Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 22 Oct 2011 01:05 | #

So does that mean that because I have pittances with several of these firms, therefore I am one of the Masters of the Financial Universe? Please.

BTW, if this was from 07, where is AIG? At the time, they were the third biggest capitalized company in the world.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 22 Oct 2011 03:41 | #

...does that mean that because I have pittances with several of these firms, therefore I am one of the Masters of the Financial Universe?

Nope. In fact, I wish that you owned a great deal more. So much more that it became meaningless to you and you were able to Master of Yourself irrespective of your wealth, because therein lies the crux of the shortfall.

More is not always better, especially when it comes to the politics of mass persuasion, but again you apply your acquisitiveness, calculating to maximize the number of prospects rather than run the risk of a diminished reflection of yourself by espousing a “fringe” position.

I feel bad for you, Leon. You remind me of Golem and his sycophancy to the Ring. If I could think of a way to make it easier for you, I’d do it, but the best I can do is give you my honest opinion, so there you have it.

PS: One final bit of advice: Don’t ask your opponent a question, unless you already know the answer.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 22 Oct 2011 08:22 | #

Fair points, Jimmy. Perhaps the general position of all white defenders should be “let a hundred flowers bloom”. This is a world-historical struggle we are in, and I suppose that we need to hit the problem from a multitude of different angles. I’m quite certain my approach is correct, and will be devoting the bulk of whatever life I have remaining to demonstrating, propagandizing and political agitating for it. No one will stop me.

That said, if others prefer to concentrate on differing areas of and approaches to the conflict, go for it! My only general point is that we need to keep intra-movement differences to a minimum, which is why I routinely advocate the development of a “nationalist minimum” agenda that everybody can agree on. To me, that minimum, both in terms of universality of agreement, as well as dire strategic necessity, is terminating nonwhite immigration. Nationalists should mute their differences on other matters of philosophy and policy until that objective is achieved.

I’m sure at some level Graham Lister would actually like to save Britain and the West. So how does it profit him to insult me for my theism, and Catholicism? Without more, he’s not going to change my mind on those beliefs, and what ought to be uppermost anyway is advancing the Cause - which insulting my beliefs obviously does not do. Likewise, J Richards, Reloader, Ryan, Mr. Voight, GenoType, XPWA and doubtless others I’ve forgotten presumably also would like to save the white race, and yet want to see me hung over a minor disagreement on monetary policy.   

I conclude that such persons are not genuinely serious about the broader objective.

The “hundred flowers” strategy encourages all differing perspectives to do their utmost to advance their own positions, but to do so by engaging the apathetic and brainwashed majority, and not at the expense of other WNs. This way the common objective will be advanced the most ... plus I have not the slightest doubt that, over time, my firm but psychologically and even epistemically mainstream approach will prove the victor.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:21 | #

...yet want to see me hung over a minor disagreement on monetary policy.

Kristos Leos, ‘twas the moneychangers, who hung Jesus, but if you’re sure you’re right, quit whinging and get your butt up those gallows stairs. 

Posted by anon / uh on Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:44 | #

Hasn’t that inner nexus of shareholder relationships been likened to an “emergent phenomenon” before? or something like that?

Is there any discussion of this going on at BDF?

Posted by anon / uh on Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:48 | #

BTW, if this was from 07, where is AIG? At the time, they were the third biggest capitalized company in the world.

That question ought to be answered.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:12 | #

J Richards, Reloader, Ryan, Mr. Voight, GenoType, XPWA and doubtless others I’ve forgotten presumably also would like to save the white race

Thank you for not including me on that list, Leon. I find saving the White race to be quite boring. For me, true joy comes only through making life hell for the Jews. It’s merely a happy coincidence that nothing accomplishes this more surely than White survival. Siege heil.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:43 | #

Thank you for not including me on that list, Leon. I find saving the White race to be quite boring. For me, true joy comes only through making life hell for the Jews. It’s merely a happy coincidence that nothing accomplishes this more surely than White survival. Siege heil

. (JM)

Sorry if I’ve offended, but I cannot recall your previously having called for my hanging based on my views respecting monetary policy. Perhaps for other views of mine, of course ...

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:19 | #

Anon/uh,

Here is the BDF thread, which is short and shallow:

http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/bnp/101973-have-scientists-uncovered-illuminati.html

On AIG, it would seem that they are not in the top strata of “connectedness”.

The holy grail for research of this kind would be to discover the dynamic to the political funding by the 147 companies, their corporate proxies, associated foundations, and so forth.  We can all guess what it is.  But to have it mapped out and made official, revealing the interlocking forms and dependencies of Jewish activism, would be dynamite.

Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:28 | #

Which of these concerns do we presume to be under Jewish control?

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 22 Oct 2011 17:04 | #

The control is paradigmatic, Dan.  One can argue that liberalism, neoliberalism, mercantilism, and heaven knows what are congruent factors that shape it and give it a place in the world.  But the essence of it is the drive for Olam Ha-ba, which is the struggle of the Jew to master his host-environment, which is the nature of the Jewish mind.

Where Jewish finance wields power in the world it will also be consonant with the Jewish struggle.

Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 22 Oct 2011 18:02 | #

I think we need to probing a little deeper than that GW, which will probably need to wait until the full article is published. It’s not even really clear at the moment how the listing was constructed, i.e. what is the actual metric in use (or metrics).

My current guess is that the ranking is based on the assets under management in each of the concerns, in which case we can do a rough back of the envelope figuring of how much money is involved as a quick reality check. For the top 10 listed above AUM amounts to around $20 trillion, which can probably be doubled or perhaps tripled for the top 50, and maybe doubled again for the full 137.

To maintain control over these assets, Jews would need to own half of them meaning that, on average, every Jew in the world would need to be a dollar millionaire (at least) in terms of liquid net worth. Does this sound feasible?

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 22 Oct 2011 19:34 | #

This video was posted on YouTube back in May, but I found it only today. It’s about Mohammar Quadaffi’s pursuit of a pan-African currency.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuqZfaj34nc

Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 22 Oct 2011 21:10 | #

Leon

Let me assure you I’m entirely mainstream (I’m not a Nazi or libertarian for example) and believe the death of Europe would be utterly tragic. I can live without what passes for American ‘civilization’.

But you ask me why I gently mock your Catholic faith and theism. Well there are a couple of reasons: (1) I intensely dislike American Christianity (it’s generally so vulgar in every conceivable way I find it ghastly); (2) as a man of science I dislike the Roman Catholic church even more (with its litany of fake saints and phony miracles); (3) you have both implicitly and at times explicitly claimed that somehow Christian theology is of massive, and positive, importance to the issues we discuss here - no it is not in any substantive manner - it’s an irrelevant sideshow other than the context of presentational/PR issues specific to the USA; (4) you do not acknowledge the radically universalist kernel of Christianity. If Christianity has been less universalistic in previous times this is because other cultural/ideological factors constrained that impulse from being fully expressed (it is not a particularist doctrine); (5) you strike me as being an unreconstructed Hayekian right-liberal (your default position as a blowhard Republican which comes through time and time again) that happens to dislike blacks and Mexicans - fine but it’s hardly a serious critique of why and how we collectively got to this point; (6) finally you supercilious fuckwit you’re not really anything like as clever as you think you are (deeply superficial might be an apt phrase) and I sort of object to being dubbed ‘ignorant’ ‘trash’ ‘retard’ etc. So I kinda like taking the piss from time to time. If you can’t take it don’t dish it out buddy.

