Rumble in the Shtetl: Von Mises vs. Marx

Posted by Guest Blogger on Saturday, 04 April 2009 12:44.

By exPF

This is the pilot episode of a new series of posts where rival Jewish theoreticians go head to head in a blood-and-guts extravaganza like nothing else you’ve ever seen! Its incredible, its shocking - at the end of the fight, only one theoretician will be left standing!!! Are you ready?
Predicates will fly, conditional sentences will crunch, assertions will go “snap” under the gruesome, bone-crushing force of Ashkenazi brilliance! Be prepared to be mildly startled!

In the far corner, weighing in at 190 lbs not including the facial hair, German jewry’s gift to Eastern Europe’s smart fraction: KAAARRLL MAAARX!

In the near corner, the reigning champion, 167 lbs of pure Jewish Freedom: LUDWIG VON MISES!!!

LET’S GET READY TO RUMBLE!!! (cue music)

And they’re off! - Mises starts off with a critique from his essay, Marxism Unmasked (pfd). He describes Marxist theory in outline.

Marx developed what he thought was a new system.According to his materialist interpretation of history, the “material productive forces” (this is an exact translation of the German) are the bases of everything. Each stage of the material productive forces corresponds to a definite stage of production relations. The material productive forces determine the production relations, that is, the type of ownership and property which exists in the world. And the production relations determine the superstructure. In the terminology of Marx, capitalism or feudalism are production relations. Each of these was necessarily produced by a particular stage of the material productive forces. In 1859, Karl Marx said a new stage of material productive forces would produce socialism.

But what are these material productive forces? Just as Marx never said what a “class” was, so he never said exactly what the “material productive forces” are. After looking through his writings we find that the material productive forces are the tools and machines. In one of his books [Misère de la philosophie—The Poverty of Philosophy], written in French in 1847, Marx said “the hand mill produces feudalism––the steam mill produces capitalism.”3 He didn’t say it in this book, but in other writings he wrote that other machines will come which will produce socialism.

Its categorically impossible for one historical figure to reply to refutations of his theory which come into being a century after his death! Accordingly, Marx is just standing there, as Mises continues to pummel him with critique. This could get gruesome, folks …

According to Marx, the whole movement of human history appears as a corollary to the development of the material productive forces, the tools. With this development of tools, the construction of society changes and as a consequence everything else changes too. By everything else, he meant the superstructure.

Marx had some interesting ideas about group psychology and ideology, which
appear to this writer as being radically oversimplified. Here, Mises delivers a glancing left hook:

According to Marx, everybody is forced––by the material productive forces - to think in such a way that the result shows his class interests.You think in the way in which your “interests” force you to think; you think according to your class “interests.” Your “interests” are something independent of your mind and your ideas. Your “interests” exist in the world apart from your ideas. Consequently, the production of your ideas is not truth. Before the appearance of Karl Marx, the notion of truth had no meaning for the whole historical period.What the thinking of the people produced in the past was always “ideology,” not truth.

… Marx used ideology in a different sense.According to Marx, ideology was a doctrine thought out by members of a class.These doctrines were necessarily not truths, but merely the expressions of the interests of the class concerned. Of course, one day there will be a classless society. One class - the proletarian class - prepares the way for the classless society. The truth of today is the idea of the proletarians. The proletarians will abolish all classes and then will come the Golden Age, the classless society.

Von Mises draws attention to Marx’ and Engel’s pedigrees re: class identity.

Neither Engels nor Marx was of the proletariat. Engels was very wealthy. He hunted for fox in a red coat––this was the pastime of the rich. He had a girlfriend he considered too far beneath him to think of marrying. She died, and her sister became her successor. He finally married the sister, but just as she was dying - only two days before her death.
Karl Marx never made much money himself. He received some money as a regular contributor to The New York Tribune. But he was almost completely supported by his friend Engels. Marx was not a proletarian; he was the son of a well-to-do lawyer. His wife, Mrs. Karl Marx [Jenny von Westphalen, 1814–1881], was the daughter of a high Prussian Junker. And Marx’s brother-in-law was the head of the Prussian police.

Thus, these two men, Marx and Engels, who claimed that the proletarian mind was different from the mind of the bourgeoisie, were in an awkward position. So they included a passage in the Communist Manifesto to explain: “When the time comes, some members of the bourgeoisie join the rising classes.” However, if it is possible for some men to free themselves from the law of class interests, then the law is no longer a general law.

Ouch! That had to hurt!!!

Apparently Marxist argumentation methodology, even in his own lifetime, was already reduced to guilt-by-association similar to the way in which Lawrence Auster, Fjordman et al are attempting to strangle a critical discussion of Jewish influence:

Socialism was already defeated intellectually at the time Marx wrote. Marx answered his critics by saying that those who were in opposition were only “bourgeois.” He said there was no need to defeat his opponents’ arguments, but only to unmask their bourgeois background. And as their doctrine was only bourgeois ideology, it was not necessary to deal with it. This would mean that no bourgeois could write anything in favor of socialism. Thus, all such writers were anxious to prove they were proletarians. It might be appropriate to mention at this time also that the ancestor of French socialism, Saint-Simon,4 was a descendant of a famous family of dukes and counts.

