|
|
|
The truth about the cuts in a nutshell by Alexander Baron Here is a layman’s guide to the real reason for the forthcoming cuts in public spending. Before any of us were born – 1913 in the United States and a long time before that in the UK – the governments of the “Free World” allowed a cartel of bankers to hijack our financial system. Instead of the Treasury minting coin and printing notes, and creating credit for public works to spend into circulation debt-free, the cartel would create the credit and sell it to our respective governments at interest. When credit is created at interest it is by definition irredeemable, so our governments would periodically renew these loans by returning cap in hand to their masters. As long ago as September 1921 the following was directed at the Lloyd George Government: “Does he, and do his colleagues, realise that half a dozen men at the top of the five big banks could upset the whole fabric of Government finance by refraining from renewing Treasury bills?” If Lloyd George did, Call Me Dave doesn’t, although the boys in the Treasury do. They have obviously pointed out to him that the British Government, and indeed the governments of every European nation are now restrained by law, for example:
... from financing their deficits by printing money or by creating credit. This latter is to be the privilege of the banks, and only of the banks. One would have thought this monopoly of credit would have been sufficient to keep the bankers in clover, but give them a cent and they’ll take a dollar; after periodic depressions including the so-called Great Depression and Black Monday in the 1980s, there came the Credit Crunch/Meltdown or whatever you want to call it. This resulted from the banks selling what Max Keiser and others have called empty boxes. Trillions of dollars disappeared into the abyss, and as the Presidential election approached, all the players, including the so-called candidate of change, bowed to a plan to “save” the economy – or save the world in the case of Gordon Brown – by underwriting with real money the debts the banks had created with imaginary money. In effect, our governments stole this money from us; it was done without any sort of mandate, without even any meaningful consultation; the banks simply told the governments of the “Free World” what to do, and they did it, including the United States – the world’s so-called remaining superpower. Now, because the British Government in particular doesn’t understand that it has both the right and the duty to create credit both interest-free and debt-free, it has decided to reduce the so-called deficit by cutting public spending. The pretence is being continued that the government has to borrow money from foreign creditors, and it is these creditors who are being repaid, whereas it is the banks who are being not repaid, but paid again – in short they are being rewarded for their dishonesty and incompetence. The truth is that the real credit of this nation, of any nation, is based on the goods and services its people can supply. Because the British Government in particular refuses to face up to this unpleasant reality, we will see cuts in public services including and especially for children, the elderly and the vulnerable, and the scapegoating of other innocent parties such as those on benefit, the “rich” (ie, smaller business people and entrepreneurs) who have real money to invest and jobs to create, and indeed anyone except the real culprits. Huerta de Soto at the LSE, Thursday 28th October 2010 The Austrian School economist Prof Jesús Huerta de Soto is giving a public lecture at the London School of Economics on Thursday evening next week. Ostensibly, he will review the financial crisis from the standpoint of the Austrian model of the business cycle. But his presentation will include:
The LSE is by no means one of the usual anti-Establishment suspects. Critics of the money system, and specifically of the commercial banks’ monopoly on supply of money to the economy, are being increasingly heard. Seats for the Huerta de Soto lecture, which will be in the Sheikh Zayed Theatre, New Academic Building, are free and on a first come first served basis. Comments:2
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:15 | # ”It would be very easy to end the Fed. “The Congress could issue debt free dollars. Very simple.” (“damielj”) “DEBT-FREE DOLLARS” should be shouted from the rooftops all over this land. For a “Federal Reserve *Note*” is both nominally and actually an instrument of debt - it does not *permanently* circulate - it must ultimately go back to the Federal Reserve in payment of someone’s debt - presumably to be re-loaned so as to maintain the velocity of the money supply in commercial transactions. Hence the Greater Judean monetary system is *intrinsically unstable* and constantly vulnerable to a deflationary interruption of the credit cycle, such as we are now suffering (and as was the basis of the easily remediable Great Depression), lately due to the insane affirmative-action (Communist egalitarian) lending practices of the Clinton and Bush-fronted regimes, and to the corrupt legalization, by Congress, of bank-exploited gambling instruments in the form of CDSs derivative of the consequent toxic mortgages, and to the fact that the extension of credit must continue in the system for its maintenance - NO MATTER THE WISDOM OF CONTINUING TO EXTEND CREDIT OTHERWISE. 3
