|
|
|
Nazis and Chinese, Palestinian Jews and Americans by Alexander Baron Back in the 1990s I spent a considerable amount of time reading the entire backfile of the Jewish Chronicle for the Nazi era, mostly but not exclusively at Colindale. Although I skimmed over a lot of the advertisements and local news, I read and took in most of the significant stories from 1933-45. Actually, I went back to the 1920s and beyond, and forward into the 1950s and beyond the other way, but the story with which I am concerned here appeared in the issue for October 25, 1935. On page 9, an editorial called Scrap the Transfer Agreement! made one of the most bizarre claims against the Nazis I have ever seen. No, it had nothing to do with “gas chambers”, not at this early date, nor with pogroms, nor was it the usual whining and wailing about how wonderful are the Jews and how everybody has it in for them. No, it was something much more profound than that. The wicked Nazis were accused of engaging in a most sinister plot to undermine Palestinian Jews … by subsidising them. Here is the offending paragraph:
I found the above passage so bizarre that I had to re-read it several times. We all know the Nazis had it in for the Jews; let’s leave World War Two out of this. Jews were progressively excluded from the professions; they were subjected to social ostracism; anti-Semitic propaganda … but the one “crime” of which the Nazis were surely not guilty was subsidising their colony in Palestine. What is a subsidy? Broadly speaking, a subsidy is a sum of money paid by a government to a body – a company, an institution, etc - in order to reduce the price to the consumer or user. However, the word can be used in a broader sense. For example, some companies subsidise their staff canteens, or offer their employees special terms for certain of their products or services – a staff discount. One of the many complaints levelled against supermarkets today is that in some instances they sell alcohol below cost in order to attract custom, ie they subsidise it. Subsidies are widely perceived to be unfair, but never – be it noted – by the party who receives the subsidy, unless the subsidy is considered to be too miserly. The one exception appears to be the Jews of then Palestine. Or that was then; the other night when I tuned into a current affairs programme I was greeted with the spectre of an American politician whining in similar vein, this time against the emerging Chinese colossus. This story has in fact been running for some time; last October, the Washington Post – and doubtless many other American newspapers – ran a story about the Obama Administration launching an investigation “into whether the Chinese government improperly supports its alternative energy companies”. A subsidy is by definition something that is given free to one party – in this case to American consumers who are buying Chinese goods. The downside is that subsidies do not materialise out of thin air, otherwise every government could subsidise everything, and we would have Paradise on Earth. But who is paying for China’s subsidies? The Chinese taxpayer. Right? So why are American politicians and economists complaining instead of Chinese taxpayers? Every cent of the subsidy to American consumers – whatever Americans are buying from China – comes out of the pocket of China’s citizens. How much is this subsidy? Five percent? Ten percent? If it were a hundred percent, they would be giving away goods for nothing. Would the Obama Administration complain about that? Presumably. In their perverted Alice-in-Wonderland world, totally free Chinese goods would cost American jobs. They don’t stop to consider the reality that the money American consumers save by buying quality Chinese products can be spent on other goods, or invested. I say “they” don’t stop to consider the reality, but perhaps “they” do, depending on who “they” are. Back in the 19th Century, the French politician Frédéric Bastiat (1801-50) wrote a surreal satire on tariffs and protectionism called The Petition Of The Candlemakers; let’s leave aside the surrealism, and substitute something we call all understand – including our simple-minded politicians. Back in the 1990s, a certain Bill Gates set up a foundation to promote – among other things – global health. Suppose instead he had decided to concentrate on abolishing urban poverty in America, and to this end he had bought up tens of thousands of acres in and around America’s great cities, and turned them into allotments. Then, instead of building a half billion dollar campus and staffing it with highly paid academics – as he has done – he had staffed these allotments with volunteer gardeners, who would grow and distribute food to the poor people of these areas absolutely free. Would this constitute unfair trade? Who do you think would complain? Or – approaching the surreal – imagine Bill Gates or some other innovator was to develop a source of free energy, a wonder machine that defied the law of conservation of energy, and churned out enough energy to heat and power the average suburban home. Then he began producing these and distributing them to home-owners and tenants alike for free. Wouldn’t this damage the American economy in exactly the same way as, for example, subsidised, or even free, Chinese coal? Such a practice would certainly damage someone, but whoever is the bad guy in the looming trade war with China, it is certainly not the Chinese. Comments:2
Posted by Alexander Baron on Thu, 17 Mar 2011 10:42 | # You’re making all the wrong arguments. China does not pay slave wages, that’s why we have so many Chinese tourists in Britain. Of course there should be protection for the environment, but it wasn’t the Chinese that stalled environmental protection, it was the Americans. Why should you need money if people give you everything for free! Check out my satire on new technologies - the second link is the spoken version. By all means oppose oppressive governments - starting with our own - and environmental despoiliation, but for the right reasons. And one other thing, don’t fall into the habit of thinking that everything the self-styled global elite wants for us is bad. That’s a bit like opposing vegetarianism because Hitler practised it. 3
