voices spread our message. Go To http://occupywallst.org/ and give these sons-a-bitches a lesson! 91
Posted by anon / uh on October 17, 2011, 03:42 PM | #
For what it’s worth to you, I am also appalled by this failure to take you at your word. There is a burning desire afoot to simplify you, to ignore that you merely suggest, mutatis mutandis, a free market and speculation can be squared with strict ethnonational interests; it’s a tight rope you walk, but I sense there’s a baby in the bathwater which they are so eager to toss. So obviously you’re coming up against some staunch prejudice in this matter that can’t be attenuated. You say this or that capitalist keyword, the bunch goes a little ape-shit. It’s easy to ken Graham’s Gripe, which is really just: America, the demonic “glyph”, to use PF’s handy term, in the European mind par excellence. With GenoType we’re on darker waters. I am extremely dull-witted so am not competent to explicate smarter men’s ideologies and personalities, but it seems to me he is a very practical sort of man who focuses intensively on the material preconditions of society. As a Marxist, lolzozo, this appeals to me, yet I don’t know where he’s going with it all; he outdoes Guessedworker in gnomic suggestions yet never comes to a point. Is this because, to turn his own method against him, there is no point when speculating in a political purgatory, or because we’re all slip-sliding around with each other with unfocused language, jumbles of concepts and differing personalities? what does GenoType want from you, from Guessedworker? what does Guessedworker want from you? I haven’t a clue. I suspect this confusion is echoed in your own statement:
Often ideologues without the rigor of a Marx, Rothbard, or Haller (who pose their own problem in leaving out whatever they don’t jig into their system) will become so caught up in their own language games that anyone trying to pierce through the smokescreen with their own weak little beam of light will lose the track and have no precise idea of just what they’re trying to see through; the contours are amorphous, swirling, shifting, stifling — such is the world of language games. I know you are a thorough and precise thinker, and though the teutonophile romantic extremist in me would like to get behind your detractors and just say you’re a tiresome republican bore, I wonder if that sort attitude is no more than a “sour grapes” reflex. Certain keywords of the capitalist lexicon are spotted, a defense built against the totality of the modern world goes up, and you are summarily dismissed. But in dismissing you, they also dismiss the world as it is, and has been since the Federalists defeated the romantic Jeffersonian model of American society. As a nietzschean — the real kind, not the juvenile caricature of Graham’s misinformed mind — one quickly learns a brisk fatalism when confronted with the “improvers of mankind” and ideological cobweb-spinners. This attitude has value in that it forces one to see through such things at first glance: here’s a man, we say to ourselves, using ideas as a proxy for this or this drive. This will explain why you always see me reducing people to their motivational underpants, if you’ve ever even read what I have to say, which isn’t much of interest, I know. The trouble is, economics puts me to sleep. No, it actually does. Two minutes into any discussion of economic theory, I’m out like an overfed cat. I don’t know why this should be. Perhaps I am so very stupid that such complex strings of symbols and the abstractions they are meant to signify simply overpower my feeble brain almost immediately. It may also be tapeworm. In my feeblemindedness, however, I’ve equipped myself most handsomely with excuses for why I don’t need to understand it — it “is” anyhow, so attempting to reconstruct these complex relations in mente is quixotic, faustian, unnecessary, or plain retarded. My problem then, my misgiving, is the semantic aspect of this — abstracting ideal systems from real relations. Mercantilist philosophy did not predate or bring mercantilism into existence; it exists as a theoretical justification of already existing practices. Before the economist was the capitalist, before the British and Jewish theorists of capitalism were the merchants themselves, trading and speculating upon resources in their actual possession or not. This is a very old thing that developed concurrently with life-ways on other latitudes which did not depend exclusively or mostly on trade, though in studying prehistory some trade seems nearly always present, the basic one-for-one commodity exchange. I recently watched a lecture by someone, should look up who it was, who postulated that one cause for the decline of Neanderthalers was their inability to trade with Homo sapiens due to language disparity — they couldn’t buy what Homo sap was selling. Given the minor trace of Neanderthaler DNA in non-African populations (~%3), I see these people dwindling steadily for no “good” reason, just hanging around, being edged out of their niche by these savvy tool-making Cro-Magnon chatterboxes, here & there skirmishing with or losing some women to the growing Solutrean Social Club. Another thing that mystifies me is the phrase “social contract”. I’m amazed that for all the venom associated with the notion of the “noble savage”, falsely attributed to my boy Rousseau, this stiff phrase “social contract”, which he actually did invent (or was it Hobbes?), passes for legitimate coin in economic discussions. My instinct is it’s one of the stupidest and most anti-natural ideas in the history of Europe’s worst ideas, but one branching from the fundamental error of “free will”. I suspect my wariness here comes from my Marxist underpinning: there is no real “contract” — the laborer emerged from the feudal obligation to labor for the lord of the domain in which he found himself willy-nilly; that he later became “free” to “sell” “his labor” meant nothing more than that the path to securing the means to live humanly became fraught with uncertainty in market conditions. So you will perceive that my sympathy lies with feudal / socialist / Marxist models of society, the well-armed, independent phalanstère-state, in a word. What George Fitzhugh wrote of slaves and poor white laborers — having to sell their labor took much more from them as humans than slavery itself — still applies, yet you have it only from the capitalist employer’s end, which is typical I suppose of a free-marketer: you prefer the freedom of “hiring & firing” to the bizarre purgatorial unfreedom of the laborers who must trample each other for extremely limited positions in the obscene overgrowth of free enterprise. Now as, in just under a fortnight, world population is due to hit seven-billion, and in a mere fourteen years more eight-billion — I’m afraid to look into the next, even faster exponent — I don’t see that all this matters much, as we’ll be swamped by Han, Hindoo, Hottentot and Hispanic in any case. Whites will dwindle to some absurd single-digit percentage of the total population where they will possibly stabilize as genetic debris as in northern Brazil among the Pardos, for the wealth disparity among whites is nothing more than natural selection of those best able to insulate and propagate themselves from global demographic obsolescence, partly the work of International Jewry, partly the work of abetting white elites and capitalists, partly the unintended consequences (I believe you and Silver and everyone were calling these “externalities” the day before yesterday) of a critical mass in industrial agricultural with its millions and millions of fiatmenschen. You will accuse me of rambling, and you will be right.
So I believe I’ve given a basic answer to that question above. To the extent that such freedom carries a heavier negative aspect in the persons of those hired & fired, to that extent does a labor market produce anomie and thus subvert a form of liberty that may better serve the ethnonational interest of a cohesive ethnic body politic that is not forced into a vertiginous pursuit of not the means to subsist, but the credits to purchase those means from the comptrollers of capitalist society. Even very dumb people understand that there is something weird and deeply unjust in this state of affairs. Once at a Greek resto, a overheard a very very bosomy and black-haired waitress remark to her boss, “You gotta work just to live — it’s so unfair.” Here is the feudal human, the Paleolithic human, the true child of the dust giving voice to the alienation into which it has been plunged by ten-thousand years of agriculture and capitalism, the endlessly strange divorce of man from the basic means of his subsistence, brokered by middlemen and symbols. Ultimately it is agriculture itself that has caused this problem; the more people that have had access to easy carbohydrate calories, the more people have been bred out of them — relatively stable until the advent of agricultural technology in 18th-19th-20th centuries, leading rapidly to the great exponential population cascade we face today. As Gloucester says, ... Full oft ‘tis seen, I fear that liberalism goes much deeper than Graham suspects. I fear it begins with the Neolithic Revolution itself, an innovation that birthed at once the city, the citizen, his “rights”, the storable food commodity, and the symbology of its movements. If that is true — we’re more deeply fucked than we thought. Unless we all, whites, blacks, browns and yellows, stop eating bread, cereals, desserts, corn products tomorrow, and hold fast to that for as long as it takes to force the grain crops and stores to go stale, there can be no shrinking or withering of the state, for the state itself is an agricultural enterprise. Which is, you know, why the Bohemian wished to conquer the East. Your theories, operating in a theoretical vacuum, have hitherto failed to take account of this basic, essential, and rapidly compounding problem to which even hippies have kenned. That said, your items e through g, Leon, are perfectly right. Of course a free market will outperform a restricted one. The question is, is such performance really the desirable course — is it most in the interests of the race? North Koreans look at South Koreans and say no, fuck that. West Germany outperformed the DDR? Sure, it also imported the gastarbeiter and americanized first; today the last and strongest pockets of ethnic resistance in Germany are in hardscrabble eastern towns like Frankfurt an der Oder, not Koeln. So there’s a pattern here that any nation involved in the capitalist world-system has been poisoned by that relation; forget that it “could be otherwise”, no it cannot, because that is how it was. We will be living in the wake of the anti-racial reaction for a very long time to come, so it profits you nothing to persist in defense of pure capitalism like a jilted Communist who shields his ideology from final disproof by saying this or that was wrong and unorthodox, so it wasn’t true Communism. In the order that really exists, Communist nations are best viewed, apart from the Soviet/Russian lust to rule that brought them to be, as hygienic attempts to seal off their populations from the liberal-democratic combine. A massively quixotic project, I agree, but it kept the Jew away, men at work, and women humble. That ought to be enough.
You’re probably right. I know I am all of those things. If I hoped to one day become as knowledgeable as you however, and able to preach to a collection of vociferous reactionary nitwits, where would I start? could you perhaps give me a list of no more than five books that would clarify all this abstruse cobwebbing for me? Without mathematics if possible.
Yea, well, it hasn’t and can’t. From Taylor’s mouth “libertarian” means “I don’t trouble much with that”.
The reality of the dynamics is that there is no transitive power between however white nationalists choose to understand or align themselves and larger sociopolitical trends. It is a rhetorical habit at best, and conceit at worst, to say otherwise. Alex Kurtagic says misogyny drives women away (who weren’t around to start, and who bitches like this telling us what to do?), Jared Taylor says anti-Semitism drives “good Jews” away (who mostly suffer from and push their ethnic purblindness no less vigorously than their conethnics), Haller says anti-capitalist rhetoric drives good conservatives and property owners away (GW, GT, Grimoire, Ex Pro-White, and others are all property owners), and so on. But all these groups are just mythic props in the speaker’s desire to draw a picture of his ideological opponent driving away support from the right way ... his way. In fact there is no bloody support. We’re all alone here. 92
Posted by anon / uh on October 17, 2011, 04:10 PM | # *who needs
From “Free Markets ... ” to ” ... American psyche”, you had it nailed. Your last paragraph is a lot of bunk, I’m sorry to say. What belies it all is this simple turn of phrase —
Flowing so easily, as taxonomy irreproachable, yet semantically specious. Why? Because those whites are only taxonomic whites; they do not identify as whites, or not relative to their knowledge that “something is wrong”. Memes have to interact the right way for the desired result. This will seem to you, if you stay around, a trivial thing, but I assure you it is everything. You cannot discourse-poison these people because they are already completely poisoned, unmoored from traditional human understanding. Such consciousness cannot be undone or redirected. One more thing.
No. Failure of will did that. Liberia was a fine idea not fully pursued. free markets drive our shallow materialistic and consumerist culture; Yes and no. Yes, because the logic of consumer capitalism generates product wars and advertising. No, because Jews degraded the tone and aspect of it all. 93
Posted by Desmond Jones on October 17, 2011, 07:04 PM | #
Excellent question and an excellent answer, by uh. Liberty appears to assume the geometric nature of an asymptote. The difference between relative liberty and absolute liberty tends to infinity as they approach. Liberty, as Mill suggested, may only function in a homogeneous setting and most likely only for those who have evolved a tendency for it, because basically the face of Liberty is ugly. It’s fundamental strength arises from denial or discrimination against the desires of others. Denying men the freedom to act upon their desires will ultimately build resentment, as uh suggests. However, if discrimination does not exist, if the freedom to chose who and what you wish to be freely associated with is denied, then liberty is denied. Liberty, as Mill sensed, also tends to heterogeneity. If you are free to hire and fire who wish, then restricting that freedom undermines liberty. However, by not restricting the freedom to act liberty is also seriously undermined.