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:19 | # Our Clintonista retread regime can provide a desperately-needed emergency transfusion of money - presently and hopelessly obstructed in the poisoned banking digestive system - by directly injecting it into the free-flowing but starving commercial circulatory system. It could immediately give every taxpayer as many tens of thousands of dollars, debt-free, as it takes to restore full employment of national resources (thus countering the destructive deflationary effects of the banksters’ unstable, pro-cyclical, debt-based money supply), and as cannot be done otherwise with such speed and efficiency. The shame of the oncoming global commercial disaster is that there is no lack of world-wide physical capacity with which to produce wealth and employment for us all - all that is lacking is the printed paper, distributed to the populace, with which to resume and sustain productive activity in the physical plant that we already have and that is being increasingly unused. We do not need to “save” money or pay down debt as a remedy in a debt-based-money economy - the perversity of such an economy is that saving money and canceling debt simply add immediately to the problem, by taking money out of commerce, returning it to the constipated banking system, and thus further deflating the debt-based money supply. Ironically, the merit of a fiat-money system, in terms of the public good, is precisely that it obviates the requirement for saving toward investment by immediately producing the transferable currency with which to initiate physical capital creation. And, as said, the current problem is not a lack of physical capital requiring any form of “saving” - as is the solution according to the advice of Libertarian and Republican policy wonks in the financial media. We speak here of those who would also recommend allowing bankruptcies and foreclosures to proceed endlessly, in the doctrinally-desired survival of the economically fittest - of which there will be virtually none at the end of a deflationary death-spiral. The simple remedy for deflation (lack of circulating paper), rather, is direct reflation (paper given to those who most urgently need to circulate it). The present circumstance is a product of the fact that debt-based fiat money intrinsically collapses that which it expands - by requiring repayment of the “loans” through which all such currency is created. Therefore, it must constantly and endlessly loan money, however ill-advised such loaning might be otherwise, in order to sustain the money supply and the continuity of commerce. There would be no such requirement for perpetual debt-creation if fiat-money creation involved no requirement for repayment. But money creation through the loaning mechanism is employed because it is to the multiple advantage of the bankers, as it assures that the ultimate value of their currency is inflation-proof and it provides the pretext for much taxing of the public through interest payments on the use of what ostensibly is their own money. And the system provides employment and profit for bankers far beyond the requirements of society for such service. This bankerster-friendly arrangement comes at the public expense of commercial depressions that are remediable only through the most extraordinary fiscal measures (as in financing a multi-year World War-cum-Reconstruction to be fought with conventional weapons, in a world where little preexisting debt overhangs). Thus, the only solution to the present crisis is to Take Back Our Money and end its creation in debt. [And, it should be mentioned in line with our theme regarding moralities, that a secondary and precipitating cause of the present crisis was the slave-morality-based ideological fanaticism and characteristic attendant administrative incompetence involved in the (egalitarian Liberal/Socialist/Communist) affirmative-action mortgage-lending practices recently forced upon the responsible institutions and the relaxation of regulation that enabled irresponsible organizations to exploit the circumstance.] 4
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:30 | # The Austrian School’s axioms include the existence of a regime of property rights in which the beneficiaries of those property rights pay no fees nor render service for the support of the regime. It’s Jewish to the core. Søren’s criticism is correct but the relevance of this lecture to ecological overshoot is that Jews, like those in the Austrian School and the Chicago School, stand at the forefront of the prevention of overshoot both by: 1) Being hostile to any sort of population control other than voluntary restraint and doing so from positions of leadership they’ve captured. 5
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:58 | # JB, It’s been some decades since I’ve revisited this matter, so you might save me some time in research by responding to this: Was/is it not the attitude of the Austrian/Chicago school that fiat money should not be generated? And would such a policy not tend to restrict economic growth and so tend to moderate (though, of course, not prevent) overshoot? NN 6
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:08 | # I dimly recall that N. Laureate, Milton F., sinned modestly in proposing an annual 3% expansion of the money supply (presumably by fiat). (Ah, those were the Good Ole Days of the Keynesians vs. the Monetarists. “We’re all Keynesians now,” of course.) 7