Posted by Helvena on Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:08 | # Alexander the population of China is 1.3 billion, those you see in Britain are a very small portion of them. To the extent that a country isn’t self-sufficient it is weak. Globalization is nothing more than a concentration of power. I doubt very much if the Chinese feel enrich by having Starbucks or McDonalds and I can certainly can do without the merchandise of Walmart. 4
Posted by Lurker on Thu, 17 Mar 2011 18:01 | # I tend toward Helvana’s view. British visitors to China are more typical of British people economically than are Chinese visitors to Britain. 5
Posted by Alexander Baron on Thu, 17 Mar 2011 20:19 | # So explain to me how buying a better product at a cheaper price - subsidised by Mr Wu - is unfair to the American consumer? If you are genuinely concerned about human rights in China, that is another matter. What they’ve done in Tibet is nothing to what we did to Iraq. 6
Posted by danielj on Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:00 | # So explain to me how buying a better product at a cheaper price - subsidised by Mr Wu - is unfair to the American consumer? It isn’t about fairness but when the American consumer, because he lost job, has to take out a line of credit on his overpriced house to buy a bunch of those inferior, unsafe, or irradiated Chinese products, we can know that we shouldn’t expect the economic future to do anything but deteriorate by changes in relative advantage. Although, what really disturbs me about the article, is the underlying subtext that we might “released” from work in some sort of final orgasm of free energy on the way into the (non) Worker’s Paradise. Work is good. Real work. There is no such thing as a “knowledge” economy. 7
Posted by Helvena on Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:30 | # “...buying a better product at a cheaper price” - Nothing I have bought from China was made better in China than it was in the U.S. or Europe, in fact it can be argued that most things are made worse. And if one adds up all the energy that goes into producing, acquiring and discarding a cheaply made product I wonder if it is cheaper to society in the long run, certainly at the point of sale it appears cheaper. 8
Posted by Alexander Baron on Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:56 | # You condemn yourself out of your own mouth. If their products are such crap, why buy them? 9
Posted by Helvena on Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:28 | # Because you can’t find them made in America anymore. Loss of jobs is loss of production. Check out the textile industry Changing trade regulations are the single most important factor influencing future employment patterns. Because the apparel manufacturing sector is labor intensive, it is especially vulnerable to import competition from nations in which workers receive lower wages. In 2005, quotas for apparel and textile products were lifted among members of the World Trade Organization, including most U.S. trading partners and, in particular, China. Although some bilateral quotas have been re-imposed between the United States and China, the expiration of quotas in 2005 has allowed more apparel and textile products to be imported into the United States. Because many U.S. firms will continue to move their assembly operations to low-wage countries, this trend is likely to affect the jobs of lower skilled machine operators most severely. It does not, however, have as adverse an effect on the demand for some of the pre-sewing functions, such as designing, because much of the apparel will still be designed by American workers. (for how long? H.) 10
Posted by GT on Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:30 | #
Alexander Baron sounds like the typical Amway Silver Distributor or Rush Limbaugh fan. The Chinese upper-class is comprised of the Party and sycophantic ass-kissers in the “business community.”
Retailer Squeezes Its Asian Suppliers to Cut Costs By Peter S. Goodman and Philip P. Pan SHENZHEN, China—Inside the factory, amid clattering machinery and clouds of sawdust, men without earplugs or protective goggles feed wood into screaming electric saws, making cabinets for stereo speakers. Women hunch over worktables, many hands bandaged and few covered by gloves, pressing transistors into circuit boards. Most of the 2,100 workers here are poor migrants from the countryside who have come to this industrial hub in southern China for jobs that pay about $120 a month. A sign on the wall reminds them of their expendability in a nation with hundreds of millions of surplus workers: “If you don’t work hard today, tomorrow you’ll have to try hard to look for a job.” ————————————
AP)—Foxconn workers in China will get another pay raise in coming months, on top of an increase that just took effect in response to recent worker suicides, the company said Sunday. Taiwan-based Foxconn Technology Group said salaries would be raised in October to 2,000 yuan (US$293) for workers at its plant in the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen. Workers elsewhere in China will get raises in July adjusted for local conditions, the statement said. Less than a week ago, the maker of iPads, iPhones and other electronic gadgets for international companies had raised workers’ pay by 30 percent at its plants across China. The basic salary at Foxconn’s China plants was about 900 yuan ($130) per month before the 30 percent raise, and new recruits are paid 1,200 yuan ($176) per month. ————————————
By Kathy Chu, USA TODAY For years, foreign companies have contracted with Chinese suppliers to make products, drawn by the low-cost labor. But as local Chinese governments raise minimum-wage requirements — and workers clamor for higher salaries — it’s becoming more expensive to do business in the country. ——————————
