Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old November 19th, 2013 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default Texts on Nationalism (up to 2000)

The Philosophy of Nationalism, by Charles Conant Josey, Ph.D.


[not the copy i have; mine has bright orange cover]

Josey was a professor of psychology at Dartmouth. He wrote this book back in the early 1920s; it was originally published in 1923. Reprinted by Scott-Townsend Publishers, POB 34070, NW Washington DC 20043. S-T is a good source of White academic material.

227 pages. Didn't think much of first chapter, but chapter two becomes very good toward the end, and continues through chapter three. It explains how a national context allows a particular type, a group, a racial entity of common birth, to flourish, in a way no NWO grabbag, no internationalist scheme, no bro-hood of man christy or secular scheme, possibly can. So I'm going to type in ch. 2, and any other good stuff I find in this. This thread can be posted in by others; use links to good material, not necessarily looking for huge chunks of text from classic writings about nationalism, just the good stuff, the pithier the better.

Last edited by Alex Linder; November 19th, 2013 at 03:31 PM.
 
Old November 19th, 2013 #2
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[keep always in mind when this guy was writing, and contrast the perspective then with what's going on today, 90 years later. Keep in mind this is an Ivy League professor writing these words - and how he would be treated today if he tried to publish these opinions.]

The Philosophy of Nationalism, by Charles Conant Josey. (1923)

Chapter II [pages 50-89]

THE PROBLEMS BEFORE US


Before we can intelligently criticise proposed solutions of world problems, it is necessary that we have some grasp of the problems that confront us.

A glance at the world as it now exists shows that broadly speaking, there are two groups of nations -- a dominant group and a subject group. In the first group are the Europeans, or white races. While many differences in culture and race, if race be taken in a narrow sense, may be pointed out within this group, yet both culturally and racially this group forms a comparatively homogeneous unit when compared with mankind as a whole. The second group does not present the same degree of homogeneity that the first one does. Indeed, for many purposes it should be divided into two groups. In one group should be placed the peoples of Asia. In the other group should be placed the peoples of Africa. This further division, however, is of no interest to us. For our concern is with the question: What should be the attitude of the dominant group of nations toward the other group? We may, therefore, properly limit our groups to two, and then ask what should be the relations between the European group of nations and the other.

By putting the question in this way, it is hoped the reader will for a time look at the world situation in terms of race and culture rather than in terms of narrow and restricted nationalism. Political institutions, national boundaries, and hatreds between the members of the European group are here left out of account. For fundamentally this group is united by a similarity of race and culture, which should enable it to rise above the petty issues, which keep it divided, into a spiritual unity that shall give it a common outlook and interest. On the other hand, by putting the question in the above way, it is hoped that the readers will recognize the close bonds of culture and race which unite all Europeans, and thus avoid the broad humanitarianism which, in placing all men on the same footing, removes the possibility of using pride in race and culture as levers in creating the social solidarity that is necessary if we are to maintain our position of dominance.

If the term nationalism can be expanded in this way, and so include all peoples who are united by pride in a common race and culture, it will adequately express the ideal which is to be opposed to the ideal of internationalism. Nationalism so defined would be a sort of limited internationalism; but instead of making its appeal to humanity, it would appeal to race consciousness and similarity of culture and interest. Nothing is more foreign to the use of Nationalism here employed than the rivalries, strife, and jealousies which separate the members of our cultural and racial group from each other. This strife is to be regarded as belonging to the same sort of civil warfare that proved fatal to Greece.

Notice an Ivy League professor speaking about white dominance - in 1923. Talking about RACIAL rather than PETTY, POLITICAL NATIONALISM - ie, WHITE nationalism. "ORION" - Our Race Is Our Nation. Contrast with Fox Jews teaching its sheep to hate the French, hate the Germans. Anything to divide whites from whites, and get them all looking to serve the jews. Josey is telling white men to look at what they have in common, and see that it outweighs their differences by a skyscraper to a pea.

Unless the meaning of Nationalism and Internationalism here given is kept in mind, much that is to follow regarding these ideals will be misunderstood. The discussion here to be undertaken is not so much regarding the relative merits of a narrow nationalism and a thoroughgoing internationalism, in the common meaning of these terms, as it is regarding the limits to which the internationalist ideals may desirably reach. That is to say, we are concerned to know whether it is better to embrace ideals that will tend to bind the dominant group of nations together in a union of closer friendship and mutual helpfulness, with a keener and deeper realization of the spiritual and racial values which should cause them to regard themselves as brothers; or whether it is better to embrace ideals that will tend to destroy the basis of this spiritual unity in the effort to get all men to regard themselves as brothers, with no distinction as to culture, common interest, or race.

This by way of explanation of the two ideals that are to be considered. What of the world for which these ideals are advanced?

The world as it exists to-day is dominated by the white races. Comprising about one-third of the population of the world, we have under our control approximately 80 to 90 per cent of the land area of the world. The parts of the world under our control include by far the richest portions of the world, with the possible exception of China, and China herself could hardly hold together if the whites wished otherwise. To-day we, in spite of the recent rise of an Oriental power, are the masters of the world. This mastery is based on our wealth, political genius, and the power of our armies and navies.

This proud position of world dominance has not always been the possession of the white races. Indeed, it is a very recent development. The position of the white races in the fifteenth century was quite different from what it is to-day. At that time they found themselves undisputed masters of only a small part of Europe, and even there they were not altogether secure from the threats of Asiatic invasion. If ever a race was at bay, the white race was at that time. Shut in between the Atlantic Ocean and a strong Oriental power, the fortunes of the white man were at a low ebb. Of a sudden the white race began to come back. At that time, largely as a result of geographical discoveries, it began a period of growth and expansion that have been greatly accelerated by discoveries in science and by the industrial revolution. This rapid racial expansion and growth in wealth and power have had certain psychological effects, such as enhancing feelings of race pride and personal worth. These have had much to do with the continued expansion of the race and its continued successes in imposing its will on other groups.

As a result, the white races acquired and possessed, certainly until recently, feelings of confidence and superiority and an assurance that have been great aids in overcoming opposition that would perhaps have been insurmountable otherwise. Owing, then, we may say, to certain geographical and scientific discoveries and improved methods of production, we have been able to effect a great racial expansion and to dominate the world. With this exalted position there have come feelings of race pride and personal worth, a confidence and an ambition that have provided us in a large way with the traits of domination. Thus success has endowed us with traits making for muore success and for a firmer hold on the world.

Our position, however, is not unthreatened. In taking possession of so large a part of the world, members in our group have become jealous and envious of each other. In dividing the spoils, many sources of friction have been created. More than this, in making use of our capital in exploiting the resources of backward countries, we are creating for ourselves industrial and possibly political rivals. For various reasons, there is a growing friction between our group of nations and the backward nations. The policies we are pursuing, dictated in part by our greed and in part by our idealism, are such that the exploited nations are becoming more and more able to make their resentment felt. In addition to these dangers each members of our group is divided into classes that are becoming more and more hostile. As a result , our social solidarity is becoming more and more endangered. We are thus placed in a precarious position. At the time when the friction between our group and the rest of the world increases, at the time when the power of the rest of the world is increasing, we find that our power is being more and more dissipated in the petty jealousies between the states of our group and in the struggles between capital and labor.

The dangers, then, which confront us may be divided into two groups -- those which are internal and those which are external. Under the first head should be placed the antagonism between the various members of our group and the struggle between classes. Under this head should be placed also the growing spirit of criticism and doubt regarding the superiority of our race and its claims to our loyalty and allegiance. Under this head must be placed the ethics of internationalism, which extols "service first" rather than "safety first," and which recognizes no value in loyalty to race and nation. Under this head must be placed the sporting attitude, which leads us to believe and hope, without paying due consideration to the handicaps* a wealthy cultural group is under when competing with a poor one, that the one which deserves to win will win.

In the group of external dangers should be placed the rapid industrialization of the Orient, the growing spirit of restlessness and ambition that has been fanned by our political and social ideals and by a more general dissemination of historical knowledge, discovered by the labors of our scholars. In this group must be placed the advantages of a poor group in competing with a wealthy one, and the consequent probability of a great racial expansion of the Orientals as a result of the industrial revolution that is being effected. Finally, in this group must be placed the danger of a rise of powerful military and naval powers to challenge our position of world domination.

* For discussion of these, see below, page 77.

Before considering these dangers, the question may be raised: What is the value of world domination? Why should we wish to dominate? Why not build factories where goods can be produced the cheapest? Why not invest capital where the largest returns are promised, regardless of race and nation? These questions are often raised; they require a serious answer.

It may be taken as certain that we wish a rich and complex culture, one that is highly organized, one that provides many opportunities for making life worth while, one that encourages artistic fruitfulness. It is no less certain that such a society is possible only where there is a considerable surplus of wealth. An account of the sources of our wealth reveals how largely it is based on a world specialization of function of which we are the beneficiaries. Unless we are able to maintain our position of advantage, we shall be deprived of the wealth that is the necessary basis for our rich and colorful culture. More than this, unless we maintain our position, we shall not be able to maintain our population, which will inevitably become smaller and smaller, while the population of countries which take our place will increase.

An account of the factors that have brought about our present wealth will make this apparent. Ultimately our wealth rests on our industrial system, which in turn rests upon a number of inventions which have improved our methods of production. As a result of these inventions and new methods of production, our workmen are enabled to produce as much wealth in a few hours as they formerly produced in days. When these discoveries were made we were given a tremendous advantage. The white man was placed in a position where he could buy with a few hours of labor what required a number of days to produce in a non-industrialized country. More than this, the world needed our manufactured articles. Hence, a trade sprang up of great profit to us, as well as to the non-industrialized country. As a consequence of this arrangement, we became immensely wealthy. The demand for a large population to operate our machines resulted. The wealth to support this population was created. As a result, the population of the white world has increased over 500 per cent since the industrial revolution.*

If we lose our dominant industrial position by industrializing our customers, what will become of the millions of our fellow-citizens dependent on this system for a living? What will become of the wealth it enables us to accumulate from all parts of the world? What will become of the leisure and the fruits of it which we prize? No doubt economists and others who favor the industrialization of the Orient can point to the fact that the commerce between two industrialized countries, like Germany and England, for instance, is more profitable than the commerce between one of these countries and a non-industrialized country. That is to say, they can point to the fact that we can make more out of a wealthy country than a poor one. But, after all, in order that an industrialized country may get the full benefit of its industrial system, is it not necessary that some supply it with raw materials and take in exchange the machine-made articles? If all the world becomes as industrialized as Western Europe, and each country has a surplus of manufactured goods it wishes to exchange for food and raw products, what will be the effect on our cultural group?

