Posted by DanielS on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 13:00 | #

We actually talked for quite a bit longer both as recorded and non-recorded. GW is a bit too modest I believe, and might just as well have made this into three half hour files, thereby including more of what he had to say, which was interesting as always.

The way that the second part leaves off with me horning in, and Anthony not having a chance to say “thanks and til next time”, is a bit embarrassing (I meant for him to have the last word and just wanted to sneak in my own thanks) but thankfully GW and Anthony are gracious folks who have already agreed to take this conversation to more depth after having successfully established the nub of it here.

I can agree and would not care to dispute unequal outcomes and rewards, some people being wealthy and some having not much disposable income is not necessarily wrong at all. Some people should have more reward than others, can even be much more.

I can agree to Migchels aspiration for a usury free system but I wonder about a certain philosophical underpinning.

That is, the concept that people, in their working, are necessarily doing the world a favor in their work and therefore necessarily deserve additional reward is problematic on a couple of levels.

First, they might be largely contributing to a line of causation which is destructive.

Secondly, they might be contributing to the facilitation of a system which is destructive.

Third, they may have their “work” largely because they are obnoxiously competitive, self righteous, all big ego and sharp elbows irrespective of the quality of human relations.

...not to mention the classic complaint of unjust nepotism.

Finally, the concept of people who are doing nothing or appear to be doing nothing can be deceptive as well. There can be parasites and pernicious free riders yes, and they ought to be held accountable and put to work or expelled. However, there is the matter of place holding of evolution, of unused potentiality for change (human capital which an impervious causality of “work” can destroy), which may at times in the cycle of an authentic life or evolutionary system, not be enormously productive but rather using its capital, genetic, personal and family savings, to leverage its concentration on the resolution of hard social problems and the symbiotic facilitation of a good life for self and others, particularly of our people (HGI) to whom we have a historical debt - that is, circumspection can be an accountability that is not expressed in elbow grease. It can look like “sitting on your ass and doing nothing” to the casual observer, but may rather be an unwillingness to facilitate the ship in its heading toward the ice berg; rather preferring the redirecting of its course.

More, I wonder how Migchels system would work with Bowery’s citizen’s dividend?

Would not the taxation of those who have more property than they need be a sort of payment for their leisure? And would not the non-taxation of the homestead of those who have less along with the dividend that they would receive be a fair platform for their diligent labor, such that they are not absolute slaves to grunt work, but free ultimately to be at relative ease or to strenuously pursue finer ambitions as they might be inclined?

That is to say, a system such as Bowery’s, inasmuch as membership is contingent upon genetic legacy, would not be susceptible to run roughshod over human capital (nor over tribal territory), the value of which is counted more in historical units than in evident material productivity during the life span.

Posted by Anthony Migchels on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 13:17 | #

Let me elaborate on a couple of items you brought forward here Daniel:

- Wealth inequality.
I’m, like you, not at all against wealth inequality, which will always be a fact of life: some people are more talented, harder working and in total more productive than others. Some people actually have a desire to accumulate riches, most don’t.

Capitalism equates making money with lending and speculation with making money by labor and production. That’s the whole issue: no more unearned incomes (Usury and associated rents and speculation), go do something that actually creates something.

- The Citizen Dividend is fully doable (and much easier financed) in a Usury Free economy, but it would be superfluous: people would be working much less and making much more, without money scarcity, everybody will have reasonable employment. They would maintain full control over their own production.

Thanks for the interview, was great!
Anthony

Posted by Dude on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:21 | #

Great choice, correspond with AM from time to time of FaceHugger. Just don’t get him started on the woman issue! As I have discussed with him, it’s an intriguing time when the nationalisation of the money supply is now talked about in the leading British financial newspaper, by their main (Jewish) economics writer who is a very well-connected Bilderberger, Martin Wolf. AW believes this is down to the continuing ability to charge interest (usury) on loans made. I wonder what else is bubbling there.