Marx believed that the triumph of socialism would lead to some sort of “end of history”-esque phenomenon:

Marx said, as Hegel had, that there was history in the past, but there will be no history anymore when we have reached a state that is satisfactory.Thus, Marx adopted the Hegelian system, although he used material productive forces instead of Geist. Material productive forces go through various stages.The present stage is very bad, but there is one thing in its favor––it is the necessary preliminary stage for the appearance of the perfect state of socialism. And socialism is just around the corner.

Von Mises then goes on to discuss something which seems really interesting. Give it a read:

Nikolai Bukharin [1888–1938], a Communist author who lived in a Communist country, wrote a pamphlet in 19175, in which he said, we asked for freedom of the press, thought, and civil liberties in the past because we were in the opposition and needed these liberties to conquer. Now that we have conquered, there is no longer any need for such civil liberties. [Bukharin was tried and condemned to death in the Moscow Purge Trial of March 1938.] If Mr. Bukharin had been an American Communist, he would probably still be alive and free to write more pamphlets about why freedom is not necessary.

These peculiarities of Marxian philosophy can only be explained by the fact that Marx, although living in Great Britain, was not dealing with conditions in Great Britain, where he felt civil liberties were no longer needed, but with the conditions in Germany, France, Italy, and so on, where civil liberties were still needed. Thus we see that the distinction between right and left, which had meaning in the days of the French Revolution, no longer has any meaning.

Ooh! That uppercut would have been effective, were it not for the mass of facial hair dampening the blow. Von Mises discusses some inconsistencies in the economics behind Marxist theory:

The “iron law of wages” still survives in many textbooks, in the minds of politicians, and consequently in many of our laws. According to the “iron law of wages,” the wage rate is determined by the amount of food and other necessities required for the preservation and reproduction of life, to support the workers’ children until they can themselves work in the factories. If wage rates rise above this, the number of workers would increase and the increased number of workers would bring wage rates down again.Wages cannot drop below this point because there would then develop a shortage of labor.This law considers the worker to be some kind of microbe or rodent without free choice or free will.

If you think it is absolutely impossible under the capitalist system for wages to deviate from this rate, how then can you still talk, as Marx did, about the progressive impoverishment of the workers as being inevitable? There is an insoluble contradiction between the Marxian idea of the iron law of wage rates, according to which wages will remain at a point at which they are sufficient to support the progeny of workers until they can themselves become workers, and his philosophy of history, which maintains that the workers will be more and more impoverished until they are driven to open rebellion, thus bringing about socialism. Of course, both doctrines are untenable. Even 50 years ago the leading socialist writers were forced to resort to other elaborate schemes in the attempt to support their theories. What is amazing is that, during the century since Marx’s writings, no one has pointed out this contradiction. And this contradiction is not the only contradiction in Marx.

Von Mises delivers a swift right hook to Marxist theory and then throws a fireball:

What really destroyed Marx was his idea of the progressive impoverishment of the workers. Marx didn’t see that the most important characteristic of capitalism was large-scale production for the needs of the masses; the main objective of capitalists is to produce for the broad masses. Nor did Marx see that under capitalism the customer is always right. In his capacity as a wage earner, the worker cannot determine what is to be made. But in his capacity as a customer, he is really the boss and tells his boss, the entrepreneur, what to do. His boss must obey the orders of the workers as they are members of the buying public. Mrs.Webb3, like other socialists, was the daughter of a well-to-do businessman. Like other socialists, she thought her father was an autocrat who gave orders to everybody. She didn’t see that he was subject to the sovereignty of the orders of the customers on the market. The “great” Mrs. Webb was no smarter than the dumbest messenger boy who sees only that his boss gives orders.

Von Mises describes a method of Marxist argumentation, dialectical materialism, hitting him where it hurts:

Marx reasoned from the thesis to the negation of the thesis to the negation of the negation. Private ownership of the means of production by every individual worker was the beginning, the thesis.This was the state of affairs in a society in which every worker was either an independent farmer or an artisan who owned the tools with which he was working. Negation of the thesis—ownership under capitalism—when the tools were no longer owned by the workers, but by the capitalists. Negation of the negation was ownership of the means of production by the whole society. Reasoning in this way, Marx said he had discovered the law of historical evolution.And that is why he called it “scientific socialism.”

Von Mises describes Marx’s intellectual pedigree. Warning: may contain nuts.

Among the forerunners of Marx whom he considered “utopians” were Saint-Simon, a French aristocrat; Robert Owen [1757–1858], a British manufacturer; and Charles Fourier [1772–1837], a Frenchman who was without doubt a lunatic. (Fourier was called the “fou [fool] du Palais-Royal.” He used to make such statements as “In the age of socialism, the ocean will no longer be salt but lemonade.”) Marx considered these three as great forerunners. But, he said, they didn’t realize that what they were saying was just “utopian.”

Interesting pragmatic ideas relating to the inevitability of socialism:

On the one hand, Karl Marx wrote of the inevitability of socialism.
But on the other hand, he organized a socialist movement, a socialist party, declared again and again that his socialism was revolutionary, and that the violent overthrow of the government was necessary to bring about socialism.