Have fun with the kiddie fiddlers at grad school.

P.S. I normally don’t even bother to read your posts as they are so tiresomely predictable. 2 parts libertarian bullshit, 1 part Glenn Beck et al., ‘talking points’ yes? Have I missed anything?

Posted by MoneyPower on Sat, 22 Oct 2011 22:01 | #

Shareholder owned organisations run by new money careerists. Surely this is not the seat of real power but at best some of the arms.

Perhaps the controllers of the central banks, the Bank for International Settlements and the general financial institutions that sit still below these blue chips and global investment banks might get us closer to the actual money power.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 23 Oct 2011 13:27 | #

@Graham Lister

I think you rather missed my point above (hardly an uncommon occurrence around here). I didn’t question whether you were in the movement’s “mainstream”, but rather the general wisdom (or lack thereof) of criticizing or antagonizing others over peripheral issues. Some things I have learned over the years are that self-styled ‘libertarians’ (which does not necessarily include those, like me, who place a high value on free enterprise, private property rights and individual liberty under a neutral rule of law) are basically leftists; that most mainstream conservatives, if genuine, and not merely false appropriators of the designation, are cowards, especially on race; and that WN, having such an odious reputation among the silent, unawakened majority, attracts a lot of morally (and psychologically) marginal people. Basically, there are evil people lurking amongst the responsible and upright race realists. It seems to go with the ideology (same on the Left of course: most communists and anarchists are genuinely bad people, according to traditional Western standards of ethics).

If this movement is to thrive - and it must, or impersonal trends will smother and extirpate European civilization everywhere - the morally decent folk must keep the malevolent (and mentally ill) at bay, isolated, discredited and ignored. I’m sure this is something Jared Taylor has had in mind (I once overheard him saying that, in creating AR, he had wanted to produce a publication that a dignified and serious person could leave out in the open, on a coffee table).

Anyway, besides the wicked, I think ‘dissentionists’ and troublemakers (and ‘nutters’) must also be segregated. What I have seen here at MR is that there are far too many persons who do not seem primarily interested in advancing nationalist understanding or strategy, but simply want a forum in which to ride their own ideological hobbyhorses. That is unhelpful, especially when the particular ‘horse’ in question is either objectively bizarre, or involves insulting beliefs, habits or attitudes held by large numbers of whites. WN must be seen to be congruent with the largest possible portion of the mental outlook of the white majority, or else it will continue to dwell in a dark, ideological ghetto, unable to break into the majority political conversation. 

It is this realization that, in part, has spurred me to pursue my new course of study.

But you ask me why I gently mock your Catholic faith and theism. Well there are a couple of reasons: (1) I intensely dislike American Christianity (it’s generally so vulgar in every conceivable way I find it ghastly);

I think by “American Christianity” you mean that which is either unique to (eg, Mormonism), or most closely identified with, the USA, this mainly being evangelicalism (though, of course, its modern origins are British). I am no fan of the evangelicals, either, especially due to the execrable views on race (and the ridiculous Israel-Zionism) of their leadership(s). The lay majority, however, is disproportionately white, even Nordic, and mostly conservative, including on immigration issues. These are our people, too, and there are a lot of them here. Thus your intense dislike of them is in the manner of an unhelpful personal hobbyhorse, and should be kept to appropriate (anti-fundamentalist) fora. 

(2) as a man of science I dislike the Roman Catholic church even more (with its litany of fake saints and phony miracles);

An unusually ignorant statement. The Roman Catholic Church played an important role in the growth and development of science (read books by science historian David Lindberg), and the notion that the Church was ever reactionary in scientific matters is pure anti-clerical prejudice. The Vatican today sponsors serious scientific research, and it employs many priest-scientists to keep abreast of the latest developments in the secular world.

I, too, regard the Church as over-superstitious, though that may be due to my own mostly secular upbringing. I certainly maintain an open mind (unlike you) wrt claims of miracles, though I tend towards scepticism. I have no idea what you mean by “fake saints”. I do know that, again, there are vastly more white Catholics than white nationalists, and that allowing your personal dislikes to poison possible inter-white alliances is strategic folly. 

(3) you have both implicitly and at times explicitly claimed that somehow Christian theology is of massive, and <em>positive, importance to the issues we discuss here - no it is not in any substantive manner - it’s an irrelevant sideshow other than the context of presentational/PR issues specific to the USA;</em>

This is the central and interesting issue. I do indeed believe as you contend, for many reasons, which I have discussed at greater length at other times:

A) A majority of my racial countrymen and I are theists (overwhelmingly Christian). Respecting any fundamental moral issue, we would naturally want to know the “Godly” position. A racially conservative Christian theology is certainly important to innately racially conservative Christians, of whom there are millions (or tens - who, precisely, do you think comprise those white majorities who routinely inform pollsters of their opposition to immigration ... atheists?).

B) Racialism does indeed (superficially) seem to cut against the grain of Christian universalism. If falsely forced to choose between God and race, the vast bulk of whites in America will abjure racial survival (not sure what the excuse for racial abnegation is amongst your mostly unchurched fellow citizens). So it is vitally important that the incorrect but implicit and now guiding claim that white preservationism is morally wrong be theoretically refuted, because, I assure you, there will always be more white Christians than anti-Christian WNs. I happen to be of the sociological belief that modern secularism is not a permanent feature of the European future, but more of a present, passing phase. Of course, we shall see.

But even if I am wrong on the matter of future theistic intellectual change, it is an undeniable fact, as I and Desmond Jones have variously asserted, that, among whites, committed Christians are seriously outbreeding secularists, at least proportionally. This is true in Europe as well as America. If one assumes a genetic component to the psychological propensity towards religious faith, then I expect that, over time, the West will return to religiosity (and, again, do not forget the well-established positive correlations between theism and conservatism, secularism and racial leftism, and general conservatism and moderate - ie, anti-immigration, anti-affirmative action, anti-crime - racial nationalism). 

C) If the West is to survive, even merely racially (let alone as a civilization), I believe that a return to traditional (which need not mean American Protestant fundamentalist) Christianity will be an aspect of its “survival strategy”. Secularism breeds anomie, far more today than a century ago at the dawn of the current secularist age. Why this should be so is immaterial to the observation, though I suspect the answer is very old-fashioned: the religious see life as meaningful striving, if only a striving after Heaven, and that attitude shapes the whole of one’s being, which in turn affects the non-spiritual elements of existence, too (Charles Murray made something like this case in his excellent Human Accomplishment). Those ‘dead to Heaven’, on the other hand, will incline towards selfishness, and meaningless hedonism (and, again, very low birthrates). I do not think that secularists as a dominant social group will prove willing to make the sacrifices in short term thinking and pleasures to reconquer and rebuild the West.