Posted by Dude on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:22 | #

His blog, linked in his name above, is worth a visit.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 20:59 | #

Daniel, you are right that I probably over-pruned the raw file; and it does show at the end - my apologies for that.  However, we’ll endeavour to do a smoother job all round with a further conversation with Anthony in a couple of months.  As for this one, the meat of the interview is in Anthony’s replies, and those were not edited.  They were also very interesting - Anthony has a most refreshing take on the Money Question; and he speaks about it with great conviction and fluency - the latter amazing in someone not speaking his mother tongue.

Posted by hefty on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:29 | #

Guy is economically illiterate. “Interest” is the price of money, the price to forego immediate consumption. It is not only the heart of capitalism, it is the heart of the modern, industrialized economy, which itself is necessary to support the scale of human life on Planet Earth today.

The fact that Jews are better at middlemen activities does not mean those activities serve no purpose, though a lot of Jewish activities are parasitical, like all the useless American lawyers. What Aryans need to do is learn to be better at those activities than the Jews.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 02:16 | #

I respect the framework of David Harvey on questions of political economy (which I think is far more developed and robust).

I’m sorry but the outlook described by the person interviewed by MR seems to have far too many tones of the usual conspiracy theory crap (which is the go to ‘explanation’ of every crankpot on the planet it seems). And I find religious people - especially those involved in non-liberal politics - do tend ultimately to be driven by, frankly, quite barmy theological nonsense (thus are not terribly serious figures). That might not be the case here but I’m putting it out there as something people should keep in mind.

Let alone the tired Hayekian anti-government/state nonsense. Does anyone need another 10th rate Nozick? Try Schmitt (via Hobbes) instead on the state for starters. Let alone the basics of inclusive fitness theory/evolutionary game theory (i.e. the need for groups to have mechanisms to punish free-riders etc. but also mechanisms to promote group cohesion). Group selection is very much part of modern evolutionary biology - see the Price equation.

The way to limit the abuse of collective power (all power is open to abuse of course) is not to abolish it (which is impossible) but to make such collective forms of power radically accountable to those ‘under it’.

It’s radical deepening of democracy and popular power - way beyond the pathetic banalities of liberal democracy. Simon Critchley has written conceptually interesting things on the complete bankruptcy of liberal democracy - both ethically and politically - and the need to move radically beyond its exhausted paradigm (which is becoming a terrible and deeply unfunny joke). See his “The Faith of the Faithless: Experiments in Political Theology” and his earlier, partially excellent, work “Infinitely Demanding: Ethics of Commitment, Politics of Resistance”.

Naturally nearly all American’s think their liberal consitution the ‘event horizon’ of political wisdom - can anyone imagine an American politican daring to negatively critique the Founding Father’s wisdom? No of course not. Water, fish and the inability to see the Grand Canyon (one for GW there.)

BTW the phrase “the ethics of commitment and the politics of resistance” would make an excellent motto for the ‘new’ MR imho.

Critchley gives a very interesting account of how ethical and political subjectivities are formed - a topic that strangely goes far beyond getting down to one’s local mega-Voodoo emporium of metaphysical buffonary for the vulgar ‘I talk to supernatural entities/personas’ show. Anyway I’m getting off topic somewhat.

I wish people could talk/think in far more rational terminology/terms - i.e. game theory and co-ordination issues (the ‘tightness’ of co-ordination within different interest groups etc).

The reality of both intra and inter group competition and co-operation (as well as general individual competition obviously) is the right starting point for any serious account of political economy. But I don’t want to get into issues of methodological individualism/reductionism versus ontologically stratified accounts of social realities (or reality in general) right now but really it is very important to get the starting assumptions/ontology right (or perhaps less wrong might be the more appropriate term) if one is to do any form of serious political thought.

One cannot think outside of liberalism by thinking only within its ontology and conceptual boundaries. An error which sadly made again and again by many commentators at MR.