Who is a boorjosie and who a pole-terrier? Application of these terms was not always clear:

Marx’s doctrine of ideology was concocted to discredit the writings of the bourgeoisie. [Tomás] Masaryk [1850–1937] of Czechoslovakia was born of poor people, farmers and workers, and he wrote about Marxism. Yet the Marxians called him a bourgeois. How could he be considered “bourgeois” if Marx and Engels called themselves “proletarian”?

‘The Party’ was apparently not the place for intellectual debate, especially if you dissented:

If the proletarians must think according to the “interests” of their class, what does it mean if there are disagreements and dissent among them? The confusion makes the situation very difficult to explain. When there is dissent among proletarians, they call a dissenter a “social traitor.” After Marx and Engels, the great man of the Communists was a German, Karl Kautsky [1854-1938]. In 1917, when Lenin tried to revolutionize the whole world, Karl Kautsky was opposed to the idea. And because of this disagreement, the former great man of the party became overnight a “social traitor,” and he was called that as well as many other names.

Von Mises describes how Marxist doctrine gives birth to purges - delivering in the process a roundhouse kick to Marx’s theory. Mises quickly follows with a whirlwind kick and throws another fireball: Haddu-ken!

There were two groups of Russians, both of whom considered themselves proletarians—the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks.The only method to “settle” disagreements between them was to use force and liquidation. The Bolsheviks won.Then within the ranks of the Communist Bolsheviks there arose other differences of opinion—between Trotsky4 and Stalin— and the only way to resolve their conflicts was a purge. Trotsky was forced into exile, trailed to Mexico, and there in 1940 he was hacked to death. Stalin originated nothing; he went back to the revolutionary Marx of 1859—not to the interventionist Marx of 1848.

Unfortunately, purges are not something which happen just because men are imperfect. Purges are the necessary consequences of the philosophical foundation of Marxian socialism. If you cannot discuss philosophical differences of opinion in the same way you discuss other problems, you must find another solution—through violence and power. This refers not only to dissent concerning policies, economic problems, sociology, law, and so on. It refers also to problems of the natural sciences. The Webbs, Lord and Lady Passfield, were shocked to learn that Russian magazines and papers dealt even with problems of the natural sciences from the point of view of the philosophy of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism. For instance, if there is a difference of opinion with regard to science or genetics, it must be decided by the “leader.” This is the necessary unavoidable consequence of the fact that, according to Marxist doctrine, you do not consider the possibility of dissent among honest people; either you think as I do, or you are a traitor and must be liquidated.

Here’s another blockquote describing how Marx chose to view history and capitalism vis-a-vis feudalism.

Marx assigned a special meaning to slavery, serfdom, and other systems of bondage. It was necessary, he said, for the workers to be free in order for the exploiter to exploit them.This idea came from the interpretation he gave to the situation of the feudal lord who had to care for his workers even when they weren’t working. Marx interpreted the liberal changes that developed as freeing the exploiter of the responsibility for the lives of the workers. Marx didn’t see that the liberal movement was directed at the abolition of inequality under law, as between serf and lord.

Karl Marx believed that capital accumulation was an obstacle. In his eyes, the only explanation for wealth accumulation was that somebody had robbed somebody else. For Karl Marx the whole Industrial Revolution simply consisted of the exploitation of the workers by the capitalists. According to him, the situation of the workers became worse with the coming of capitalism. The difference between their situation and that of slaves and serfs was only that the capitalist had no obligation to care for workers who were no longer exploitable, while the lord was bound to care for slaves and serfs. This is another of the insoluble contradictions in the Marxian system. Yet it is accepted by many economists today without realizing of what this contradiction consists.

That’s it! Its all over! Marx falls breathless to the mat in defeat. Waitaminute ... what’s von Mises doing?

Why, do my eyes deceive me? Von Mises is doing a celebratory moonwalk over the corpse of his rival! What a cruel fate, to be moonwalked over as one lay dying!

It is decided: von Mises is the winner! Crowned with a garland of gefillte-fish, he is paraded on the shoulders of a cadre of lawyers and businessmen out to the parking lot, where he proceeds to entertain everyone with the break-dancing moves he learned in prison.

As our camera feed trails off, von Mises is still celebrating in the parking lot, break-dancing with his jewish friends. The last words we overhear before the mic is cut: “Look guys, I call this one the ‘dreidel nasty’”. He then disappears in a whirl of distended arms and suggestive pelvic thrusts.

Thanks for tuning in, join us next week for another RUMBLE IN THE SHTETL.

Tags: Cultural Marxism

Comments:

Posted by Tanstaafl on Sat, 04 Apr 2009 15:11 | #

One multiracialist globalist utopian versus another. They both appear to be winning.