Thus, I hold that a return to a ‘politically incorrected’ (de-liberalized) traditionalist Christianity is a necessary (though of course probably not sufficient) element in any Western/white renaissance. Faith impels some men to greatness; lack of it compels most men to focus on la dolce vita and preserving their pensions uber alles.

D) Finally, I think the sheer coming awfulness of life in ever more multicultural societies, and especially in Europe’s increasingly, aggressively Islamicized ones, will also impel many whites to return to their historic churches in part as an implicitly white/European national community building tool, and as places of refuge from culturally alien forces. These functional elements of religion will play an important role in the return of many whites to their ancestral faith - and as more return, so still more after them will, too, the majority being lemmings, for good or ill.

(4) you do not acknowledge the radically universalist kernel of Christianity. If Christianity has been less universalistic in previous times this is because other cultural/ideological factors constrained that impulse from being fully expressed (it is not a particularist doctrine);

This statement is utter nonsense. I have never denied, nor would anyone else with a smidgin of learning, that Christianity is not in some sense universal. Of course the aspirational Christian community includes all mankind, indeed, all sentient, morally willful beings. But you elide the distinction between Christian moral universalism - that all persons are potentially brothers in Christ - and liberal sociological or political universalism - that persons are sociobiologically and culturally interchangeable, and that ‘diverse’, integrated societies are somehow superior to, or more ethical than, traditional homogenous or ethnoculturally delimited ones.

Nothing could be further from traditional Christian doctrine, whether Scriptural or theological. There is nothing in the logic of the faith which leads one to conclude that radically culturally alien foreigners have a ‘right’ to enter into settled homelands; that whites must economically oppress themselves in order to promote nonwhites to undeserved stations; that whites must ignore the policy implications derived from established data demonstrating statistically significant behavioral or genetic differences between population groups; or that whites must subordinate their historic cultures and traditions in order to accommodate persons of alien backgrounds. That is liberalism, pure and simple. Your assertion that today’s uber-liberal Christianity somehow represents the real (universalist) inner logic of the faith finally allowed to effloresce due to the collapse of white/Western cultural particularist confidence illustrates an abysmally shallow, let’s-believe-the-liberal-Zeitgeist understanding of the real Christian faith.

Face it: you know very, very little about Christian thought, and are merely applying your own ‘commonsense’ interpretation of these matters as a complete outsider. You are fitting the modernist moral pollution (on race) of the Church within a narrative which you, as someone hostile to Christianity for your own scientific physicalist/atheist reasons, find personally satisfying, regardless of its intrinsic accuracy.
 
When I have gotten much further in my studies, I will demonstrate formally exactly what is wrong with the liberal view on race as it has been imposed upon the faithful. [NB - of course, I do not mean to deny that racial imperialism, fomenting unjustified hatreds, or engaging in common criminality against persons of other races are condemned as sinful by the true Church. They are, and should be.] 

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 23 Oct 2011 13:29 | #

@ Graham Lister Part II

(5) you strike me as being an unreconstructed Hayekian right-liberal (your default position as a blowhard Republican which comes through time and time again) that happens to dislike blacks and Mexicans - fine but it’s hardly a serious critique of why and how we collectively got to this point;

I’ve refuted this accusation before, many times, but you have ignored me. I shall be brief. Yes, I am a Republican (what else would I be here in the US?!). I am a classical (Aristotle/Aquinas/Burke/Calhoun/federalist) conservative. I am not a libertarian, though I do hold private property rights, the impartial rule of law, free enterprise, small, divided government of Constitutionally enumerated powers, and liberty in very high regard. I do not fetishize or absolutize individual freedom, however, and believe good governance is an art, not a science. I am neither a democrat nor an egalitarian, and I certainly believe that defending the West takes precedence over the rights and liberties of ontologically transient individuals.

That said (and I could write hundreds of pages outlining my political philosophy in toto), what you mock as “racism (really race realism) + right-liberalism or libertarianism” is very much in fact the American Way. The combination of free markets + white supremacism (which I see as classical conservatism applied to particular American circumstances) built the wealthiest and most powerful nation on Earth, pal. That is hardly something to sneer at.

And what still has not been made clear to me is why some ‘deep critique’ of modernity is actually required. You seem to think that America’s contemporary hysterical racial egalitarianism somehow is the true expression of the system’s inner logic. Again, as with your critique of Christianity and race, this exhibits a very limited familiarity with US history. What we suffer from today is a situation wholly contemporary in origin, even if one can perhaps espy antecedents in the contemporaneously unpopular abolitionist movement. Yes, the US has always had leftist/utopian movements, but they were never hegemonic until the post-Sixties present. The US Cult of Diversity, which sadly has been exported to (but eagerly adopted by) Europe, represents a radical disjunction with the majority of American history, imposed upon us by Jewish media propaganda, certain treasonous politicians, greedy businesses, and conservative cowards who did not want to swim too far against the tide - and an American Majority, that always found it easier to be accommodative than hostile.

The only real problem with the US, our Founding Flaw, was in not formally establishing the White Republic from the outset. The Founders simply assumed that would always be the case (though early naturalization statutes did limit US citizenship to free-born whites - but it should have been formalized in the Constitution).   

(6) finally you supercilious fuckwit you’re not really anything like as clever as you think you are (deeply superficial might be an apt phrase) and I sort of object to being dubbed ‘ignorant’ ‘trash’ ‘retard’ etc. So I kinda like taking the piss from time to time. If you can’t take it don’t dish it out buddy.

“Supercilious fuckwit”? Outstanding projection, couldn’t have described you better.

I am always polite here towards those who are polite to me. It was you, sir, who unprovoked starting implying ignorance, stupidity, etc on my part, simply because you have a petulant dislike of Americans, Christians and Thatcherites. Of course, I respond in kind.

My cleverness needs no documentation, and you are certainly not sophisticated enough to judge me, anyway. But ... I graduated from one of the consistently top 5 most elite universities in the US. I had had no family connection to secure my admission, I’m not a racial minority or female, I’m not Jewish, and though a high school athlete, I was not good enough to be recruited on that basis. I graduated with honors. I have one graduate degree already, also from a good school. I am now in a serious doctoral program, the only one I applied to. I knew I would be admitted, as I had gotten a perfect 800 on the verbal portion of my GRE, taken last Fall.

You claim to be a biological scientist, yet all you ever write are diatribes on your favorite betes noires. If you are what you say, why don’t you spare us your vapid political, economic and metaphysical opinions, and instead elaborate on the latest developments in racial science, as others, like Dasein, occasionally do here, or as the late, lamented Glayde Whitney used to do at AR? You could educate us, and prove that you do possess genuine knowledge.

Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 23 Oct 2011 17:46 | #

Like Graham, I have long held that association with any mainstream Christian denomination is incompatible with ethno-or racial-nationalism. Anyone who openly takes such a line in contemporary society will have to exercise his Christianity within the modern-day equivalent of a priest-hole.

Posted by TabuLa Raza on Sun, 23 Oct 2011 23:03 | #

Are niggers made in G-d’s image?

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 23 Oct 2011 23:31 | #

You mean Schwarze.  It’s the Ashkenazim who spoke German not the Sephardim who spoke Spanish you are referring to, I suspect.  However, I would prefer it if you would eschewed the Spanish derivation which, for some unaccountable reason, is uniformly perceived as an insult today.  Unless you’re a niggah, of course.

Posted by MOB on Mon, 24 Oct 2011 00:27 | #

http://thezog.wordpress.com/who-controls-wall-street/

Posted by Z.O.G. on Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:13 | #

Christianity Exposed
http://christianitydebunked.wordpress.com/

Posted by Z.O.G. on Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:15 | #

I could go through this list of the top 50 of the 147 superconnected companies and make a list of the chief executive of each company along with his ethnicity.  That would be a very eye opening list, to be sure.

Posted by Grey on Mon, 24 Oct 2011 20:39 | #

Leon Haller should be delighted to hear that his beloved Vatican is calling for global usury:

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/malinvestments/the-vatican-calls-for-global-usury/

Posted by danielj on Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:07 | #

Are niggers made in G-d’s image?

Yes. We cannot judge the way that God can judge. We Whites are as truly depraved as niggers are according to God’s standard. Man’s standard is not His standard. It might appear that niggers are more fully depraved than ourselves but they are not. Sin is the great equalizer before Christ.

Posted by GenoType on Tue, 25 Oct 2011 01:26 | #

Leon,

Don’t flatter yourself.  Refutation doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ve proven someone wrong. It may be that all you’ve done is deny the truth and accuracy of someone’s statements.  Ever consider that?  You’ve not proven XPWA or myself wrong, for example.  Not even close.  You were spanked all over the Octopi thread.  And if XPWA was inclined to do so he could do the job more efficiently than I can and with less effort.  You’ve not proven J Richards or Graham Lister wrong, either.

While searching for some of your nonsense the other day I came across this interesting tidbit:

[I note some responses directed to me over at the “Octopi” thread, but I want to reply to Lister et al here first. The discussion at Octopi is starting to get academic, and I dislike such, mainly because I have neither inclination nor especially time (I’m in a full-time rigorous doctoral program now; also, I still work 15-20 hard hours for pay per week, in addition to other activities, like hitting the gym, monitoring investments, unfortunately extensive commuting, etc) to summarize huge tracts of theory and/or research written by established scholars; eg, I’m not going to correct all the errors of GenoType, when he ought to read, say, Rothbard, Man, Economy and State, for himself. On the other hand, Lister’s comment here is more in the way of strategic prognostication, and in those matters, there can be only debate and proposals - ie, there are no easily discernible correct answers to how our race ought to proceed. Such an open-ended, ‘opinionated’ discussion is obviously to be preferred by someone operating under increasingly severe time constraints.] LH

The fact is yuppie puppies don’t impress me.  Would you be willing to bet one of your “investments” as to which one of us works harder and longer each day?  I am 54 years old, 6’5”, have a lovely family, read late at night, and am located in the greater Los Angeles area in case you ever decide to arm wrestle.  No, I don’t think you would want to.

Are you familiar with James Thurber’s “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty”?  I refer to the book, of course, and not the movie starring Danny Kaye.  You strike me as a Mitty. And since neither XPWA nor I is a bully, we’re not going to waste our time beating you up.  Besides, your intellectual and character deficiencies are all too evident with almost every post.

My hope is that your studies in Catholic Theology improve you in the character department.  Had you attended St. Thomas Aquinas College in Santa Paula, your deficiencies may not have ever gotten out of hand.

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 25 Oct 2011 03:59 | #

Genotype,

I’ve refuted many of these matters previously. Look through the comments on the last year’s worth of threads.

I might very well be willing to take up that bet. Why do you suppose you work harder (or is it that you simply don’t understand the demands of doctoral study at quality institutions)? And why “investments”?

Bully me all you want (and no, I don’t think you would be able to do so in real life, not at all ... I am based in the OC, and will be back over Christmas, if not earlier ... though I fail to see the relevance of your being 2 inches taller to the topics under discussion). How hard you work is immaterial to me, and to what time I happen to have to rebut ill-read others. I read what you wrote on that thread, and found it borderline incoherent. If there were neutral parties reading my ‘pennings’ vs all the others you mentioned, there would not be the least doubt who would be seen to be the superior (or even just normal) intellect. Not ... the ... slightest. Indeed, I am one of the ever-decreasing number here who actually does have some things worthwhile to say.

I’m familiar with Thurber’s Mitty (though perhaps you aren’t: it’s a short story, frequently anthologized - I think I read it in high school - not a book[Ok, now I just clicked on your wiki link, so maybe you miswrote]), and it is comically inapplicable to me (possibly to you or others, I wouldn’t know). I do like the ascription of intellectual and now character deficiencies to me, without proof. Very mature - not.

When I get time I will revisit the Octopi thread, and rebut your nonsense. In the meantime, you, like so many here, ‘impress’ me as arrogant, poorly educated, limited in your reading, insufferably sure of yourself (without possessing the true confidence born of real learning, of which you have provided no evidence), and, rather ironically, based on the above, I think you almost certainly are a pronounced bully, probably the loudmouthed Big Dad type who towers over his neighbors and the parents of his children’s friends, boring them with his unrequested opinions.

Do what you will. I am neither intimidated nor, without much, much more, impressed.

hmm ... Mitty ... 6’5” ... arm wrestle ... not a bully ...

Another ‘projectionist’.

PS - I am about to be studying Aquinas in two separate classes. And I’m sure I would approve of any St. Thomas College loyal to its antecedents.

That said, WTF are you linking it for me? Years ago, I was accepted at 4 Ivies, 2 of the little Ivies, U Chicago, and UCBerkeley, which was my low-cost safety school (ie place automatically admitted by virtue of SAT scores alone). I would not have considered this place, nor in the event did I.

Posted by danielj on Tue, 25 Oct 2011 04:36 | #

Leon,

I consider you an ally but you are slightly demoralizing. I wish you could understand the points GT is making.

I’m close enough to serve as a mediator. Perhaps we three could all get together for dinner? On me.

Grass fed steaks somewhere in Hollywood?

Had you attended St. Thomas Aquinas College in Santa Paula, your deficiencies may not have ever gotten out of hand.

They have a beautiful Latin Mass round Christmas. I’m a regular since I’ve moved to Ventura despite being ardently anti-Catholic.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:02 | #

GenoType,

Leon’s a wiley son-of-a-bitch, and Danielj is a dago thug.