94
Posted by anon / uh on October 17, 2011, 08:32 PM | #
Interesting analogy, Desmond. When I saw the word “asymptote” I thought it would be some obscure microorganism, lozozozz. For me it boils down to two maxims: 1. “Liberty” is of course relative, and is more exactly called, per Wyndham Lewis, the art of being ruled. The “liberty” of a Communist state is that you won’t have to worry so much about pimping your abilities, or paying / going into debt to acquire them, no existing in a uniform cultural medium and securing a mate, as uniformity and the virtue of parity are enforced by the state. The “liberty” of a Capitalist state is that you can’t buy, sell, hire & fire at every level of competence or simply to sink below the competition into poverty. You are “free” to maximize in any legal or illegal fashion, wealth gathers into the usual hands, technology takes off, a plethora of ideas and subculture flourish, blah blah blah capitalistic liberty ultimately = incoherence. This is sensible in the vague feeling of impotence, that subtle anomie-ennui, we all feel despite and because of the many emoluments of our world. Imagine a brain kept alive in a box on whatever complicated medical machinery. That’s more or less where we are. Take the history of Turkmenistan since 1991. Niyazov of course built an elaborate and thoroughgoing cult of personality in response to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and its totalitarian kulchur. This was the correct move from a morphologic standpoint; it completely avoided the hasty oligarchic gutting suffered by Russia, ensuring a continuity of state apparatus and stability seen also in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan — but not, by the way, in Tajikistan, the only nominal “Aryan” state, which was plunged into an extremely bloody civil war. So when Niyazov died in ‘06, with no heir, no succession plan, this deputy PM Berdimuhamedow, trained as a doctor, took over and had some other dude imprisoned. He has since steadily dismantled the Turkmenbashi cult, allowed free web access in Ashgabat, and patronized the arts & sciences by opening various centers and encouraging education therein; he’s even sacked a few high-up Niyavoz apparatchiks. This is a great model. Turkmenistan is what one would call “ethnically homogeneous”, though it’s really a “melted pot” of old steppe peoples (Indo-Europeans originally!) and the Turkmen. The culture is uniform, the religion is uniform, the race is stable, and no one can point to it on a map. Of course there’s usual the hew & cry over “human rights abuses” because it is a stable, uniform ethnic state, i.e. is resistant to Jews. Yet it was a bad idea to open the web, for example. In Dushanbe this has resulted in packs of teenage girls with “cornrows” singing along to 50 Cent or whatever kaffir noise is popular now. “Humanitarian” organizations — mostly British — do things like “teach HIV education”, import a Jamaican reggae band for public enjoyment, build “women’s centers” in the Pomir and Wakhistan regions, etc. Will this happen in Turkmenistan? No, for Tajikistan, a fiat-state created by the USSR under its razmezhevanie policy, is weak by Stalin’s personal design: borders were drawn to leave out the Tajik-majority cities of Samarkand and Bukhara, the historical axis of the Tajik/Aryan population post-Turkic expansion, and bring in an Uzbek minority to the south. But there we are, indeed: not fiat but default balkanization of our living space. It’s simply a mistake to view forms of government and society as “free” or “unfree”, or as relative manifestations of “liberty”; these quaint terms belong to a simpler age that could afford to fiddle with moral systems. The only true values are evolutionary values. Survival, reproduction, survival, reproduction, survival, reproduction ... and mastery of space. In an age of exponentiating fiatvoelker, it must be a response to the “Mumbai model” of Guessedworker’s latest post, or we go under.
96
Posted by Leon Haller on October 18, 2011, 06:59 AM | # It’s simply a mistake to view forms of government and society as “free” or “unfree”, or as relative manifestations of “liberty”; these quaint terms belong to a simpler age that could afford to fiddle with moral systems. The only true values are evolutionary values. Survival, reproduction, survival, reproduction, survival, reproduction ... and mastery of space. In an age of exponentiating fiatvoelker, it must be a response to the “Mumbai model” of Guessedworker’s latest post, or we go under. (anon/uh) There’s a lot of truth to this, though you make a very curious type of ‘Marxist’. Of course, I emphatically disagree with the statement that the only true values are evolutionary ones (very, very curious for a Marxist). Morality has its origin in God, and without God, while moral propositions would continue to possess logical force, they would be without effect. Without God, morality is merely what is preferred or useful (ie, enhances survival possibilities), which is no morality at all. Liberty, too, as a moral value, has its origin in God, though only indirectly. It exists in the interstices of moral duties (the thou shalt nots). Of course, liberty is never seen by a Christian as an absolute value, as something never subject to justified abrogation or limitation. It is perfectly acceptable to forbid a private defense contractor from selling a nuke to al Qaeda, or to ban pornography. It is not acceptable for a majority of a nation to gang up electorally on a minority, and force the latter to pay for the former’s housing, health care, education, etc. The standard for abrogating liberty is the security and long-term survival of the system itself. I favor many such abrogations, in light of my macro concern with the survival of the West (predicated in part on the survival of the race which created it and, I believe, alone will perpetuate it). 97
Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on October 18, 2011, 07:07 AM | #
One of Leon’s greatest sources of thread debate strength is he never lets facts like these get in the way of his Judeo-libertarian theories. He is truly a living personification of the 1984 Oceania maxim: “Ignorance Is Strength”.
98
Posted by Jimmy Marr on October 18, 2011, 07:53 AM | #
You answered that, upFront.
It’s time to come home to the Northwest, Uh. What Axis Sally can’t do for you, April Gaudy will. You’ll think Hitler was a pussy by the time they’re done with you. 99
Posted by anon / uh on October 18, 2011, 09:19 AM | #
April goes about her business, doesn’t preach. Where are Axis Sally’s three children? Scrap the fourteen words; here are uh’s four words for women: Shut Up and Breed. What? No no. Again: SHUT UP AND BREED. You’re not doing us a service. You are running your mouth. Spread ‘em or sod off. Women are not “complementary” or sweet dutiful helpmates in “our struggle” ozozozlzozozozzzlzlzlzoz. They are vehicles of race, or they are enemies of the race. Women like Acrid Sally have this dumb notion that white nationalism ought to be a homeowner’s association. This is what Covington’s little project amounts to. In reality white nationalism ought to be ten-million danielj’s hustling and brawling rival ethnies. And this woman affects to preach to a trashy kid with some bad ideas, that is, between bouts of greasing Covington’s withered pud. “Fuck dat honky shit, gimme some MO-TOWN!” LOOZOZOOZZOOZZZZ http://www.cafepress.com/greatbooksformen.584117744 thatz wot uh thijnks whehenb desouled butthexing wn wimminz prechh to him 100
Posted by Leon Haller on October 18, 2011, 09:25 AM | # Thanks for the lengthy comment, anon/uh, though I have difficulty discerning whether you are sincere or sarcastic, or in what proportions. I also have difficulty discerning your precise thesis. Free markets are not the answer to all of mankind’s problems. They are only as good as the people comprising them (a point Mises made in his monograph The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality). The market is a structure maximizing efficient resource use. It does not guarantee any particular desirable social outcome. If we wish to save the white race, the free market in itself won’t do that. One would be right to argue that restricting immigration can be seen as an infringement of free markets, though I would argue that NOT restricting unassimilable immigration would constitute an ultimate diminishment in the liberty of the native-born (that is a far more complex issue than normally perceived, even deontologically as well as consequentially: as Rothbard asked of the ‘open-borders’ libertarian lunatics back in the 60s, “On whose property does the immigrant have a right to trample?”). The purpose of a specifically nationalist political economics is to devise a system that maximizes efficient resource use, and hence prosperity, while also reinforcing (instead of undermining) white survival prospects. The problem with many here is that they associate free markets with cultural and racial liberalism, and condemn the former because they dislike the effects of the latter. That is simply poor reasoning. No matter what legions of market enemies may say, markets are culturally and racially and morally neutral. They simply set about satisfying the wants of the greatest number (I’m speaking metaphorically, of course; there is no creature called “market”, just individuals going about their business). If those wants are corrupt, liberal, multiculti, etc, that’s what profit-seeking entrepreneurs will cater to. The fault lies in the culture, not the exchange mechanism. My main theoretical point in all this is that economics is a true academic discipline, which can teach us about the phenomenon of exchange. There are true economic theories, and false ones. Following false ones, as Obama did with his 2009 ‘stimulus’ (straight out of the idiotic Keynesian playbook), will lower the material standard of living (at the extremes, as with the Soviet period before Lenin’s New Economic Policy, or China under Mao, especially in the late 50s-early 60s, they can result in complete immiseration, famine and mass death). Any particular type of political economy must be built on a correct theoretical, that is, free market, foundation. We may choose to reject enormous portions of what free market theory would tell us is the path to national wealth maximization, out of a desire to instantiate other, non-wealth maximizing goals. But we ought to understand what sacrifices in prosperity we are making in pursuit of those extra-economic goals. My main pragmatic point in all this mainly applies to the US (or it may apply across the West; I’m not sure; I am insufficiently familiar with the internal politics and political opinions of other countries). Here, it would be pathologically stupid for WNs to adopt anti-capitalist rhetoric or causes, and for reasons I have offered above. Our best issue, the place to start our political growth, is immigration reduction. The key is gradual radicalization (as I was arguing with Linder here last month). Success builds on success. You cannot, in a stable democracy, ask/expect people to overturn their whole belief-systems, and concomitant policy regimes, overnight. The center of gravity of the mainstream gets shifted fairly gradually. To build up white consciousness, we must start with the most egregiously obvious, and least morally problematic, issue, and that is immigration. Because that represents a huge change, we must be careful to be as thoroughly unthreatening, and ‘modal’, wrt other issues - at least those important to the larger group we think we can influence. As I mentioned, only conservatives as a large group are receptive to immigration reduction. Conservatives are, however, far more committed to capitalism than to ethnocultural or demographic preservation. Therefore, is it shrewd to attack one of their core beliefs (the other being support for Christianity), or is it better to embrace their core beliefs (as I do), but then insert immigration termination as part of the broad conservative policy mix? I think the answer is obvious. Unlike many racial extremists and fantasy warriors, I’m completely earnest and serious about actually trying to preserve the white race. Thus, I examine our plight as rationally and dispassionately as possible. 101
Posted by Silver on October 18, 2011, 09:30 AM | # Haller,
What evidence do you have for that? Quantitative economic history draws a very different conclusion. I already you suggested you acquaint yourself with the work of Angus Maddison and provided some of his numbers in order to whet your appetite. You promised a reply over the weekend. Many weekends have come and gone since then. Choose any start and end date during the 19th century you like and you won’t find a period during which per capita GDP grew more quickly than during the fasted growing periods of the 20th century (or at least you won’t be able to quantitatively demonstrate it). Here are some arbitrary dates selected to illustrate my point. United States per capita GDP growth 1820-1910 (1990 international dollar) 1820-$1250 Growth rates: 1960-$11,300 Growth rates: You can verify these numbers at http://www.ggdc.net/Maddison/content.shtml under ‘Historical Statistics’ Maybe even more revealing than the superior performance of Keynesian ‘kookery’ over 19th century laissez faire is the performance of the Soviet Union in moving from the same level of GDP as the USA. Maddison estimates Soviet per capita GDP in 1928 (by which time the revolution was well and truly over, so this number isn’t artificially low) at $1370. By 1940 it was $2140. By my calculation this represents an average growth of 3.8%pa over twelve years. The USA grew from a comparable level of GDP of $1588 in 1840 to a comparable $2180 in 1860; a period of 20 years for a lesser degree of growth. The point here isn’t to make the case for communism; the point is to demonstrate that whatever the advantages inherent in American laissez faire of the 19th century they do not seem to make as much difference as you claim to the rate of growth. And it is certainly far from obvious, on this evidence, that Keynesianism is a form of quackery on par with race-denial. (Debt, as a proportion of GDP, was being reined in decade after decade until the Reaganite maniacs got control of things, so just who are the quacks here, hmm?)
The West German economic performance of the 1950s was very impressive, doubling per capita between 1950 and 1960. Burning to a different set of statistics (http://www.conference-board.org/data/economydatabase/), we see that the economy of East Germany (no Austrians in the GDR) also doubled per capita output between 1950 and 1960, so it’s not immediately obvious that the gains in the west were solely attributable to the alleged Austrian influence. Moreover, Japan, at a comparable level of per capita GDP in 1960 as West Germany in 1950 also (more than) doubled per capita output in one decade, and I think it’s pretty safe to speculate that the Austrian in influence in the Japan of the 60s was rather minimal. The issue of decreasing growth rates probably has more to do with the rate of innovation of decreasing than it does with economic systems per se. Growth rates during the 60s and 70s were so rapid because so much new technology was coming on line. The rising GDP numbers simply reflect this rise in numerical form; it’s what those numbers mean. For example, the USSR growing from $2000 to $4000 in large partmeans, say, this new damn, these new factories, this new manufacturing equipment, etc. When you view growth this way you quickly begin to see that it describes the sorts of activities the most intelligent segment of the population is able to engage in, with everyone else being shifted up accordingly. And it makes it obvious why whites can introduce new technologies to somewhere like Namibia, yet the ‘trickle down’ to Namibian blacks is so negligible, because the blacks’ collective talents don’t allow much room to move up into anything; hence Namibia’s astounding Gini inequality index of 70. (For comparison, notoriously unequal Brazil hovers around 55. Relatively poor eastern european countries, on the other hand, remain Scand-like in their equality—consistently below 30 on the Gini—because talent is so much more evenly distributed.)