* This increase should not be regarded as due wholly to the industrial revolution. Other factors, such as geographical discoveries, the opening up of new sources of wealth, improved methods of sanitation and therapeutics, played an important part.

Last edited by Alex Linder; November 19th, 2013 at 03:31 PM.
 
Old November 19th, 2013 #3
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[chapter 2, cont'd]

For instance, England has a profitable business manufacturing the cotton grown in India for Indians. To-day Indians and Englishmen are building factories in India. Now, what will be the effect on the industrial life of England when all the cotton grown in India is manufactured in the mills of India? It is interesting to point out in this connection that in 1850 the number of silk workers in England was 130,000. To-day there are only 30,000. If the cotton trade should follow the silk trade, the economic life of England would certainly receive a heavy blow. Looked at from the point of view of India, the manufacture of cotton at home has many advantages. There would be saved the necessity of two long hauls. There would be no necessity of paying the foreign manufacturer a profit. Work for its own countless millions would be provided. But what becomes of England's mill-workers, her profits as a carrier, manufacturer, and trader?

The same may be said regarding the development of the coal and iron resources of China. When our capital and engineers, whether for profit or out of a desire to serve humanity, have made available the mineral resources of China, when China has been equipped with steel plants sufficient to meet her needs and to compete with us in the markets of the world, what effect will this have on our industrial supremacy? And so on with all other industries. To lose our position of dominance means that rivals have taken our place. It means that the great source of our wealth is removed. It not only means that we shall have to meet severe competition in the markets of the world, but that the products of our labor will have to meet the competition of cheap labor even at home. It is useless to point to the profitable trade between two industrialized countries as evidence of the fact that our group of nations would profit by the industrialization of the world.

World industrialization would be disastrous to us. Take England or Germany. How can the population of these highly industrialized countries exist except as manufacturing centres? How can they remain great manufacturing centres unless they have customers? How can they keep their customers, if their customers are equipped to make goods not only for their own use but for world consumption? Destroy the industrial life of England or Germany by taking away their customers, and millions of people in these countries must perish. It is only by their industrial system that these countries can support their populations. As millions of Europeans came into existence as a result of our industrial system, so millions will have to die if this industrial system fails.

The value of our dominant economic position should be apparent. It is the basis of our culture. Destroy it and many of the things we prize will be destroyed. More than this, our political and military domination depends in large measure on our industrial domination. For our superiority in war does not rest essentially on our disputed superiority as soldiers. It rests essentially on our undisputed superiority in organizing and equipping with deadline engines of destruction vast armies of men. The valor, intelligence, and endurance of individual soldiers will always be powerful factors in determining defeat or victory, and we may well be proud of our soldiers in these respects. But, after all, it should be apparent that no matter how rich an army may be in soldierly qualities, it cannot stand against an enemy who possesses the latest implements of war in limitless quantities, unless it is likewise equipped. Our industrial system gives us this advantage. It is because we possess an industrial system capable of equipping our soldiers and supplying them with limitless quantities of munitions that we have military and political domination of the world.

But the question we are considering is: Why should we wish to dominate? The value of political and military domination lies in the feeling of security and liberty it gives us. It may be that we shall take no advantage of our position, but if we lose it, can we be sure that those who acquire it will not make use of it to our disadvantage? By being dominant we have a free hand to put into effect those measures which we regard as good.* But more important than these, our industrial domination, which is the basis of our culture, is closely bound up with our political and military domination. We need the latter in making secure concessions, trade advantages, and foreign investments. Political domination is a guarantee to the integrity of our rights to inventions and improved methods of production. It is a great aid in giving us a free hand in exploiting the resources of backward countries. Military and political domination are, therefore, close allies of our industrial and economic structure. Our culture and civilization are, in fact, built on domination. Domination we regard as desirable because many of our values are dependent on it. If we should lose it, a fundamental reconstruction of many of our values would be necessary.

* There will be occasion later to point out, in connection with a discussion regarding the growing friction between classes in our group, a very definite value of our military supremacy.

The value of world domination should be apparent. We should, therefore, take a keen interest in preserving it. To preserve it we must have a clear understanding of the tendencies that are undermining it. It has been pointed out that our domination is based largely on our industrial system. Yet our industrial system has from its beginning contained in it seeds of danger. These seeds are now maturing. They require attention. With proper care they can be controlled.

It would be natural to think that, with the greatly increased wealth of our group as a result of our industrial system, all men in our group would be provided with the means of living well. This, however, did not occur. The rise in the standard of living in our group has not been commensurate with the increase in wealth. Yet many of citizens live in want. They laborer whose work doubled and trebled in value as a result of improved methods was allowed only a small part of his increased production. Most of the increase went to the owners of the machines, who seemed little disposed to regard them as capital created co-operatively. The inventions which came into their possession were regarded as theirs in right, and their duty to society, which, in a very real sense, was the source of the inventions was given scant attention. Society not only acquiesced in this, but encouraged this attitude by giving the owners of the machines monopolistic rights. As a result of this policy, the price of many articles became greater, following the introduction of machines, than the old price, though the quality was poorer.* Labor, as a consequence, found itself little better off than it was before the improved method of production had been discovered.

* See Levy, Economic Liberalism.

It is not hard to understand why society should have acted in this way. There were no precedents to follow. Private ownership of property and the ethics of capitalism were the only ideas that had taken a deep hold on the thought of Western Europe. Governments also needed money. The granting of monopolistic control of inventions seemed a good way to exploit to the limit the inventions as well as an easy method of raising money. The use and methods of exploiting our inventions were thus along the line of least resistance. Conditions always affect our moral ideas. We find an illustration of this in the moral ideas regarding the use of inventions and of the new wealth created by them. The social arrangements for exploiting these inventions were soon regarded as founded on some principle of right. Thus always do moral ideals tend to follow social practices.

Yet the slightest knowledge of the history of inventions and our improved methods of production is sufficient to cause us to question seriously the justice of this arrangement. Our machines and methods of production are the products of a long evolutionary process. It is true that men of genius have been necessary to carry on the process. These men should be rewarded. But the genius must have material with which to work. He does not spin theories or make discoveries out of thin air. It is because society has accumulated a vast wealth of knowledge and a great number of machines that we have a rapid rate of invention. As an individual the genius has simply wonderful capacities. Left alone, few of them would be actualized. It is society that contributes to him the factors that actualize his potentialities. It is society that places at his disposition its accumulated knowledge. It is society which provides him with the insights of other men of genius and with the incentives for creativeness. The bent of mind, the interest, the insights of the genius, as well as his knowledge, are largely social contributions. We raise the question: What right has society to give to a few of its members such a large share of the wealth produced largely by the accumulated wisdom of the group that other members are not provided with the means for a decent living?

If society had been firm in its claim to the first right to dispose of the fruits of inventions, we should, no doubt, have had a different distribution of the wealth that has resulted from them. Or, you might not have them at all. Meaning no wealth for Dartmouth professors to step in and forcibly redistribute. Because it neglected to do so, it has allowed the wealth created by them to be concentrated in the hands of a few. As a result, the standard of living for the masses has not taken the rise that conditions warrant. In order to be liberal to our inventors and to encourage others, we have allowed a social situation to develop which is full of danger for us. Society committed a grave blunder in not safeguarding itself against this development. When our group discovered a method by which its wealth could be greatly increased, why did it allow this increase to centre in the hands of a few? Why was it not used to raise the standard of living for all members in our group? In other words, when we substituted machine production for hand production, and thereby greatly increased the efficiency of labor, why did we not see to it that labor got a fair share of its increased production?

He's simply wrong about this. Look at the standard of living across the US by the 1950s. He's simply repeating socialist cant, without acknowledging the costs of his position, or the risks of the position he advocates. He doesn't notice the real troubles, which were the creation of the Fed and the imposition of the income tax, in the decade before he wrote this.

Because we did not do this, we have to-day a struggle between capital and labor that is constantly growing in bitterness. The labor group is learning more and more regarding its rights and the injustices it has suffered. With this knowledge there has come a greater power to right the wrong. It has come to see our wealth as the products of our joint efforts, and as a result of the accumulated knowledge of mankind. It demands, therefore, a larger share of it. Behind these demands is an enlightened social conscience. But as might be expected from the nature of the case, the capitalist group has been only slightly touched by this awakened social conscience, and seeks to intrench itself behind court decisions and statutes -- as if these could be effective against the aroused will of society, which demands that all its members shall partake more freely and fully of the goods it has to offer.

This class struggle is not the only evil that has resulted from denying labor a full share in the increased production of our group. Because labor has not shared fully there has been a great accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few. Accumulations of this sort need to be invested. In order to invest them as profitably as possible, our capitalists have sought investments in backward countries, which are willing to grant concessions and pay a high rate of interest. Owing to the attractiveness of foreign investments, there has arisen a keen competition between the large nations in our group, which unfortunately has been a source of the friction, jealousy, and tension, and was an important cause of the World War.

Of recent years foreign investments have become especially attractive on account of the growing friction bewteen capital and labor at home. Labor here has become more and more restive. It is no longer content to see itself debarred from a full entrance into the cultural life of our group. It is developing a deeper consciousness of the injustices it has suffered. It is becoming more and more able to enforce its demands. As a result investments in foreign countries become more and more popular.

However antisocial the investment of capital in foreign countries may be, when viewed from the interest of our group, we should not blame capitalists too severely for such investments. In so acting they have but conformed to the ethics of capitalism. Their behavior has not been determined by unpatriotic motives. The great attractiveness of foreign investments has rested primarily on the high rate of interest that foreign countries have been willing to pay. Where capital is scarce the rate of interest is high. Where it is plentiful it is low. Since capital is more abundant in our own group than in the other group, the rate of interest has naturally been lower here. Hence investments in foreign countries have been merely a matter of good business. The friction between capital and labor has simply served to increase the attractiveness of foreign investments.