However, we can say this - multi-culturalism/diversity is a CLASS issue (it negatively effects the native working class far more quickly and far more negatively than upper middle-class nitwits that like lots of diverse restaurants). Let alone the third world - under globalisation/the multi-cult - representing a massive “reserve army of labour*” in order to keep we native plebs in our place - as good little workers/consumers all ‘happy’ to eat shit sandwiches indefinitely (one of which is a massive redistribution of wealth upwards across the Western world - and Haller et al., this pattern of increasing economic inequality/wealth redistribution upwards within the USA et al., is a well established, robust, and empirically grounded observation).

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour

But questions around money and the precise form that money takes (and by extension social power and power over resources) are very interesting. And of course all political thought is concerned with power - who has it and how is it to be used and in whose benefit. Finance and the ability to print money is a deeply political issue (especially important in the rise of the early modern state in Europe) - not some uber dry merely ‘technical’ issue with a ‘politically neutral’ answer. Nothing within politics is genuinely neutral as any good Schmittian (or indeed Marxist, or indeed anyone that is a genuine political animal knows). Only really idiotic liberals think their politics represents ‘neutrality’.

Returning to Harvey he has suggested some form of time-limited money etc., but has many interesting things to say about the nature of neo-liberalism - including what Harvey dubs the “state-finance nexus”.

http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=10801

http://davidharvey.org/2009/12/organizing-for-the-anti-capitalist-transition/

“Capitalism in the last 200 years has proved itself by far the most dynamic and productive economic system known to history, but the wealth comes at a price, both for human beings and increasingly for the natural environment . . . The gap between what labour was earning and what it would spend was covered by credit. The average debt of per household, including mortgage repayments, was $40,000 in 1980. By 2007 it was $130,000. Getting this debt down and restarting the economy is a huge task.

Harvey is pessimistic that growth can be restarted without the infliction of quite unimaginable hardships on the many of the world’s poorest people. Capitalism [neo-liberalism] survives by socialising losses and distributing gains to private hands.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/the-enigma-of-capital-and-the-crises-of-capitalism-by-david-harvey-1958010.html

Ain’t that the truth.

Thus any attempt at an ultra-Hayekian, uber individualistic, and ideologically fanatical free-market ‘nationalism’ (i.e. Haller’s crap) is incoherent nonsense and self-deafeating politically.

All the Goldman Sachs/plutocratic strata care for is money, money, and more money (for themselves both as individuals and as a specific group - or dare we say it class?) and damn any toxic externalities (social, cultural, environmental or ethnic/communal) - which they can, at least for now, buy their way out of in the new ‘global village’. Isn’t this obvious for anyone with a pulse and a meta-political IQ above room temperature?

A couple of more starting points.

http://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/david-harvey’s-the-enigma-of-capital-and-the-politics-and-the-crisis/

Accumulation by dispossession - a concept presented by the Marxist geographer David Harvey, which defines the neoliberal capitalist policies in many western nations, from the 1970s and to the present day, as resulting in a centralization of wealth and power in the hands of a few by dispossessing the public of their wealth or land.[1] These neoliberal policies are guided mainly by four practices: privatization, financialization, management and manipulation of crises, and state redistributions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulation_by_dispossession

Please try to play the ball and not the man - you know the typical MR nonsense of Harvey reads Marx seriously ergo is ipso facto wrong and ‘evil’ - it’s so anti any form of intelligent thought as to be asinine in the extreme.

Even people one may ultimately disagree with (in part or in whole) can say quite interesting and often truthful things.

Analytical acuity is not the unique gift of one ideological faction.

If there is one book people should be reading it’s David Harvey’s “A Brief History of Neoliberalism” - even if one disputes every single word of it his account provides much food for thought on the political economy (neo-liberalism) that is at the ideological and political heart of the latest phase of our present epoch (hyper-liberal modernity).

However it does not give the cretins favoured monocausal ‘explanation’/‘answer’ to all questions much play. But if one is of that view then reading anything that’s intellectually serious might be too much of a stretch anyways.

Ok rant over - sorry in advance for any typos etc.

If this is a double post someone can delete one of them but the site ‘ate’ my first attempt apparently.