You don’t need to point it out to me. I’m a capitalist, both for moral and practical reasons. But there’s no reason to be an absolutist idealogue about it. Mixed economies have performed superbly. Redistribution isn’t lethal and I’d have a tremendous moral problem on my hands supporting capitalism without it*: we don’t start out equal in life, so our lives are hardly what we alone make of them; capitalism rewards some people way out of proportion of with their actual talents or contributions; conversely, capitalism punishes others way out of proportion with their actual shortcomings; and capitalism (particularly veneration of it) makes it extraordinarily difficult to respond to ecological threats that capitalism itself may be largely responsible for. (Global warming may or may not be BS, but just imagine it were real; are we well positioned or poorly positioned to deal with such a threat? See?) *Isn’t the real issue hereditarians have with the welfare state that it enables the propagation of the stupid and shiftless? In that case why wouldn’t a simple compromise solution be to continue to pay people who have children they can’t afford but pay them more to forgo children in the first place? That’s a win-win if I’ve ever seen one. Social democrat types get to feel good about no one having to sleep on the streets; human quality hereditarians get to sleep easy knowing that the incentives in place can now be expected to decrease rather than increase the population of bums. uh,
See, that there is your problem. I don’t know how anyone can hope to understand the world unless he takes at least a mildly serious interest in economics. Good luck trying to understand human beings if you ignore what human beings do for over half their waking hours. 102
Posted by anon / uh on October 18, 2011, 12:27 PM | #
Captain Obvious to the rescue! You thought I was being facetious? It really does hit my snooze button. Nonetheless I make mildly serious if lazy efforts to understand the subject. For example on your recommendation I picked up The Origin of Wealth, which here and there seems to corroborate my views.
There’s more to it than that. Plus, human beings no more “do” economic theory than they “do” ontogenetics, the psychoanalytic theory of neurosis, or Mendelian inheritance — though these are mechanisms in which they are all involved. I don’t view the compulsion to hustle for shekels, or “invent technologies” to plug up holes in the great swelling dam of human accomplishment, as the sum of human nature, but as a high-entropic expression of it. Perhaps this will clarify my dummy’s position for you.
Seems to me I told him the same thing. But you have read more, and quote figures, so your proposition must be righter than mine.
And there’s your problem: you approach everything as though you ought to have the guiding hand in how things go, a sort of god-complex to which you once gave expression thus, “This is but another case of the blind leading the blind.” Whereas, I have trouble approaching anything that is too highly abstracted from my own narrow sphere of life.
Oh, so, whites are provident, Namibians improvident, and the fruits of white providence do nothing for the improvident Namibians. I need something called a “Gini inequality index” to understand that?
Though really, you did make one. You’ve confirmed my suspicion that economics is a lot of mumbo-jumbo. I don’t want to be one of you guys talking about “growth” and “GDP”. Kinda makes me ill. 103
Posted by Jimmy Marr on October 18, 2011, 04:28 PM | #
She used her kids to preach.
Given the alternative, the fact that the WN public doesn’t know the answer to this question is a healthy sign in my opinion. This does not mean that I advocate the perspective reflected in the podcast. I’m simply attempting to offer a contrasting view of the reproductive and child rearing strategies of the two women as they relate to White nationalism. I would love nothing more than to live the rest of my life without hearing the political opinion of any women, anywhere on the planet, about any issue whatsoever, and I have no respect for WN men who think we need to “bring women into the movement”. There’s only one movement I want to see from women:
104
Posted by anon / uh on October 18, 2011, 05:52 PM | #
Oh, right. Good point.
I <3 you. 105
Posted by GenoType on October 18, 2011, 10:29 PM | # A response to Haller I:
Certainly one can defend economics as a “value-free” social science while opposing free markets, or support free markets without fully embracing libertarianism. But there is no such thing as a value-free social science. The decision to use the “value-free” approach in the social sciences is simply a question of convenience – a convenience typically governed by one’s agenda. In Haller’s case, the lie that such a thing exists in economics enables him to arbitrarily alternate between neutrality and bias. When the alleged “value-free” approach suits Haller’s agenda of personal enrichment, he uses it. We have repeatedly seen him use it to “analyze” various statements with which he disagrees, then congratulate himself on his intellectual capacity and acuity afterward. This is hardly an example of a “value-free” approach to an academic discipline. When, on the other hand, the “value-free” approach does not suit Haller’s agenda, he discards it. This is typically followed by the claim that he does not fully embrace libertarianism. His claim does not square, of course, with the reams of excerpts from von Mises, von Hayek, Rothbard, Hoppe, Tom Woods, and other personalities living and dead from the libertarian camp. There is a reason why people refer to the libertarian gangsters on the faux Right as the “Institute of Fuck You, I’ve Got Mine.” A value-free market is entirely consistent with the libertarian non-aggression principle. Unless one is ignorant – Haller is not ignorant, but assumes that you are – it is completely disingenuous to claim otherwise. ——— The hierarchy of science allows us to define what science is, because science is neither a mere collection of facts or free-floating knowledge. Rather, it is knowledge integrated into a hierarchy of truth. To know a thing it is not sufficient to know the thing in itself. One must know also how it fits with everything else – what its relationships are with the rest of the world. Therefore science is not just knowledge, but organized knowledge. It is precisely this organization that makes it science. We have many other kinds of knowledge, such as tacit or intuitive knowledge, but these are not scientific until they can be integrated into the hierarchy of knowledge, and thereby submit themselves to the tests of truth that come from the higher sciences. Until we know the thing in the fullness of its relationships, we don’t really know it at all. Therefore science is not just about describing things in themselves. It is about describing things in their relationships to everything else. One of Haller’s problems is his (seeming?) inability to distinguish between the physical and humane (social) sciences. The distinction between these two branches of science concerns how objects in the science are moved to their ends. Physical objects are moved to their ends by laws outside of themselves; e.g., gravity. Rocks and planets in the solar system cannot act independently. Humane sciences, on the other hand, have the human person for their object and the human person in their relationships, whether that is the relationship a person has with himself, his family, his community, the natural environment, or God. Men are moved to their ends by will. Men must obey physical laws but within that constraint are able to act independently in achieving their ends. Therefore, the study of economics involves human relationships - specifically, right relationships.
Perhaps Haller lacks the intelligence to recognize that what I meant to write was “a value-free market” or “value-free economics,” but I sincerely doubt it. More likely it is simply another example of Haller belaboring the obvious to bolster his ego and credibility. Or, perhaps he genuinely does believe that economics can be taught as a value-free academic discipline but doesn’t know what is meant by “value-free economics.” I’ll leave the clarification to him.
This is what Haller is arguing against: “Economics is about social provisioning. Markets are based on preexisting social orders and can only help in directing them. They do not generate order. They can help to destroy it, however. The assumption that all things can be based on self-interest, for example, destroys the very virtues of the social order presumed by the market. “To function markets require fully socialized and ethical participants. A pure market has never been implemented because it cannot ever be attempted. Any attempt to establish one would displace the most fundamental, traditional source of economic order – the family and its shared values. It is no accident that as the force of custom and virtue diminishes, the role of law – and lawyers – increases. So too does the role of politics and bureaucracies. Force, legal or political, must replace the virtues undermined by a “pure” market system. “If economies require fully socialized participants and if economics is about social provisioning, then the question of family/ies cannot be divorced from economic questions. For economic actors, producers, and consumers are “produced” and socialized within the confines of family. Without families there would be no next generation or future for economists to worry about.”
I demonstrated how a value-free market sabotages the very thing Haller claims to support: The next generation…of white children. XPWA and I do support free enterprise, but within the context of a distributist economy. We do not support laissez-faire capitalism. Haller is on record for supporting laissez faire.
Haller, the libertarian gangster, believes I am the socialist gangster simply because I maintain that there is a role for government in the matter of equitable social provisioning. He comes from the perspective that almost anything a capitalist acquires in a “free market” is rightfully his. Now this is an extremely simple-minded perspective designed, I believe, to capture the gullible; e.g., the typical Republican voter whose introduction to “free market economics” was Alice ‘Ayn Rand’ Rosenbaum’s “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.” For what is freedom? What is fraud? Who controls the contract? Now in fairness to Haller, XPWA and I have been vague about distributism, except to say that the intersection of EGI and distributism (or Catholic social teaching) is social nationalism. Therefore I shall provide a less than perfect introduction to our premises. Feel free to compare them to Haller’s: The indispensable requirement for any economic system is that it must provide the material basis for life for a sufficient number of citizens so that society can continue for another season. In addition, it must provide sufficient surplus so that society can be repopulated and continue for another generation. If either of these conditions is not met, society simply disappears and further discussion is unnecessary. In addition to the few things that an economy must do, there is a longer list of things it ought to do. For example, an economy ought to provide the material basis of life for as many members of society as possible, and ideally for all members. It ought to provide for a certain level of material comfort and security; it ought to reward work, ingenuity, thrift, and inventiveness; it ought to supply sufficient excess to fund common goods such as the national defense, education, religious works (Catholic or Atheist), etc.; it ought to provide the ground for liberty; it ought to provide the ground for social harmony – that is, each citizen ought to be able to believe that his efforts are fairly rewarded and that no one lives off of the efforts of another. The list of things an economy should do implies another list of things it should not do. For example, a homogenous society free of conflict should not depend on slavery (chattel or wage); it should not deprive work (including the “stored-up” work known as “capital”) of its just rewards; it should not reward sloth, that is, create wealth not based on some productive endeavor; it must not weaken social bonds or encourage class warfare, and so forth. Taken together these lists of what an economy must do, what it ought to do, and what it ought not to do provide us with criteria upon which we may make firm judgments about the success or failure of any particular economy, most particularly our own. Granted, these judgments can never be precise. One could always point to some wealth acquired without work (there will always be a Leon Haller or Tom Woods in the neighborhood – our task is to reduce their numbers and influence to manageable levels), some work not fairly compensated, some shortfall in the material provisioning of society. However, what we must really judge is whether these shortcomings are endemic to the society or merely limited failures – failures that, in an imperfect world, are expected in any system.
106
Posted by GenoType on October 18, 2011, 10:33 PM | # A response to Haller II:
More of Haller being Haller. Libertarian gangsters range from those seeking a “withering” to a full-on “withering away” of the state. Marxist gangsters used the “withering away” of the state as a selling point.
Clearly the government XPWA and I envision is “too big” for Haller’s tastes. But then his standard for size is minimal because it suits his ends at this point in time. A minimal criterion suits the ethically challenged just fine. Or should I say, just Right?
What Haller means by “free” in this statement is a market unconcerned with the must, ought, should, and should not criteria for social provisioning; except when it is politically expedient to claim otherwise in support of one’s personal or political objective.
Indeed there is; therefore, leaving populations of all Western nations open to capitalist predation.
Not only did economic conditions in America between the time of its founding and 1945 more closely approximate the conditions of laissez faire that Haller advocates, they were also accompanied by an instability unseen after the post-War introduction of Keynesian thinking. Graphs of this phenomenon are easily Googled. As to Haller’s other bloviations…I’m headed to bed.