Posted by danielj on Sat, 04 Apr 2009 15:40 | #

I once again submit that Dickens was far better at critiquing the excesses of capitalism, and predated, Marx.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:53 | #

”Thus we see that the distinction between right and left, which had meaning in the days of the French Revolution, no longer has any meaning.” (—quoted in the log entry)

So very true, and our side really should start breaking away from the “left-right” classification. Its continued use only weakens us, mainly by pigeonholing us in the neat “right-wing” bogeyman pigeonhole the Jews and communists have painstakingly constructed over many decades which simply does NOT describe us. We’ve all of course talked at length about the fact “right-left” no longer “works,” but we haven’t really acted on that realization: every time we accept to be designated “the New Right” or “the hard right,” etc., we prolong a mistake. I manage to keep my use of “right-left” to the strictest minimum. Yes I occasionally use it but solely at moments when it simply must be resorted to for the sake of communication. I’d like to banish it altogether. I hope we can. It does our side no good, but only harm by handing a propaganda opportunity to the Jews on a silver platter. My preferred names for us are “Normals” (as opposed to our opponents, the Degenerates), “Progressives,” and “Liberals,” in that order. There’s nothing “right-wing” about us and we should stay as far away from the designation “right” or “conservative” as possible.

”According to the ‘iron law of wages’ the wage rate is determined by the amount of food and other necessities required for the preservation and reproduction of life, to support the workers’ children until they can themselves work in the factories. If wage rates rise above this, the number of workers would increase and the increased number of workers would bring wage rates down again. Wages cannot drop below this point because there would then develop a shortage of labor.” (—quoted in the log entry)

Would that work with welfare rates?

”According to the ‘iron law of welfare dependency’ the welfare rate is determined by the amount of income needed by the bureaucrats administering welfare. If welfare rates rise above this, the number of bureaucrats running welfare would increase and the increased number of bureaucrats would bring bureaucrat incomes down. Welfare rates cannot drop below this point because there would then develop a drop in incomes of the bureaucrats running welfare, prompting them to increase welfare rates.”

With immigration of non-whites, and the white bureaucrats runnung that?

Mutatis mutandis.

Posted by Frank on Sat, 04 Apr 2009 18:13 | #

Y’all might find this interesting: Karl Marx and the End of History and Karl Marx Revisited

Both by supply-sider Jude Wanniski (RIP).

—-

Libertarian almost = Marxist. Leftists shadow boxing is all it is.

Posted by Frank on Sat, 04 Apr 2009 18:18 | #

My preferred names for us are “Normals” (as opposed to our opponents, the Degenerates), “Progressives,” and “Liberals,” in that order. There’s nothing “right-wing” about us and we should stay as far away from the designation “right” or “conservative” as possible.

I’m traditionalist, and I value my European heritage, both genetic and cultural. Thus I’m right wing.

“Right wing” has a solid definition even if it’s been corrupted. The anti-Europeans might have conquered the term “conservative”, but they’ll not take “right wing”. And I’ll not refer to myself as “progressive” or “liberal”... What the bloody Hell is there to progress towards? Rather than progressing, why not throw out these invaders and restore the brilliant heritage that we have?

Posted by Dan Kurt on Sat, 04 Apr 2009 18:47 | #

re: “One multiracialist globalist utopian versus another. They both appear to be winning. “Posted by Tanstaafl on April 04, 2009, 02:11 PM

Read Mises’s The Free and Prosperous Commonwealth (1962) first Published as Liberalismus (1927) and my copy Liberalism in the Classical Tradition, the third edition (1985). Pages 138 through 142 discuss Freedom of Movement. Mises [circa 1927] gives his usual even handed overview of the subject and does recognize what the thrust of this website is concerned about. Mises feared war and actually opposed racial/ethnic mixing and what today is called multiculturalism. He advocated in fact segregation of racial/ethnic groups as a solution if governed under classical liberal laws.

As Mises aged he actually wrote somewhere that he believed governments could and should control immigration to preserve themselves. I can not remember the source. At the time I read it I was shocked as I thought Mises was an Open Borders advocate. When I read Liberalism in the Classical Tradition I found that he was favorable toward border control as a concept to preserve a people in 1927.

Dan Kurt

Posted by exPF on Sat, 04 Apr 2009 19:03 | #

Posted by exPF on Sat, 04 Apr 2009 19:06 | #

Thanks Dan Kurt, for pointing out that an adherence to free market principles need not be predicated on open borders or the extinction of the people who practice it.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 04 Apr 2009 19:09 | #

If von Mises opposed race-replacement immigration and endorsed the adoption by nation-states of demography-preserving immigration policies, that’s important in the sense it points to the possibility of non-race-replacement capitalism. If such a form of capitalism is possible, word needs to be gotten out to that effect. What’s being pushed now by the Jews, compradors, and crony capitalists is “free movement of labor to go along with free movement of capital.” This of course spells certain genocide for the white race. If capitalism needn’t require “free movement of labor” across national borders and if no less an authority on theoretical capitalism than von Mises says so, that’s extremely big news and needs to become widely known. It’ll never become widely known via the mainstream media because the Jews control that and woudn’t want such information getting out. So it needs to be widely disseminated over the internet.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 04 Apr 2009 19:12 | #

Kurt, I nominate you to prepare a longer statement of von Mises’s views on that and either post it as a comment or work with Guessedworker toward publishing it as a formal log entry. It’s huge news, in my opinion.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 04 Apr 2009 19:14 | #

Dan,

Late Rothbard also bears examination on immigration. There are righteous Jews by our lights. But the point is, I think, that we have to free ourselves. Relying upon Jews to free us is, at any level (even the occasional cite from an essay somethwere), absurd. Freedom for us definitely implies that the freedom of Jews to accompany us in our lives is curtailed.