 

Posted by wobbly on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 03:36 | #

@DanielS

I can agree and would not care to dispute unequal outcomes and rewards, some people being wealthy and some having not much disposable income is not necessarily wrong at all. Some people should have more reward than others, can even be much more.

Concentration of wealth will have an effect on how money circulates.

Example

Society 1)
Mass of poor people and a handful of rich = very large numbers with very low disposable income and very small numbers with a very large disposable income

Society 2)
Large middle class = large numbers with moderate disposable incomes

So it’s not just a question of right and wrong. There will be an optimal distribution of wealth for the maximum amount of circulation. Who knows what that is but i’m gonna guess (2) is most likely.

.

@hefty

Guy is economically illiterate. “Interest” is the price of money, the price to forego immediate consumption. It is not only the heart of capitalism, it is the heart of the modern, industrialized economy, which itself is necessary to support the scale of human life on Planet Earth today.

Nah, technology did that.

 

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 03:51 | #

Wobbly said:

Concentration of wealth will have an effect on how money circulates.

Example

Society 1)
Mass of poor people and a handful of rich = very large numbers with very low disposable income and very small numbers with a very large disposable income

Society 2)
Large middle class = large numbers with moderate disposable incomes

So it’s not just a question of right and wrong. There will be an optimal distribution of wealth for the maximum amount of circulation. Who knows what that is but i’m gonna guess (2) is most likely.

Good point. Well articulating an important matter of what might be said after the mere acceptance of some unequal outcomes. No argument.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 19:15 | #

Greg Clark argues that economic/social policy will have little or no impact…

In “The Son Also Rises” he argues that social mobility is low everywhere and always will be, and there is nothing society can do about it.

Mr Clark draws upon research that uses surnames to track status over centuries. The academics he follows have mined sources as varied as the Domesday Book, the Royal Society’s records, even membership of the American Medical Association, in order to find surnames that are over-represented in elite positions. Researchers then track how long it takes those monied surnames to lose their wealth-predicting power.

With surprising consistency across countries and eras, mobility is found to be painfully slow. Birth has predicted more than 50% of one’s income or education status, Mr Clark reckons. Erasing the legacy of past prosperity takes 10-15 generations rather than the three or four implied by sunnier estimates. So the shadow of 18th-century wealth still darkens income distributions today.

That is the most unexpected finding. Efforts to democratise education and eliminate discrimination over the past century appear to have had no discernible effect on mobility, leading Mr Clark to conclude that mobility is strongly linked to underlying social competence—an “inescapable inherited” trait. Only the intermarriage of people who are more prosperous and educated with those less fortunate will dilute the genetic resources of well-off families, slowly pushing them back towards the average and preventing the rise of a permanent overclass.

http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21595396-new-study-shows-just-how-slow-it-change-social-class-have-and-have-not

Posted by L. Jon Hubbard on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:31 | #

Graham: “I’m sorry but the outlook described by the person interviewed by MR seems to have far too many tones of the usual conspiracy theory crap (which is the go to ‘explanation’ of every crankpot on the planet it seems).”

Some sort of crime is indispensable to any conspiracy and hence, to any conspiracy theory. Mr. Migchels did not accuse anyone of any crime. Your facile dismissal of everything he said might hold ever so slightly more weight if it weren’t false on its face.

Posted by Dude on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 21:45 | #

far too many tones

etc.

Flatulent waffle and the usual over-extended name-checking as a substitute for content.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 01 Jul 2014 05:17 | #

Posted by Graham_Lister on June 20, 2014, 09:16 PM | # 7

“If there is one book people should be reading it’s David Harvey’s “A Brief History of Neoliberalism” - even if one disputes every single word of it his account provides much food for thought on the political economy (neo-liberalism) that is at the ideological and political heart of the latest phase of our present epoch (hyper-liberal modernity).”

Graham, thanks for the advice. I have started in on this book and it seems that you are quite right that it lays out issues in a way that provide for clear perspective on some basic ingredients of concern. Through this, one can see more clearly some of the origins embedded in pervasive liberalism.