Competition among our manufacturers and traders has also tended to bring about the exportation of great quantities of capital. A trader quite naturally thinks that if he can establish a factory near his customers, and at the same time near an abundance of cheap labor and raw materials, he will be in a position of advantage over his rivals, who, in keeping their factories at home, must of necessity ship both their manufactured and raw goods long distances.

As a result of the exportation of capital to foreign countries, much ill-feeling has resulted between the various members of our group. This has been, and is, all the more serious, because the governments of the nations in our group back with force of arms, if necessary, the investments so made. Economic penetration in time seems to lead to political control. It is easy to see the possibility here of dangerous friction between two of our great nations.* Much of the antagonism between France and England during the last century was caused in this way. Indeed, the one interpretation that will go farthest in accounting for the rivalries of the great powers in our group is the economic imperialism of each, or the desire to exploit the resources of countries that cannot protect themselves. Countries which by race and culture should form one group of homogeneous and friendly powers hate and fear each other because the capitalists in each wish to have the privilege of supplying some backward country with capital at an exorbitant rate of interest. For this reason largely they stand each other off at sword's point, and even welcome the aid of nations without our group in their civil warfare, instead of presenting that solidarity which a similarity of culture, race and true interest warrant.

* An illustration of this can be found in the recent Chester concessions made by Turkey.

Last edited by Alex Linder; November 19th, 2013 at 04:22 PM.
 
Old November 19th, 2013 #4
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[ch. 2, cont'd]

The common defense of our capitalistic society is that of expediency. We are continually told that it is the great incentive to invention and constant improvement. We are told that it is the most economical and efficient way to make more and more capital. Admitting all this, are we not warranted in asking, why should we wish to increase our capital at the expense of the legitimate demands of the masses of our people for a higher standard of living? Why not increase the cost of production, if by doing so we can secure a larger consumption among our own people? What is the advantage of increasing our wealth, if it is to be used to industrialize foreign countries? More than this, arguments of expediency and efficiency are losing much of their force on account of the growing strife between capital and labor. The present chaotic conditions of our industrial system do not argue well for the expediency of a capitalistic society.

If capitalism is to be defended on the basis of expediency, capitalists must show a greater competency in handling industrial problems in such a way that the group as a whole can be assured of the service it has a right to expect. A few more strikes like the recent coal strike and the strike of the railroad shopmen can but create serious doubts regarding the efficiency of our present industrial organization. The inconvenience of long-suspended railroad service, the general industrial setback which resulted from lack of coal, the suffering that resulted, the profiteering spirit of the coal dealers, does not argue for an efficiency. Much less does the arrogance of the small group of railroad and mine executives argue for the fitness to control of those who have control of our industrial and economic life.

Private capitalism has much to answer for, but one of the most serious of all is its rapid exportation of our capital, which is being used to create industrial rivals. It would seem that a keener realization of its true interest would prevent such a policy. In its mad anxiety to get quick and large profits, it follows a policy that not only jeopardizes the future of our group but its own source of income. If ever there were a case of killing the goose that laid the golden egg, we have it in the present policy of exporting capital to be used for industrializing backward countries.

The effect of this on our industrial, political, and military position has already been indicated. If one thinks that undue alarm has been shown, let him contemplate the rapid rise of Japan as an industrial nation, her marvelous feats in turning out ships and munitions during the war. These she did under heavy handicaps. When she has back of her the boundless resources of China, she gives promise of becoming one of the world's greatest industrial centres. It will be hard to overestimate the effect this will have on us. We have had a recent example of how this competition might work. When Germany, in payment of indemnity, began to turn ships over to England, the shipbuilders in England felt the pinch. When she began to deliver coal to France in large quantities, French ministers began to protest.* England and France were able to stop this competition of foreign goods; but when Japan enters the world market as a great industrial power, backed by an abundance of cheap labor and the resources of China, Europe will not be able to dispose of her competition so easily. When we think of the cheapness of Oriental labor, the immense resources of China near at hand, and what she has already done, in spite of the handicap of having to import large quantities of steel from America, the possibility of disastrous competition looms as a menacing possibility.

* At the present time France is in the Ruhr trying to get coal. The revival of her industries seems to have increased her needs for coal. This does not affect the general argument. If French coal is forced to compete with foreign coal that is much cheaper, we may expect suffering among French miners, and a protest from them.

[will finish posting ch2 on wednesday.]

Last edited by Alex Linder; November 20th, 2013 at 11:29 AM.
 
Old November 19th, 2013 #5
Joe_Smith
Senior Member
 
Joe_Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,778
Joe_Smith
Default

The arguments between globalist capitalism and nationalism are better framed as Jew vs Aryan. Jews, whether Trotskyist or hard-line "nationalist"/Zionists, always support globalization for the Goyim, because that is where their small yet disparate population have the greatest advantage. Were it not for the global nature of "free markets", even Jews allowed to practice business unhindered would collapse in nationalist economies.

In the Middle Ages many European gentile women were forced to create cottage industries, in order to support their families after their husbands died in wars. When they would take their products to the market, often superior to the ones Jews sold, Jewish competitors would cut their prices so low that they weren't making a profit until they destroyed their competition. The reason these Jewish peddlers could afford to do this is because they had global connections and access to markets around the known world where they were making big profits, not to mention Kike Cabals of money-lending parasites that subsidized struggling Jewish businesses while Gentile governments did not.

Borderless markets are Jewish home turf, you're never going to win against a race-based network that spans the 4 corners of the Earth. If you taxed or put tariffs on multi-national businesses and speculators, Jews would simply starve to death.
__________________
"The favorite slogan of the reds is: 'No Pasarán!: Yes we have passed! And we tell them...and we tell them, we will pass again!'"
― Benito Mussolini after the Communist capitulation in Barcelona
 
Old November 20th, 2013 #6
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
The arguments between globalist capitalism and nationalism are better framed as Jew vs Aryan. Jews, whether Trotskyist or hard-line "nationalist"/Zionists, always support globalization for the Goyim, because that is where their small yet disparate population have the greatest advantage. Were it not for the global nature of "free markets", even Jews allowed to practice business unhindered would collapse in nationalist economies.

In the Middle Ages many European gentile women were forced to create cottage industries, in order to support their families after their husbands died in wars. When they would take their products to the market, often superior to the ones Jews sold, Jewish competitors would cut their prices so low that they weren't making a profit until they destroyed their competition. The reason these Jewish peddlers could afford to do this is because they had global connections and access to markets around the known world where they were making big profits, not to mention Kike Cabals of money-lending parasites that subsidized struggling Jewish businesses while Gentile governments did not.

Borderless markets are Jewish home turf, you're never going to win against a race-based network that spans the 4 corners of the Earth. If you taxed or put tariffs on multi-national businesses and speculators, Jews would simply starve to death.
Whites are all over the world, and in greater numbers than jews. You're inferring off pure ideology. Jews work as a team, there's no system they won't or can't adapt to, though there are systems that are better for Whites. That cult you defend did a great job teaching that loaning money at interest is immoral and leaving that practice to the jews.
 
Old November 20th, 2013 #7
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[finishing ch. 2, pages 70-89]

It is not only our industrial supremacy that is here threatened. As has been pointed out, with industrial and economic supremacy goes political supremacy. We must not let the present lack of military strength of Asia blind us as to her possibilities in this direction. If the present process of industrialization of Asia continues, she will have at her disposal the means to equip and supply with munitions her vast man-power. More than this, her man-power will be enormously increased. It has already been pointed out that, accompanying the industrial revolution in Europe, the population of the white world increased over 500 per cent. This cannot be regarded as due to increased wealth alone. Other factors entered in. But making all due allowances for these, the possibilities for a great increase in the population of Asia from industrialization, improved methods of sanitation, and therapeutics are staggering. An appreciation of these possibilities may be had from considering the mortality rate among infants in China. According to a physician resident for twenty years in Hong-Kong and Chang-King, 80 per cent of infants in these cities die before they become two years of age. In order that China may maintain its population in spite of this rate of infant mortality, its birth-rate must be one that would startle Europeans. Increase in wealth and improved methods of sanitation will not cause a decline in the birth-rate of China. Her religion will tend to prevent this. Yet the death-rate would be greatly reduced. The increase that may be expected is indicated by the increase in India during the last century. During this period the population of India increased from 100,000,000 to 300,000,000. And yet India is a long way from being and industrial country. The increase in her population has been effected chiefly by improved methods of agriculture and sanitatio. When to these factors making for an increase is added that of industrial life, and all these have become operative thoughout Asia, it is hard to conceive the teeming mass of humanity that will then result.

What will become of our military and political domination when these developments have occurred? China alone, when industrialized and militarized, will be able to test the strength of the combined nations of Europe. What will be her attitude when she has filled to overflowing her boundaries and sees vast regions of the earth that are sparsely settled denied to her? Will she be content to see her people die of want when vast regions might be used to afford relief? Because China is peaceful when powerless, we cannot count on her being peaceful when powerful. The preparations she is making for war should warn us against such an assumption. The menace to us of a strong China militarized has been graphically pointed out by G. Lowes Dickinson:

"And now look East. It is the same alternative. China, next to and perhaps even beyond the United States, is a storehouse of potential energy with which all Europe would contend in vain once it were developed. but Europe is compelling its development; compelling it not only in the economic but in the military sense. For centuries China has preached and acted on the gospel of peace. Europe, taking advantage of her weakness, mocks at the philosophy which led to it. Europe is as anxious to instruct her in war as to instruct her in industry. Well, in both Europe is prevailing. Listen to the words of a Chinese Confucian, and see what thoughts European policies have forced upon these men who once believed in reason. . . . 'I solemnly hope that in the future I shall be a Hindenburg or a Petain. Germany and France being now at war, I am going to be trained as a soldier in the land of Generals Jackson and Lee.'"