I’m 59 and 5’9, but look good without a shirt. I’ll be in getting into L.A. on the afternoon of Nov. 4th.

Let me know if need backup.

Posted by danielj on Tue, 25 Oct 2011 08:45 | #

Dirty, tattooed, Dago thug Jimmy.

I can’t help it.

Posted by anon / uh on Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:51 | #

OMG OMG whitepower lozoozzoozoz

why don’t we all roll up at chez panisse, chow on watercress & prosciutto finger sammiches then bust the place up SA-stylee   lzozozozozozozozozoz

then everyone can engage in SINGLE DEADLY COMBAT .... by playing Crossfire lollzlozzzzl

show those SWPLs how it wd be done in the WNstaat!!!!

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:53 | #

Leon,

I consider you an ally but you are slightly demoralizing. I wish you could understand the points GT is making. (danielj)

Danielj,

Thanks for the offer. I’m sure it would be a pleasure to converse with you over dinner or drinks, and I allow no one to pick up my tab, though I note the generosity, but at the moment, I am nowhere near LA (to the regret of my girlfriend, I hope!).

That said, and at the risk of sounding petulant, why does everyone s—- on me? I have an iron rule: never slander any to my Racial Right, as long as they are not criminal, and are respectful of me. I honor this. If there are persons with differing opinions, but who are clearly honorable and loyal to race, then if I disagree with them, I do so gently, and in a spirit of assumed mutual intellectual discovery. For example, I disagree strongly, on tactical as well as ethical grounds, with Jimmy Marr’s NSM stance. That said, I know and acknowledge his unswerving loyalty to the white man’s cause, and thus do not attack him personally, except to the extent that he first attacks me. Same goes for everyone else.

I frequently make harsh statements, but they are always directed outwards, towards those I deem enemies of the West (Muslims, the black hooligans terrorizing UK over the summer, the OWS crowds, etc), as I understand “the West”. What amazes me, really, is how often I am then personally attacked and slandered - “libertarian gangster”, “Jew” or “Jewish extended phenotype”, “Christer”, I exhibit “character deficiencies”, “malice”, etc - by those disagreeing with me (and invariably over issues tangential to the core WN concern with race, like religious affiliation, professional background, capitalism, etc).

And now I’m the one you find somewhat demoralizing?!

I’m the opposite of demoralizing (OK, White Zion could be construed as deflating, but I consider the theory behind it hyper-realistic, unfortunately). I’m always about trying to make WN intellectual and strategic progress, but my efforts are rarely appreciated (or their significance properly understood). 

The basic problem is that pro-whiteness attracts a lot of morally and psychologically problematic types. I wish it didn’t, but I wish many things. It was to get away from such types, and emphasize the morally acceptable (arguably mandatory) elements in the White Agenda, that, I am certain, explains Jared Taylor’s setting up AR as he did. I agree with his decisions. We need a responsible and respectable and culturally and religiously and ideologically mainstream WN, because the hour is late, and the West is darkening fast.

Perhaps, though, I am really best suited not to persuading WNs of my own approach to our race problem, but rather, to bringing my fellow conservatives to a sounder race-realist and racialist position. I belong to the Far Right of conservatism, with Taylor and the late Sam Francis, more than I do to the environs of WN.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 25 Oct 2011 16:09 | #

Hey Leon,

I understand your criticism of NSM. It’s a damaged vehicle, but then again so is the Church of Rome. Interestingly, I recently discovered that Adolf Hitler: The Ultimate Avatar, which was recently translated, published and retracted by Lulu, was the work of a Franciscan solitary, which, if I remember correctly was also the Order to which William Gayley Simpson belonged.

Posted by anon / uh on Tue, 25 Oct 2011 20:38 | #

That said, and at the risk of sounding petulant, why does everyone s—- on me? I have an iron rule: never slander any to my Racial Right, as long as they are not criminal,

Guess that rules us out, eh Danny boy?

We need a responsible and respectable and culturally and religiously and ideologically mainstream WN, because the hour is late, and the West is darkening fast.

Now that definitively rules me out.

Yea Leon, I like your posts, but you’d likely have better fortunes trying to tip those teetering conservatives hereward. But I fear there’s no continuity of perspective, as you have found to your consternation.

Or stop being cagey and meet those dudes for brunch.

Posted by anon / uh on Tue, 25 Oct 2011 21:23 | #

It’s trying to square the circle.

This gang don’t believe “financial instruments” are an honorable means of making money, and anyhow, would see money abolished or its power severely curtailed among our kind.

You, Leon, would suffer losses as a result.

Cart before the horse, too. A square cart for a circular horse.

I sell lottery tickets to negroes, so I have no opinion.

Posted by danielj on Tue, 25 Oct 2011 22:28 | #

That said, and at the risk of sounding petulant, why does everyone s—- on me?

I’m not sure you are understanding the dynamic correctly. There are certainly some folks frustrated with you. Nobody’s shitting though. Just taking the piss.

I have an iron rule: never slander any to my Racial Right, as long as they are not criminal, and are respectful of me.

I certainly extend the same respect to you that I extend to any other man. I can’t say I’m not criminal. I’ve spent significant periods of time incarcerated and on the wrong side of John Q. I tend to walk a fine line these days but I’m no stranger to danger and our dirtier brothers.

If there are persons with differing opinions, but who are clearly honorable and loyal to race, then if I disagree with them, I do so gently, and in a spirit of assumed mutual intellectual discovery. For example, I disagree strongly, on tactical as well as ethical grounds, with Jimmy Marr’s NSM stance. That said, I know and acknowledge his unswerving loyalty to the white man’s cause, and thus do not attack him personally, except to the extent that he first attacks me. Same goes for everyone else.

You’re very earnest. This isn’t the norm around here. Makes you an easy target.

I frequently make harsh statements, but they are always directed outwards, towards those I deem enemies of the West (Muslims, the black hooligans terrorizing UK over the summer, the OWS crowds, etc), as I understand “the West”.

You also make really grandiose statements reflecting a deep-seated self-importance. I’ve refrained from pointing them out thus far.

What amazes me, really, is how often I am then personally attacked and slandered - “libertarian gangster”, “Jew” or “Jewish extended phenotype”, “Christer”, I exhibit “character deficiencies”, “malice”, etc - by those disagreeing with me (and invariably over issues tangential to the core WN concern with race, like religious affiliation, professional background, capitalism, etc).

Some of us feel capitalism is fundamental in the breakdown of the family, and therefore, of the race.

And now I’m the one you find somewhat demoralizing?!

Exasperating would have been more accurate.

The basic problem is that pro-whiteness attracts a lot of morally and psychologically problematic types.

I’m probably one of them by your definition.

I wish it didn’t, but I wish many things.

Wish in one hand, shit in the other and tell me which fills up first.