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:17 | # Yes. But whether money is generated by fiat or by mining is secondary to the cause of real economic growth: Western creativity. Moreover, real economic growth is secondary to the real cause of ecological overshoot: Exponentiation of population without corresponding exponentiation of creativity. This combination of 2 conditions are in the, previously presented, points 1 and 2. What should have happened and would likely have happened in the absence of Jews taking leadership positions in the West: 1) Open and therefore empirically testable eugenic laws would have controlled population growth. The Holocaustian cult of “the demographic transition” is merely exterminating the genetic structures susceptible to sterilization by that phenomenon. The Holocaustian cult of “no borders” is, at best, transferring the wealth derived from Western creativity to populations not susceptible to sterilization by “the demographic transition”. 8
Posted by Angry Beard on Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:36 | # Latest news is that the UK Government will refuse to build any more council houses - and slash rent rebates - due to the much vaunted ‘cuts’ package. 9
Posted by Notus Wind on Tue, 19 Oct 2010 19:12 | #
Are they also responsible for ecological overshoot in China? 10
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 19 Oct 2010 20:24 | # Aside from the fact that China is the most prominent violator of “the demographic transition” cult, by virtue of its birth control policies, their industrial expansion has been fueled primarily by the open borders cult with its massive wealth/technology transfers from Western inventors to Chinese fascists. 11
Posted by Thunder on Tue, 19 Oct 2010 23:48 | # Alexander, Thank you for this article. It is a nice clear summary. I wonder if de Soto’s lecture will be available in a download for those of us un/fortunate enough not to live close enough to take it in? As for me I have had enough. At 61 I feel I still have just enough sweat left in me to build my lifeboat (see Stoneliegh and Ilargi at The Automatic Earth). I have handed in my resignation and early next year I head to the country to prepare myself for whatever comes; chickens, veggies, bees, goats, root cellar, guns, whatever it takes. The economic system, as it stands will only ever be ‘fixed’ to the advantage of those who currently most benefit from it and all I can do is try to conserve as much as I can for my family. 12
Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 00:29 | #
Fair enough. But I would submit that the real problem is much deeper than any particular intellectual cult or economic school of thought (European or Jewish) and arises from the fact that we operate on an incomplete view of wealth. In particular, the picture of wealth that’s built into our economic way of thinking tends to ignore the social dimension - because it only views humanity as a source of fungible labor - and also tends to ignore the environmental dimension - because it views the natural world as an external commodity, thus decoupling it from the human society that it supports. These mistakes are easy to ignore for a time because their consequences manifest progressively and collectively over some interval and, moreover, can be invisible to those individual businesses that are contributing to them. Thus we are treated with the absurdity of being told how “rich” China has become when her people lack clean water to drink and clean air to breathe, or how “wealthy” Western countries are when our people are in the process of being replaced. In the former it is the ecological element that is most ignored while in the latter it is the social element that is most ignored. It goes without saying that I’m not saying anything new here. 13
Posted by torgrim on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 00:45 | # I used to just grit my teeth when entering the towers of marble and chrome,(banks), and see some of their propaganda, like, “look at our products”, as in a goods. All the banksters do is sell debt and a form of indenture. Heads on a Stick! 14
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 02:05 | # NW: “...the picture of wealth that’s built into our economic way of thinking tends to ignore the social dimension…” And who is most responsible for our economic way of thinking? 15
Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 03:31 | #
Hehe. And who is most responsible for bringing Africans to colonial America, Orientals to 19th century America, and (wait for it) European Jewry to Turn-of-the-Century America? Weren’t these things also done in the name of short-term profit? This is an old mistake. 16