Dickinson gives also a graphic description of the preparations China is making to become a military power: "In the last five years Bill after Bill has been considered by the Government for universal conscription; proposal after proposal has been submitted to President Yuan Shih-Kai for the extension of arsenals and the establishment of shipbuilding yards. The War Office is busily engaged in training army officers and the Admiralty in training naval cadets. Flying schools have been opened, flying corps have been formed; cavalry, artillery, infantry, commissariat, Boy Scouts, Red Cross nurses, and even Women Volunteer Corps -- all have come into being, and all will grow to full strength in time. It is certain that once the foundation has been laid, the structure will be firm; and that once the seeds have been sown the fruits will be wholesome. It may take them fifty years or more before they can be tested in the field, but the day will come ... when China, possessing one-fourth the world's population and occupying an area twnety times as great as Great Britain, will adequately defend her vast Empire and claim the voice and place to which she is entitled in the family of nations."*

* The Choice Before Us, 21 ff. Dickinson cites these facts to support pacificism.

The author is correct about China's rise to power, but he is wrong about the threat to us. It came from our allowing jews, specifically jew bankers, to create the Federal Reserve, to take over our money, and to turn us from a free and sovereign country with a tiny central state into a massive empire 17 trillion in debt, by the conservative estimate. The problems came, still come, from within. Until we identify the jew as the enemy we face, the main enemy, the leading enemy, the enemy which directs the lesser enemies, things will continue to get worse.

In spite of the dangers we are creating for ourselves by our present foreign policies -- economic and political -- there are many who defend them. This is what might be expected. A social philosophy can invariably be created to justify a social practice. It is very easy for this to take place. Our practices direct our interest in a given channel. Our plans, expectations, and values follow our practices. Ideals of the good thus come into existence. Hence the justification of one's life activities and plans. We should, therefore, not be surprised, no matter what the ultimate dangers to us of exporting our capital and aiding in the establishment of strong and efficient governments, that these practices should be defended. Some defend them on the ground of the idealism of service. Is it not our duty, they ask, to help others? Others defend them as being in harmony with sound principles of economics. Is it not advisable, they ask, to produce goods where they can be produced the cheapest? Will not the whole world be helped if the total amount of goods is increased?

A criticism of the above ethics of service will be made later. It is the defense based on economics that I now wish to examine.

Economists base their defense on the observation that there is a tendency to produce goods where they can be produced the cheapest. From this observed tendency they make the judgment that they should be produced where they can be produced the cheapest. On the basis of what is this judgment made? Why should we wish goods to be produced at the least possible cost? To manufacture goods at the lowest possible cost means cheap labor. Who is there to say that the wages paid labor should be lower than that warranted by the production of wealth? Why should we think it better that the Chinese manufacture our goods at half the cost Americans can manufacture it, if it means for the Chinese a standard of living intolerable to the American, or if it means lack of employment for millions of Americans? It may be very good economics to say that the tendency is for goods to be manufactured where they can be manufactured cheapest, but it is very doubtful ethics to say that they should be.

Economists, in making the transition from a statement of fact to a value judgment regarding the statement of fact, show too great reverence for the operation of blind tendencies. Indeed, some economists seem to get the same thrills and satisfaction from subjecting all their values to the operation of impersonal forces that the religious devotee gets from bending his will to that of the Deity. Economic laws become the gods before whom they bow down and worship. Race and national values are discarded, the desire that the labor of one's group be assured protection against the cheap labor of other groups becomes of no importance. Free and unrestricted trade becomes their cult; their one great desire that goods be produced where they can be produced at the lowest cost.

Thus a Californian writing in The Journal of International Ethics in April, 1921, regarding the Japanese, says: "If Americans cannot hold their own in labor and merchandising they ought to be superseded." Yet other writers quoted in the same article brought out the fact that the Japanese work sixteen hours a day, and that their wives work with them. Nor do they contribute to the support of the various social organizations. Why should one wish the Americans to be superseded when subjected to such competition?

The same disposition to regard tendencies as values is to be found in Demangeon's book entitled America and the Race for World Dominion. In spite of the author's recognition of the industrial and economic decline of Europe through internal disintegration brought about by the war, and by the rise of economic rivals outside of Europe, he so far neglects the interest of Europe as to make it of secondary importance compared with the good that is to come from the economic development of other countries. His knowledge of the advantages of Asia in turning out cheap goods does not give him anxiety. Rather, it is a source of gratification. He is glad the world is to have a greater abundance of wealth. Perhaps if he is at all interested in the future welfare of Europe, he feels that with the increased wealth of the world there will be a greater amount for each. Hence, all will profit.

This is a fallacy commonly held. The glaring example in our culture of how the wealth of a group as a whole can be increased immensely, and yet vast numbers within our group share in it hardly at all, seems to have passed unnoticed. People talk as if all the people in our industrial centres were better off than their ancestors in the thirteenth century.* They talk as if the slums of our great cities did not exist within a stone's throw of a superabundance of wealth. They talk as if people in the remote parts of the world had been helped by the great increase of wealth in our group.

Last edited by Alex Linder; November 20th, 2013 at 11:58 AM.
 
Old November 20th, 2013 #8
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

An increase in the total amount of wealth in the world offers no guarantee that the wealth of our group will increase. It is more likely that the shift which would make Asia an industrial centre would not only reduce our wealth relatively, but absolutely. Savages have not enjoyed any great benefits from our industrial revolution. Nor is it easy for us to see how we are to be helped by the shift of the textile, shipbuilding, and steel industries to the Orient. No matter how cheaply the Orient may turn out these goods, unless the West has something with which to buy, what is the value? Or if our factories are closed as a result of the competition, in what way will we be helped by a great increase in the total wealth of the world?

No one, then, should maintain that goods should be produced where they can be produced the cheapest, or that if we cannot hold our own we should lose. This attitude, however, is not based entirely, as some think, on our desire to get cheap goods. It is often colored by our feelings of sportsmanship. We feel that the best man should win. We seem to take it as a matter of course that the best man will cut the cost to the lowest point and thus win.

* Of course most of our population is provided with more wealth than the average of the thirteenth century. But there are many who are not. This goes to show that we cannot be sure we shall profit by an absolute increase in the wealth of the world.

This last assumption is poorly founded. The methods of the Japanese in California illustrate this on a small scale. In a struggle between us and Asia for economic and industrial supremacy, Asia has many advantages. A poor country that is adopting the methods of a wealthy one always has certain advantages. The standard of living in the poor country is not as high as it is in the wealthy one. Labor there is less expensive. It is more docile and is willing to work under conditions that a laborer in the already wealthy country will not tolerate. Of course, in time, if the new group becomes wealthy, labor there, too, becomes more and more powerful and insists on a larger share of the new wealth. This, however, takes time. While the change is occurring, the industrial life of the old group is put to a severe test. More than this, the wealth of the new competitor must in a large way be due to successful competition with the old group. On the other hand, if the new competitor proves unable to develop into an industrial country of any great efficiency, her wealth will not increase materially. Hence, the standard of living for her industrial workers will not rise appreciably. As a result, the workers in the old industrial group will have to meet always the products of cheap labor.

When we face the possibility of Oriental competition we are thus confronted with the following dilemma: Either Asia will become wealthy or it will not. If it does, it means that our industrial organization, deprived of many markets, and having to meet foreign competition at home, will no longer be able to support our working classes at the present standard of living. If Asia does not become wealthy, there can be no rise in the standard of living there. As a result, we must be prepared to meet always the products of cheap labor. Our standard of living must in time be lowered and many of our working men die.

We cannot say, then, that the best man will win in such an economic struggle. Such a struggle favors frugality, low standards of living, long hours of work, and unfavorable working conditions. Who is there to say that the laborer who will submit to such conditions is a better man than those who are more independent and self-respecting? Who is there to say that our workmen deserve defeat because they demand for themselves and for their families a larger share of the goods they help produce than the more indifferent and docile Chinese? We have no right to assume that the best man will win through the unrestricted operation of blind economic laws.

Formerly races declined by the influx of cheap foreign labor. When a nation became civilized and its wealth had increased, its standard of living would tend to rise. Native labor would tend to demand more of the wealth and better working conditions. Outsiders would be attracted by the greater wealth and by employers. Native labor, on account of its willingness to meet the competition of the new laboring element, would die off and be superseded by the foreign laborers. This process has not been so significant in the past, as it has been confined to various branches of the white race. The possibility of future shifts, however, are more serious. Shifts which occur in the future will mean the supplanting of white labor by colored. If this should occur, we shall not be able to say that the best man won any more than we are to make this statement regarding cases in the past. All we can say is that the man who won did so because he was willing to work harder and to live on less than the other. But are such traits to be regarded as an indication of superiority over a man who possesses a greater solicitude to provide himself and his family with more of the good things that surround him?

These questions must be considered when we, in our reverence for economic laws, hold that, through their unrestricted operation, the best man will win; or when we so naively assume that the man who wins deserved to win. History reveals that by the unrestricted operation of these laws men in a lower cultural group drive to the wall men in a higher, when they come in contact. The process then begins anew. But nowhere does it show that men in the lower cultural group are superior to those in the higher.

Thus, if the industrialization of the Orient enables it to flood the world with its products of cheap labor and drive our industries and millions of our workers to the wall, we cannot assume that the labor of the East is superior to ours. We should, therefore, not sit idly in the expectation that by so doing the best man will win, or in the hope that the operation of undirected economic tendencies will insure the greatest good of our group or of the world. Instead of so doing, we should make use of our knowledge in order to direct economic development so as to safeguard our own industrial life and to realize the ends we value. But instead of taking this attitude, there are some who have so adapted themselves to what they regard as inevitable that, like the fatalist of the East, they seem to get from their deterministic view of life and culture the sort of satisfaction one gets when he ceases to struggle, or when he feels that some moral responsiblity has been lifted from his shoulders. In some respects their attitude is quite similar to the feelings of moral satisfaction and elation which the religious devotee experiences in seeing the hand of God in all that affects man.