Yang Lingchang squeezes off a final photo in the courtyard, then heads for the exit with the rest of his group. It’s Day One of a six-day tour of Thailand, and Mr. Yang of Beijing isn’t quite sure what’s next. “I just follow the guide,” he shrugs. Off to the side, Wang Xiongcai has slipped off his shoes and sits down on a wall, waiting for his group to finish inside. Back home in Hangzhou, it’s close to freezing, so he’s forked out $425 “to go somewhere warm.” It’s his first-ever foreign vacation, but he seems unfazed. “It’s the same when you travel to another part of China and the customs are different.” Armed with the spoils of an economic boom, millions of Chinese are traveling abroad for the first time, ready to soak up the exotic along with the familiar. And they’re able to visit more countries as Beijing relaxes its rules on foreign travel. In September, 25 European countries were added to its list of approved destinations, though the US is still off-limits. Around 30 million Chinese took foreign vacations last year… “They’re not very cultured, and they’ve just started making money, so when they leave their country I’m afraid they act like big shots,” says Ren Jingli, a Beijing travel agent who escorts groups to Thailand, Singapore, and Malaysia. 11
Posted by GT on Fri, 18 Mar 2011 18:07 | #
Comes from the pockets of China’s citizens? Are you fuggin’ kidding me? Contributions from China’s citizenry is in the form of long hours, high levels of coerced manual production, subsistence wages, sexual services, lost fingers and eyes, divide & rule managerial techniques, etc. With 1.3 billion citizens there is an endless supply of this. The money comes from China’s rulers, with the cost passed along to America’s debt-ridden “consumers” and China’s “Asian suppliers.” American investment houses don’t pay a dime. 12
Posted by Matra on Fri, 18 Mar 2011 18:58 | # Nothing I have bought from China was made better in China than it was in the U.S. or Europe You’re forgetting all that tainted Chinese toothpaste that had to be seized a few years ago. Sure it was toxic but it was cheaper and that’s all that counts. Just ask Lew Rockwell. Don’t forget the Chinese pet food that saved you money that had the added advantage of killing your pet thus saving you even more money in the long run! Personally, I love my shrimp with unhealthy levels of antibiotics and so what if their tyres cause ‘blow-out’. Life is full of risk. Get over it. 13
Posted by Alexander Baron on Fri, 18 Mar 2011 23:01 | # These are all valid points, but they are nothing to do with subsidies. If Chinese workers are being “oppressed” to lapse into left wing vernacular, that is a human rights issue, etc. If American companies are distributing goods which are not of marketable quality or are outright dangeous, then they should be fined heavily, and/or their directors sent to gaol. This is a health and safety issue. If Chinese manufacturers begin raising their prices, no doubt American companies will look a lot more competitive. 14
Posted by RS on Sat, 19 Mar 2011 01:16 | # I don’t see this as too odd, especially considering the great need of Germany for foreign currencies at that time, and the ideals of zionism - which was supposed to make the Jew into a regular boyo, muscular and tanned, capable of defending himself, thus whole… capable to excellent across the complete spectrum of human affairs. Here would make loans to his own, his ethny, who would not suspect or resent him. (And nor, perhaps, would he be tempted to trade horses too sharply.) So he would live in harmony. I understand that the leading zio-thinkers considered the diaspora to have infortunate effects on the Jewish persona and life, but also even admitted that it wasn’t necessarily all that stellar for the Eurochthons in Germany and such, either. Anyway, like all new set-ups “Jewish Palestine” wasn’t much at the beginning. And I have heard trade non-absolutists (ie, those not absolutely classical-liberal, such as Pat Buchanan) claim that every new industrialization project, when starting from a poorly industrialized state, chose to ‘use protection’ if you will. That doesn’t prove that they benefited from protectionism, but it should shake one’s faith in the absolutist position. I have my doubts about the absolutism - at any rate, treating the non-absolutists like aneuploids, as “everyone” always does, seems not warranted. I’ve got a soft spot for “those Jews of not-so-ancient days”, the zionist philosophes - they were for Eurochthon-Jewish separation, they were ethno-preservationist, they didn’t insist that Jews were “a light unto” the Eurochthons. 15
Posted by The Monitor on Sat, 19 Mar 2011 01:33 | #
In America, we have no choice. Everything is made in China. If I want a lamp or a radio or a razor that is made domestically, I have to visit an antique store. Quality is no longer an issue with merchandise, only price. So the mass population winds up herded into Wal-Mart, while white elites shop at upscale stores with higher prices.
The Chinese conned a Canadian factory into thinking an industrial chemical was wheat gluten. When the scandal broke, the Chinese had a hard time understanding why people were bent out of shape about dogs and cats. There’s a book on this called “Pet Food Politics” by Pet Food Politics: by Marion Nestle. The good thing about these scandals is that many people distrust food products imported from China. Yet the problem is that modern manufacturing is at the point where certain ingredients in processed foods can ONLY be purchased from the Chinese! 16
Posted by RS on Sat, 19 Mar 2011 01:36 | # > So explain to me how buying a better product at a cheaper price - subsidised by Mr Wu - is unfair to the American consumer? Part of it is that consumers aren’t everything. We are all producers as well. With $1,000 and no job, I can keep consuming for a couple more months but I won’t be celebrating. Another part is that it doesn’t hurt to have very-high-tech stuff going on in your country. What happens if the Japs are a little better at making advanced electronics cheap, but we are a little better at making advances? If we aren’t doing any of the manufacturing over here because the Japanese outcompete us or because the Chinese dump exports, we won’t be making those advances. But it’s true that protectionism should probably be limited (if any), especially seeing we are already insdustrialized and competitive.