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:33 | # But I would submit that the real problem is much deeper than any particular intellectual cult or economic school of thought (European or Jewish) and arises from the fact that we operate on an incomplete view of wealth. In particular, the picture of wealth that’s built into our economic way of thinking tends to ignore the social dimension - because it only views humanity as a source of fungible labor - and also tends to ignore the environmental dimension - because it views the natural world as an external commodity, thus decoupling it from the human society that it supports. These mistakes are easy to ignore for a time because their consequences manifest progressively and collectively over some interval and, moreover, can be invisible to those individual businesses that are contributing to them. Thus we are treated with the absurdity of being told how “rich” China has become when her people lack clean water to drink and clean air to breathe, or how “wealthy” Western countries are when our people are in the process of being replaced. In the former it is the ecological element that is most ignored while in the latter it is the social element that is most ignored. It goes without saying that I’m not saying anything new here. (Notus Wind)
17
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:17 | # civilizational overshoot (Soren Renner) Do you mean “ecological overshoot”? I am well acquainted with carrying capacity theory, but ecological overshoot cannot at this time be a problem for Europe (for many countries, yes, perhaps for the planet as a whole - but not for the West, absent very excessive immigration). One lacuna at MR. You gentlemen talk often of immigration, RR, dysgenics (and ‘ontology’, and similarly abstruse topics). But I can remember very little if any mention of Europe’s birth dearth (except by me). Given the considerable amount of criticism here of free markets as well, how exactly do you envision Europe paying for the lavish state pensions, health care, etc of its social democracies, given its aging populations with their attendant entitlement claims? You nationalists can’t have everything. The numbers don’t add up. You cannot: a. end immigration + while e. continuing your social services regimes at anything like statutorily promised benefit levels. There isn’t and won’t be the money available. Significance? Assuming ending immigration is paramount, and you wish to at least maintain recent environmental improvements (you can forget about very much greater pollution/carbon reductions), your only options are to make massive, politically problematic cuts in majoritarian entitlements like pensions and healthcare - or to ramp up economic growth by embracing radical laissez-faire capitalism. Nationalists will never get to democratic power advocating such cuts (what Cameron and Osbourne want in cuts, which, BTW, is exactly what should be done, but more expansively, is literally a tiny fraction of what’s needed). Therefore, the politico-economic choice Westerners face all over the world (but esp in Europe) is : mass immigration (assuming the immigrants are net tax-contributors), or, real capitalism to generate greater economic growth (coupled with lots of hard work and higher taxes). Europe’s “dolce vita” is over, even without aliens and minarets. 18
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:59 | #
Known, historically, as Warlords “R” Us. 19
Posted by Dirty Bull on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:45 | # Leon Haller, 20
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 18:15 | # Alex Zeka writes: “This ties into something which has occurred to me about your ideas in general. The 7 points allow people to become thralls to a sovereign protector. Presumably, it is reasonable for the protector to ask his thralls for sustenance or even surplus goods in return.” Certainly, he can ask them—he can even “command” them, but as evidenced by your words:
...you forget that the relationship between Sovereign and Shielded is mutually consenting. They simply vote with their feet, either by declaring themselves individually Sovereign—hence subject to the death penalty if any of them refuses a challenge to formal combat, but also commanding the death penalty if the Sovereign he challenges refuses to enter into formal combat—or by accepting the offer to be individually Shielded by another, more reasonable, individual Sovereign. 21
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 18:29 | # Alex Zeka writes: “Even one of your examples for this, medieval Iceland, is a favorite of anarchos for their own system.” The only example I make of medieval Iceland is as a transition from allodial to feudal law through the empowerment of the Althing to outlaw Holmganga and render blood feud as the appeal of last resort in “dispute processing”. Alex Zeka writes: “And so the question arises: how does your thought differ from anarcho-capitalism/anarcho-libertarianism?” Well, for one, those guys haven’t stated their human ecology hypotheses in simple clear terms—so no matter what you say about them, they can weasel around and escape—sort of the way Notus Wind is doing with me and the Jewish question. It is tiresome to respond to them and at some point you must resort to actions other than verbal responses. It is certainly the case that clans or tribes will frequently form property rights regimes that resemble what many in donning the “anarcho-capitalist/libertarian” mantle would support. Indeed, my proposed “Contract Between Americans” should be such a regime, wherein the “clan” is the “nation”. However, the majority of anarcho-capitalists will deny that mutual insurance companies are legitimate—saying they are “collectivist”—even though one of their recklessly cited icons, Lysander Spooner, directly states that such “collectivist” corporations are the very essence of legitimate government. They engage in this sophistry because they are Jewish extended phenotypes, like the Ron Paul and Objectivist “libertarians”. Their sole purpose for existing is to prevent real libertarianism from taking root. 22