Author is conflating moral judgment with facts. First, let's estalish what laws or system produces the maximum economic output. That's worth knowing. So that if we jump in to distort the market per our morals or political philosophy, at least we have a good idea what we're messing with/up or missing. As for what is "best" and so forth, that's a separate question. It starts with a more basic question about nationhood. If the concept of a nation is untied from birth and race, as is the case in the USA in 2013, thanks to decades of jewish brainwashing and twisted law, then treating men as fungible parts of a global order makes a lot more sense. Especially when backed by a universal church at least 90% of white men nominally belong to talking about service and sacrifice and our duty to bring our little brown brothers to Christ. Notice also the casual, unthinking way that the author assumes economic tendencies are easy to direct by the government. That is the central conceit of the socialists. All recorded experience falsifies it. The entire point of the market is that men CAN'T know. That's why most enterprises fail. Most that succeed end up giving way to others. It's not something that can be simply directed by some James Carville or Hillary Clinton or bureaucrat-of-your-choice sitting in some supersized mausoleum in Washington, D.C. But this way of thinking makes eminent good sense, both to the idiot, to whom all things are simple and easy, and to the professor, who thinks he's smarter than everyone else, and for sure smarter than the businessman. (In no way do I imply that idiots and college professors are two easily separated groups.) It's the businessman who actually gets done what people want, to make a profit, and thereby incurs the hatred of the passive moralists in the church and academy because his motives aren't 'pure.' As though there is something wrong with wanting to make a profit, or making one. Better we should all be poor and eat tree bark in Aryan Unity, as Joe thinks, or be poor and let the priests make all our decisions for us, as the Catholic church thinks. Everybody from Chesterton on down knows how things ought to be distributed, but only the businessman, the inventor, the service provider knows how to bring those things into existence. The truth is the opposite of what you see in the jewsmedia: the businessman is usually the good guy. Just as his critic is usually the bad guy.

Last edited by Alex Linder; November 20th, 2013 at 02:16 PM.
 
Old November 20th, 2013 #9
Joe_Smith
Senior Member
 
Joe_Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,778
Joe_Smith
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Whites are all over the world, and in greater numbers than jews. You're inferring off pure ideology. Jews work as a team, there's no system they won't or can't adapt to, though there are systems that are better for Whites. That cult you defend did a great job teaching that loaning money at interest is immoral and leaving that practice to the jews.
It doesn't matter how many whites are in the world or how many numbers greater we have. While Jews work together, we have been infected by British individualist capitalist culture. People with your economic thinking subconsciously stifle efficient ways of working together, rather than work towards it, this doesn't exist amongst Jews. Jewish takeover was far more successful and bloodless in Britain, America, and the Calvinist Netherlands , than it ever was in Germany or Russia. In fact, the Jews depended on their economic and political power in the former to subjugate the latter via violence.

Most Right-wingers in America would be shocked at whites getting an "unfair" advantage over rich Jews. If I recommended a government subsidy for Aryan companies competing against Cabal-backed Jewish businesses, you would immediately start spouting off bogus science about "market forces"-invented by 18th/19th century kikes who used to blow tobacco smoke up their ass to cure indigestion- always predicting doomsday scenarios that never come to fruition whenever someone raises the minimum wage or establishes a tariff. Libertarians and their Jew-boy preachers like Schiff are little more than an end-of-days cult to enrich hucksters, this is woven into the fabric of American culture.

The reason Jews adapt anywhere is because the Jew is basically a racial socialist. Jews historically don't loan money at interest to other Jews, but to Goyim. So what reason would there have ever been to normalize a low-life practice such as usury in European culture, to enslave other whites?
__________________
"The favorite slogan of the reds is: 'No Pasarán!: Yes we have passed! And we tell them...and we tell them, we will pass again!'"
― Benito Mussolini after the Communist capitulation in Barcelona

Last edited by Joe_Smith; November 20th, 2013 at 12:41 PM.
 
Old November 20th, 2013 #10
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
It doesn't matter how many whites are in the world or how many numbers greater we have. While Jews work together, we have been infected by British individualist capitalist culture. People with your economic thinking subconsciously stifle efficient ways of working together, rather than work towards it, this doesn't exist amongst Jews. Jewish takeover was far more successful and bloodless in Britain, America, and the Calvinist Netherlands , than it ever was in Germany or Russia. In fact, the Jews depended on their economic and political power in the former to subjugate the latter via violence.

Most Right-wingers in America would be shocked at whites getting an "unfair" advantage over rich Jews. If I recommended a government subsidy for Aryan companies competing against Cabal-backed Jewish businesses, you would immediately start spouting off bogus science about "market forces"-invented by 18th/19th century kikes who used to blow tobacco smoke up their ass to cure indigestion- always predicting doomsday scenarios that never come to fruition whenever someone raises the minimum wage or establishes a tariff. Libertarians and their Jew-boy preachers like Schiff are little more than an end-of-days cult to enrich hucksters, this is woven into the fabric of American culture.

The reason Jews adapt anywhere is because the Jew is basically a racial socialist. Jews historically don't loan money at interest to other Jews, but to Goyim. So what reason would there have ever been to normalize a low-life practice such as usury in European culture, to enslave other whites?
If you had your way whites would be doing coerced mass calisthenics and eating tree bark soup, just like in North Korea.

The individual has no place in your scheme, which is purely micromanagement by dictators. Unfortunately, there's no group of men who can be trusted with that power, that's why Anglo countries broke it up, quite properly. And that's why they flourished whereas the Mediterranean countries are in line for bags of free potatoes.

Lending money at interest is not a low-life practice, it's an ordinary economic practice, based on the fact that money is a good like other goods, and you don't get it for free. The real problem - which you have no problem with - is the debasing of the currency. It's not just jews that have done this, it's every central government ever heard of. That debasing of the currerncy is what hurts the average man, not global trade.
 
Old November 20th, 2013 #11
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
It doesn't matter how many whites are in the world or how many numbers greater we have. While Jews work together, we have been infected by British individualist capitalist culture.
Wrong. Whites are naturally more individualistic than jews. It's biological, not cultural. There is no way to make up for this except through thinking, planning and will. Also, how do you sit there talking about whites not coming together as a team when you're simultaneously promoting a jew-created cult, christianity, that teaches whites to see themselves as part of humanity rather than a race, and in fact deliberately talks down race? Christianity is the source of the idea that non-whites are there to fill the pews in our mission-schools, there for us to raise up and provide examples for. That kind of crap thinking has led us where we are today. Whites need defense against attack from other races.

Your bias is completely against competent people and in favor of a view that sees whites as powerless, incompetent, needy and helpless - like niggers in every possible way except less violent. You ought to give 1/100th the thought to protecting and promoting competent white people over taxing and drawning from them to subsidize white incompetence. A very sharp division must be made between whites as between deserving and undeserving poor. I'm not theorizing. I grew up bourgeois, and I've been a small businessman. And I've also spent better part of two decades among the working class. It's quite easy to see that many if not most of the working class can't rise in position due to their own behaviors and character. Not because of their income. That's the same lie that's told about niggers. The vast majority of the working class simply will not act in its own best interest. Our concern ought to be for the fellow who works and saves. Who hurts him the most? The jew-sellout government stealing his purchasing power by diluting the currency - which you, as a communist, have no problem with, you just want your guys running things. Then you've got taxes. That's the other reason the guy who actually works has difficulty improving his material station. But your ilk trains these people, who are competent, to look to government to provide stuff for them, when in fact they don't need that. They can provide for themselves. What they need is government not to cheapen the money and not to reward shitty behavior with taxes taken out of the correctly behaving workers' paychecks.

Your view, Joe, will create more white niggers. White niggers are the only whites you have any sympathy for. Your view is directly dysgenic. Your view is why we have probably five million people in this country, WHITE, NOT NIGGERS, who are paid $1000 a month as former drug addicts or alcoholics. All they do all day is listen to music, get high, get drunk. And the guy who works at Walmart has to pay for them. These people deserve no money or subsidy at all, they should die off if their relatives don't want to take care of them.

White nationalism is not for losers. If it is...we already have the christian cult for that.

Quote:
People with your economic thinking subconsciously stifle efficient ways of working together, rather than work towards it, this doesn't exist amongst Jews.
You talk foolishly of things you know nothing about. Jews compete and cooperate, they give a lot of money to their own racial causes, and to other non-racial causes they think will advance their agenda. Nothing's stopping whites from doing that except they're good little white dogs, and when they're told not to identify with their race, they listen. Who tells them that? Their church, in large measure. And you back their church while lecturing me. Again, find me one mandrill in Greece who will publicly support Golden Dawn. You can't. The cult is universalist, and that can't be changed. We have no war with whites who don't want to be white, we're just going a different direction. That ought to be our psychology, rather than trying to "save our race," typically hybristic formulation. I'm not trying to reclaim any jebusites, I'm simply pointing out the conditions their cult's thinking must eventually produce.

Quote:
Jewish takeover was far more successful and bloodless in Britain, America, and the Calvinist Netherlands , than it ever was in Germany or Russia. In fact, the Jews depended on their economic and political power in the former to subjugate the latter via violence.
For other reasons irrelevant here. The jews that took over the Bank of England started in Frankfurt, after all.

Quote:
Most Right-wingers in America would be shocked at whites getting an "unfair" advantage over rich Jews. If I recommended a government subsidy for Aryan companies competing against Cabal-backed Jewish businesses,
If there's still jews in the country then my conditions haven't been met. Your desire to boss around people is so strong you'd leave jews inside white countries even if you had the power to kill or expel them. I would not. Things that are worth doing don't need to be subsidized by the government. If they were worth doing, the market would be doing them - example is alternative energy. How many billions have been wasted on this shit? It's your hubris to think that a bunch of idiots who share your politics can decide things better than people who actually know what they're doing. See socialized health care - the government can't even operate a website. But it's going to run health care. And it will be "free." This kind of foolishness only makes sense when the population thinks at a nigger level, which is one more reason you favor policies that effectively turn whites into niggers.

Quote:
you would immediately start spouting off bogus science about "market forces"-invented by 18th/19th century kikes who used to blow tobacco smoke up their ass to cure indigestion- always predicting doomsday scenarios that never come to fruition whenever someone raises the minimum wage or establishes a tariff.
Facts don't go away because you refuse to acknowledge them. You can claim you're not a communist, but you still think ideologically. When facts prove you're wrong, you ignore them in favor of your religious-political myth.

Quote:
Libertarians and their Jew-boy preachers like Schiff are little more than an end-of-days cult to enrich hucksters, this is woven into the fabric of American culture.
If a jew says 2+2 = 4, he's wrong because he's a jew, right? Yeah, but the communism you used to believe in, that has no jewish association at all. It's real chutzpah for you to try to claim markets is some kind of jewish scam rather than a real and existing reality. Whites don't need government micromanaging their lives. That's how we got where we are today.
 