107
Posted by Captainchaos on October 19, 2011, 12:43 AM | # Uh, there are two salient issue in play here, as I see it. Though not, I’m sure, as simple for brevity’s sake as I shall render them here, not as complicated and ominously mysteriously intractable as you seem to believe them to be. Those salient issues are: 1. How to, taking the long view, effectively rein in elite free-riding as is consonant with the preservation of our European race and civilization. (GT and James Bowery believe elite free-riders cannot be effectively reined in long-term without radically transforming our economic and social manner of living. Their pet ‘solutions’ are respectively microcommunities and single deadly combat. According to them, if our European race is to survive our European civilization must be dispensed with.) 2. GT’s grasping for metaphysical profundity which is really just his restatement of Salter’s essential truth: life is an ultimate interest as without life no other interests can be experienced nor pursued. 108
Posted by Captainchaos on October 19, 2011, 01:21 AM | # GT, first you claimed:
Now you state:
How could that be? The “government” you ostensibly advocate would be much smaller in its localized scope, with most of the “govern[ing]” handled informally within communities of extended families, i.e., microcommunities. But wait…you and XPWA are thoroughgoing National Socialists. Suddenly your latter remark has come into clearer focus. Let us hope that Leon doesn’t run screaming for the door marked “Exit”. 109
Posted by Desmond Jones on October 19, 2011, 01:26 AM | #
Isn’t this a naturalistic fallacy whereby you are equating good/goodness with what ought to be? Moreover, why deny evolutionary theory in arriving at your conclusion of man/animal? Evolutionary theory is not faith because it is falsifiable. 110
Posted by Captainchaos on October 19, 2011, 02:18 AM | # An Austrian-style study of economics is “value free” in that it utilizes “an economic theory of value that identifies worth as being based on the wants and needs of the members of a society, as opposed to value being inherent to an object,” i.e., the “subjective value theory”. This theory is ultimately no more circular nor implicitly biased than Salter’s working definition of “carrying capacity”, which is: “For a given level of technological and economic development, a territory’s carrying capacity is the population beyond which further population growth results in some value being lost.” Both are essentially equations containing variables into which the subjective values of your choice can be plugged in. 111
Posted by Captainchaos on October 19, 2011, 02:48 AM | #
LOL. Here GT commits the same intellectual sin he accuses Haller of: imputing an objective quality to what he, for whatever reason, values subjectively. Where is it written in the stars that an economy must, simply must, provide the means for its own sustenance? For that matter, why ought a people, or a given individual, value the continuity of their/his own life? Some don’t, some commit suicide. One either does or does not value a thing, for whatever reason. Logically, there is no ground of higher justification to stand on; and beneath lies only circular reasoning. The only “objectivity” ultimately to be found is in not even begging question of a higher justification for whatever value. 112
Posted by Desmond Jones on October 19, 2011, 04:44 AM | #
Perhaps then Bowery’s idea of experimentation versus argumentation, along with his notion of allodial human rights, should be invoked, whereby the government’s main purpose, and certainly central purpose, is to guarantee “subsistence lands for people of like mind to live out their beliefs about what makes life good.” 113
Posted by GenoType on October 19, 2011, 05:09 AM | # Uh, I don’t like economics either. For me it has something to do with the Hallers of the world. ——————- Back to Haller: It should be clear that the family is both the basic economic unit and social unit. Once again: If economics requires fully socialized participants, and if economics is about social provisioning, then the question of the family cannot be divorced from economic questions. Economic actors, producers, and consumers are “produced” and socialized within the confines of the family. Without family there will be no next generation or future for economists to worry about. Modern economics, however, tends to ignore the role of family and completely focus on the individual. But the individual is a sterile, non- self-sustaining entity. Libertarian gangsters in the free market camp have no way to explain how new workers come into the economy and no way to explain growth. In their view workers arrive in the economy fully grown, trained, and socialized. They are a “given.” There is no way to explain the growth in workers or their level of training and socialization. In my opinion this is intentional, for when workers are a “given” there is little reason to support them with political or fiscal policies - which meshes perfectly with Haller’s viewpoint. Libertarian proponents of “economics as a value-free economic discipline” tend to treat the worker as just another commodity (labor) for the purpose of pricing that labor, but treat the production cost of that “commodity” as something beyond the price system. If we take any other commodity, a bar of pig iron for example, it is assumed that the price must cover the cost of production, maintenance, and depreciation or the product will be withdrawn from the market. In regards to labor this assumption is never examined. Labor has its own “production cost” (the family) and its own maintenance costs” (subsistence and healthcare) and its own “depreciation” costs (sickness and old age). Labor cannot simply be withdrawn from the market when these requirements are not met. In the free market camp of “Fuck You, I’ve Got Mine,” labor – and the family – does not even gain the dignity of a bar of pig iron. 114
Posted by GenoType on October 19, 2011, 05:30 AM | #
LMAO. I’m not claiming that economics is a value-free academic discipline. Neither am I arbitrarily alternating between neutrality and bias - that is, using a “value-free analysis” in a field where it is impossible to do so when it suits my purpose, and discarding it when my purpose is not suited. Contrary to the bloviating Haller and his ilk, I’m a rather upfront person. Small minds tend to despise integrity. 115
Posted by Silver on October 19, 2011, 06:42 AM | # Uh,
Hey, I can relate to dozing off. Nothing gets me dozing like the “genetics” talk some in these parts love nothing more than to immerse themselves in. I admit I have NFI what a “FST” or “PCA plot” is, and even less interest in finding out. Don’t even think of asking me about the difference between a haplogroup and a haplotype. Those charts that are meant to illustrate “100% European” genetic make-up that CC occasionally posts are utterly meaningless to me (meaning I have NFI how to read them).
The point wasn’t that humans do “economic theory.” The point was that they spend upwards of half their waking hours engaged in economic activity of one kind or another. And understanding why they engage in certain kinds of economic activities at various times and places and what sorts of activities they might engage in in the future helps to understand what that means for the societies they thereby (in large part) create.
Fair enough. But economics will continue to exert an all but decisive influence on human affairs regardless.
Does that upset you? The Leon hallers are going to quote figures at you and denounce you for not getting with it so you’d best fight fire with fire if you hope to sway them.
I “approach” very little that way. Quite the opposite, in fact. But if it’s just obvious people are being lead up a blind alley what greater good is served by keeping my mouth shut? Take your movement, for instance. If you recall me uttering that phrase about the blind leading the blind then perhaps you’ll also recall me stating I’m not interested in playing any sort of part in your movement, let alone enjoying a “guiding hand.” Shit dude, it’s your movement. But as a sympathizer, and potential ally (of sorts), why shouldn’t I speak up about the various errors of judgment that plague and have plagued you? Anyway, in this case you’re reading far too much into it. This isn’t even a racial topic. People debate economics all the time, so my doing so here isn’t indicative of nefarious interference.
I think it’s appropriate to reply with Angus Maddison here (dude’s a gold mine):
So, no, you don’t “need” something called a Gini coefficient, but measures like it sure can help.
You know, I was only kidding with the line “there’s your problem.” Far be it for me to demand you take an interest in anything that bores you stiff. 116
Posted by GenoType on October 19, 2011, 06:43 AM | #
What a big tent statement that is! But the “wants and needs of the members of a society” could be anything or nothing at all. It may include the must, oughts, shoulds, and should nots that effect the quality of relationships between members of a society, and about which XPWA and I am concerned. Or it may just as easily include those who value labor - and the working man’s family - as something less than a bar of pig iron when it is in their economic interest to do so. Do Austrians support a realistic job training program, a minimum wage, or universal healthcare, I wonder? I think the answer to that question is obvious. When I read of Austrian support for “an economic theory of value that identifies worth as being based on the wants and needs of the members of society, I am reminded of the following scene from The Outlaw Josey Wales: Fletcher: Damn you, Senator. You promised me those men would be decently treated.
117
Posted by Graham_Lister on October 19, 2011, 06:58 AM | # Just a little aside. In England more and more people are ‘enjoying’ this freedom. Why are more people changing their name? Moreover in England and the USA you can name your child almost anything, but that’s not the case everywhere in the world. Damn those coercive and authoritarian Danes for having this law on naming children. They must hate our freedom! 118
Posted by GenoType on October 19, 2011, 08:42 AM | # Desmond, The fallacy is Haller’s belief that economics is a “value-free academic discipline.” It is not. A value-free market is not possible. Values are implicit in markets. If one teaches the subject he must agree in full or in part with the majority of those values, or find himself at odds with those values and impart his own values to the audience. He may feign “neutrality,” but a feint is all it is. Haller does this when it suits his purpose. He backs off on “neutrality” when a conflict with MRs social values is imminent. Ostensibly Catholic, Haller should know better than to equate the humane science of economics with the physical sciences and ignore his faith’s belief in man’s transcendental nature. Why must I, an atheist, remind him of it? Either he lacks a proper understanding of his faith or has lost that understanding. Or, he is simply being disingenuous in this area as well. As to the so-called naturalist fallacy re-read what I have written. Carefully. The Christers can’t prove the existence of God. Although I believe in evolution the simple fact is that I, an atheist, am unable to disprove His existence. Neither can you, assuming you’re an atheist as well. Now I can and have, here at MR, made fun of Christers when I felt they were being too obnoxious. But I recognize that faith lies at the bottom of both Christianity and atheism. Both are theology. I am not going pretend otherwise. As to the jew Popper’s rule of falsifiability, note that I have used the word “rule” and not “law. A comprehensive critical rationalism is not tenable. I’ll leave it to you to discover why. 119
Posted by anon / uh on October 19, 2011, 09:33 AM | # GenoType, That is an unsettling position. You seem to have stopped short of a full reckoning of this matter, and actually speak in the theist’s own terms — that atheism is “also faith”, I mean.
The most tenuous position to take is one located entirely within the logic of scientific method, for it will compel one, every time, to retreat into admission that “there is no absolute certainy”. It is another universalist, liberal narrative that prevents white people from breaking their own spell. Evolutionary psychology and neurochemistry are the doors marked “exit” to this pitiable maze whites have built for themselves. The Santa Claus analogy is totally apt, yet betrays the more treacherous semantic ground of the demands of scientific method in “disproving god”, in that one could, in theory, drag one’s child to the North Pole to investigate the presence of absence of Santa Claus. Yet one could also in theory drag a christer, more or less a mental child, up to the stars to satisfy them that their Heaven and God therein do not exist. Owing to the christer’s neurochemistry, heavily reinforced by the evolutionary and personal confirmation biases of faith, they will simply relocate Heaven beyond accessible space — as christers now dive to the ocean floor with microbiologists to plant their flag in hydrothermal vents as the locus of God’s fiat. This is a mental pathology, not a logical problem in which you are obliged to participate in theoretical parity. 120
Posted by anon / uh on October 19, 2011, 10:23 AM | # One more brief note about this. Let us start with the fact that “God” is a meme. As a meme, it has a history. Everything has a history. Anything purporting to have no history, but to simply “exist”, is therefore a dissimulating meme. As my great-grandfather40 Giorgias of Leontini said, Nothing exists [“ouden estin”]. By which is meant that: “existence” is the mental shadow [“logos”] of a substance [“hupokeimenon”, but not the later, Kantian elaboration], not a substance itself. This is indeed the “logic” of God as Logos. Empiricus glosses: “For that by which we reveal is logos, but logos is not substances and existing things. Therefore we do not reveal existing things to our neighbors, but logos, which is something other than substances.” “For all [10] objects of cognition must exist, and what is not, if it really does not exist, could not be cognized either. But were this so, nothing could be false, not even (he says) though one should say that chariots are racing in the sea.” Nothing is without history. Anything claiming freedom from history occurs within history, and is therefore unfree, i.e. a contingent product of the same energic plenum as everything else. 121
Posted by Graham_Lister on October 19, 2011, 02:05 PM | # Methodological individualism - the key premise of orthodox economics is not value free, nor methodologically neutral. Honestly, do you think when some economist is giving us the wisdom of his views he is not engaged in a whole series of background/implicit normative assumptions and ideological commitments? A commitment to what can easily included in a mathematical model is at its worst a profound déformation professionnelle, which excludes complex real-world phenomena that are too difficult to incorporate within rather simple models. They even think their dogmatic babbling meets the criterion of being science. Hardly. Capitalism can do wondrous things; it can also result in awful outcomes. Nothing is perfect. Is that such a hard pill to swallow? 122
Posted by TabuLa Raza on October 19, 2011, 03:20 PM | # Black school teacher fired for calling for expulsion of jew bankers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmXUtwTLcQA&feature=player_embedded#! 123
Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on October 19, 2011, 06:17 PM | #
I have plenty of rejoinder, simply because I was pegging OWS, here, for what it is long before you were. But don’t ever confuse my silence with concession. The only proper interpretation is always that I have prior commitments that are infinitely more important than you.
And so is finance capitalism. Soros? Gates? Buffett? Oprah Winfrey? The Google billionaires? Essentially all of Team Obama 2008? Hello? Anyone home???