I don’t think that’s very significantly true unless you are very very export-dominated. But it could be a little true. And of course on the other side, if you lack something important, like oil and iron ore in Germany’s case, you don’t have much power unless you are prepared to secure a foreign supply by whatever means might prove necessary, or create a substitute. I’m not sure but Russia might be one country whose power is somewhat limited by lopsided dependence on exports. But the amount of power that this sutracts is pretty limited, because after all people need those goods. 17
Posted by Robert Reis on Sat, 19 Mar 2011 04:08 | # http://kennysideshow.blogspot.com/ Friday, March 18, 2011 One might think that with Japan’s technology prowess they could have supplied their own security cameras at their nuke plants but no, it was outsourced to Israel. Given that Israeli firms were in charge of security at the airports on 9/11, at the Amsterdam airport where they let the ‘underwear’ bomber get on without a passport, Russia’s Domodedovo Airport 24th January 2011 when bombs blew off, Amdocs putting ‘backdoor’ spying software into most of the phone systems in the U.S., Jonathan Pollard and the multitude of other Israeli spies arrested but most let go, etc. etc., one might assume that those in charge of sensitive areas would think twice about Israeli security. No, apparently there’s so few who have the ‘expertise’ of the Israelis that we give them the run of the house. An Israeli company, Magal Security Systems-owned in part by the government of Israel-is in charge of security for the most sensitive nuclear power and weapons storage facilities in the United States. Not only does Magal provide security for American nuclear facilities, but it also does likewise for most major nuclear facilities in Western Europe and Asia. In addition, the Israeli firm also provides security for Chicago’s O’Hare Airport and, for the last fifteen years, has kept watch on the Queen of England’s famed Buckingham Palace in London. What’s more, Magal provides security for 90% of the American prisons that utilize electronic systems. Magal brags that its other clients around the globe include: borders, airports, industrial sites, communication centers, military installations, correctional facilities, government agencies, VIP estates and residences, commercial buildings and storage yards.{more} 18
Posted by Robert Reis on Sat, 19 Mar 2011 04:10 | # TEPCO Director Weeps After Disclosing Truth About Fukushima DisasterSubmitted by Tyler Durden on 03/18/2011 14:13 -0400
. 19
Posted by Philipe Junot on Sat, 19 Mar 2011 05:11 | # Why is it that all nations ( that is nations that count) have israeli firms for their airdromes, nuclear facilities and other fundamental entities to the state ???. Is it because the locals are incompetent, short of intelligence, low IQ’s, or because their government are beholden to the internationl jewry power fulcrum ??? Chinese tourists are the vanguard of the massive chinese immigration to the west. A typical case in question to ponder and reflect. A European city main avenue or important commercial street has shops and businesses occupied by the local citizenry. Suddenly one chinese shop appears ,then another, then another, a chinese business appears ,then another ,then another. The local citizenry can not afford the rents in the street in question. How is it possible that the chinese are able to afford the sky high rents in that street , how is it possible that the chinese are able to open businesses as the locals close down shop one by one ??? and their former premises get taken over by the chinese ?? Simple. All those chinese shopkeepers, shop owners are subsidized by the Chinese state. 50% of their rent is paid for by China overseas business fund. How do the chinese manage to obtain Shengen permits ??? Easy and simply. In Turin Italy there is a massive industry of chinese organizations, mafias, who concentrate on the issuing of ” fake ” Shengen permits. A chinese national , after careful scrutiny, is given this permit, and then he dissapears to Salonica, Belgrade, Budapest or Spain, ariving as a ” genuine” Shengen resident he proceeds , with the financial backing of his Nation, to buy , open businesses and premises at will. Do not be taken in by chinese tourists, they are the tip of the Chinese immigrant spearhead. In Spain , near Barcelona one has what might be the largest Chinatown in Europe. In 1985, not one chinamen could be found in that area , today you have a 90000 strong community in a perimeter base. One does not have to speak Spanish or any other than chinese in that perimeter . Regular inflows from China alight in Barcelona’s chinatown; it is a flight from home to ” home”. 20
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 19 Mar 2011 06:04 | # Mr. Baron, like so many neo-liberals, is deeply confused - but then, so are many of the respondents. The free market is the most efficient wealth generating, and fairest wealth allocating, mechanism. But corporations exist within a larger framework of competitor nations, civilizations, and races, as well as biological and ultimate ecological constraints, which themselves cannot be analysed by mere microeconomic measures. [I wish I could access my old comments on this site, as I have explained all this before here.] As Notus Wind has properly explicated here at MR, China’s recent economic successes have been in some part due to short term exploitation of their natural environment, both in terms of renewable and non-renewable resource depletion, as well as environmental pollution (though we shouldn’t exaggerate this eco-parasitism, as I believe NW did). Much of China’s success is also due to their essentially fascist economy. That is, they have sought, with considerable success, to combine capitalist calculational efficiencies, the real source of capitalism’s success as a system (the real sources of the West’s past economic supremacy were its relatively high racial IQ, especially disproportionate at the “genius end”; relative lack of centralized governments, at least compared to much of the rest of the planet; emphasis on individual worth as well as worldly achievement (which may be a source of weakness in a globalized age); development of science, the mother of the Industrial Revolution; martial supremacy, leading to successful