Old November 20th, 2013 #12
Joe_Smith
Senior Member
 
Joe_Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,778
Joe_Smith
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
If you had your way whites would be doing coerced mass calisthenics and eating tree bark soup, just like in North Korea.
I support North Korea's right to live under whatever system they seem fit. Sue me if I can't help but admire the the beautiful spectacle of their "mass calisthenics", especially when I turn on the TV and see nothing but white girls dry humping niggers instead.

Quote:
The individual has no place in your scheme, which is purely micromanagement by dictators. Unfortunately, there's no group of men who can be trusted with that power, that's why Anglo countries broke it up, quite properly. And that's why they flourished whereas the Mediterranean countries are in line for bags of free potatoes.
How do you define individual?

Do you really think Anglo countries are not controlled by a group of men, or weren't in the past?

Your arguments and ideology are inconsistent. Do you want a racial dictatorship and Anarchism in every other sector?

America flourished for the same reason Stalin's Russia did: Unlimited access to resources. Ditto for Britain, who had pretty much most of Africa and Asia's resources on tap. Meanwhile, Socialist Germany developed into a superpower without colonies or slave labor in the 19th century, when they started to have the edge in competition with Britain the latter pushed the world into WWI.


Mediterranean countries are in line for potatoes today for the same reason Anglos will be in line for them tomorrow. The bread lines are just as long in America (SNAP) and Britain (the "dole") as they are in Spain, the only difference is that Jewish-controlled America can vote to up its debt ceiling without any affect to its credit rating, while Jews have special plans for Spain, Italy, Ireland, and Greece to enact first.

Quote:
Lending money at interest is not a low-life practice, it's an ordinary economic practice, based on the fact that money is a good like other goods, and you don't get it for free. The real problem - which you have no problem with - is the debasing of the currency. It's not just jews that have done this, it's every central government ever heard of. That debasing of the currerncy is what hurts the average man, not global trade.
You are arguing theory as indisputable fact. Money is not a good, it is a paper of compensation with symbolic value of goods and services you provided, to trade for other goods and services. Jews disrupt this harmony with their parasitic economic practices. You're right about Jews debasing the currency, but your alternative of the gold standard is no better, since gold's value is abstract and it is intrinistically just as worthless, maybe more worthless, than a certificate of guarantee from the US government.
__________________
"The favorite slogan of the reds is: 'No Pasarán!: Yes we have passed! And we tell them...and we tell them, we will pass again!'"
― Benito Mussolini after the Communist capitulation in Barcelona
 
Old November 20th, 2013 #13
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[ch. cont'd, page 80-85 roughly]

There is more in this attitude, however, than the mere desire to escape moral responsibility and struggle. There is a large measure of positive idealism in it. We have been taught from infancy the ideals of service and sacrifice. We are constantly taught that we should wish the maximum good of mankind. When it is suggested, therefore, that we take measures designed primarily to safeguard ourselves, we feel almost contaminated by the suggestion.

Now, this is getting to the good stuff. White imagination and high mental ability led naturally to universalism, as a sort of hubris. It could simply be a mistake, applying our ways and thinking to the entire world, but one correctable by continuing to accept reality's data feedback. But when that "hey - this works for everybody!" is then coupled with morality, it becomes ten times harder to eliminate. This is how it is today. The church and the enlightenment are posed as mortal enemies, but in fact they do the sham battles of the Republicans and the Democrats. Both agree that One Size Fits All, and that anyone who disagrees is immoral and to be shunned and controlled. Precisely what is wrong is that white people, as even the leftists say, think WHITE standards are UNIVERSAL standards. They are not! Whites are something distinct. All other races recognize this. White generally do not, because they don't pay attention, they live among other whites, and the authorities in their lives continually lie to them.

To safeguard our interests by withholding from a needy and suffering world our wealth, our knowledge of production, sanitation and hygiene, our science and political ideals, we regard as base. Our ideals of service and sacrifice are frequently too powerful to be greatly affected by the fear of dangers to which we may be subjecting ourselves. Our sentiments have become too broad for that. Our feelings of humanitarianism know no such narrow limits. Life for every one must be made full of the joy and happiness we crave for ourselves. Hence, when pleas are made to safeguard our future at the expense of other groups, there is aroused a strong emotional opposition, due to an ethical idealism that has become an integral part of our motivating dispositions.

Natural place to talk about the role of the church in fostering this universalism, but unfortunately he does not. I could say, to coin an epigram

Spiritual globalization is far more dangerous than economic globalization.

But you will see how the two tend to reinforce each other. You will see how the church's call to bear the white man's burden, per Kipling, flows into economics as easily as martial expansion.


This is the beautiful side of our opposition to a policy of "safety first." Much as we may be inclined to criticise this opposition as short-sighted and uncritical, we must recognize that its underlying motives are pure and noble.

I don't recognize that, speaking only for myself. The church should never be credited with a nobler or higher motivation than man taken at random. I challenge the dead prof to confute the theory the church seeks its own interest when it promotes race-blind universalism.

Very often, however, our unwillingness to undertake measures designed to safeguard the interest of our group is due to a narrow individualism. This spirit expresses itself in such questions: Why should one undergo hardships for nation, race, or mankind? Why should one risk life and endure the hardships of military service for his group? Of what importance is it whether one's group is powerful or strong? What difference does it make which nation dominates the world? The one important thing is to be left free to enjoy a life full of ease and pleasure with as few pains as possible. Naturally an individual so animated is little disposed to concern himself with the good of the group.

Moralists rightly condemn a narrow egoism of this sort. This attitude, however, may be disguised, if one so desires, by an appeal to the ethics of internationalism. A means is thus afforded of clothing it in the high-sounding phrases of a broad humanitarianism. For is it not in keeping with the ethics of internationalism, and the broad feelings of humanity on which it rests, to forsake all group loyalties? In a conflict between groups, one justifies inaction on the ground of a great interest in humanity. Why should one show greater loyalty to the men who happen to compose his political, geographical, and racial group than to mankind in general? Is not a common economic or class interest a greater bond than the bonds of nationalism? Or if one is an artist or creator, if one feels within himself the joy of life and expresses it in beautiful works of art, why should he sacrifice himself for his group, or engage in its petty quarrels? Much better it will be, he is inclined to think, to live his life undisturbed in order that he may make his contributions to mankind in general.

Whether the members of a group refuse to safeguard the interest of the group on account of their broad feelings of humanitarianism or their narrow feelings of individualism, the strength of the group is dissipated. In so far as we are concerned with the welfare of the group internationalism and individualism have much in common. Moralists like to point to Epicureanism as the cause of the decline of Greece and Rome. Yet the greatness of these peoples did not suffer more from the egoism of the Epicureans than it did from the internationalism of the Stoics. As far as national greatness is concerned, the assertion of a narrow egotism is no more disastrous than the assertion of a broad cosmopolitanism that places all men on the same footing, regardless of race and nation. A nation composed of cosmopolites and internationalists is no more able to protect itself and to exercise its power to dominate than one composed of men so concerned with their narrow interests that they have no thought of their duty to the group or to its future.

The strength of our cultural group is to-day being impaired by both these philosophies. The individualist may be dismissed. He is generally contemned. At times he seeks to hide his individualism under the cloak of internationalism. But what of this cloak? Internationalism, in its attempts to bring about a loyalty to humanity, has given national and race loyalties hard blows. It has been incessant in its criticisms of group loyalties and the bases on which these are built. As a result, feelings of national superiority are being destroyed. Writers in each of the great countries of oru group take delight in pricking what they term the bubble of national conceit. Not content with this, many of our publicists take delight in holding up to us as our superiors v arious peoples without our group. Everywhere there is a tendency among us to question our ability, superiority, and right to dominate. In this way we not only dampen the courage of our group and impair its power and solidarity, but implant in subject races the courage and determination to oppose us.

The exportation of our ethnological, anthropological, and historical researches and criticisms is doing much to arouse in other races feelings of race equality and even pride. These combined with the general dissemination of our social and political philosophy, are causing a profound hostility in the exploited races toward our group. Whence have come the knowledge and inspiration that are bringing together through proud consciousness of a glorious past the Mongols, Turkomans, Magyars, and Turks in the Pan-Turanian movement? Whence the force of political agitation that is uniting Asia in one seething mass, that is fully determined to throw out the European and regain the brilliance that was hers before the aggressor had stultified her spiritual life? Whence the insistent clamor for race equality and self-determination?

The white world need not be surprised to find, after feeding subject races on criticisms designed to destroy the recognition of white superiority and on democratic social and political philosophy, that determined efforts are being made by the subject races to compel the white races to conform in practice to their ideals. We are witnessing a terrible example of this today. Whence the moral force of the Turks in their defiant attitude? Are not their demands essentially in harmony with the avowed principles of our political philosophy? Whence the lack of unity and vacillation of the European powers? Does it not spring in a large way from the conflict between their deep-seated values and their avowed idealism, as well as from the conflict of narrow national interests? We preach an idealism; we teach our people an idealism; we proclaim to the world an idealism; yet our interests and practices do not conform to our idealism. No wonder we stir up for ourselves resistance abroad and weakness and dissension at home. No wonder the Asiatic is stirred with a profound distrust and hatred of the white race. No wonder he longs for the day to come when he shall not only be able to drive the white man from Asia, but even attain economic, political, and military equality.

This unrest and agitation in Asia against the European, combined with the industrial and military strength that is being there developed, and with the present discord in Europe, are serious threats to our security. And yet Europe seems unable to achieve harmony within. At present the European group of nations is the dominant one. But if the present tendencies continue she will not long have this proud position. The Asiatic rightly finds comfort in the thought that time is one the side of Asia.

The world as it exists today, then, is made up of two groups separated by striking differences in race and culture. One of these groups may be characterized as the dominant group, the other as the subject group. Yet many tendencies are destroying the strength of the dominant group. Externally, through the exportation of its wealth, science, political and social philosophy, it is raising for itself powerful rivals, who, unless we radically modify our policies along lines which we regard as fundamental, will be our powerful enemies. Internally we are being weakened by a breaking down of group and race loyalty. This takes two forms: (1) the broad view of humanity is substituted for group allegiances and values; (2) a narrow individualism flourishes, which sees no reason why one should make sacrifices for the good of the group. With the breaking down of group loyalty, the struggle between classes becomes more and more intense. These tendencies are to be found within each nation in our group. Between the great nations of our group there is also a growing bitterness and hatred.