It was to get away from such types, and emphasize the morally acceptable (arguably mandatory) elements in the White Agenda, that, I am certain, explains Jared Taylor’s setting up AR as he did. I agree with his decisions.

I can’t bring myself to do so. I love the White race; scumbags included. I want the rising tide to lift all our boats. Blacks make no apologies for any of their own. Ever.

We need a responsible and respectable and culturally and religiously and ideologically mainstream WN, because the hour is late, and the West is darkening fast.

This goes without saying. But we got to work with what we got.

Perhaps, though, I am really best suited not to persuading WNs of my own approach to our race problem, but rather, to bringing my fellow conservatives to a sounder race-realist and racialist position. I belong to the Far Right of conservatism, with Taylor and the late Sam Francis, more than I do to the environs of WN.

Sam Francis was a White Nationalist. Jared Taylor isn’t in the same category as far as I’m concerned. He is too Jewish for my tastes. Very cultured, very respectable but utterly worthless. There is no way out of this mess without smashing Jewish power.

Posted by danielj on Tue, 25 Oct 2011 22:31 | #

Guess that rules us out, eh Danny boy?

I’m pretty sure we are a two-man operation dog.

Posted by danielj on Tue, 25 Oct 2011 22:32 | #

I sell lottery tickets to negroes, so I have no opinion.

Only Asians buy just lottery tickets.

You sell Four Loko and lottery tickets.

Posted by danielj on Wed, 26 Oct 2011 05:06 | #

Jimmy,

Thanks for calling me and letting me know you were coming into town.

This is thrice that you’ve spurned me now…

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:59 | #

Thanks for calling me and letting me know you were coming into town.

You’re sleeping at the switch, Dude. I offered to treat you and Leon at the In And Out months ago, but since you’ve upped the ante to grass fed beef, I’ll dazzle you and GT with a vulgar display of arm wrestling prowess.

Posted by TheLiberalHeresy on Wed, 26 Oct 2011 10:34 | #

A traditionalist Catholic speaks out against the Austrian school in general, von Mises in particular.

http://drchojnowski.blogspot.com/

Posted by danielj on Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:10 | #

I offered to treat you and Leon at the In And Out months ago

The one on Sepulveda?! I definitely missed that one.

For a little guy, I’m a really good arm wrestler.

Posted by TheLiberalHeresy on Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:51 | #

Offered to treat them at the In & Out! Is that not some euphemism for a whorehouse? How kind of you.

Posted by Hallertosis on Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:33 | #

Liberal Heresy,

Welcome aboard. Since you and I are new here, and seem to endorse a similar perspective, I’ll offer you a few words of exhortation. If we’re going to attack Mr. Moneybag’s idée fixe, we must employ no subtleties.; Never allow ourselves to be content with posting links when we can wallpaper an entire thread by cut and paste:

“In the market economy the individual is free to act within the orbit of private property and the market. His choices are final.” Ludwig von Mises, Human Action

When we read this text from the grandfather of modern Neo-Liberalism (Which manifests itself, in the United States, in the movements called Libertarianism and Neo-Conservatism), we are not surprised. Von Mises, culturally Polish and politically Austrian, but a practical atheist in his political philosophy, is concerned to render absolute, the only absolute (other than “market forces”) he seems to acknowledge as having any relevance for the affairs of mankind, the volitional determination of individuals. Nor are we surprised when he unfolds his basic conception of reality and applies it to the public actions of individuals. Referring to the entire doctrinal and moral activity of Christian Civilization and comparing it to his idea of the autonomous, self-interested, and willful individual, von Mises states, “In urging people to listen to the voice of their conscience and to substitute considerations of public welfare for those of private profit, one does not create a working and satisfactory social order [emphasis mine].” In one sweeping statement, von Mises has negated Christendom and every social, economic, and moral teaching of the Catholic Church; this statement, also, renders “inoperative” the entire Classical moral and philosophical tradition.
Such statements by the hero of contemporary Libertarianism and Neo-Conservatism (read, Neo-Jacobinism), need not disquiet us at all if we understand it exactly as he meant it to be, a statement by one who upheld the modern Liberal, anti-Christendom world-view and denigrated the civilization, overall and in its detail, built by the Catholic Church; this civilization, of course, was constructed in a certain way, on account of the Church’s attempt to conform the circumstances and the means of man’s life to the Eternal Law, which includes within itself the Providential Plan by which each created being is brought to a state of perfect fulfillment and satisfaction. Christendom, unlike the “market forces,” presupposes real freedom; if man was not free and meant to be fulfilled in his freedom, Christendom would not be needed. “Freedom,” of course, is meaningless, and soon becomes bizarre (as in our own commercialist culture), if it is not directed towards a true “good” that fulfills human nature. If freedom does not achieve a true satisfaction of human nature, why is freedom “good”? If, however, freedom is “good” because it genuinely fulfills human nature, economic “freedom” or the ability to sell goods made and to purchase goods made by others, must be subordinated to over-arching considerations of the “good.” Since we are speaking about a public “good,” we must speak about the “common good,” in which every private good is included. The common good entails the fulfillment of human nature at large. If all of the above reasoning is valid, economic freedom to buy and sell must be ordered to the achievement of a truly fulfilled human nature, both individually and commonly.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:14 | #

“In the market economy the individual is free to act within the orbit of private property and the market. His choices are final.” Ludwig von Mises, “Human Action”

Sounds a lot like rampant, almost in a fundamentalist style, liberally-conceived individualism to me…but then I’m a simple creature.

“No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less…”

Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:20 | #

Smack, crack, bushwhacked
Tie another one to the racks, baby

Hey kids, rock and roll
Nobody tells you where to go, baby

What if I ride? What if you walk?
What if you rock around the clock?
Tick-tock, tick-tock
What if you did? What if you walk?
What if you tried to get off, baby?

Hey kids, where are you?
Nobody tells you what to do, baby…

Even if it lets to the radically sub-optimal outcome of common destruction eh…nobody should restrict market freedoms let alone freedom more generally - anything else is akin to Stalinism, yes?

Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:26 | #

leads not lets*

Posted by Hallertosis on Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:30 | #

Only those with the most animalistic conception of man would think that the ability to buy and sell things is the pivot around which should turn an individual life, a political ideology, or the efforts of the State. That “man does not live by bread alone” is not only a religious truth, but is, also, a bit of wisdom testified to by universal human experience. It is the religious devotion of man, his virtuous moral actions, and his aesthetic and emotional appreciation and expression, which are the higher aspects of man’s being that mercantile trade is meant to facilitate and sustain.

In light of this, it is perfectly rational that the normal and traditional (i.e., non-Liberal) societies and governments of the past have tried to ensure that the buying and selling that went on amongst men, truly facilitated the genuine end of all economic relationships, the full and complete good of men, both individually and as, necessarily, living within a civic body. It was for this reason that such notions as “the just price” and the “the just wage” were normative, and limitations on the use and procurement of private property were instituted.