white acquisition of new territories, as well as colonialist exploitation of nonwhite territorial resources; and of course, capitalism itself), with central state direction of capital allocation. Consider how powerful this system could be if applied even to today’s multiracial (and thus less efficient) America. First, we tell the enviro wackos to get lost, and proceed to exploit the hell out of our natural resources, with no concern either for ultimate sustainability, or current pollution. We develop and utilize our enormous coal resources; build nuclear power plants; drill everywhere we can for oil; and put profits before people’s health. That alone would hugely increase our real GDP, at least in the short term. Second, we basically force consumers to save enormous amounts of their incomes. How the Chinese do so is more complicated than I either fully comprehend, or could explain here. The Chinese economy is very complex, even though ultimately all key decisions are made by the CCP. In essence, the party creates conditions for artificially high savings rates (ie, a savings rate beyond what Chinese workers themselves could be expected to choose under a reasonably free, consumer society), and then does not allow for very much capital to be allocated to the production (or foreign import) of consumer goods. The CCP has obviously made a collective decision to force their workers to place industrial expansion ahead of their own material quality of life. Imagine if we did this in America. That is, if government forced everybody to save even 20% of their incomes (I’ve seen some estimates suggesting that Chinese save as much as 40% of their incomes, and this from an income level a fraction of that enjoyed by Americans and Britons), while directing the bulk of that accumulated capital to be put into industrial expansion, instead of into basic quality of life services for the people (like health care, education, housing, environmental protection) - and all the while making it difficult for the people themselves to ‘waste’ money on frivolities, consumer pleasantries, vacations, leisure activities, etc. Just think about how much money Americans spend on entertainment, health care, general education (a total waste from an economic standpoint), maximal environmental protection, ski vacations, interior decorating, oversized homes, fashionable clothing, hi-tech “unnecessities”, etc ad infinitum. And then imagine all the monies so spent being ploughed into export-oriented industrial manufacturing, which itself is done in dirty, dangerous ways, where there are few to zero occupational safeguards, as in Mao’s “Worker’s Paradise”. (It goes without saying that the Chinese don’t waste money and energy on endless civil litigation of all types, anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action for low IQ races, etc.) You don’t think the US would start kicking serious economic ass? I don’t advocate this track, at least not in toto. I like environmental protection, and a decent quality of consumer life. On the other hand, we definitely need a lot of change, or, under the status quo, we will continue our economic and ultimately strategic descent (this quite apart from the racial disaster). There is no mystery to Chinese success, or to Western decline. The Chinese did it for themselves (though they were able to parasite off mostly Western-originated and developed industrial and commercial practices, which we could have exploited to ensure white domination of the planet forever, except that we were undone by collective racial hubris and stupidity, in the form of the world wars, Judeo-Bolshevism in the East, Judeo-Menshevism in the West, and our partly liberal/Enlightenment, partly Jewish, and partly Christian inspired racial self-abnegation, which is now reaching lethal/suicidal proportions). The West did it to themselves. 21
Posted by Rod on Sat, 19 Mar 2011 20:36 | # “Stuxnet” cybervirus found in Japan: http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T101004003493.htm Stuxnet targets Siemens controllers: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html Fukushima is run on Siemens software. Remember that the first problem following the quake was that the automated shutdown systems failed to operate at some of the reactors, because pumps failed and valves would not open even while running on batteries; the very sorts of mischief Stuxnet supposedly was designed to cause at Iran’s power station. 22
Posted by Sam Davidson on Sat, 19 Mar 2011 23:22 | # The bombardment of Libya has begun. Happy Purim! 23
Posted by Christian M on Sun, 20 Mar 2011 01:34 | # People are not goods and services. The free flow of people across national boundaries is very different from the free flow of goods and services. These types of “libertarians” have been thoroughly Judaized, and I’m afraid Mr. Baron exhibits these symptoms, although I am quite certain he is not aware of it, and with proper reflection, he will retreat from his “free trade” enthusiasm. Another useful distinction: residence is not the same as nationality. Many, many “free trade” “libertarians” actually believe in border magic. They truly believe that once a Nigerian enters Ellis Island, or a Paki touches ground in London, that this artifact of the Third World will magically overcome his genetic endowment, morph into a First World, civilized, and intelligent citizen, and seamlessly integrate into the fabric of our Western World. They really believe that! Seriously! You can see a bit of this logic with the pleas for providing “a path to citizenship” for “undocumented workers” (illegal aliens/invaders). As if getting them the right paperwork will negate their pollution of the nation’s gene pool. Having a little bit of integration is like being a little bit pregnant. Look at Portugal. At one time it had a 10% Negro population, then that population disappeared. Where did it go? Hint, hint. Now, Portugal has long since lost its colonies, has produced little to nothing since its moments of pure European greatness, and has one of the lowest IQs in its European area. Integration, such a deal! Mr. Baron, please consider precisely what is being “traded for” when you advocate absolute free trade. The typical “free trade” rhetoric talks up the benefits, but says absolutely nothing about the negative consequences. 24