Frank: why not throw out these invaders and restore the brilliant heritage that we have?

Amen to that. We were not “put on earth” for our creativity to serve freeloaders and parasites. We create for our ourselves and our children.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 04 Apr 2009 19:58 | #

Got an e-mail asking what “comprador” was.

It’s a Marxist term. I guess it’s not used in the English-speakign world. I lived a long time in French-speaking Europe and had lots of Vietnamese acquaintances both communist and anti-communist. “Comprador” was a Marxist term which the French-speaking Far-Eastern communists I knew back then used to refer to a citizen of a country who worked to enrich foreign commercial/economic interests to his own country’s and his own people’s detriment in return for a portion of the profits, enriching himself. The image of the comprador was for the Vietnamese communists of course a much-hated image. Whether the concept actually applied to the Vietnamese situation of the 1970s or was instead a hold-over from communist lore dating from Maoist struggles earlier, I don’t know.

I think everyone, communist and anti-communist alike, detests a comprador in the Marxist sense of that term. It doesn’t really apply to Western nations which are already “developed,” so I was using it pretty loosely in my comment, but Western individuals who make profits from higher H-1B quotas, from importing low-wage Third Worlders to compete with white workingmen, who push for open borders because they profit financially from it, and so on, can be thought of as loathesome compradors.

Posted by danielj on Sat, 04 Apr 2009 20:06 | #

It doesn’t really apply to Western nations which are already “developed,” so I was using it pretty loosely in my comment, but Western individuals who make profits from higher H-1B quotas, from importing low-wage Third Worlders to compete with white workingmen, who push for open borders because they profit financially from it, and so on, can be thought of as loathesome compradors.

I like that.

I call immigrants “colonists” whenever I speak to leftists. It goes hand and hand with the Snappy Refutations project.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 04 Apr 2009 20:37 | #

“we have to free ourselves. Relying upon Jews to free us is, at any level (even the occasional cite from an essay somethwere), absurd.” (—GW)

Well said, and I couldn’t agree more. But to me the importance of von Mises’s views against open borders (if indeed those were his views — Dan Kurt hasn’t definitively affirmed it yet) comes from his importance as a pro-capitalism economist and icon of the anti-Marxists, not at all from his being Jewish.

Now, the question is did he hold such views? I just looked him up at Wikipedia, and it said there that during his exile in the U.S. he was associated with the half-Japanese Austrian, Richard van Coudenhove-Kalergi, the lunatic who advocated a mixed-race tan-colored Europe ruled over by the Jews, or something like that.

Posted by Tanstaafl on Sat, 04 Apr 2009 22:10 | #

<a href=“http://mises.org/quotes.aspx?acti>Von Mises</a> made at least two statements that contradict any portrayal of him as an ethnonationalist (or even immigration restrictionist) hero:

There cannot be the slightest doubt that migration barriers diminish the productivity of human labor. - Liberalism p. 139

Anyone who doesn’t neglect the high costs of multiracialism would have more than a slight doubt. You might forgive von Mises for not forseeing for the awful consequences of mass non-White immigration, but today’s economists do not have that excuse. In their continued support for immigration 99% of them, including the Austrians, simply ignore the negative consequences of immigration.

The closed-door policy is one of the root causes of our wars. - Omnipotent Government p. 263

The open-door policy of Western countries has empirically produced constant low-level warfare in the form of increased crime, gang activity, and well-managed slow-motion ethnic cleansing. To the extent this is acknowledged at all the consequence are blamed on the victims (“White flight”) and accounted by economists as an economic plus (home construction, sales of new durable goods, extra fuel purchased for long commutes, etc).

What happens to the productivity of human labor when a large fraction of the best men in a country with no migration barriers must be employed as police and prison guards to prevent a large fraction of the inflowing “migrants” from robbing, raping, and killing?

Posted by Armor on Sun, 05 Apr 2009 01:19 | #

our side really should start breaking away from the “left-right” classification (—F.Scrooby)

What I would say is that the anti-race-replacement cause is neither left nor right, it should appeal to both sides. Nothing else matters, compared with the race-replacement disaster.

My preferred names for us are “Normals” (as opposed to our opponents, the Degenerates), “Progressives,” and “Liberals,” in that order.

It sounds like a symmetrical comparison, as if “Normals” was the name you propose for the Right, and “Degenerates” was the name you propose for the Left. But I know it is not what you mean.

An obvious difference is that so-called left-wing and right-wing political parties receive roughly the same number of votes. The distribution is 50/50. But the distribution between Normals and Degenerates is something like 95%/5% (depending on how normal a normal person has to be). The 5% are to be found mainly in the media, the universities, the leadership of most political parties, and a few other institutions.