124
Posted by Desmond Jones on October 19, 2011, 09:51 PM | #
Thank you. Understood, however the inquiry was related to the following statement:
While I’ll agree that there is no absolute proof, there is a theory that cobbles together an hypothesis that argues from a non-theological position that man transcends animals. It is not faith based but qualifies as a scientific theory because of its falsifiability. Popper initially claimed that “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program”, that is, natural selection was seen to be “almost tautologous” and at best only “a possible framework for testable scientific theories”. It was the example of ‘industrial melanism’ of the peppered moth that forced him to recant. Therefore I guess I don’t understand why you assert that there is simply no proof and that it is a matter of faith and faith alone. Regarding the naturalistic fallacy the issue was with the ought and ought not positions put forth. They impute values of goodness and/or evil that run contrary to your example of the lion and the lamb because they don’t consider the issue of a hidden assumption. I’m not advocating for slavery but for instance the hidden assumption of the general evil ascribed to slavery would be the nature of the people of the South. From an evolutionary perspective, the institution of Southern slavery was almost a perfect example of mutualism; both populations grew significantly.
Thus the belief that Bowery’s proposition of allodial human rights seems to be a reasonable compromise in order that people may experiment with different economic/political models and decide for themselves whether they are viable or not. 125
Posted by anon / uh on October 19, 2011, 11:17 PM | #
I believe I can furnish the answer, Desmond.
Of course this omits, as they always do, that a) testing is by definition unnatural, so their demand for testing is spurious and b) that natural processes in question take far longer than the human life span, hence the need arises for mosquitoes, mice, etc. and this example of fortuitous adaptation to modern conditions. They will always find an excuse because that is their semantic bias; that cannot do otherwise.
Believers and their evolution-skeptic cohort never, ever engage in evasion, you see. They are absolutely, Platonically straightforward and honorable players in the dialectical game which they themselves continually force upon scientists & atheists to suit their preconceived semantic manias. Logic fails to account for this because it is fucking one-dimensional Arab horseshit that Aryans took up uncritically leading themselves into more universalist tail-chasing. Here again this obsession with playing by our own rules, modified by a Jew (Popper), hobbles us at a critical point. A mature philosophy of science will, like the advances of behavioral finance upon rational economics, account for extra-logical input like the psychological history of the narrator / believer and his metabolic interest in pushing his semantic bias. NO “logic” has the right to make claims on realia; it serves them to a point, then ends by tyrannizing the logical into belaying acceptance of the evidence before their eyes. Example: It was pretty clear from dentition analysis that H. floresiensis was a new species of Hominin and an offshoot of Australopithecus, yet no one wanted to believe it right until Bill Jungers jigged their bones together and found they might almost have come from the same skeleton. There are theories around about ideological inertia, resistance to innovation, blah blah blah. Religious memes are just some of the most durable and entrenched. We should not allow logical conventions to handicap us in talking science. It’s like discussing immigration in a leftist’s terms — “human rights” and so on, also invented by whitey. 126
Posted by J Richards on October 20, 2011, 11:18 PM | # The malice of Haller @MOB MR doesn’t grant Leon Haller amazing space. All commenters are given the same space. Haller chooses to abuse his privilege by posting essays in comments… bad etiquette, arrogance and malicious garbage to boot. I agree with others that Haller will hang with his banking buddies. This malicious individual described the Wall Streeters as a source of wealth creation: http://www.majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/occupying_a_turning_economic_world#c115901 They only create wealth for themselves; others get debt, which is how they create money. I had a lengthy debate with him on the creation of money. Haller admitted the problems with fractional reserve banking but he proposed the gold standard which still benefits the private bankers and Jews. Just follow the comments on this article: http://www.majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/susie_green_vdare I was able to show that bankers have forced upon or taken away a gold standard to benefit themselves and have had the public’s gold confiscated to further their schemes. Haller had no reply to it but he’s back to promoting the gold standard. Jimmy Marr posted this link about a courageous black man openly blaming the financial problems on Jews: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWwK5TBcoUY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awPLi8qyNGA Now this guy’s homeless and doesn’t have much to lose. But here’s a black lady who was employed by the Los Angeles School District and she openly stated that the zionist Jews behind the financial mess need to be driven out of the country: http://www.prothink.org/2011/10/19/even-black-l-a-teacher-isnt-allowed-to-question-the-kosher-ones/ She was fired right away! That’s courage. People of different races are waking up to Jewish malice and here’s Haller defending his banking buddies and deflecting attention from them. Instead of focusing on how they create money [as debt], he digresses into government regulation vs. freedom for the market. He’ll hang with them. @Haller Behave. Post links to articles if you need to cite them or refer readers to lengthy excerpts. And you either defend the gold standard [not here but where we had the debate so it’s in context] or quit promoting it. 127
Posted by Leon Haller on October 21, 2011, 12:36 AM | # J Richards, Have you or I been commenting at MR longer? I am hardly the only one posting lengthy excerpts, and I do so when in my judgment they are relevant and really ought to be read. I will continue to do so as I see fit. Rest assured, there are far more of me out there - ie, good conservatives, who do oppose immigration as well as affirmative action, but also support private property, and have market investments which we hope to see prosper - than there are of you. Many, many times more of me than you. Indeed, even in the nationalist conservative movement (among, say, Buchananites), my ‘type’ outnumbers your ‘type’ by many orders of magnitude. And we will FIGHT for our property and govt-eviscerated investments against anarchists, socialists, and general hooligans. Make no mistake about that. So against serious men like me, it is persons like you who will hang. If the white preservation movement wants to guarantee its irrelevance, attack private property and the free market, including the retirement portfolios of tens of millions. Or join with me, and keep the focus on race, in part by spooking those of means with the spectre of socialism (whether national or communist is irrelevant, to those with life’s savings and businesses at risk). No, in the battle between white conservatism and white social nationalism (especially that tinged with weirdo conspiracist nonsense), we will crush you. 128
Posted by Leon Haller on October 21, 2011, 12:46 AM | # A little something of relevance I posted shortly ago at The Atlantic: —————————————————————————— The outrage people feel here is correct, but it is distressing to see so many economic ignoramuses. We have an unfair economy, as the OWS protesters sense, but people are (deliberately?) misunderstanding its causes. The working class, and its wage rates, have been destroyed in the US due to 4 factors: 1. mass immigration (worker insourcing) The cure to get Americans working again, and at rising wages for most people, is: a. End the immigration invasion (legal as well as illegal) NOW! American jobs for American workers! b. Change the tax code to stop favoring corporate outsourcing. This is complex, but at bottom, tax law, combined with regulatory and union harassment of business, have effectively forced innumerable naturally profit seeking companies to move plants and jobs to foreign countries. c. Abolish the Fed, abolish inherently fraudulent fractional reserve banking, return to a 100% redeemable gold dollar. This will end the boom/bust business cycle, end macro-inflation, and end monetary policy instability and ensuing financial volatility. d. Restore capitalism, or something approximating it. Massive deregulation of business, privatization of government activities and assets, radical tax simplification, total business tax abolition (to make America maximally business-friendly), unprecedented downsizing of Federal Govt: abolish Depts of Interior, Commerce (except patent Office), Labor, Agriculture (along with all farm subsidies), HUD (give title to public housing to current tenants), Energy, Veteran’s Affairs (which can be handled as previously by Pentagon), Education, Transportation (after total national privatizations of highways and airports); get rid of EPA, EEOC, OSHA, Obamacare, and much else (esp the grossly unfair EITC); begin long-term phase-out of Medicaid, unemployment comp, food stamps, federal welfare, and all other redistributionary programs except Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits; pass national torts limits. This list , particularly d., is not meant to be inclusive. But if we followed this, the US would experience one of the greatest economic booms of all time, we would get people back to work, working class wages would rise, and leftist social and/or political revolution would be averted. ——————————————————————— In what I have written above someone with brains can espy the lineaments of a Nationalist capitalism, and the beginnings of a true nationalist economics more broadly. We maximize free markets internally, for the sake of resource use efficiencies, while turning inward viz the rest of the world, which will lead to a peaceful and beneficent wealth redistribution from the financialized upper classes to the working classes - all without direct (and invariably costly and always inefficient) government intervention. The playing field can be more equitably structured, without interfering with the ‘rules of the game’. 129
Posted by J Richards on October 21, 2011, 01:56 AM | # @Haller What does it matter who’s been commenting here longer between you and I? Don’t post essays by others and lengthy excerpts in the comments unless there’s no online source. If you find an online source, link to it. This goes for others, too. Just after your reply to me you posted a comment that you posted at the Atlantic when you could’ve just linked to the article and asked us to read your comment. And again the comment’s about the same issues you’ve repeatedly posted on. Many blogs explicitly prohibit lengthy excerpts, whole articles in the comments and repetitions ad nauseum as it’s bad etiquette. In your case it’s more egregious as you deflect attention from the real issues. You can set up a blogger account in minutes and run your own blog for free or have your personal, unique white zion website for less than $5 a month, post all you want there and leave links here to your writings if necessary. Just don’t abuse the comments space at MR. What do you mean by my type? I support private property and the free market. I also prefer capitalism and a small government. And don’t bring up irrelevancies by mentioning [third world] immigration and affirmative action. See any regulars here who favor these? So why do I think that you’re malicious? I don’t want the private sector to create and control money. A government elected by the people should create money as a debt-free public utility for the exchange of goods and services, and control the money supply. The wealth remains in the hands of the public (private property in the form of goods, services, possessions such as houses or vehicles), people are free to loan, invest or bet, but they loan a dollar for each dollar they possess, invest a dollar for each dollar they possess and bet a dollar for each dollar they possess, i.e., private individuals or entities don’t create money in any form. This is the solution to the economic mess, fully consistent with capitalism and the free market. For instance, if the amount of goods and services increases, the government will increase the money supply in tandem to facilitate the purpose of their exchange, and the government is thus just in charge of the utility for exchange but doesn’t own the goods and services being exchanged and doesn’t bother with the exchange process apart from checking criminal activity. But your trail of postings deflects from this issue and you blame overspending when no amount of spending reduction will overcome a debt problem created by money being created as debt, point the finger at impotent individuals such as Obama when the bankers are running the show [by proxy], shift the blame to illegal aliens who cost us in the billions whereas Wall Street/private banking costs us in the trillions [not to mention the immigration problem they’ve created to undermine ethnic solidarity in the Western world against their schemes], and promote solutions that keep these malicious bankers in power [e.g., gold standard]. There’s much more to your malice but this is what’s relevant to the post. Either you defend the gold standard where the discussion came up, not here, or you quit promoting it. 130
Posted by Captainchaos on October 21, 2011, 03:19 AM | #
This is the most lucid post you’ve written in my memory, Richards. Is it your belief that Leon is of at least partial Jewish ancestry; and/or has family members who are of partial Jewish ancestry; and/or has business associates crucial to the maintenance of his wealth that are of Jewish ancestry? Or do you believe Leon is simply a Jewish activist on the payroll of some Jewish activist organization? P.S. The “One World Nazi Party” was a goofy idea. The kind of shit one might expect glue-sniffers to think up. LOL 131
Posted by Captainchaos on October 21, 2011, 04:16 AM | # The muted hostility couched as constructive criticism of White Americans by our British friends here is ultimately motivated by their sense that White Americans potentially pose an existential threat to the British people, as well as all Western Europeans, in that White Americans could be wielded as a weapon by America’s ruling elite against blossoming Western European nationalisms. If that is the way these Brits truly feel - and it is - then they should cut the passive-aggressive horseshit and say it openly. 132
Posted by Graham_Lister on October 21, 2011, 04:30 AM | # @Captainchaos
Could you expand upon that thought? What do you mean? It’s certainly not part of my thought process but you have piqued my curiosity. 133