Posted by TabuLa Raza on Mon, 21 Mar 2011 00:08 | # To the editor ... Prompted by Mr. Fields’s observations, I’d like to recount a little bit of what libertarians used to publish in their newsletters and magazines: In the May 1970 issue of The Individualist, Murray Rothbard published his broadside against what was then called “women’s lib.” (I think they call it something else now.) It remains one of MNR’s most unpopular essays. In anticipation of the backlash, The Individualist published a notice reading in part, “Women. Rothbard is right…. With society in the grip of every sort of insanity, let’s not let female beauty slip away. Show how you feel. The Individualist is making available, free of charge, ‘Rothbard is right.’ buttons. Send for yours today.” In the December 1973 issue of Books for Libertarians (Roy Childs, editor) was published a favorable review of Genetics and Education by Arthur R. Jensen and I.Q. in the Meritocracy by R. J. Herrnstein. The reviewer was Hans Eysenck. In the April 1974 issue of Books for Libertarians (Roy Childs, editor), Murray Rothbard published his favorable reviews of The Inevitability of Patriarchy by Steven Goldberg and Sexual Suicide by George Gilder. In the August 1974 issue of Books for Libertarians (Karl T. Pflock, editor), Hans Eysenck published an essay review (favorable) of John R. Baker’s Race. In the January 1975 issue of Libertarian Review (Karl T. Pflock, editor) was published an essay review titled “A New Look at the Zionist State of Israel,” discussing Peace in the Middle East by Noam Chomsky, Whose Land Is Palestine? by Frank H. Epp, The Israel-Arab Reader by Walter Laqueur, and The Arab-Israeli Military Balance since October 1973 by Dale R. Tahtinen. The reviewer was Alfred M. Lilienthal. I venture to say that with the exception of the items by Rothbard — and them only because of the existence of the Mises Institute — not one of these items could appear in a libertarian publication today. Indeed, I doubt that some of the writers could get anything published in a libertarian publication today. Almost certainly, this classified ad from the November 1974 Reason could never slip into that peridiocal today: DID SIX MILLION REALLY DIE? Updated analysis exposes Nazi genocide myth. $1 each, three for $2 (cash). Quantity discounts available. Did Six Million Really Die? was written by Richard Harwood and was one of the early discussions of six-million revisionism in English. It was later reprinted under the title Six Million Lost And Found. The business offering the item was in Essex, England. The ad does not seem to have appeared in any other issue of Reason. James J. Martin certainly understood that, where six-million revisionism and Israel were concerned, libertarians were no different from others. After receiving poison-pen mail for pushing Paul Rassinier’s Drama of the European Jews in an interview published by Reason in 1976, he wrote: There is the same split-personality stuff at work among [libertarians] as well. Though generally adopting an anti-statist stance, many of them secretly or not so secretly adhere emotionally to various pet States on the side. Those with New Left tendencies in historical enterprise related to the Cold War generally smile sunnily upon the Soviet Union. There is a goodly swath whose sentiments were clearly with the Viet Cong and North Vietnam in the recent southeast Asia phase of the unfinished business of WW2. And there is undoubtedly an even bigger one which resonates in harmony with Zionist expansionism in the Eastern Mediterranean. They may be Orwellian with respect to most of their own home front, but they have been mobilized in behalf of the usual good guy-bad guy construct elsewhere. [Editor’s note: The Memory Hole has posted an extensive excerpt of the interview from Reason. I assume that is with the permission of either the publisher or Mr. Martin, though I find no such stipulation on the page. — Nicholas Strakon] Martin remarked that Harry Elmer Barnes always said that the logical person to undertake a comprehensive challenge of the six-million story would ideally have to be unemployed, retired, or terminally ill. On the other hand, there was this crack, made in 1986, which surely no “respectable” libertarian would utter today. The occasion was Murray Rothbard’s 60th birthday. The Mises Institute put together a conference and a dinner attended by more than 200 people by way of celebration, and they managed to keep the whole thing a secret from Rothbard, so that it was a grand surprise party. Walter Block, reveling in how they had “put one over” on Rothbard, said in a talk he gave at the party, “He swallowed this line about a small meeting and a dinner for a few people that Lew Rockwell gave him. The entire day’s event, to borrow a phrase from another of Murray’s interests, truly deserves to be called ‘The Hoax of the Twentieth Century.’” Ronald N. Neff http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/fields_pclib_lte.htm P.C. libertarianism By HENRY GALLAGHER FIELDS American libertarians were once freedom-loving, truth-loving iconoclasts who took pleasure in spurning the shibboleths of Establishment pundits and intellectuals. No dogma was deemed too sacred to be safe from their skepticism, and every alleged truth was subject to examination by free minds reveling in free inquiry. They were totally outside the mainstream, and they relished that position: one thinks of giants such as Frank Chodorov, Albert J. Nock, Murray N. Rothbard, and Roy A. Childs, Jr., standing lonely but unafraid. But libertarians today, with some honorable exceptions, are a changed breed. They shy away from the ever-multiplying taboo issues, if they do not actually celebrate the reigning intellectual orthodoxy. Libertarian principles are noticeable chiefly by their absence. 25
Posted by GT on Mon, 21 Mar 2011 05:10 | #
Then feel free to lapse into the vernacular of capitalism. What is the capitalist term for oppressed worker? Is there one? I didn’t think so. There are no oppressed workers in the vernacular of capitalism. There is only dollar value assigned to labor by the Gods Of The Market Place.
Purchasing goods manufactured by Chinese slaves for sale in America at the expense of American, eh hem, free labor is an indictment of capitalism from any perspective save that of an exploiting “me-first, fuck you” -type of non-reciprocating personality.