I hope the non-Jewish media (if it exists) will accept the idea that the left/right political divide is artificial and imposed on us by a hostile system. But I doubt they are about to use the Normals/Degenerates vocabulary.

Posted by AC on Sun, 05 Apr 2009 02:43 | #

Wait, do I get this strait? You all are now ready to rally ‘round Ludwig Jew Mises? How does Dan Kurt do this magic?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Apr 2009 03:27 | #

If he opposes race-replacement, AC, I’m ready to rally around him, I couldn’t care if he was purple with pink polka-dots.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Apr 2009 03:30 | #

I don’t place “requirements” on the guy who helps us fight race-replacement. If he helps us, that’s good enough.

Posted by danielj on Sun, 05 Apr 2009 04:23 | #

What then is our recourse?

Whose economic corner are we in?

Krugman? Keynes?

Just for people that aren’t aware: http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/keynes.htm

By any rational or civilized standard, John Maynard Keynes was a totally amoral scoundrel. Keynes At Harvard, a well documented study by Zygmund Dobbs, first published by Archibald Roosevelt’s Veritas Foundation (Conservative Harvard Alumni) in 1962, thoroughly exposed Keynes as a Fabian Socialist sociopath, deliberately seeking to undermine free market Capitalism. Dobbs also showed Keynes to be a notorious homosexual pedophile, who predated NAMBLA, advising other wealthy & depraved British Leftists where, in the third world, they might expect the best price for “bed & boy.” This vile bit of history is not, of course, our point.

We intend to discuss Keynes & his economic theories, their effect on present & future prospects and why they would appeal to anyone. Keynes might have been the most evil man who ever walked the earth, yet have written and spoken economic sense. It would not be fair argument to damn an economic theory, simply because it was formulated by an evil man. Yet in this case, the scoundrel in Keynes was the whole man. His economics reflected the same total disdain for moral standards—the same sociopathic tendencies—as did his misuse of pre-adolescent boys. It is sad that so few are even aware of Keynes actual place in the breakdown of fundamental principles, once recognized as essential to healthy markets & economic well-being.

An online version of Keynes at Harvard: http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/index.html

Posted by Fenris on Sun, 05 Apr 2009 10:00 | #

The Fight Night framing was amusing, exPF! Well done for promoting The Last Knight of Liberty’s *cough* technically-beautiful destruction of the archetypal Beardy Weirdy.

Whatever it turns out Von Mises had to say about immigration, it’ll be trifling beside his economic wisdom, and best taken in the context of his times. If he was around today to witness the horrors of modern replacement immigration, I’m sure he’d come down on the side of Cynicus Economicus. You follow him, right?

C.E., with his preference for hard money and defence of free markets, is clearly influenced by the Austrian School. His examination, starting about 50 (tiny) paragraphs down, of the lunacy of mass-immigration within the greater madness of the Labour economy, represents an obvious point of connection with the conservative mainstream.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 05 Apr 2009 11:36 | #

Daniel,

I recommend this essay to you (and to PF, too). It is by Robert Locke. There are significant economic and nationalist principles in this:-

http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue23/Locke23.htm

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sun, 05 Apr 2009 17:56 | #

It’s hard to decide whether Jewish Marxism is worse for our EGI than Jewish libertarianism. They seem equally impractical, irrealistic, utopian, AND DEFINITELY JEWISH. Alain de Benoist has extensively critiqued supply-siders and laissez-faire economics as destructive of everything that conservatives say they wish to conserve. Example:

Hayek:
A Critique

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/benoist.htm

Posted by danielj on Sun, 05 Apr 2009 20:19 | #

Thanks GW.

Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 05 Apr 2009 20:52 | #

Whose economic corner are we in?

http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue23/Locke23.htm

I was going to mention Japan before I read the link. Japan is a great example for nationalists in many ways.

There’s a political dimension to the economic question as well. The people who are at first most threatened by the multi-cult are the working class. Therefore they are the most likely voters for a nationalist political party seeking election. Therefore the first priority of the economic policy of such a party has to appeal to the blue collar vote or at least not put them off. These voters really don’t want to hear about free trade and laissez faire economics and I certainly wouldn’t bother trying to persuade them as it would be a complete waste of time. On the other hand the next layer up are also neccessary for electoral success and they tend to be very anti-socialist. I think the right economic compromise (politically speaking) is a kind of National Socialism when dealing with international and big business but at the same time a very laisser faire attitude towards domestic small and medium businesses.

A mixture of National Socialism and Domestic Thatcherism.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sun, 05 Apr 2009 22:00 | #

I think the right economic compromise (politically speaking) is a kind of National Socialism when dealing with international and big business but at the same time a very laisser faire attitude towards domestic small and medium businesses.

A mixture of National Socialism and Domestic Thatcherism.

Once you’ve succeeded in this project, you may start working on squaring the circle.

Posted by TheJewsAreAHighlyEthicalPeople on Sun, 05 Apr 2009 22:18 | #

Humanism, liberalism, and the promotion of civil rights has always been a distinctive character trait of international Jewry. Just read their extensive literature about themselves, they wouldn’t lie to the goyim, would they? Would they? These eternal self-promoters.