Posted by Captainchaos on October 21, 2011, 04:48 AM | # Graham, what do you suppose would be the (military) response of America’s (significantly and decisively Jewish) ruling elite to Western European nationalisms which got too big for their britches? In that instance Brits may well be forced to grit their teeth in preparation for grabbing their ankles for the Russkies, the latter of which would be only too happy to lend their assistance in repelling America in return for de facto hegemony over Europe. Fire or frying pan, take your pick. 134
Posted by Leon Haller on October 21, 2011, 07:07 AM | # This is the most lucid post you’ve written in my memory, Richards. Is it your belief that Leon is of at least partial Jewish ancestry; and/or has family members who are of partial Jewish ancestry; and/or has business associates crucial to the maintenance of his wealth that are of Jewish ancestry? Or do you believe Leon is simply a Jewish activist on the payroll of some Jewish activist organization? (CaptainChaos) Where does this monumental idiocy spring from? I am not Jewish at all. I am currently studying Catholic Theology (a few Protestants in my classes, no Jews that I can tell, either among the students or the faculty). I have no Jewish ancestry at all. I do have friends and associates who are Jewish. I have been consistently fighting for the white race for many years on the net, and many decades before that elsewhere. And no, that post from Richards, at least wrt the gold standard, is nearly unintelligible. If you want to learn some stuff, read what my comments at different points above. 135
Posted by TabuLa Raza on October 21, 2011, 11:38 AM | # Monetary weenies are advocating the “Social Credit” notions of one Major Douglas. It is Keynesianism without fractional. The money supply is to be inflated for the people rather than for the rich. Douglas was an angineer. I got into a go-round the other day on TOO. It is claimed that Austrian economics is a secret front for jew scamming. It is claimed that economics is a jewish hoax(!). One poster claimed that Douglas’ ideas were diametrically opposed to Keynes’s. So I showed a seminar from 1930 where Douglas was giving instruction to Keynes. The other poster said “so what?” Gary North has been studying what he calls “greenbacker economics” for 45 years. None of the greenbackers are economists. The Brown book has become quite influential and led to an interesting war/debate between Brown and Dr. North. Bottom line- Brown threw in the towel and came out in favor of Keynesian Bernanke. The greenbackers are claiming the problem with the Fed is that it is “private”. The Austrians are also advocating a “private” system so it is equally suspect. They believe that government = public = good. The Fed should be called mercantilist rather than private. The competing moneys (Austrian) would not be crammed down anyone’s throat. Increasing the money supply as wealth increases is same idea as advanced by Friedman. It is inflation. These folks believe in the basic idea of Lord Keynes- that is is some sort of shortage of purchasing power which must be made up by government spending. This is a serious matter. There is a move for money reform by Dennis Kucinich. The Definition of Money Zarlenga claims that Austrians define money as gold, a definition that according to Zarlenga has its roots in the classical economics of Adam Smith. I’m not sure on what he founds this claim, but, obviously, it is not true. Generally, Austrians define money as a good that is commonly or universally accepted as a medium of exchange. It was the invention of money that allowed the transition from the ineffective barter economy to the dynamic indirect-exchange economy. The Austrian focus on gold is mainly due to the fact that over time the market has selected gold as the primary medium of exchange. This means that while gold can be said to be money, money is not necessarily gold. Zarlenga misses this completely. He also disagrees with the Austrian notion that money is something that arises naturally on the market. The Austrian position is supported by the fact that many things have been used as money throughout history in various parts of the world: commodities such as salt, clamshells, and animal skins. Zarlenga will have none of this. LH- see what Gary North has to say. Very interesting! http://www.garynorth.com/public/department141.cfm Austrian economics- founded by Gentile Carl Menger 136
Posted by J Richards on October 21, 2011, 05:29 PM | # @captainchaos Whether Haller’s a Jew is less relevant than his arguments and an unproductive discussion as Haller vehemently denies being a Jew whenever someone suggests the possibility. The things on record are his writings, which are what you’d expect from a malicious Jew. So I’d let you speculate on whether’s Haller’s a Jew. On the topic of whether Haller’s on the payroll of some Jewish activist organization, many Jews come to Jewry’s defense without being on the rolls of such organizations, and Jewish activist organizations sometimes employ non-Jews. I don’t know why you brought up the One World Nazi Party. It wasn’t a goofy idea but the problem was that the person who headed the organization was a mentally unstable drug-abusing person who expected the membership to support him. He launched the group with fanfare and then abruptly terminated it. The idea of people across racial and national boundaries coming together to defeat Jewry lives though and you can follow up on this by visiting websites in the genre of http://aryanism.net/ I asked you to leave your reply on the gold standard where the discussion took place so that it’s seen in context, but you didn’t. So now it’s moved: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/susie_green_vdare#c116355 Look for my reply there. Your other comments remain here. 137
Posted by Jimmy Marr on October 21, 2011, 06:33 PM | # J Richards, Thanks for the Aryanism link. I looked at it briefly and will go back to explore it more thoroughly. It seems like something that might relate nicely to Esoteric Hitlerism as set forth by Miguel Serrano in Adolf Hitler: El Ultima Avatara, which I was lucky enough to snag during the few days of its availability at Lulu. 138
Posted by Leon Haller on October 21, 2011, 06:56 PM | # Here is something the OWSer idiots really need to read: http://lewrockwell.com/rockwell/the-evil-1-percent194.html
139
Posted by Leon Haller on October 21, 2011, 07:12 PM | # J Richards is exactly the type of crank who prevents those (apparently few) of us serious about saving the white race from being able to make headway with the ideologically neutral white majority. He subscribes to a host of nutty views, and insinuates that those more clearheaded and intelligent than he can only be Jews, banksters, etc when they disagree with his inanities. More and more, I realize that what is needed is an isolating strategy of the Right. By this I mean, we need a white rights movement that emphasizes building up a mass base focused on the lowest common denominator of nationalism, which I argue is nonwhite immigration termination. The purpose of such would be not only to achieve the kind of initial victory (say, illegals deportation) that a movement needs really to get off the ground, and develop an enduring presence, but also to isolate and hermetically seal off the unrespectable fringe types who are attracted like flies to anything the liberal mainstream condemns as “extremist”. I think this is what Jared Taylor and his people are trying to do, and he is correct. However that may be, I do take solace in knowing that my views (mainstream US conservative, + initial focus on immigration, affirmative action, and negroid crime control) do indeed have that white mainstream “breakout” potential, whereas the views of Richards et al will always be limited to the fringe. 140
Posted by Leon Haller on October 21, 2011, 07:47 PM | # Tabularaza @135: Thanks for the info. These idiots are like the Nazis, who denounced “Jewish physics” (as though Jews can’t be good scientists!) instead of appropriating it. Someone like Richards thinks that because Mises and Rothbard were Jewish, therefore their arguments cannot have universal validity. I virtually never use leftist terms like ‘racism’ and ‘anti-Semitism’ as ones of abuse, but here at last is an attitude that genuinely does qualify as anti-Semitic, and morally objectionable. The mental power behind the Austrians (many of whom I have personally known over the decades) is so much vaster than that of Richards and his fellow oddwads that this type of conversation is really not worth it (which is not to say that all of them are brilliant; that is certainly untrue). I am no libertarian, and have soberly and repeatedly pointed out the flaw that many Austrians make in jumping from correct, value-free economic theory to libertarian ideology. One can be a Misesian without adopting libertarianism. That most Misesians are political libertarians is immaterial to the soundness of the Austrian paradigm. Indeed, what is so strange is that I have repeatedly emphasized my agreement with the need to develop a specifically nationalist political economics (and ultimately economy). I have merely argued that one must understand neutral economics first - ie, one must get one’s understanding of reality right - before one can intelligently set about legislatively renovating economic activity so that it both best serves white EGI, and maximizes prosperity (the purpose of economic study in the first place). Yet from that position, the idiots denounce me as a “libertarian gangster”, or a Jew, or servant of Jews, despite my disavowals (there is a parallel here with the deliberately needling Lister, who keeps trying to associate me with the most ridiculous figures in American televangelism, when my Catholicism is light years removed, both theologically as well as in intellectual sophistication, from them).. There is a profound lesson here. It is not enough for some men to be wise. The wise must also be themselves the powerful. 141
Posted by Ryan on October 21, 2011, 07:48 PM | # The Gary North is a Big Fat Idiot Page http://people.smu.edu/acambre/garynorth/ There’s Something About Gary North http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/fundienazis/gary_north.htm
142
Posted by Leon Haller on October 21, 2011, 07:52 PM | # I note that no one responds to my comment @128, which attempts actually to advance the discussion (and happens to be correct). 143
Posted by J Richards on October 21, 2011, 08:02 PM | # @Haller You highlighted the following passage in your excerpt, expressing your frustration with the Occupy Wall Street crowd.
This is pure disinformation, and you’ve undoubtedly knowingly promoted it. If you look at the history of the Federal Reserve, the first attempt, the Aldrich bill, didn’t even go to vote when it was identified as the bankers bill by Charles Lindbergh and others. So it was massive disinformation, including the new act that was supposedly in the opposite direction of the Aldrich bill, elaborate grooming of the right naive candidates (such as Woodrow Wilson) and financial panics created by the bankers that got the Federal Reserve Act passed by many lawmakers, including those not on the payroll of the bankers who didn’t know what they were approving. When some realized what they had supported, such as William Jennings Bryan and Woodrow Wilson, they deeply regretted it. Since then it’s the Fed that has created the dollar and maintained its supply (the Treasury’s minting coins hardly counts as their sum total is miniscule), not the government. The state limiting competition in banking and money is completely ridiculous. The reserve currency of the world is currently the dollar. Governments other than the American one have no say, period, and neither does the American government as the bankers run the show [by proxy]. The bankers depleted the silver money after the U.S. civil war, and caused numerous financial panics, throwing many Americans into destitution. Their purpose was to force a gold standard as gold was rare and silver relatively plentiful. The bankers had their gold standard in 1901. Then they had the gold standard suspended during major wars and people’s gold confiscated when people started hoarding gold around the beginning of the depression. When the gold standard resumed, many currencies that were formerly tied to gold were no longer tied to it, and eventually the bankers made the dollar independent of gold. Saying that the state prevents people from making gold and silver money is completely ridiculous. The American Constitution prohibits any entity other than congress from issuing money. Yet private banks create American money, which the government does nothing about because it’s subservient to and owned by the bankers. When the government arrests people who create, say, the silver dollar, it acts at the behest of the bankers who must solely be in charge of the process of creating money. To hell with your disinformation, which is precisely what reveals your malice. Don’t sum up my arguments as “that because Mises and Rothbard were Jewish, therefore their arguments cannot have universal validity.” I’ve never made such arguments. Here’s where I addressed Rothbard: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/susie_green_vdare#c111702 Notice that I addressed his main arguments first and then called him a greasy rat-faced ethnic. I didn’t dismiss his arguments because he was a Jew. 144
Posted by Ryan on October 21, 2011, 08:04 PM | # The point about “Jewish physics” was that different ethnic groups approach and go about intellectual endeavors differently. There’s nothing controversial about this to anyone who believes in ethnic and racial differences. http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Michaels-Physics.html
145
Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on October 22, 2011, 08:54 AM | #
As I promised much earlier, I now have a bit of time to waste on you Leon. I looked at your @128 post. It’s ideal. We’re still waiting for a senior member of the 1981 Reagan Transition Team to respond. “Donald T. Regan, call your office.” Whoops! OMG!! It’s 2011, not early 1981. The Reagan Administration is dusty history. The opportunities that existed then for centralized federal action are irreversibly lost. And that fossilized non-witticism from National Review is long obsolete. Everyone has smart phones and tablets. No one pages over public loudspeaker systems anymore. In my view you (and also some others) need to get one idea down. Your racial enemy is most likely correct. So-called multi-culturalism is largely irreversible. There is only one ethnic-national regime that ever managed to reverse it internally. But you reject that model, also at the behest of your racial enemy. But alloying clay and iron never works. Or has the post-Vatican II Catholic Church redacted that part too? It’s therefore past time to start looking at other models for Life. This assumes you have Life beyond your own to whom you consider you owe unlimited obligations. But you probably don’t have such. Judeo-Rothbardian libertarians claim the right to starve their own children to death if it enhances their hedonistic goals. I have previously cited Open Source Ecology: Let me add “Tiny Tech” for further ideas on how hostile “centralized economies” can be pac-manned from the bottom up. V,K. Desai has a lot of interesting ideas. They were developed in a diversity pressure cooker of a kind that we’re now entering. So they’re at least worth reading for the insights you’ll gain on what sort of future really awaits your children (assuming you have some that you didn’t starve to death or abort).