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:33 | # I’ll save the political economists some time by quoting as follows:
23
Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:13 | # James, The MacDonald reference is beside the point, I was implying that the entire era of postbellum immigration to the industrial northern cities was (in large part) motivated by a desire for cheap labor and shouldn’t have happened. If our elite ascribed to a more complete picture of national wealth then I think that they would’ve gone about things differently. What exactly are you trying to say with the NOI reference? Are you suggesting that Jews are predominantly responsible for the American colonists’ participation in the transatlantic African slave trade (that they were merely involved is eminently reasonable)? I must admit, that would cause me to revise my thinking. But regardless of all this historical kvetching, even if we’ve been operating under a Jewish definition of wealth for two millennia I fail to see the harm in considering what a true picture of national wealth should be on a going forward basis. I’m sure we could agree on at least that much.
I don’t deny anything that there’s good evidence for, you’ll never see me questioning MacDonald’s carefully researched analysis. Moreover, I granted you the point about whose been winning the Nobel prize in economics in the post-war era. I accept all this as reality and don’t try to “weasel” around it. 25
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 21 Oct 2010 08:26 | # In other species, what you call a “warrior” is called a “reproductive male”. The homodomesticus you posit as typical of man is nothing of the sort. He is increasingly typical of “civilized man” but civilized man is a phenotype of incorporations—organisms recapitulating an early form asexual multicellular life using man-like beings as cells. His sexuality is a mutilated mockery merely producing cells. He may as well be the product of a clone factory. In a state of nature, the homodomesticus does not reproduce. Women won’t have him. His sexuality is reoriented to individual sovereignty or he is not considered a man. There is an enormous incentive for him to become sovereign because there are no “positions” he can occupy behind which he can hide under the protection of a group. The corporate concubine will be no more. DURING THE TRANSITION there may be a great many “homodomesticus” who are shielded by individual sovereigns but if so it is merely a temporary measure. They will either realize their natural potential or they won’t be represented in the next generation. 26
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:48 | # Posted by Dirty Bull on October 20, 2010, 03:45 PM | # Leon Haller,
That’s a rather extreme as well as irrelevant response, wouldn’t you say? Too much into your bitters, perhaps, when it was written? I do not support immigration, like Goldman Sachs (those fucks cost me a lot of money in 08), think that the USA is in good economic shape, or believe Bush was a rightwinger (if you think so, you are even more ignorant than you appear). None of this is of any relevance to what I said above, which, of course, you failed to refute, because you cannot. Europe’s pansy welfare democracies are fiscally doomed, absent mass immigration, substantial benefits cuts, or capitalist economic growth, and this was due in no small part to Europeans deciding to have fun and female careers for the past fifty years, instead of children. This point and the conclusion I derive from it are irrefutable. And the fact that hardline realists like me could cause you to betray your alleged nationalist commitment merely demonstrates that that commitment wasn’t much to begin with. 27
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:54 | # Pre-Roman Germany? No I don’t think there were many. When I use ‘thralls’ I’m speaking of shielded individuals in general but more in the context of post-Roman Germanics as the “progress” of civilization mutilated males of the homodomesticus syndrome. Many of these were homosexuals, which were simply killed along with cowards. Some may have appeared salvageable and indeed, may have been salvaged under the protection of a sovereign—others may have appeared to be, but were not salvageable. At present, most of us are multilated, but the human “processing” machinery has been accelerating in recent centuries—especially recent decades. The question is how much genetic structure is salvagable? 28
Posted by Dirty Bull on Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:42 | # Leon Haller, 29
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:22 | #
If only that were the prospect. But the reality is that Russo-Chinese crypto-Communist supremacy, once achieved, will immediately “collapse” (for real, this time) into global anarchy. So stock up - and look forward to the “freedom” of the State of Nature that is coming your way. 30
Posted by pug on Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:24 | # Dirty Bull, China’s economy is as good as dead without the American and European gravy train through which they rape us. We can, and should, shut them off at this moment to give them a reality check. Our leaders are unfortunately too cowardly to do so. 31
Posted by Notus Wind on Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:25 | # NN,
Correct.