Last edited by Alex Linder; November 20th, 2013 at 03:06 PM.
 
Old November 20th, 2013 #14
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[conclusion of ch. 2]

In such a world of hatred and conflict we find everywhere an intense yearning for peace and freedom from friction. These desires even color our readings in science. Fifty years agothe emphasis placed on struggle as a factor in evolution struck a sympathetic note in the white world. At that time the white world was busy in its struggle to conquer the world. Today, however, there is a great change. Biologists are inclined to emphasize more and more co-operation and mutual helpfulness as factors in the evolutionary process. This change of emphasis has struck also a responsive chord in our group. We yearn for peace, quiet, mutual helpfulness and co-operation. Yet these desires conflict with desires perhaps even more powerful. We wish for wealth, social position, leisure; we wish a rich and complex culture. We are not willing to give up the latter for the former. The idealists tell us that the solution to our difficulties is to be found in less race arrogance, less national pride; they hold before our eyes the dazzling prospect of a world of mutual helpfulness, a world in which all friction, tension, and conflicts shall be removed, a world of brotherly love and sympathy for all people, regardless of race and nation; they tell us that the way to make real this beautiful dream, and thus satisfy the deeper cravings of humanity, is through a thoroughgoing application of the ethics of democracy and internationalism.

Certainly it must be admitted that if we had a world of love, sympathy, and mutual helpfulness we should have a world of love, sympathy, and mutual helpfulness. But the problem is how are we to realize such a world. The way to be happy is to be happy, the optimist and the believer in suggestion tell us. But most of us would like to know something more of the conditions of happiness than this bland statement. We do not wish to have fabricated for us beautiful ideals, and then to be told that all we need do is live according to these ideals. We wish to know if the realization of these ideals is possible. More than this, we wish to know what will be the effect of the realization of these ideals on other values which we hold to be of great worth.

For example, we wish a rich and complex culture. We wish a culture in which there is to be leisure for art, philosophy, music and other works of the spirit. Such a society demands a high degree of specialization. Where there is specialization we must expect that some members will be favored above others. In a sense, some form of exploitation is necessary in order to make possible a beautiful and satisfying culture. On the other hand, our ideals of social justice and sympathy make such a condition galling. We wish all men to enter fully into the rich life our culture offers to certain favored ones. We have here a conflict of values. We cannot take both; and yet, no matter which we take, we shall have something to regret.

The moral problem which confronts us is complicated by the demands and power of the exploited classes. These feel that they have borne the burden of our culture long enough, and are demanding something more than a life of toil, in order that others may create a beautiful and complex culture. They demand a share in the creation as well as in the created. No matter how we act, the result is not going to be entirely satisfactory. If the demands of labor are granted, the richness of our culture will most likely suffer. Exploitation will be abolished to a greater and greater extent. Equality of opportunity will become approximated more and more. Incentives for accumulating wealth will become less. Our culture will become more and more colorless, as Rathenau* believes. Eventually we may expect the kind of equality that we have in the grays of night. On the other hand, if the demands of labor are not met, we may expect a continuation of the present strife and hostility between classes. Thus our desire for peace or our desire for a complex and colorful culture must be thwarted. There seems no possibility of realizing both.

* The New Society.

The same situation confronts us on all sides. We have deep-seated national and race values. We have also values that embrace mankind as a whole. We have deep-seated desires for justice, sympathy, and mutual helpfulness which know nothing of nationalism and race. We have here a conflict of values and many possibilities for conflicts of loyalties. What is the moral and rational solution to these difficulties?

Certainly they can be solved if one can and will discard all values and loyalties not in harmony with the ethics of internationalism, as the internationalist suggests. But is this a rational or moral solution? Are we justified in throwing away the bonds of nationalism and race and other deep-seated values because they conflict with the one great value of democracy and internationalism? Whether we are or not is a problem to be examined in the light of the maximum good of mankind and of our group.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Wells, H. G. -- Outline of History, 1920.
Rathenau, W. -- The New Society, 1921.
Levy, H. -- Economic Liberalism, 1913.
Dickinson, G. Lowes -- The Choice Before Us, 1917.
Demangeon, A. -- America and the Race for World Dominion, 1921.
Pal, B. C. -- "Forces Behind Unrest in India," Contemporary Review, 1910.
Capen, E. W. -- "A Sociological Appraisal of Western Influence in the Orient," American Journal of Sociology, 1911.
Civilization in America -- An Inquiry by Thirty Americans.
Brailsford, H. N. -- The War of Steel and Gold, 1917 (9th edition).
Woolf, L. S. -- Economic Imperialism, 1920.
Dickinson, G. Lowes -- Causes of International War, 1920.
Hobson, J. A. -- Problems of a New World, 1921.
Weale, B. L. Putnam -- The Conflict of Color, 1910.
Grant, Madison -- The Passing of the Great Race, 1916.
Stoddard, Lothrop -- The Rising Tide of Color, 1921; The New World of Islam, 1921; The Revolt Against Civilization, 1922.
Williams, Whiting -- What's on the Worker's Mind, 1920.
Hubbard, A. J. -- The Fate of Empires, 1913.

[ok...the stuff i really wanted to get into lies ahead...more on thursday]

Last edited by Alex Linder; November 20th, 2013 at 03:28 PM.
 
Old November 20th, 2013 #15
Joe_Smith
Senior Member
 
Joe_Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,778
Joe_Smith
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Wrong. Whites are naturally more individualistic than jews. It's biological, not cultural. There is no way to make up for this except through thinking, planning and will.
You really think the harsh climate Europeans developed and triumphed over favored individualist/self-centered behavior, over altruistic and communal behavior?

If anything, you're thinking about niggers. It's Sub-Saharan Africans who developed in an area of plenty, which bred selfishness. This is the reason why niggers shoot their uncle over the last chicken wing in the KFC bucket, while struggling white minimum wage Wal-Mart employees turn out their last dime to help worst-off coworkers have a dignified thanksgiving meal.


Quote:
Also, how do you sit there talking about whites not coming together as a team when you're simultaneously promoting a jew-created cult, christianity, that teaches whites to see themselves as part of humanity rather than a race, and in fact deliberately talks down race? Christianity is the source of the idea that non-whites are there to fill the pews in our mission-schools, there for us to raise up and provide examples for. That kind of crap thinking has led us where we are today. Whites need defense against attack from other races.
I am, first of all, agnostic if anything. I am closer to a Buddhist in my beliefs, than to a Christian.

That said, there have been situations where Christianity has been a uniting force for the people of Europe and its defense. The historical examples are obvious. It has also been used for a force of destruction, I concede that.

In the end a person's religion is their personal business. I do believe in the separation of church and state. Your lashing out at Christianity is misguided, since the Church simply wets its thumb, raises it to the wind, and submits to whatever direction the current is blowing towards, since its main objective is to survive.

Quote:
Your bias is completely against competent people and in favor of a view that sees whites as powerless, incompetent, needy and helpless - like niggers in every possible way except less violent. You ought to give 1/100th the thought to protecting and promoting competent white people over taxing and drawning from them to subsidize white incompetence. A very sharp division must be made between whites as between deserving and undeserving poor. I'm not theorizing. I grew up bourgeois, and I've been a small businessman. And I've also spent better part of two decades among the working class. It's quite easy to see that many if not most of the working class can't rise in position due to their own behaviors and character. Not because of their income. That's the same lie that's told about niggers. The vast majority of the working class simply will not act in its own best interest. Our concern ought to be for the fellow who works and saves. Who hurts him the most? The jew-sellout government stealing his purchasing power by diluting the currency - which you, as a communist, have no problem with, you just want your guys running things. Then you've got taxes. That's the other reason the guy who actually works has difficulty improving his material station. But your ilk trains these people, who are competent, to look to government to provide stuff for them, when in fact they don't need that. They can provide for themselves. What they need is government not to cheapen the money and not to reward shitty behavior with taxes taken out of the correctly behaving workers' paychecks.
Again, you are building up strawmen to bayonet. Who said I am happy about able-bodied men sitting around smoking grass on the tax-payers dime? You make the neo-con error of confusing arguments for a Socialist state with the present Judeo-Plutocratic system of America that redistributes white wealth to useless groids that don't want to work.

People who are productive ought to be compensated as such. But some of the people you call productive are just good at cutting corners and cheating, not helping their country. If you want a system where the advancement of the race and nation are the center, then you cannot follow Left or Right dogmas.

Quote:
Your view, Joe, will create more white niggers. White niggers are the only whites you have any sympathy for. Your view is directly dysgenic. Your view is why we have probably five million people in this country, WHITE, NOT NIGGERS, who are paid $1000 a month as former drug addicts or alcoholics. All they do all day is listen to music, get high, get drunk. And the guy who works at Walmart has to pay for them. These people deserve no money or subsidy at all, they should die off if their relatives don't want to take care of them.
If anything, it's capitalism that is dysgenic. It's how diabolical Jews rise to the top and create million dollar empires selling child-porn, while creative white people that have no choice but to work at Wal-Mart are forced to use their ingenuity to find ways to eek out a living.

I support cutting off the drunks and drug addicts. In the Third reich this was the rule, hell even in Cuba and the USSR they didn't subsidize these people. The only places where this happens is in Jewish-plutocratic "social-democracies".

The problem I have is that you are not even arguing with my economic beliefs, you are just attacking what American neo-cons call socialism.

Quote:
White nationalism is not for losers. If it is...we already have the christian cult for that.



You talk foolishly of things you know nothing about. Jews compete and cooperate, they give a lot of money to their own racial causes, and to other non-racial causes they think will advance their agenda. Nothing's stopping whites from doing that except they're good little white dogs, and when they're told not to identify with their race, they listen. Who tells them that? Their church, in large measure. And you back their church while lecturing me. Again, find me one mandrill in Greece who will publicly support Golden Dawn. You can't. The cult is universalist, and that can't be changed. We have no war with whites who don't want to be white, we're just going a different direction. That ought to be our psychology, rather than trying to "save our race," typically hybristic formulation. I'm not trying to reclaim any jebusites, I'm simply pointing out the conditions their cult's thinking must eventually produce.
The church only does what the powers that be demand in exchange for their tax exemption. That said there are some principled elements within the Christian exemption that oppose this, such as St Pius X or some elements of the Orthodox faith.