Posted by anonymouse on Tue, 01 Jul 2014 16:05 | #

It doesn’t get any better than this!

Notorious gas bag Graham Lister checks in to MR and peddles jew inspired propaganda written by the well known Marxist, David Harvey….....and whatdayaknow? DanielS swallows it hook, line, and sinker.

Why am I not surprised?

Keep up the good work, guys. Y’all are a blast.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 01 Jul 2014 18:46 | #

I didn’t swallow it hook, line and sinker anonymous. I acknowledged that Harvey is laying out some relevant ideas. Graham made the same point. You don’t have to agree with it (“swallow it hook, line and sinker”) to find it useful to clarifying one’s own position.

We’ll be having a ball here, anoynmous, thank you.

Care to tell us what economic theory you subscribe to, anyonymous? And how it will serve the interests of native European peoples? All ears.

‘til then, speaking for myself, I could live with various economic theories, from a bit more “free enterprise” to a bit more “socialism” provided the racial borders are established and secure. Moreover, I anticipate that different states within the Euro-DNA Nation will have different biases.

Posted by hefty on Wed, 02 Jul 2014 10:37 | #

Harvey is indeed a Marxist. Marxism today is without any redeeming value (if it ever had any). It exists as another set of excuses the net effect of which is to transfer wealth from whites who work to nonwhites who do not.

Lister clearly views liberalism as the enemy, not the nonwhite invasion. If nationalist economics is what is wanted, go back to Werner Sombart and the German Historical School (the self-styled “intellectual bodyguards of the House of Hohenzollern”).

Given that modern Euro-states have been “conquered” by ethno-alien and native-alien (race traitor) elites, why would anyone want to give yet more power over the economic lives of whites to those in control of the states?

The governments of modern white nations virtually everywhere are the enemies of their white subject peoples. Therefore, weakening those states’ holds on their subjects is more useful than already thoroughly passe neo-Marxist analyses of no-longer existent capitalism.

Posted by hefty on Wed, 02 Jul 2014 11:13 | #

The struggle becomes more pointless by the day. Out here in the States all we’re doing is marking the days until our downfall. Ok, so it looks like we stopped the Amnesty for this year, unless Obama goes wild with executive orders, as he’s threatening (but the good aspect of that is it generates massive Republican Congressional resistance, and thus marginalizes the traitors, like Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, etc). At this point, I doubt there will be an Amnesty this year.

But what about after the mid-term elections? Or after Hillary gets elected to the White House? The damage has been done. The USA is less than 60% white, due to massive immigration since the late Sixties, and that % is continually falling, even without more immigration (and there are millions of legals still pouring in every year).

Sure we whites have to fight our dispossession as best we can, for as long as we can. How hard is it to vote every other year? Even just voting for a sh——Republican is still better than voting for any Democrat.
And the quality of Republicans is actually slightly improving.

But already any serious effort by individuals to actually fight the racial situation seems pointless. It’s funny because right now we’re having an explosion of white nationalist writing and the permeation of white nationalist ideas into harder-line conservative writings. Among whites, there is more understanding of the evils of immigration than at any time I can remember - and I’m old enough to recall when the USA was 90% white. (Amazing how long it takes for a phenomenon to finally wake the masses up.)

But it’s not happening fast enough. By the time enough whites finally decide they’ve had enough immigration, there will be too large a bloc of Democrats (who now rabidly support immigration, unlike in the 19th century) in league with Cheap Labor Republicans for conservative Republicans to be able actually to stop the invasion. We could defeat Amnesty forever, but the racial transformation marches ever forward.

If our race is to survive, it is up to Europeans themselves to make the sacrifices. Will they? I don’t know any Europeans, so who knows, but the outlook is not promising.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Jul 2014 13:57 | #

Posted by hefty on July 02, 2014, 05:37 AM | #

“Harvey is indeed a Marxist. Marxism today is without any redeeming value (if it ever had any). It exists as another set of excuses the net effect of which is to transfer wealth from whites who work to nonwhites who do not.