Methinks you’re exaggerating here. 32
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:52 | # If freedom is to have any meaning then we must find as individuals in the State of Nature from which we derive Being. 33
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:59 | # Leon Haller,
I, too, would like to see Britain move closer to Europe, and away from the US, though I doubt that will happen. I would like to see the whole of Europe become a series of Racial States, so that Western Civ will be preserved at least there, if it is overwhelmed here. America has been a bad racial influence on Europe, both ideologically, as well as sociologically. By providing you with your defense during the Cold War, we effectively subsidized your welfare states, basically transforming nations of warriors into craven benefits seekers. By removing our defense subsidies, it will force you Europeans to start recovering your independence, and hence manhood. But of one thing I am certain: although there may be more nationalists in Europe, there are vastly more lickspittle leftists, too. At the same time, there are far more tough-minded, gun-owning, property-oriented, freedom loving conservatives here. In the next decade or so, many of them will make the leap towards incorporating racial realism into their conservatism. Because white Americans are tougher than at least West Europeans, I think we are more likely to endure with honor than you. But you still haven’t refuted my point wrt paying for Europe’s bloated pension states in an era of declining native European fertility. 34
Posted by Dirty Bull on Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:13 | # Inceasing the age of retirement - which the government is doing.Retirement at 65 was set 70 yeras ago, when the exoectation of life past 65 was very limited, this has changed and most 65 year olds are healthy and have a good few years left in them. 35
Posted by Dirty Bull on Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:20 | # I really dislike te way certain Americans brag and claim that they ‘saved Europe’ or even ‘paid for Europe’s welfare state’ Bollocks - you did nothing of the sort, you imposed your colonialist hegemony on Europe.You destroyed the world’s economic system by unilaterally defaulting on gold covertibility.You fermented Arab nationalism (with deadly results), by destroying Britain’s attempt to secure the Suez Canal back in ‘57 (in those days the wogs knew their place - and they needed the british bulldog to bark at the occasionally to keep them in line).You tried to drag Britain into Vietnam (good ol’ Harold Wilson strung you along, unlike lick spittle Blair), you introduced the dogma of political correctness, civil rights and multiculturalism, you imorted black troops into Germany, you fucked up the world by giving black and brown dead beats mortgages they couldn’t pay. 36
Posted by Matra on Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:49 | # you imposed your colonialist hegemony on Europe True, but the British played a big part in getting the US into the war and thus must take some responsibility for bringing about US hegemony in the first place. As the book Desperate Deception by Thomas Mahl shows the British government resorted to all kinds of trickery from honey traps for anti-war US politicians to mass media manipulation. (Churchill claims to have actually written some of the lines to That Hamilton Woman. Probably the part where they look at a map of Europe and talk about poor little England being all alone holding off the hordes). To this day virtually all Brits - left, right, working and middle class, English and ‘Celtic fringe’ - chastise the Americans for not getting involved in 1939 (like the obedient Australians and Canadians) when Britain declared war on Germany, so the Brits still haven’t learned. Even at the end of the war the British Foreign Office worked day and night to con the Americans into staying in Europe after the war to play the traditional British balancing role, this time with the USSR in mind. The British could’ve voted themselves out of the mess they’re in but they chose not to. They are willing subjects of the American multiculti empire. Charles de Gaulle was right about them (us). 37