Fools might think so. Chinese manufacturers would have a long way to go. They won’t let it go that far. But let us assume they did. And let us assume they didn’t replace Chinese slave labor with African. And finally, let us assume American industry could miraculously regain the technological skills lost from outsourcing manufacturing to the Third World overnight. The result would be importation of greater numbers of Mexican, Central, and South American mestizo labor to North America. There would be no benefit to working- or lower middle-class whites whatsoever. 26
Posted by Helvena on Tue, 22 Mar 2011 04:12 | # “The free market is the most efficient wealth generating, and fairest wealth allocating, mechanism.” - Yes that’s the favorite line of MBA programs, probably thought up at the University of Chicago. It all works so beautifully on paper but I’ve never seen it work in the real world. Was the free market working when China refused to unpeg the yuan from the dollar? By keeping the yuan artificially cheap against the dollar, China made its imports more attractive for U.S. consumers while making U.S. exports to China more costly. 27
Posted by Silver on Wed, 23 Mar 2011 06:27 | # Danielj, Work is good. Real work. There is no such thing as a “knowledge” economy. I’m not surprised that you don’t know what you’re talking about, Dan. It’s the extent of your ignorance that often astonishes me. Sure there is such a thing as a knowledge economy. Are certain kinds of information valuable? Will certain people pay to obtain it? Clearly. Then those who produce that information are knowledge workers. Knowledge work may only constitute a part of total economic activity but it’s no less real for it. The bulk of knowledge work being confined to a certain precinct of a city (as can be the case) isn’t theoretically too different to knowledge work being confined to a certain geographic region of planet earth (a “country”). Of course, the real world consists of a mix of economic activity in each country and in each region of the country. There are historical reasons for that that it’s likely will forever be with us (ie it’s “natural”). But it shouldn’t be too difficult to imagine a hypothetical situation in which all the knowledge workers lived in one country and traded for whatever goods and services they couldn’t produce themselves. That, to me, would constitute a knowledge economy and, while it’s desperately unlikely to ever arise, there aren’t any instrinsic impediments that I am aware of that would definitely prevent it.
“The free market is the most efficient wealth generating, and fairest wealth allocating, mechanism.” - Yes that’s the favorite line of MBA programs, probably thought up at the University of Chicago. But the mighty Helvena, standing atop the battlements of his fearsome Wordpress account, has seen right through it. The world quakes in anticipation. Christian Miller, You sure do rant and rave like a good little nutzi. You certainly do. (Not that you’re the first to. Doing so is an exceedingly common first reaction to wrapping one’s head around racial realities.) The problem is your rants are shot through with half-truths and stupidity. What world do you live in in which you expect (hopefully you expect, else I can’t see why you’d waste your time) your balderdash to be taken seriously? 28
Posted by danielj on Wed, 23 Mar 2011 08:32 | # Silver, Every time I think you might be turning a corner you go and say something so mind numbingly stupid, and childishly contrarian that I’m again convinced you are never, ever, debating in good faith. I then thank the gods that you’ll die childless, unloved and unrembered with Guessedworker as the sole custodian of your pathetic legacy. I’m not surprised that you don’t get what I mean. I’m also not surprised that it isn’t a deprivation of knowledge on your part, but rather, the fact that you are so excited by the prospect of typing out another thousand word string of your own that you couldn’t give two squirts of nigger’s piss about what any of your opponents and partners in debate ever actually say. You’re a self-righteous, self-absorbed prick wrapped in a solipsism. You love yourself. We get it. But, it is just so boring to hear you preach about the “hatred” of White Nationalists when you cling so desperately tenaciously to that ball of hatred in your tightened fist and reserve such a broad preserve in your heart, a clearing so wide, an interior space of such great measure that contains only a well cultivated field of hatred for all that is not you; a perfect animus for all and any that is other. You are a digital Narcissus, gazing longingly at your own increasingly large presence on blogs where you remain persona non grata. Fuck off troll. 29
Posted by Silver on Wed, 23 Mar 2011 15:40 | # Danielj, This is the second time I’ve been angrily denounced by you. And your reasons on this occasion are as groundless as those on the first. Let’s get something straight. You’re under no obligation to like me or to pretend to like me, or to even respect me or pretend to respect me. You’re as free as the birds to hate me to your heart’s content; to consider me the greatest living piece of shit you’ve had the misfortune to encounter; be it for personal or even racial (group) reasons (and were it not for my entirely reasonable fear of it soon making the rounds in these parts, I’d even be willing to furnish you with a visual aid for the latter). And while you certainly don’t require my approval to disapprove of me, I’m providing it anyway, to settle all doubt. The issues that concern us are infinitely larger than either of our feelings about each other. With that out of the way, let’s get to the meat of your complaint. Every time I think you might be turning a corner you go and say something so mind numbingly stupid, and childishly contrarian that I’m again convinced you are never, ever, debating in good faith. You know, it’s been a long time since the “not debating in good faith” accusation could be convincingly levelled at me. I guess old habits die hard—especially when one is desperate. After all, is the mind-numbingly stupid and childishly contrarian thing that I’m supposed to have spoken really anything more than your own bruised ego? I’m not surprised that you don’t get what I mean. Oh please. What was there to get that I missed? Your furious protestation is all the evidence I require that I “got” everything anyone realistically could have. You love yourself. We get it. But, it is just so boring to hear you preach about the “hatred” of White Nationalists when you cling so desperately tenaciously to that ball of hatred in your tightened fist and reserve such a broad preserve in your heart, a clearing so wide, an interior space of such great measure that contains only a well cultivated field of hatred for all that is not you; a perfect animus for all and any that is other. Now you’re just trying too hard. Listen. Your dissatisfaction with life being less than what it could is driving you around the bend. That’s why you seize on every opportunity to announce it to the world, and in the process utter the sort of inanities (“no such thing as a knowledge economy!”) that, if anything, could really only serve to strengthen the very trends you decry. My reason for taking you to task over it isn’t some imagined “narcissism.” It’s because there’s enough in you that is good that the inanities are disappointing and worth correcting. As for being a “persona non grata,” it’s amusing that you think I could possibly care either way. 30