Lister clearly views liberalism as the enemy, not the nonwhite invasion.”

Nobody said Harvey was Not a Marxist and advised that he be read in order to agree with his conclusions but rather to derive benefit from clarity in the issues he parsed.

Lister views liberalism as the enemy and he sees non-White invasion as a consequent of its policies.

Even Harvey lists the Jewish names of the Austrian school as being the key proponents of neo-liberalism -  hostile outsiders/elites who have consolidated wealth unto themselves, usurped and re-directed the power and vested interests of the native European states in favor of corrupt private, corporate and state power.

Migchels also sees a place (even) for the state in national defense of the borders.

Posted by Anthony Migchels on Wed, 02 Jul 2014 18:25 | #

At Hefty:

Guy is economically illiterate. “Interest” is the price of money, the price to forego immediate consumption. It is not only the heart of capitalism, it is the heart of the modern, industrialized economy, which itself is necessary to support the scale of human life on Planet Earth today.

No, it’s the other way around: you are an economic illiterate, as are all the ‘economists’ out there, from Austrians/Neo-liberals to Keynesians to Marxists. Totally under the sway of that ridiculous pseudo ‘science’ economics, which happens to have ‘the time value of money’ as its central tenet to explain why everybody benefits if the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Here’s a political econonomically literate analysis of what Capitalism actually is:
http://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2014/06/05/capitalism-is-jewish-usury/

And here a comprehensive and clear cut rebuttal of ‘the time value for money’ bullshit.
http://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2013/12/11/rationalizing-usury-the-time-value-hoax/

And here, as a little reminder, what is the actual reality behind the sweet words of ‘price of money’ and ‘free market capitalism’.
http://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/ten-atrocities-that-would-not-exist-without-usury/

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 03 Jul 2014 07:46 | #

Adding to my first comment above

Third, they may have their “work” largely because they are obnoxiously competitive, self righteous, all big ego and sharp elbows irrespective of the quality of human relations.

...not to mention the classic complaint of unjust nepotism.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 09 Jul 2014 12:48 | #

repeat comment

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 09 Jul 2014 12:56 | #

I’ve add this comment to the main post of “standing corrected on liberalism”:
http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/standing_corrected_on_the_its_more_than_that_to_liberalisms_definition

However, it - 

http://age-of-treason.com/2014/07/08/yockey-on-liberalism-part-6/

- bears as comment here since one of the salient points of Yockey in part 6 of Tan’s reading suggests an integration of GW’s and Migchel’s concerns. Specifically, that while Yockey would challenge Migchel’s presumption that power corrupts of itself, he would agree that as a tool of Jewish/Money interests, it would, in fact, do so - viz. money power corrupts to runaway, though not exactly those concerned with the state (one would look to the German industrialists, Dysan’s and Krupps as corruptors of German NS - and how Hitler did not see bounds drawn by the state, but by the power of nation as “a people” - becoming a corruptably unbounded phenomenon)

The monetary side of man is not bound (delimited and accountable, as I would normally say) by his clear and prominent representation of state interests as the statesmen is; by contrast, his corruptors, the money powers, thrive anonymously and better, beyond the limits and forms of state interests. In fact, while those state forms exist as a means of accountability and have representatives, the money interests are motivated to promote corruption of these state loyalists, buying them off as politicians and promoting liberalism to the masses to rupture limits and expand their wealth. This would connect with the quote from Rothschild that Migchels cites as key - “give me control of the money and..”

Posted by Guest Blogger on Wed, 03 Sep 2014 19:59 | #

Anthony Migchels interview with Plane (Paul) from the Plane Truth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww0OPmqrurc#t=5941

1 hour and 40 min.

Posted by Robbot on Sat, 11 Oct 2014 18:25 | #

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2014/10/the-internet-of-chains.html

“Its worth thinking about these alternate value systems in terms of ethnic genetic interests.”

- JB