Quote:
For other reasons irrelevant here. The jews that took over the Bank of England started in Frankfurt, after all.
Yeah, under enormous pressure. The Jews had to deal with constant confrontations with socialist-minded Germans, while in capitalist England they just had to buy off a few individuals to get God-like control over their banks and currency. The Jews love it when the Goyim worship Mammon, IE the basic philosophy of capitalism, it's men who they can't buy that they use violence against. The French and Bolshevik revolutions are examples of this. Capitalist countries were always allies of Jewish power by default, while even Stalin- a guy they breast-fed and raised- wound up making their hit-list and got poisoned. If you can't observe this faultless pattern then you are not adept at studying the history of Jewry.

Quote:
If there's still jews in the country then my conditions haven't been met. Your desire to boss around people is so strong you'd leave jews inside white countries even if you had the power to kill or expel them. I would not. Things that are worth doing don't need to be subsidized by the government. If they were worth doing, the market would be doing them - example is alternative energy. How many billions have been wasted on this shit? It's your hubris to think that a bunch of idiots who share your politics can decide things better than people who actually know what they're doing. See socialized health care - the government can't even operate a website. But it's going to run health care. And it will be "free." This kind of foolishness only makes sense when the population thinks at a nigger level, which is one more reason you favor policies that effectively turn whites into niggers.
If you think Obamacare is actually socialized medical care, you have obviously not read into it. Obamacare is crony capitalism that only benefits Jewish owned insurance companies.

Switzerland and Germany have actual universal health care. I'd rather get medical care there than in America.

Quote:
Facts don't go away because you refuse to acknowledge them. You can claim you're not a communist, but you still think ideologically. When facts prove you're wrong, you ignore them in favor of your religious-political myth.
The ones who subscribe to religious myths are the end-of-days gold standard cultists. People who think ideologically are those who want to pretend that markets are some supernatural autonomous force and judge of behavior. In reality, a handful of Jew billionaires do what they want with the market, and willfully choose whether they want it to collapse or not.


Quote:
If a jew says 2+2 = 4, he's wrong because he's a jew, right? Yeah, but the communism you used to believe in, that has no jewish association at all. It's real chutzpah for you to try to claim markets is some kind of jewish scam rather than a real and existing reality. Whites don't need government micromanaging their lives. That's how we got where we are today.
I don't, again, believe in Communism. If anything, you have more to do with Communism than me, with your fanatical atheism and belief of markets/economy being a more powerful historical force than men. These are the basic tenets of Bolshevik thought, while economics tended to vary depending on who was in charge. Lest we not forget that markets under Lenin's New Economic Plan were "freer" than in Czarist Russia.

The problem with Libertarianism and laissez-faire isn't about a Jew telling the truth. It's more so about the fact that all of the greatest supporters of your economic beliefs are Jews or people that were mentored by Jews, which I bring up only to raise your suspicions.

You yourself have said that Jews do nothing unless it has a tribal or political value for them. Fact is, Jews support capitalism and individualism for us, while they support Socialism for themselves. But the fact remains, you like Jews as long as they are economic liberals. The academics of economic liberalism are just as Jewish as the Marxists. You simply cannot be logically consistent if you think the Jewish ethnicity of the Marxist theorists is central to their beliefs, yet ethnicity has nothing to do with liberal theorists just because you personally like what those kikes have to say .

When Jews are suffering hard times anywhere in the world, every Kike from New York to Katmandu rushes to bail them out, while people like you would rather watch white people starve to death in front of supermarkets full of unaffordable rotting food, because of course any government intervention would upset your mythical, omnipotent market God.

Spengler and Yockey noted that Jews prefer the chaotic nature and class struggle provoked by capitalism, over the national harmony of Socialism. Actually, pretty much all the Aryan leaders of the 1930's, 40's, 50's, etc saw the same thing.

People who get so angry at the idea of paying a Janitor enough to support their family tend to do so for selfish or narcissistic reasons, rather than racial ones. A lot of rich assholes have a God-complex, even if they inherited their wealth or created it in a dishonest fashion. But at the end of the day, the work a Janitor contributes to society (cleanliness--->disease prevention--->better standard of living for everyone) is far more valuable than the "work" of a fucking day trader who speculates on White people's pensions in his underwear. If this is Communism or pure ideology to you then so be it.
__________________
"The favorite slogan of the reds is: 'No Pasarán!: Yes we have passed! And we tell them...and we tell them, we will pass again!'"
― Benito Mussolini after the Communist capitulation in Barcelona

Last edited by Joe_Smith; November 20th, 2013 at 03:47 PM.
 
Old November 20th, 2013 #16
Joe_Smith
Senior Member
 
Joe_Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,778
Joe_Smith
Default

In the end, Capitalism fails even in theory. The system works on the premise that resources and markets are infinite.

This is precisely why Capitalists support the reproduction of muds in undeveloped nations/markets, with our tax dollars of course . The amount of people being born in places like India will create a world that not only won't be able to sustain itself, but be too dumb to invent a way out of the problem. In a nation full of Whites who are responsible and save money, capitalism would collapse, which is why Wal-Mart and all the other corporations are spending their record profits to expand in Asia and the Third world, rather than pay workers a living wage or creating a system of profit-sharing (IE, an actual incentive to work). This economic system relies on socially engineering white people to act as impulsive as niggers with their money in order for the system to continue.

If anything, it's your system that turns white people into white niggers, and some of those white niggers are white collar button pushers lining up to buy another TV alongside niggers and Mexicans on Black Friday.
__________________
"The favorite slogan of the reds is: 'No Pasarán!: Yes we have passed! And we tell them...and we tell them, we will pass again!'"
― Benito Mussolini after the Communist capitulation in Barcelona

Last edited by Joe_Smith; November 20th, 2013 at 04:01 PM.
 
Old November 20th, 2013 #17
luftwaffensoldat
Witness to Genocide
 
luftwaffensoldat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Where there are no PAKIS and NIGGERS
Posts: 823
luftwaffensoldat
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
You really think the harsh climate Europeans developed and triumphed over favored individualist/self-centered behavior, over altruistic and communal behavior?
I agree with Alex on this one.

Europeans are more individualistic than non-whites because both groups were exposed to different environments during the course of their human biological evolution. Non-whites evolved in areas where there was intense competition for scarce material resources among different tribes. In these kinds of environments, tribalism and ethnocentrism were traits selected for by natural selection; this was manifested as a high degree of tribal loyalty and distrust for outsiders.

OTOH Europeans evolved in small isolated groups for an extended period of time during the Late Glacial Maximum, when the North Eurasian/Circumpolar culture area was covered with glaciers; there was less intergroup competition for scarce resources because ecological constraints imposed by the harsh winters of the Ice Age made it difficult to sustain large kin-based social groups. It also encouraged greater individual ingenuity; a random stranger would be seen as a needed resource, rather than as a threat to group social cohesion.

The emergence of individualism among whites was the result of a utility calculation, determined by the local intensity of group-based competition for scarce resources. Because of European social isolation and local ecological constraints, the environment inhabited by whites would select for individualism and altruism far more readily than the environments inhabited by non-whites.

Europeans are more receptive to the notion that we should all be treated as individuals and that race differences don't exist because of their greater individualistic tendency. It is only in European societies that you will find the majority of whites concerned about "racism" or promoting their own ethnic suicide through mass 3rd world immigration. So, despite the endless globalist brainwashing about whites being supposedly more racist than non-whites, whites are actually the least racist group of people on earth. European individualism and non-white collectivism are very much biologically hard-wired traits.

Quote:
If anything, you're thinking about niggers. It's Sub-Saharan Africans who developed in an area of plenty, which bred selfishness. This is the reason why niggers shoot their uncle over the last chicken wing in the KFC bucket, while struggling white minimum wage Wal-Mart employees turn out their last dime to help worst-off coworkers have a dignified thanksgiving meal.
You're confusing individualism with nigger savagery and poor impulse control. Niggers, like all other non-whites, are far more collectivistic and group-oriented than whites. They form gangs more readily than whites; they are far more likely to fight for their own racial interests as a group than whites; they are far more tribal than whites and would be far more resistant to multiculturalism and mass immigration to their societies, like other non-whites. In fact, one major impediment to the formation of stable, prosperous societies in sub-Saharan Africa is the greater nigger tendency toward tribalism (in addition to low IQ and other factors).
 
Old November 21st, 2013 #18
Gordon Green
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,491
Default

Joe, what is your opinion on barter trade? Jews HATE how they can't fix rates or prices on a moneyless market.





Quote:
The ones who subscribe to religious myths are the end-of-days gold standard cultists.
I’ve been seeing over these several past weeks that the value of gold is spiking down hard, much to the chagrin of some guys on another forum I know who think it’s their meal ticket out when the Collapse finally comes. Your opinion?
 
Old November 21st, 2013 #19
Mr Murray
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,284
Mr Murray
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon Green View Post
Joe, what is your opinion on barter trade? Jews HATE how they can't fix rates or prices on a moneyless market.
The idea that there was once a barter economy is a bit of a myth in my opinion. That doesn't mean people didn't barter, just that they weren't dependent on it.

With the neolithic revolution you get specialization and a trading economy and for that you need money.
 
Old November 21st, 2013 #20
Henry.
Senior Member
 
Henry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,359
Henry.
Default

Quote:
Joe, what is your opinion on barter trade? Jews HATE how they can't fix rates or prices on a moneyless market.
We already have in place a system of barter that works perfectly well when managed for the benefit of producer and consumer, but not for the benefit of the usurer as, unfortunately, is the case today.

We are all happy to give and receive money in exchange for goods and services. Money isn't wealth it's a claim to wealth. A universally accepted commodity that solves the unavoidable problems of demand, availability and divisibility which has always hampered the process of barter sans money. That is the only purpose of money. It is something that can be exchanged for anything.

Legal tender currency is the perfect good. It is wanted by all and is accepted by all. It is easy to produce, free of interest and commission, in quantities sufficient for all of our wants needs, once productive capacity is met.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:41 PM.
Page generated in 0.23579 seconds.