Posted by danielj on Thu, 24 Mar 2011 06:03 | # This is the second time I’ve been angrily denounced by you. And your reasons on this occasion are as groundless as those on the first. I’m not angry. It is, however, most likely well past the second time you’ve deserved such a scathing indictment and it certainly won’t be the last you receive. The issues that concern us are infinitely larger than either of our feelings about each other. Agreed. I have no “feelings” about you though and your interpretation of my thoughts about you as some sort of emotivist clucking reveals more about you than you know. After all, is the mind-numbingly stupid and childishly contrarian thing that I’m supposed to have spoken really anything more than your own bruised ego? You ignored the bulk of the admittedly tiny comment that I left and seized with great vigor upon a fragment that was probably beyond comprehension due to its status as an almost non-sequitor. Oh please. What was there to get that I missed? Your furious protestation is all the evidence I require that I “got” everything anyone realistically could have. Sex sells. It doesn’t mean one can have an economy in the Greek sense of the word (oikos) based on it. The economy to a forward thinking nationalist (as the rest of my comment obviously explicates) is more than a bunch of fucking numbers. Now you’re just trying too hard. It was flourish and dressing. It is fun. You’re a master your damn self. Your dissatisfaction with life being less than what it could is driving you around the bend. Say what? I’m more upset at my personal failings than at the failing of the world to conform to my wishes. It’s because there’s enough in you that is good that the inanities are disappointing and worth correcting. The feeling is very, very mutual. 31
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 24 Mar 2011 12:46 | # Posted by Helvena on March 22, 2011, 03:12 AM | # “The free market is the most efficient wealth generating, and fairest wealth allocating, mechanism.” - Yes that’s the favorite line of MBA programs, probably thought up at the University of Chicago. It all works so beautifully on paper but I’ve never seen it work in the real world. Was the free market working when China refused to unpeg the yuan from the dollar? By keeping the yuan artificially cheap against the dollar, China made its imports more attractive for U.S. consumers while making U.S. exports to China more costly.
This portion of my comment is extremely important: The free market is the most efficient wealth generating, and fairest wealth allocating, mechanism. But corporations exist within a larger framework of competitor nations, civilizations, and races, as well as biological and ultimate ecological constraints, which themselves cannot be analysed by mere microeconomic measures… China’s recent economic successes have been in some part due to short term exploitation of their natural environment, both in terms of renewable and non-renewable resource depletion, as well as environmental pollution (though we shouldn’t exaggerate this eco-parasitism). Much of China’s success is also due to their essentially fascist economy. That is, they have sought, with considerable success, to combine capitalist calculational efficiencies, the real source of capitalism’s success as a system (the real sources of the West’s past economic supremacy were its relatively high racial IQ, especially disproportionate at the “genius end”; relative lack of centralized governments, at least compared to much of the rest of the planet; emphasis on individual worth as well as worldly achievement (which may be a source of weakness in a globalized age); development of science, the mother of the Industrial Revolution; martial supremacy, leading to successful white acquisition of new territories, as well as colonialist exploitation of nonwhite territorial resources; and of course, capitalism itself), with central state direction of capital allocation. Thus, of course, it goes unremarked by the hoi polloi ... 32
Posted by Gudmund on Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:34 | #
It was a good post. You covered most of the important points, so I’m not sure what you expect people to add to it. I don’t comment much anymore because of time constraints but I think you have become one of the better contributors to MR over time even though I don’t agree with all of your positions. Keep in mind that there are people on this site beyond those who regularly post comments, in some ways you are writing for our benefit too. Most objective people, once they pass out of the “angry racist” early phase as I did sometime ago, would agree with your analysis that the West is largely responsible for its own decline. I would submit that intra-cultural problems - particularly class struggles - are more responsible for our decline than racial conflicts. Ultimately, even our non-white problems stem from class or cultural internal problems which preceded them (e.g., greed leading white men to import blacks during the slavery period or mestizos during the present day). Post a comment:
Next entry: Fun with Jews
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Rollory on Thu, 17 Mar 2011 04:47 | #
So, you’re a believer in unrestricted free trade, are you?
I had to read this post twice to realize that you actually brought up China without bringing up the relevant facts. China pays its workers slave labor wages. China does not worry about environmental controls or protections. It’s not a level playing field. Manufacturing thus shifts to China, while American jobs disappear. You don’t have extra money to spend when you don’t have a job.
Nations _should_ encourage and protect native industries to a certain extent. That is part of being a nation. You seem to be too far along the radical libertarian path to understand that.