Posted by J Richards on Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:08 | #

<h3>The seat of the money power</h3>

@MoneyPower

You’re right, the study doesn’t reveal the seat of the money power.

It starts from banks creating money, out of nothing, when people or groups ask them for a loan.  The fancy term they use for this is “fractional reserve banking.”  Then bankers sell these loans to investors, knowing fully well that the debtors overall won’t be able to pay back the loans as the debtors don’t get to create money whereas the bankers created the loans out of nothing.  The bankers have the fancy expression “collateralized debt obligations” for this scam.  To fleece investors further, bankers sell insurance against people defaulting on loans, which they refer to as “credit default swaps.”  Then there’s betting on the likelihood of default, referred to as “speculation.”  And it goes on.

But it starts from the process of creating loans out of nothing, and this is the seat of power.  The more profitable banks loan only to governments, not the general public, such as the House of the Rothschild, which isn’t on the list.  And then there are central banks, whose workings are largely kept off the books.  Readers may know that the Federal Reserve’s never been audited.  A mainstream study utilizing public records can’t unveil the seat of the money power.

Posted by J Richards on Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:19 | #

<h3>Haller’s maliciousness TAKE ?</h3>

@Haller

You arrogant piece of… so now you’ve got a difficult time understanding why some people here are going after you.  Many of the reasons have already been substantiated and you pretend as if nothing’s been said.  Here’s more.

You said that people “want to see me hung over a minor disagreement on monetary policy.”  Not quite.  Here’s where the discussion appeared: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments//octopi_wall_street

Reloader predicted that you’d line the ditch along with your bankster buddies.  I predicted your hanging along with the bankers.  These are predictions, not calls for your hanging.  Only Shaw said that guys like you will have to hang.

And this isn’t over minor disagreement; it goes to the heart of the matter.  You’ve even stated the debate’s about capitalism.  No, I prefer capitalism and the free market, yet don’t see a minor difference between the monetary policies you support and what I favor.

What’s the market?  There are billions of consumers, millions of producers and millions of investors. But the power and influence are concentrated in a small minority that prefers to rule by proxy, avoids the limelight, is unaccountable to the public, is purely malicious and has a track record of leaching, looting, parasitism and general criminality.  The market’s essentially this powerful minority, and it’s this minority that you want to be in charge of money creation and the money supply, which is why your agreement to the abolition of fractional reserve banking is superficial as the same people remain in control, whereas I want a publicly accountable and elected people to control the money supply and issue it as a debt-free utility for the exchange of goods and services, a utility that by itself is of no intrinsic worth.  There’s nothing minor about this “disagreement.”

I’ve mentioned that you’ve been violating commenting etiquette.  And you don’t care.  You had a lengthy response to Lister above, on Christianity, which isn’t the topic of the post.  If Lister wishes to respond, let him do it here.  You felt the need to remind him of the need to respond, in the comments on a subsequent post, but instead of linking to your comment above, you reposted the lengthy excerpts again even though the post wasn’t about Christianity: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/why_the_germans_why_the_jews#c116508

This is trolling as you have nothing of value to contribute to the subject matter of either post.

On the other hand, you need to respond to a lot of criticism, too.  But what do you do?  As an example, I posted a rebuttal to your promotion of the gold standard here: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/susie_green_vdare#c111701

So you kept quiet for a while and then came back promoting the gold standard in other threads.  So I moved one of your comments in the same discussion on the vdare article so that people can observe your malice… on other counts, too, as you promoted all sorts of disinformation, such as the government issuing debt!

Above, you wrote that “The combination of free markets + white supremacism (which I see as classical conservatism applied to particular American circumstances) built the wealthiest and most powerful nation on Earth.”  What a bunch of bull! 

America was born in a war against control by bankers.  Destitute American colonies experimented with paper money issued by their own government, and prospered.  The bankers wouldn’t have it, and forced a gold standard, improverishing the colonies again.  The revolutionary war followed.

Then bankers wouldn’t just give up.  They caused other wars, the civil war, financial panics, recessions, bribes, attempted assassinations and assassinations to definitively establish a central bank under their control in 1913.  Between 1776, when America came into existence, and 1913, no privately-controlled central bank existed for long.  When Andrew Jackson killed the central bank in the 1830s, surviving an attempted assassination and a banker-created financial crisis that was blamed on him, he unfortunately didn’t kill fractional reserve banking, which he presumably didn’t understand, and the bankers kept getting more powerful.

So the “free” market really begins in proper and full force in 1913 (the issue and control of money + a long-term private central bank).  And what prosperity have these “free” market folks brought about for Americans since then?  The dollar lost over 95% of its value, recessions, the Great Depression, two world wars, wars for opium (Vietnam, current Afghanistan), other wars, a national debt that’s approaching 15 trillion, most Americans not having any net assets…. America’s a deeply indebted nation today, not a wealthy one, and its power is that of a bully and tyrant. 

America was made into a great, wealthy and powerful nation——none of which it’s today——primarily by two factors: relative freedom from control by bankers + a solid, core northern European founding stock.  The American slide from greatness began when it started losing control over its economic affairs to the bankers and it was already much past its greatness when the non-whites started flooding in in the 1960s.

White supremacy had nothing to do with the now-lost American greatness and wealth.

You said,

The only real problem with the US, our Founding Flaw, was in not formally establishing the White Republic from the outset. The Founders simply assumed that would always be the case (though early naturalization statutes did limit US citizenship to free-born whites - but it should have been formalized in the Constitution).

This is nonsense.  The founders knew what the bankers were up to and they explicitly wrote in the Constitution that only Congress can issue money.  Congress, Constitutionally speaking, can’t delegate its money-making authority to a private party, yet except for coins minted by the Treasury, all American money is created, as debt, by private banks.  This is money power speaking; those who issue money and control its supply are the ones who effectively rule and flout laws if necessary.  Similarly, even if America had been explicitly made a white Republic from the start, these money powers would’ve either come up with a Supreme Court interpretation of the white Republic as an anachronistic concept that applied to past circumstances or a Constitutional Amendment to comply with other aspects of the Constitution pertaining to equal opportunity, fair treatment, etc.  And the white Republic would be a chapter in history.
 
So the key’s about who issues and controls money, and the litmus test is what’s your stance on this issue once informed of the nature of money.  You’ve failed the litmus test unambiguously, and you seem to think you can score points by calling for the ouster of non-whites… think again.  You know very well that some readers take your claim to being a Catholic with a pinch of salt.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:20 | #

@Hallertosis RE-COMMENT 48

I like the cut of cut of your jib - of course life is so much richer than mere narrow contractual exchanges in a market place, but not if one asks a Hayekian right-liberal.

Posted by MoneyPower on Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:59 | #

@J Richards

Understood thanks JR but I still wonder at the final set of hands behind the debt based process itself. About continuity and of that continuity giving direction. Investment bankers come and go, as do Bilderbergers. The Barings and the Lehmans have crumbled. It is a larger, more complex world since when Quigley was writing but perhaps I should reskim his fascinating book.