146
Posted by Leon Haller on October 22, 2011, 09:36 AM | # I need to respond at some length to GenoType, Silver, and Jrichards. I am just extremely busy now, between my continuing work and now school (not to mention discovery of a huge skunk attacking the back garden wall of my new rental home). If I can find the time ... That said, I have no idea what XPWA is talking about at #145. My comment @128 is too out of date, we needed it in 1981, something like that? (I don’t totally disagree - nb all my many hyper-realist discussions of White Zion - but we can still, in theory, end additional immigration, end further outsourcing, abolish the Fed, and downsize govt ... Ron Paul has called for 1 trillion in reduced spending for 2013 ...) Added opensource to my huge blogs file. no idea what tinytech is. I’m not a Judeo-libertarian. I support free markets, so long as they don’t harm national or racial security. If you have something to say, say it clearly, not (as is common here) through lots of allusions or (very) inside jokes or phrases. 147
Posted by GenoType on October 25, 2011, 10:21 PM | # XPWA, Last night Leon’s Mitty’esque ego took a bashing from me. His panties are in a twist about an arm-wrestling contest. Soooo, he’s out for blood ————————- On The Fundamental Theological Error of Leon Haller’s Catholic Hero, Tom Woods
Economic commentary. Wow! One might expect to hear something like that from an avowed atheist like myself, but from a genuine Catholic? Woods, a Lutheran convert, admits that he has profited immensely from papal teaching but is obviously unhappy with the papal failure to appreciate the “free” market as shaped by the “invisible hand.” And is Woods suggesting that God is the author and guiding force behind the “free” market? Why yes, he is! Here, the nominal Catholic Woods hails the Enlightenment for this great … theological … discovery by quoting the agnostic Ludwig von Mises in Human Action:
A curiously theological argument, this, in support of what is supposed to be a rigorously value-free Austrian economics. Indeed, it is the fundamental theological error of Catholic Austrians promoting this dissenting – or should I say, sacrilegious – “free” market theodicy. Presumably Woods knows something about Newton’s deistic view of the Enlightenment. Newton saw the operation of physical laws as “a power emanating directly from God,” with “Providence ceaselessly conserving and regulating the universe.” Thus Woods’ analogy between the Newtonian universe and a self-regulating “free” market, guided by principles higher than those perceivable by any human intellect, can only mean that not only is God the guiding force of the “free” market in general, but that it is God who determines prices, wages, and working conditions. Thus according to Woods’ quasi-Newtonian “laws of economics,” an employee who thinks he is underpaid and asks for a raise above the “market rate” is going against the Divine Plan. A union organized to obtain higher wages for its members under collective bargaining is engaging in an open rebellion against the Architect of the Universe! The employer who stands fast against this rebellion is acting as God’s faithful regent, defending the market against those who would lay their unholy hands upon its sacred self-regulating mechanism in order to bend it to their sinful wills! A Bit Of Woods’ “Free” Market Circularity A “free” market is good because it was produced by the Invisible Hand; the Invisible Hand is good because it produced the “free” market. But why go in circles? Let’s cut to the chase: A Bit Of Woods’ “Free” Market Tautology A “free” market is good because it is the free market. A Bit of Ayn “Alice Rosenbaum” Rand Tautology Existence exists! (Sorry, I couldn’t resist. Can’t you just see that bitch screaming this from her grave?)
148
Posted by GenoType on October 25, 2011, 10:35 PM | # Haller the Catholic vs. Haller the Austrian Haller fails to recognize the conflict of moral theology between the Austrians and his (alleged) Catholic Church, between the views of Mises and jew Rothbard and the teachings of Leo and Pius and all of their successors. Matthew 6:24 “No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other.” 149
Posted by danielj on October 26, 2011, 12:04 AM | # Thus according to Woods’ quasi-Newtonian “laws of economics,” an employee who thinks he is underpaid and asks for a raise above the “market rate” is going against the Divine Plan. A union organized to obtain higher wages for its members under collective bargaining is engaging in an open rebellion against the Architect of the Universe! The employer who stands fast against this rebellion is acting as God’s faithful regent, defending the market against those who would lay their unholy hands upon its sacred self-regulating mechanism in order to bend it to their sinful wills! Sadly this is the position of one of the last rigorously Calvinistic denominations in the States; the Protestant Reformed Church. They told me I would have to give up my Journeyman Card to become a communicant member of the Church. A Bit of Ayn “Alice Rosenbaum” Rand Tautology Existence exists! (Sorry, I couldn’t resist. Can’t you just see that bitch screaming this from her grave?) 150
Posted by Silver on October 26, 2011, 05:58 AM | # Leon,
Nah, just Silver will do. I’m not kidding, either. You’re absolutely correct that any halfway informed reader, or even any merely halfway open-minded reader, would almost immediately agree that you’re being subjected to some very bizarre forms of attack by people whose own point is rather obscure and whose understanding of the issues being discussed isn’t as apparent as they might think. (Obviously I’m excluding myself here.) If it helps any, I’ll admit that not only was I surprised by the lack of evidence of any substantial empirical superiority of free markets, I was also rather disappointed—I just plain like the idea of some pointlessly angry would-be revolutionary like GT (who thinks he has a right to extort money out of his employer) being put in his place by forces beyond his control (and let’s not even mention the OWS excrement). So it’s not that I have any moral qualm with your promotion of the market. It’s that I believe mild leftist (or maybe ‘centrist’) allowances can be made at no great cost and at no risk of bringing things in general to a grinding halt, whereas you seem enraged by the thought. 151
Posted by Leon Haller on October 26, 2011, 08:16 AM | # Silver, I’ll reply when time permits. At so many places, even just here on this thread, I expressed my fundamental position re political economy: eg,
152
Posted by danielj on October 26, 2011, 01:54 PM | # Japan: Refutation of Neo-Liberalism http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/10/japan-refutation-of-neoliberalism/ 153
Posted by Captainchaos on October 27, 2011, 01:05 AM | # Richards, I will not pretend to fully grasp your clearly idiosyncratic understanding of those things racial other than to say you apply logic rigorously to things which are, um, often unseen by your fellow White racial preservationists. And just as we do not see all that you see, there are things which we see that you do not see. For instance, to remove National Socialism from its historic existence as an ideology of Germanic life and supremacy and to attempt to stretch it so far as to encompass our stalwart solidarity with Third World peoples, united only on the basis of defeating Jewry, is a thing which can only be perceived as farcical by thinking men. It projects not the seriousness suited to a grave and lamentable task but a laughing stock. I can appreciate what I presume to be your Christian sense of brotherhood with all people, save Jews, regardless of their ancestry. But your “One World Nazism” can hardly be said to be its finest expression. 154
Posted by Captainchaos on October 27, 2011, 01:13 AM | # I wouldn’t worry overmuch, Leon. GT is only “6’5”” when he rears up on his hind legs. (Just kidding, GT. No need to get your panties in a twist.) 155
Posted by Silver on October 27, 2011, 10:54 AM | # Leon,
Ten years ago, at a more idealistic age, I would have agreed unhesitatingly. And if there was nothing else to go on—no data—except ethical and economic arguments I’d still agree. The fact they had so little data in the past is one reason, I think, to be cautious when passing judgment on bygone eras. But we’re in the enviable position of having reams of data available and it behooves us to pour over it to see what it may have to tell us. In addition to the Maddison data that I’ve suggested you acquaint yourself with (not least because it empirically overrules some of your more scathing remarks like “complete economic failure”), please peruse this spreadsheet I have prepared: http://uploading.com/files/2219188c/U.S.+Econ.Bus.Gov.+Numbers.ods/ (That’s Open Office file and I think some of the formating gets mucked if you open with Excel). You’ll find data all the commonly quoted economic data there (GDP, growth, inflation, unemployment, debt), but it’s made more interesting by presenting it all side-by-side and stretching it back to 1955. Also included are less commonly quoted data like total Fortune 500 revenue and profit, Fortune 500 revenue (ie Big Corp) as a proportion of GDP, corporate profit margins, federal revenue and fed revenue as a proportion of GDP; all of this also back to 1955. The beauty of looking at the data this way is that it allows you to consider the sort of policies that were pursued at the time and seeing how they played out in terms of ‘the numbers.’ And it allows you to get creative. For instance, you’ll notice that that the revenues of Big Corp represented a growing proportion of total GDP up until 1980 or so. The big policy initiative back then was of course the ‘supply side revolution.’ After that date, Big Corp’s revenues represented a rapidly diminishing proportion of GDP. An example of ‘pro growth’ politics clearing the path for up and coming companies to prosper? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it’s certainly an example of quantification’s tendency to spark hypotheses that Maddison mentions in the passage quoted earlier. Of course, there are already plenty of econometrists out there doing much more sophisticated hypothesizing (of questionable value, imo) but that doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t look at data and see there isn’t some way it can help us better sense of the nature of things. Lastly, a few words about eugenics. I suggested that a simple way to allay dysgenic concerns would be to continue to pay welfare but to pay more for forgoing children. It may not sound like much, but it’ll either have the intended effect or it won’t. I happen to believe it would but I could certainly be wrong. Even if I am, I remain convinced that soft-pedaling it is the best way to approach it. (Already happening, anyway, with things like ‘genetic counseling.’) When the eugenics revivalists hit the scene back in the 70s and 80s their attitude was ‘drop everything, this is the most important thing you’re ever going to hear.’ In hindsight, it’s hardly any surprise that their approach failed to get anywhere—where’s the constituency for being told you’re a worthless piece of genetic gunk whose line needs to be discontinued? At least by soft-pedaling there’s the chance that the ever elusive ‘critical mass’ could get behind on the basis that it’s not necessarily something they have any personal interest in, but as a policy matter it’s either worthwhile or crucial. Curious to hear what you think.
156
Posted by J Richards on October 27, 2011, 04:34 PM | # Haller’s malice TAKE ...