An example taken from history of Jewish humanism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1saanzxaqE

Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 05 Apr 2009 22:39 | #

There are certainly some admirable aspects of Japan’s ‘capitalism without the capitalists’ economic system. Surely, one of the ingredients for that nation’s post-war success was its reliance upon a similar policy to that which Herr Hitler employed to grow the German pre-war economy with such conspicuous success, viz., Neo-mercantilism.

Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 05 Apr 2009 22:53 | #

Once you’ve succeeded in this project, you may start working on squaring the circle.

Well it’s not so much a project as a response to this:

Whose economic corner are we in?

(With the economic left-right axis defined as state versus laissez faire.)

My view is that, in terms of electoral politics, a nationalist political party is best served if they avoid being completely in either the economic right corner or the economic left and instead aim to divide things into two compartments - economically left towards big business and economically right towards small and medium business. This appeals to that part of the blue-collar vote that wants some protection from wanton capitalism and at the same time reassures the aspirational and small business class that they’re not going to be taxed and regulated out of business.

My point is simply that a political party has to decide on the political coalition they’re trying to build and then at least take that into account when they’re choosing their economic policies.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 05 Apr 2009 23:04 | #

Wandrin,

Nationalist economics shouldn’t be about sending signals to anyone. Broadly, the priority has to be to engender group nepotism in financial and employment decisions.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Apr 2009 23:43 | #

Friedrich’s comment of 4:56 made me think of something Rabbi Mayer Schiller said in a 1999 interview which I happened to watch just last night:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAyz52s0L_0 (the part where he says the following is almost all the way at the end of the interview)
___________________________

There is Torah and Abstract Truth.

After Torah and Abstract Truth we attempt to understand history and human events on the basis of Torah.

Torah is infallible. The way we apply Torah truths to historical contingencies is forever fallible.

There are differing interpretations amongst believing Jews about the State of Israel. Some think it was a blessing, some think it was a curse, and some think they are incapable of understanding exactly what it is. […]

I think the State of Israel poses a problem for Jews living in the Diaspora: that a Jew who lives in America or France or England but yet somehow says, “I am an Israeli” or “a Zionist” creates a tremendous amount of tension. So I think Herzl envisioned Zionism as Jews leaving gentile nations and going to live in Israel, not staying in France and England, saying “I am a Zionist.” So, I think Jews living in America, England, France, etc., have three moral possibilities: they can be loyal citizens, they can be Zionists which means to leave, or they can adopt the Neturei Karta traditional position of non-involvement in the affairs of the nation. Those are the three possibilities. […]

[...] Right but I was saying the Neturei Karta position in the Diaspora is also important. It says that since these are not our nations we should have nothing to say about their affairs, which I think is also a legitimate position. As I say, [there are] three legitimate positions in exile for the Jewish people.

_____________________________

My view: I see nothing wrong with Americans of any ancestral ethnicity feeling strong loyalty toward their ancestral nation abroad and hoping for its well-being in every way, and working to assure that well-being in any appropriate, legal way they wish. Not only do I see nothing whatsoever wrong with it, I like seeing it: it’s normal and good.

So not only do I see nothing wrong with American Jews professing to be Zionists while preferring to live in the U.S., I view it as normal and good.

The grave problems Jews cause Euro society, indeed the genocidal problems they cause, the problems they cause which make them unfit to live in Euro society and make Euros like me call for their permanent departure, problems such as their insistence on producing filth for public consumption like the following pair of new Hollywood films,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uhjbN0T14U ,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2JFbVCwAf4 ,

(a pair of Jewish films which I commented on here,
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/painting_a_picture/#c72479 ),

don’t come from their feelings of ethnic loyalty toward their group and toward the State of Israel but from something else — from the most unacceptable, despicable, slimy, hateful behavior imaginable toward the host society and its people.

A person can have the strongest feelings of loyalty toward his ancestral group and that group’s present-day nation abroad and at the same time behave honorably toward the nation he currently lives in. A person, in other words, can feel loyalty to his own group and can at the same time have integrity enough not to stab the nation he currently lives in in the back, especially when he’s risen to a post of trust and responsibility in that nation’s society or government: businessman, film maker, government official, professor, editor, judge, public intellectual, etc.

But it seems Jews can’t manage that. The minute they’re able, they do everything in their power to destroy the host people and nation.

Let’s say I became an official in North Korean society, or Israeli society, or Saudi Arabian society, or Iranian society, or Paupua-New-Guinean society, or Mexican society, or Italian society, or Bosnian society, or Icelandic society, or whatever society. Although not Icelandic, Bosnian, Italian, Jewish, Papua-New-Guinean, or any of the others, no matter which one I had obtained a post of trust in, I would solemnly fulfill my duties solely with that nation’s interests, NOT my own ethnic interests, in mind. I would not, for example, work to pry that country’s borders open to race-replacement immigration, something the Jews do no matter where in the Eurosphere they live. If I felt I was not able, in good conscience, to do what was right for that country because of some conflict with my ethnic loyalties, I would do the honorable thing and resign my post of trust, then pursue as a private citizen whatever I felt was in the interest of my ethnicity provided it didn’t harm the people or nation I lived among.