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 23 Oct 2010 19:54 | # Unfortunately, it is true that the US has not been a force for white racial good overall, except insofar as we alone prevented the spread of communism, esp in Western Europe, whose capitulation to the communists (without American military aid and spine stiffening) would have been disastrous. America’s racial problems and ‘solutions’, none of which I ever supported, had nothing to do with Britain throwing open its borders (Germany, maybe, which angers me, as I am mostly of German ancestry, and we invaded them, and racially/ideologically reconstructed them), or with your awful, totalitarian anti-free speech laws (whose reach has meant that patriot sites like this one have to be based in the US). Don’t blame the US for Britain’s unnecessary capitulation to multiculturalism. It’s your own weakness. This is a kind of universal white mental pathology. This does not change the fact that Europe, including Britain, opted for socialism and laziness in the place of capitalist discipline and rearing large families, and the result is a crisis in European finances which cannot be papered over (unless literally - via wealth-confiscating inflation), and will necessitate either a massive scaling back in your welfare states, or a return to capitalism in a big way - or mass immigration. A sad, self-inflicted situation. We are in a similar one; worse, because we have larger numbers of unproductive non-whites, but better insofar as whites here are much more capitalist-oriented, and frankly harder-working. 38
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 24 Oct 2010 06:38 | #
The mechanism of Europe’s birth dearth. 1) You have a blue collar area with two families in their respective houses. The dislocation of indigenous family formation caused by immigration is a major factor in the birth dearth. There is no difference in America except in the *average* which is higher because the middle states are not (were not) the target of immigration. If you compared Europe with just those American states being over-run by immigration it would be the same. The growth of the white underclass partially compensates for this but that is a relatively recent phenomenon. This process of blocked family formation has been going on since mass immigration began. 39
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 24 Oct 2010 06:52 | # Dirty Bull, Anti-Americanism, while we’re in the middle of an ongoing genocide, is stupid. 40
Posted by Dirty Bull on Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:50 | # Leon Haller, 41
Posted by Dirty Bull on Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:58 | # Wandrin, 42
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:34 | # The coming collapse of Britain and America is because the Nazis chased the jews into the Anglosphere. TMJ + 80-100 From the point where a country has too many jews it has c80 to 100 years before total collapse. The details may vary on how it happens but it will happen. In particular think on how over the last 30 years the accumulated physical capital of Britain has been looted, monetized and transplanted to SE Asia while the human capital has been allowed to rot. The credit crunch is just the wind blowing the looted, hollowed out, house of cards over. 43
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 24 Oct 2010 13:25 | # DB, I admire PJB tremendously, but be assured, I think my own thoughts. I am a daily reader of The Wall Street Journal, a paper which is obviously too corporatist/globalist/immigrationist, but whose editorial page is nevertheless very good at dissecting legislation, as well as presenting all manner of business and political facts. They have published many articles and editorials over the years asserting that Americans work substantially more per year than Europeans, including Britons. I see no reason to dispute their often elaborately gathered findings. Indeed, look at these French weasels: striking and pillaging in large numbers over a proposal to raise the retirement age from 60 or 61 to 62. What a joke! I fully expect to work for pay (possibly out of necessity, or not, depending on my career and family trajectories, and the broader economy) at least until 70 - and I will write articles and books thereafter until I die. White fertility is a bit higher in the US than Europe, but that was never my point, which, rather, was that your social welfare/pension programs are so much more generous and comprehensive than our own, and your economies, even in the disastrous Age of Obama, so much more socialist/sclerotic, that your countries are mostly facing complete, long-term insolvency unless you radically change things. The US is in a worsening situation, too, but we have far more capitalist sentiment in our population, which bodes better for our extricating ourselves more rapidly. Labour always has been an utter disaster for Britain, never more so than under Blair/Brown. It is simply incorrect to blame the US for your current problems. 44