So Haller blames it on Obama, who had nothing to do with the stimuli or bailouts except promoting and signing what the bankers asked him to do. Considering that the only money created by the American government comprises of coins minted by the Treasury, how is it able to stimulate an economy or bailout banks to the tune of hundreds of billions or over a trillion dollars? Borrow money and thus add to its trillions of debt! Obviously, one doesn’t have to be a free enterpriser to predict failure in this case as this is simply a scam to get the government, and thereby the people, more indebted. But Haller makes it look like the blame rests with government intervention in the market. 157
Posted by J Richards on October 27, 2011, 04:49 PM | # Removing National Socialism from its context?@Captainchaos On the topic of removing “National Socialism from its historic existence as an ideology of Germanic life and supremacy and to attempt to stretch it so far as to encompass our stalwart solidarity with Third World peoples,” you’ve got a couple of things confused. National Socialism wasn’t an ideology of Germanic life but of German life. Germanic pertains to the Nordic people who were found in many nations, and a large number of Germans weren’t Germanic. National Socialism wasn’t an ideology of supremacy. It’s summed up in 25 points, specified as a temporary measure. Read about them [annotated to explain the context]: http://www.majorityrights.com/uploads/NSDAP-25-points.zip Points 1-3 pertain to post-WWI Germany, the demands of a people who’ve been starved, forced to lose territory and treated as lesser beings. The idea behind them is of general applicability. Points 4-6 pertain to citizenship and immigration. Points 7-8 pertain to the problem of foreigners in a nation that’s unable to feed its citizens, a proposal pertaining to Germany’s starvation problems during WWI and its aftermath. The principle applies to other nations. Points 9-10 pertain to the rights and duties of citizens, of universal applicability. Points 11-12 pertain to money and banking, of universal relevance. Points 13-17 involve nationalization of important business affairs till the people are empowered and the bankers vanquished. This was the part most likely to be of a temporary nature. Whereas I prefer capitalism, small government and minimal governmental interference in the market, it’s obvious to me that the bankers can’t be defeated overnight, and that the path to their defeat will involve harshly dealing with them, which few entities other than the government are capable of. The ideas are of general relevance. Point 18 pertains to the punishment for bankers, swindlers, etc…. of universal relevance. Points 19-22 pertain to the well-being of the people. The ideas, in general, are of universal relevance. Point 23 is about the freedom of the press. Reading it out of context would suggest that it’s about restricting free speech, but it was about undermining Jewish control of the mainstream media and ensuring that they don’t regain control. This is of universal relevance. Point 24 is about freedom of religion, which’s of general relevance except for Islamic countries that don’t like other religions flourishing in their midst. Point 25 is about a strong central government for the duration that it takes to bring about the changes [vanquish the bankers and other malicious agents], which is of general relevance. None of this had anything to do with supremacy. The only thing approaching supremacy was the concept of the Herrenrasse, but this was an ideal for people to achieve, not something that existed, and distinct from the NSDAP program or the reasons for its necessity. As during WWI and Weimar Germany, many of the world’s ills today are similar to the suffering of the Germans and caused by Jews. So there’s hardly much out of context in conceiving of a modern one-world national socialist party today, set up as a temporary entity to vanquish Jewry. The few parts of the NSDAP program that wouldn’t apply would be those specifically pertaining to German citizenship and German immigration policy, but the basic idea of nations controlling who they alow to immigrate and regard as citizens will apply. 158
Posted by danielj on October 27, 2011, 05:30 PM | # So Haller blames it on Obama, who had nothing to do with the stimuli or bailouts except promoting and signing what the bankers asked him to do. The very Obama, who was in fact, installed by the bankers. 159
Posted by Leon Haller on October 28, 2011, 06:11 AM | # Silver, You are owed a response from me. Please check back occasionally over this weekend (not before Saturday, USA time/date). JRichards, You are really obsessive. One question: Ron Paul, who authored End the Fed, and is a leading anti-Fed, hard money man, wants a gold standard (what he appropriately calls “sound money”). Is he an (unwitting?) agent of the banksters, too? 160
Posted by Leon Haller on October 28, 2011, 06:27 AM | # anon/uh, Somewhere around here you asked me for some economics book recs. Tough call. Best place to learn real econ is with the voluminous materials at Mises.org and the Independent Institute (also good is the stuff at Liberty Fund). For particular items: Start with the classic Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson. Despite being praised forever for having been well-written I thought it was a bit boring (which says something about pure economics: it ain’t history or literature). Another simple collection is Mises, Planning for Freedom and other essays. Reisman, Government Against the Economy is also straightforward and useful. Then move to the somewhat more sophisticated Hayek, The Fatal Conceit. If you want to understand pure theory in depth, read Rothbard, Man, Economy and State. I prefer the 2 vol ed, as the inclusion of Power and Market makes it much more controversially libertarian. But that may be how it’s sold at present. What else? Want to get really hardcore? Read the gigantic tome by Reisman, Capitalism, and then the greatest work of all, Mises, Human Action (which is much more than an economics treatise). Some variations are the works of Wilhelm Ropke, such as A Humane Economy. Conway, A Farewell to Marx, is an excellent short dissection of that hoary heresy. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, is deep and interesting. Belloc, The Servile State is well worth reading, especially by Christian anti-capitalists. If nothing else, read Hazlitt, and you will never respect anti-market quackery again. 161
Posted by Leon Haller on October 28, 2011, 11:46 AM | # I missed this gem:
(JRichards)
Of course. Of course, there used to be a place for persons like this. It had rubber walls, and attendants in white labcoats ... 162
Posted by Leon Haller on October 28, 2011, 01:02 PM | # Silver, See my comment again @100. One quick thought: real economics is not data-driven. All the classical economists understood that. Data alone is meaningless without the proper interpretive framework. Anyway, briefly skimming some of these exchanges on this thread, I am amazed that there is such virulent disagreement with me. I am really coming to understand why WN never gets anywhere politically, despite the outrages perpetrated on whites. There is something morally rotten at the core of WN. These people are like high-IQ Negroidal gangbangers (isn’t that what the Nazis were?). No wonder they hate and mock my Christian ethical commitment (not that I’m any sort of thumper; I swear, booze and have ‘lived in sin’ much of my life). These are basically evil or deranged souls who want to build up their own power or at least egos by parasiting off the legitimate grievances of oppressed white people. Isn’t that what David Duke did? He impugned his own reputation with needless tax evasion and criminal financial improprieties (and the gambling charge was true; I have a WN friend in Vegas who saw Duke twice at the tables, losing heavily). What these people fear is their own perpetual marginalization- even from their own cause. To repeat: a lot of WNs are bad (as well as maladjusted) people, who nevertheless see a road to influence for themselves precisely because the mainstream is so brainwashed on racial matters, the one area where the WNs are correct (at least in the broad sense that race differences are real, whites are victimized, Jews have too much media and political power, and the West is dying out). Many persons here over the years have appreciated my comments, though most of those have now left MR. As so often happens with WN endeavors, the bad drive out the good. But what the remainder fear in essence is the possibility of my approach stealing their thunder. Imagine you could start to convince millions of decent people that nonwhite immigration must end, affirmative action is wrong and unfair, races differ in IQ and behavior, and social policy must be race-realistic. Who would need WN? Basically, racial conservatism has the potential really to catch on among whites. But where would that leave the White Power types? Out in the cold, as always. 163
Posted by Silver on October 28, 2011, 02:52 PM | #
That’s a pretty dismissive response to what most people would regard as being close to the crux of the issue: does a certain economic concept deliver the end product promised? (How else are we to know unless we look at data?) Sadly, it’s an attitude all too typical of the classical economists. I think von Mises himself is on record as disdaining the very attempt to measure gross output; just set the correct policies (as dictated by him, of course) and let come what may. That’s not an attitude that will fly in this day and age. Moreover, I don’t really care what the classical economists thought. They were ideologues for the most part. The reason I recommend The Origin of Wealth is that it’s a very clear and compact summary (though it’s not only that) of the latest growth research that demonstrates convincingly how off base certain core classical assumptions are . To stick with those assumptions simply because they’re mathematically “elegant” seems daft to me, considering the important ways they fall short in modeling the way the world really is. It’s incredible the religious zeal some approach economics with. I don’t just mean their propensity to “have (blind) faith” that their assumptions are true (although they certainly have such faith). I mean the vision they have of the better world to come that their economics promises that is “religious.” It propels them forward and causes them to not only disregard and dismiss confounding evidence but to question (and outright deny) the moral worth of people who bring that evidence to light. “Data-drivenness” provides a way out of the endless war of words (and worse) that ensues. Whatever you think of Keynes, his excellent question “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” is, to my way of thinking, the optimal attitude for approaching not only economics but life in general. When it comes to classical economics, there’s very little question to me that “the facts have changed”—not completely changed, but changed enough to warrant a refined approach.
Good grief, needlessly impugning his reputation equates to parasiting off legitimate grievances of oppressed white people? What I think Duke’s example illustrates more than anything is the propensity of WNs to savage their own leaders over mere imperfections. Hey, WN or not, politics is politics, so this is merely to be expected. But the sapling requires nurturing while it grows into a tree capable of withstanding the forces of nature on its own. WNs’ pettiness too often nips promising efforts in the bud, or else makes it all too easy for those opposed to do so (for all the sorts of reasons you mention, and I would add many others besides). As you know, I’m no WN (and diverge widely from WNs think race “means”), but at at the end of the day race is too important to pretend that it’s not important, it’s too associated with all manner of general life goods to ignore it or to try to make it go away, so there’s nevertheless really no alternative to learning from past mistakes and pressing on. If WNs won’t join you—and they won’t; just look at the reactions to you—press on regardless. 164
Posted by joe on October 28, 2011, 04:52 PM | # @LH If I’m not mistaken, you’ve described yourself as “Aryan” on this website in the past. To the average person out there, you’re as much of a lunatic as JR is, you know. “One quick thought: real economics is not data-driven. All the classical economists understood that. Data alone is meaningless without the proper interpretive framework.” What a profound statement lol. Silver, are you an econ major or just a non-ideologue with an interest in the subject? Because you’re one of the few people on here that make sense on econ topics. 165
Posted by Leon Haller on October 29, 2011, 05:14 AM | # The statement the idiot Joe quoted is precisely correct. To mock it shows a complete lack of understanding of the subject. Even in the natural sciences (which economics is not - that Genotype keeps imputing that view to me is all the proof needed that he actually has never read the methodological works of Mises, though he feels free to criticize Mises ... and then has the gall to accuse me of bad faith!), theory usually precedes data gathering (though the data in turn will often modify or even overthrow the initial theory). Pure economics is really a kind of branch of logic, yet with crucial applicability to the real world - thus, incidentally, making it a bridge over some Kantian difficulties, by giving statements both logically valid and necessarily true wrt the world. Mises was one of the great geniuses of the ages for his theorizing of praxeology. Silver, Briefly, I don’t recall your mention of Origin of Wealth, though from Amazon’s description, it looks interesting - though also somewhat tangential to economics proper. Econ growth evolves from scientific advance, from increases in man’s control over material reality (at its most general). I’ll reply to you this weekend. I can’t believe you’re defending anything Keynesian. People never learn, and have this infinite belief in the meliorist power of political activity, no matter how repeated the failures. Why don;t you read this short piece from yesterday’s WSJournal?
166
Posted by Graham_Lister on October 29, 2011, 08:31 AM | # Haller sounds like some Marxist hack - observations are always ‘theory-laden’ in their jargon. The career of Charles Darwin would suggest that data collection and observation preceded any theory building. Darwin spent years observing and collecting data upon the diversity of life forms on Earth. The question ‘how does one account for all this diversity of forms’ came after noting that real phenomenon not the other way around. That’s the overwhelming way it works in the history of science, not the other way about. Sure the science behind the periodic table predicted elements that at that point had not been observed but anyone would acknowledge that in its ability to track real-world phenomena chemistry is rather more robust than economics. And furthermore the periodic table has not conjured up in the absence of real-world data and observation but as a response to it. Back in the day people observed a big yellow thing that appeared regularly in the sky - they then proceeded to have lots of ideas as to why it did and what it meant - again not the other way about. Science is simply the application of the question ‘why did X occur’ but X has to occur for the question to be posed. Of course once a hypothesis has been formulated one can test it further by making additional observations etc., but in the dialectic between confirmation and refutation empirical data is primary. Real-world phenomena must always be able to trump a persons cherished thoughts about how the world ‘ought’ to be. If your hypothesis/world-view is immune to falsification then we move into the realms of pseudo-science and a ‘theological’ style discourse, which is fine if it is recognised as such. Of course one problem with such discourse is in being set up to be immune to any real-world test the discourse can rapidly lose any connection with a rational and sober interaction with reality as it actually exists. Take transubstantiation as an example. In terms internal to Catholic theology no doubt there is a baroque ‘sophisticated’ account of this idea. But take a step back to look at it from outside. How does this discourse connect with what we know of chemistry etc., and the Catholic position looks like absurd magical thinking dressed up in massive amounts of sophistry. The Catholic chit-chat is a non-reality based discourse. Its foundations are unsupported no matter how spectacular the structure build upon them appears to be. The difference between the magical thinking of the Voodoo ju-ju man and the Jesuit is one of rhetorical grandeur and finesse not of kind. Equally one could cite the wilder excesses of Marxist theory, liberal political philosophy and so on as being of a similar ilk (only partially reality based at best). Or even the simple example of the conspiracy theory fruitcake who upon being offered devastating evidence against his position will response with “you would say that if you’re part of the conspiracy and you must be peddling false evidence”. At that point sensible and mature people then know that the conversation cannot usefully be carried on (if for no other reason as it would be a massive waste of time and effort to debate such an intellectually dishonest person). 167
Posted by J Richards on November 05, 2011, 02:23 AM | # @Haller I’ve told you many times that it’s bad etiquette to post articles in comments when they’re available online. Link to them. Yet, again, you posted the WSJ article on why Keynesians keep getting it wrong [@ 165]. Here’s the link, which’s all you needed to post. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204777904576651532721267002.html This isn’t your platform. Feel free to post whatever you want at your own website, but comply with self-evident rules of commenting etiquette here. BTW, the posted article again reveals your malicious nature, on the topic of which I’ll be back. Next entry: The good bishop and the killing of God Previous entry: Suicide Watch - The Diary of an Anti-Racist |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 08:54 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:41 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:18 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:53 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:48 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:47 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:32 AM. (go) (view) Guest commented in entry 'The Torment of the Mulattoes' on 05/24/12, 06:17 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/24/12, 03:05 AM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:31 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:03 AM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:08 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 09:13 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:47 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) 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 |
Thought I’d give him more to “refute.”
Posted by Leon Haller on October 11, 2011, 09:08 PM | #
“We are called socialists.”
If the shoe fits ... EXTERMINATE THE FOOT WEARING IT!
Actually, I think this evil OWS movement of multicultural communists will have two wonderfully invigorating effects: first, it will help to remobilize good Middle American Tea Party types, who may have found their energy flagging in recent months; and second, it will marginalize all the various “anti-capitalists of the Right” (racialists and Christians), as those of us white Americans who also have direct personal stakes in the free enterprise system start getting aggressive in its defense, and telling those who want to look for Third Ways, or to incorporate social (read “socialist”) justice into critiques of the multiculti NWO, to go join the ‘diverse’ rabble and public union goons in downtown NYC, and stay away from the True Right.
In the USA, white Americans bankroll the PC dispossessionist regime. We don’t have to, and now white America is hurting economically as never before in my lifetime. Do not fuck with a man’s woman, or his property. The war that is coming will pit the heavily white private sector, against the parasitic and disproportionately nonwhite public sector.
White Capitalism v Multicultural Socialism.
No middle ground, no Third Way. You are with us, or against us.
I have been waiting for this conflict all my life.
Yes!