“...[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less
than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the
political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. this system
was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in
concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The
apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle,
Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which
were themselves private corporations….
“It must not be felt that these heads of the world’s chief central banks were themselves
substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were the technicians
and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised
them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive financial
powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called
‘international’ or ‘merchant’ bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own
unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and
national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of
their agents in the central banks. this dominance of investment bankers was based on
their control over the flows of credit and investment funds in their own countries and
throughout the world. They could dominate the financial and industrial systems of their
own countries by their influence over the flow of current funds though bank loans, the
discount rate, and the re-discounting of commercial debts; they could dominate
governments by their own control over current government loans and the play of the
international exchanges. Almost all of this power was exercised by the personal influence
and prestige of men who had demonstrated their ability in the past to bring off successful
financial coupes, to keep their word, to remain cool in a crisis, and to share their winning
opportunities with their associates.”

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 27 Oct 2011 00:15 | #

Leon,

There’s something that’s been bugging me about my interaction with you from over a year ago. You mentioned in one of your posts that you wished you had some more money to pursue some kind of plan for saving the White race. I replied by asking what address I should use when submitting my donation.

You did not respond to my question at that time, but instead disappeared for a month of so. I thought it was kinda weird, but didn’t think more about it until a couple of months ago when I asked you to join me for anti-immigration protest being held in your area, and you responded that you no longer lived in Orange County.

Now, a couple of us have invited you to an arm wrestling brunch, and you’re unavailable on account of some weird-ass, unidentified Bible school.

I hope you’re not paranoid, Leon. I would never let anyone string you up in anything but the funnest of ways.

Posted by danielj on Thu, 27 Oct 2011 01:51 | #

Offered to treat them at the In & Out! Is that not some euphemism for a whorehouse? How kind of you.

Probably not the one on Sepulveda. There are a couple on Hollywood Boulevard that might be…

Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 27 Oct 2011 01:52 | #

Jimmy,

I am not now living in LA. I am attending graduate school elsewhere.

That said, though, I must be careful. I have long intended to return to grad school as part of my own strategy for ultimate intellectual and political impact. You know damn well how leftist academia is. I have written a lot of extremely hard core stuff (especially by PC standards) over the last decade. Thus, I have been very careful over the years re identifying myself. Because “Haller” is not too uncommon (there are thousands in the US), I have felt it desirable and not imprudent to keep my last name in my writings, so that I can reveal my true identity at some future opportune time, when I am better established professionally (if my name had been, say, “Buckenholzer”, I would have used a 100% pseudonym - like “Guessedworker” or “Genotype” or “XPWA” or “danielj” or “anon/uh” or “Lurker” or “Dasein” or “Captainchaos” or “Trainspotter” or “Wandrin” or “Thorn” or most others here; you and Soren and Linder and Lister (if that is in fact his real name, which I doubt) are exceptions).

But “Leon” is not my first name. If I had used my real first name, then many persons from my university, or contacts from the greater LA business community, etc, might have recognized me (I fight for racial truth all over the web, not just at MR, though for the past couple of years, I have been leaving my longest comments here). I am not ready for that, professionally or financially.

I have no objection to those activists, like you, working outside the System. Indeed, such are necessary and admirable. But absent collapse, after which recognized System opponents might come to power, real change occurs internally, a la Gorbachev. We need our people achieving recognized successes within the System (eg, just imagine the impact, to take an extreme example, if the late Steve Jobs had come out a few years ago against further immigration). That is how they can be maximally effective in influencing unawakened others. And by “System”, I’m not referring to bankers and businessmen, but to all professions. We need WN or at least racially conservative infiltrators across all spectra of society.

Whatever the many fools around here think of me (and no implication towards those who are not fools), I have a good background and have had successes in the real competitive, non-WN world, which means that when I have discussed immigration or other issues with colleagues and friends, etc, they listen to me. Often, I have been able to change minds, in particular, in changing regular GOPers into becoming hardcore anti-immigrationists. I have long argued that if we do not stop immigration, even today, after America has been radically ‘diversified’, then all other options, like the ethnostate, will become impossible, due to the numerical imbalance. If I were to be identified with persons like you (let alone utter obsessive cranks like JRichards) - I do not mean to be offensive, but you are way the hell outside the mainstream, as I’m sure you would agree - it would dramatically undercut my long term effectiveness to the broader cause of Western preservation and renewal.

Each person has to try to see where he best fits, in virtue of talents and temperament, in this world-historical struggle. I belong in the academically-oriented Hard (mainstream) Right. I’m high energy, good at speaking and debating as well as writing, and my goal is to try to break into the conservative media somehow, to try to drag its center more in our direction.

Anyway, to each his own.

Posted by danielj on Thu, 27 Oct 2011 02:11 | #

(if my name had been, say, “Buckenholzer”, I would have used a 100% pseudonym - like “Guessedworker” or “Genotype” or “XPWA” or “danielj” or “anon/uh” or “Lurker” or “Dasein” or “Captainchaos” or “Trainspotter” or “Wandrin” or “Thorn” or most others here; you and Soren and Linder and Lister (if that is in fact his real name, which I doubt) are exceptions).

Neither Uh, Guessedworker or myself are actually anonymous Leon.

I have a real job where I make real money where I’m real with the real people I work with. Everybody knows I’m a fascist. Everybody. I still got promoted. If I can get ahead whilst being true to myself then anybody can.

Posted by J Richards on Thu, 27 Oct 2011 04:53 | #

<h3>The money power structure</h3>

@moneypower

Yes, individuals and organizations come and go, but continuity remains.  In some cases, when organizations disappear, they’re either renamed or their members absorbed in other groups.  Continuity’s also maintained by familial transmission.  The sons are also involved in banking, and so are the grandsons….

To better understand the continuity, look at the inferred power structure of these folks:

Whoever came up with this has never argued that this is the precise structure, but that it’s an approximate picture of the power structure (here’s the source: http://www.majorityrights.com/uploads/kill-the-best-gentiles-james-von-brunn.pdf)

The Khagan and Kahilla are Khazar Jew terms for King and some sort of Board, respectively.  The power is derived from banking, and control effected through numerous organizations involved with governments.  This has been achieved through various revolutions (only modern revolutionary groups are shown) and the power maintained, to a large extent, via disinformation [media control].  The revolutionary groups’ activities and the disinformation efforts are continued to consolidate power and wealth.

Posted by How did American Jews get so rich? on Sat, 29 Oct 2011 23:54 | #

Since the mass immigration some 100 years ago, Jews have become richest religious group in American society. They make up only 2% of US population, but 25% of 400 wealthiest Americans. How did it happen, and how crucial is their aid to Israel?
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4099803,00.html

Posted by wall on Sun, 30 Oct 2011 02:42 | #

25% of 400 wealthiest Americans

It is actually 35.75%:

http://racehist.blogspot.com/2010/09/2010-forbes-400-by-ethnic-origins.html