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 24 Oct 2010 13:40 | # The dislocation of indigenous family formation caused by immigration is a major factor in the birth dearth. There is no difference in America except in the *average* which is higher because the middle states are not (were not) the target of immigration. (Wandrin) There is some truth to this, but you don’t get off so easily. If you know your demographic history, you recognize that white fertility has been falling since the early twentieth century (as many then race theorists were already decrying), due obviously to a confluence of many factors, among which immigration barely registers. Our birthrates have continued to plummet, but much of the blame for that goes to feminism persuading women to seek out of home careers, and, frankly, The Pill (and easier access to more effective contraceptives generally). The devastation of two European Continent wars also wreaked havoc (along with massive civilian non-combat deaths, from disease and malnutrition), and communism both directly and indirectly depressed Eastern Europe’s fertility. But the main culprits were feminism, socialism (decreasing the familial economic worth of children), and sexual liberationism. The modern rootless, deracinated, de-Christianized West is simply not very conducive to traditional families, which are now often seen as more of a drag than a joy. The paradox, of course, is that The Future Belongs to the Fecund. 45
Posted by Dirty Bull on Sun, 24 Oct 2010 14:33 | # Anyone who takes the shit written in ‘The Wall Street Journal’ seriously is either: 1/. A globalist, open-borders plutocrat (mostly Jewish like R. Murdoch, prop.), with a vested interest in destroying nation states for big money. 46
Posted by Dirty Bull on Sun, 24 Oct 2010 14:39 | # Facts are facts. 47
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 24 Oct 2010 16:17 | #
There is truth to it and that is all that matters. 1) If mass immigration was halted then the white birth rate would go up. There is no need to worry about any other reasons. If those external factors were removed and there was still a problem we could worry about them at that point and fix them over time. The “America Alone” BS is just the usual jewish BS designed to a) distract white people from the real cause of their problems and b) lull Americans when in fact they are a decade or two further along the line to ethnic dispossession than Europeans are. And lo and behold look at the names of the people pushing that line. Birth rates are a symptom of our problem not the cause. 48
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 24 Oct 2010 16:20 | # Dirty Bull,
But not productivity. Productivity kept going up but wages stayed stagnant. Immigration. 49
Posted by Johnny Montana on Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:22 | # Economics doesn’t matter. The idea that economics matters is Jewish, just like economics itself. Not everything is about money or money-grubbing. Contemporary money is just another Jewish fiction, an expression of ancient Babylonian Jewish ritual magic. In the past people have had many more children under much worse material conditions. If they wanted to, whites today could have many more children than they do, but they don’t, because they don’t care. They don’t value life, because they don’t have to fight for it. Whites are overconfident and complacent. They don’t care about the future because they take it for granted. They still have it too good. They have no vision and no mission, and they have no faith in something greater than their stupid materialism-addicted selves. Whites need more negative feedback to help them refocus on what really matters. 50
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:31 | #
Is it any wonder… 51
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 10:31 | # Economics doesn’t matter. The idea that economics matters is Jewish, just like economics itself. Not everything is about money or money-grubbing. Contemporary money is just another Jewish fiction, an expression of ancient Babylonian Jewish ritual magic. In the past people have had many more children under much worse material conditions. If they wanted to, whites today could have many more children than they do, but they don’t, because they don’t care. They don’t value life, because they don’t have to fight for it. Whites are overconfident and complacent. They don’t care about the future because they take it for granted. They still have it too good. They have no vision and no mission, and they have no faith in something greater than their stupid materialism-addicted selves. Whites need more negative feedback to help them refocus on what really matters. (Johnny Montana)
The second paragraph, surprisingly, is very wise. 52
Posted by pug on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:05 | # I don’t know about the “ritual magic part,” but what else is wrong with the first paragraph? Post a comment:
Next entry: The eternal nation in its rural hearth
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:12 | #
[Dialogue taken from the film, The International:]
It’s about control…the IBBC is a bank - their objective…is to control the debt that the [armed] conflict produces. You see, the real value of a conflict - the true value - is in the debt that it creates. [If] you control the debt - you control everything!
...this is the very essence of the banking industry: to make us all, whether we be nations or individuals, slaves to debt.