The Jews don’t conduct themselves that way. Whether as government officials or enjoying other positions of influence, public or private, and of public trust in the host Euro society (the expectation of, and obligation to live up to, public trust always goes along with any position of power or influence in any society) Jews routinely stab that society and nation in the back by not hesitating to support policies not just harmful to them but lethal.

If Jews could be counted on to display the most elementary public-spirited honesty and integrity when in positions of public power, influence, and trust in the host government and society there would be no Jewish problem that I can see. But they can’t. Their sense of nothing existing besides Jews is too strong and overrules any normal expectation of integrity on their part.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Apr 2009 00:00 | #

Excuse me, make that:

There is Torah and Absolute Truth.

After Torah and Absolute Truth we attempt to understand history and human events on the basis of Torah.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 06 Apr 2009 07:28 | #

A person can have the strongest feelings of loyalty toward his ancestral group and that group’s present-day nation abroad and at the same time behave honorably toward the nation he currently lives in.

This cannot be further from the truth. A nation cannot exist under these circumstances and is the reason why no national sentiment exists in either the US or Canada. There is no shared circumstance or common sympathy.

A PORTION of mankind may be said to constitute a Nationality if they are united among themselves by common sympathies which do not exist between them and any others — which make them co-operate with each other more willingly than with other people, desire to be under the same government, and desire that it should be government by themselves or a portion of themselves exclusively. This feeling of nationality may have been generated by various causes. Sometimes it is the effect of identity of race and descent. Community of language, and community of religion, greatly contribute to it. Geographical limits are one of its causes. But the strongest of all is identity of political antecedents; the possession of a national history, and consequent community of recollections; collective pride and humiliation, pleasure and regret, connected with the same incidents in the past.

Quebec in Canada is a perfect example. The Conquest is a source of pride for English Canada and humiliation for Quebec. Ukrainians in Canada see WWI, and internment of some of their community, as a source of humiliation and English Canada sees the war as a source of national pride, of pleasure and regret, the birthing pains of a nation that are not shared by any other white or non-white ethnic group in Canada. This is why the strategy of non-discrimination worked so well for organised Jewry, because every other ethnic group saw it as a means to advance their own interest and maintain its own ethnicity. It’s a hotel not a nation.

Posted by Oppose the Jewish Materialistic Spirit on Mon, 06 Apr 2009 10:50 | #

With the major economic crisis currently occurring, now would be a very opportune time to reawaken and educate people on the dangers and pitfalls of the Jewish materialistic spirit which has so poisoned The West; there is precedence for pointing this out and attempting to educate people on the dangers and problems inherent with this greedy/materialist/grasping Jewish obsession which has unfortunately been adopted by so many White Westerners because of undue Jewish influence throughout The West:

- ”...[the party fights] before all against the increasing influence of the Jewish commercial mentality which encroaches on public life…” AND “...[the [party] demands the elimination of the rule of Jewish banks over our economic life and the establishment of People’s Banks under democratic control…”

- ”[The party] combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: The good of the state before the good of the individual.”

Posted by Frank on Tue, 07 Apr 2009 00:47 | #

Japan has a central bank though. Is there a reasonable way around a central bank?

Posted by Anon on Tue, 07 Apr 2009 05:52 | #

Japan has a central bank though. Is there a reasonable way around a central bank?

Just don’t have one. At least the Japanese don’t have a central bank that is hostile to the their own people and sees them as sheep to skin…

Posted by Frank on Thu, 09 Apr 2009 07:57 | #

I only hear bits and pieces, but I think the Japanese central bank does give them problems. According to this university page: 55% is owned by the government, but the rest is owned by private investors.

Just don’t have one.

I can’t think of a developed state that is without one. Wiki list of central banks - I like the idea.

Posted by klaos on Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:38 | #

That was thoroughly entertaining, I’ve always sensed that Marxism is, at it’s core, a wildly perverted worship of technology, but I’ve never been exposed to an expression of this idea.

The thing I like about the Austrians, is that they reject modern social ‘science’ at the root. There is of course, a less perverted worship of technology going on as well. Nevertheless, it’s hard not to appreciate Rothbard.

Late Rothbard also bears examination on immigration. There are righteous Jews by our lights. But the point is, I think, that we have to free ourselves. Relying upon Jews to free us is, at any level (even the occasional cite from an essay somethwere), absurd. Freedom for us definitely implies that the freedom of Jews to accompany us in our lives is curtailed.

Well put.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 30 Apr 2009 23:16 | #

A delegation of Neturei Karta rabbis from New York explain to the Iranian leader that they are not Zionists:

http://www.dailymotion.com/related/x8coui/video/x32xqe_070924-ahmadinejad-meets-neturei-ka?hmz=74616272656c61746564

My position: I profoundly respect these rabbis, their piety, their sectarian learning, their evident reverence for and adherence to their traditions, and their respect and respectful comportment, all of which do credit to them and to their sect, but I reject any religious tenet or religious interpretation, be the religion theirs or any other, that opposes racial/ethnocultural nation-states.

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments