PDA

View Full Version : Is there anyone here who believes in vehemently free market/capitalism?



Nihilist
Thursday, September 25th, 2003, 11:14 AM
I'm kind of disappointed with the amount of socialist ideals which burgeon from nationalist/preservationist philosophies these days.
It seems to me alot of people here are pretty naive to modern economics, and are far more fond of reading superfluous marxist nonsense than real practical economic theories.

It was modern economic theory and the way it connotes with darwins survival of the fittest, which lead me to studies such as the bell curve, G factor ect, which inspired my interest in racial preservation...

...thus it came as a big suprise when I started hearing WN ranting on about how terrible free market economics is, and how socialism, marxism ect has many great ideas..

Id rather be dead than red.

Waltheof
Thursday, September 25th, 2003, 02:29 PM
True, i cant really understand how people keep going on about hating Communism whilst still advocating its policies? The common argument against capitalism is "it was invented by Jews" of which theres no proof, its well known however that socialism was. I believe its part of the dogmatic belief system which a lot of skinheads defer to which tells them what they are and arent allowed to think. eg, the continual obsession with punk/oi music as part of the 'movement' despite the fact that its now almost totally irrelevant to most people.

Siegfried
Thursday, September 25th, 2003, 08:08 PM
The problem I have with unchecked capitalism, is the rise of supranational corporations, globalizing structures, and monopolies. It is essentially destroying cultures etc all over the world, and promoting a levelled-down 'culture' in which individuals are reduced to 'producers' and 'consumers'.
On the other hand, socialism isn't the way forward either. It depends too heavily on State intervention and regulation (even though people like Lenin believed the State would wither away after a socialist economy was installed; this is simply false), and is thus a danger to individuality.
A 'Third Way' is needed, though I haven't entirely worked out my ideas about the economy. I'm currently rereading Evola's chapters on the economy from his book 'Men Among the Ruins', and am searching for sensible articles on the problem.

cosmocreator
Thursday, September 25th, 2003, 08:28 PM
I am for the free market too in a sense. But I hate big corporations. I think there has to be some balance with the natural environment. Capitalist look at a serene forest and see a sub-division of houses and shopping malls. Nor do I like the idea of having to pay to go for a walk in a park.

Nihilist
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 06:20 AM
The common argument against capitalism is "it was invented by Jews" of which theres no proof, its well known however that socialism was.

Untrue, modern economic theory and the real beginnings of capitalism was conceptualized by Adam Smith who hailed from fife scotland.


It is essentially destroying cultures etc all over the world, and promoting a levelled-down 'culture' in which individuals are reduced to 'producers' and 'consumers'.

Imo, the economic princibles behind laissez-faire are fine. It is unequivocally the most efficient means to gain material wealth and technological progression. It's the world mono-culture which has developed beside it; the rejection of biological, cultural and collective necessities in favor of hyper individualistic, transient materialistic goals, which is my only concern with it's inauguration.

However, the reality is, regardless of it's inadequacies, it's inevitable anyway. Anyone who is remotely learned, lucid and serious about the issues, understands this....trying to paddle against the current of change is futile. It is the present, and it will be the future.


I am for the free market too in a sense. But I hate big corporations. I think there has to be some balance with the natural environment. Capitalist look at a serene forest and see a sub-division of houses and shopping malls. Nor do I like the idea of having to pay to go for a walk in a park.

Well, i guess minimum regulation is probably a necessity regarding the enviroment, although i personally rather the idea of this also being carried out in the private sector....."Self-regulation" where a firm adopts an enviromentally friendly ethic because it is inevitably in it's interest to do so, is a fine illustration of this situation. For example, a firm may generate more wealth in the short term through enviromentally unfriendly means, however negligence in the long term, will most likely result in the lessening of productive resources and decline in market credibility. Therefore, it is in the firms interest to forgoe instant profit for the adoption of enviromentally friendly ethics, because this is more agreeable to the firms long term profit maximization and it's ultimate survival.

Inevitably if people demand enviromentally friendly, that is what they shall receive. I prefer things being carried out naturally and freely rather than through coersion....same applies with segregation of races, this also should transpire through choice imo.

Phlegethon
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 01:32 PM
The whole free economy nonsense was devised by Anglos to only work for themselves. For the rest of the world it meant: "You buy our crap or else...!"
The U.S.A. are a perfect example of how this concept still adhered to. They are crying for free markets but do not allow imports. When they cannot compete economically they threaten, sanction and eventually bomb their competitors.

Free trade is a scam, laissez-faire is a scam, Adam Smith is a scam, the IMF is a scam, Bretton Woods is a scam, globalization is a scam.

Nihilist
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 03:36 PM
The whole free economy nonsense was devised by Anglos to only work for themselves. For the rest of the world it meant: "You buy our crap or else...!"
The U.S.A. are a perfect example of how this concept still adhered to. They are crying for free markets but do not allow imports. When they cannot compete economically they threaten, sanction and eventually bomb their competitors.

Free trade is a scam, laissez-faire is a scam, Adam Smith is a scam, the IMF is a scam, Bretton Woods is a scam, globalization is a scam.
It's the easiest thing in the world to deny it all, ignore it, and pretend it will go away, but the reality is it's here, and it's here to stay.

If you understand the princibles behind comparative and absolute advantage, the benefits from free trade are undeniable. It's simply survival of the fittest working in the context of trade. It means that sloppy inefficient businesses capitulate to the stronger and more proficient industries. The benefits from this phenomena transpire regardless of american protectionism.

The alternative of this, being tarrifs/quotas and centralization have been tried in the past and have failed invariably. They are inefficent, and induce economic degeneration (One only has to discern the malignant nature of every command economy put into practice to ascertain that that). This view is accepted by both left and right wing economists, it's only the fatuous sector of the radical left (And ironically some obstinate elements of the radical right) that refuse to concede it.

Siegfried
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 03:56 PM
But how free is a free market if it gives rises to monopolies?

StrÝbog
Saturday, September 27th, 2003, 03:18 AM
Globalism seems overwhelming right now, but that doesn't make it inevitable.
Opposing globalism does not make one a Communist.
I've though through economic policy a lot. I would prefer a world of small government, small business, and intelligent, independent people, but that is an impossible ideal. ;)

I don't advocate centrally planned economics because it is impossible to know beforehand what people will want/need. Central planning leads to mass starvation a la Stalin and Mao. I also don't believe that all professions are "equal" and deserve flat pay.

Nor do I believe that markets should be the ultimate guiding force in society, as libertarians/anarcho-capitalists/Randians do. Unbridled free markets lead to unilateral media domination as we have now. Remember, the Jews got their stranglehold on newspapers and television back in the 1920's, when laissez-faire was the prevailing philosophy. Coolidge said "the business of America is business." As he said this, all our media was being consolidated into the hands a small cartel. Totally free markets simply take advantage of a large mass of stupid people. Not that these people deserve total sympathy, but their actions impact everyone, not just themselves.

Unbridled free markets lead to monopolies. Remember J. P. Morgan? Rockefeller? Carnegie? Mellon? These men were not "good for America." In a pure capitalist system, the most powerful industry/business simply buys off the most politicians and gains total power. Furthermore, once an industry/corporation reaches a certain 'critical mass' and has a large enough market share, it can begin to squeeze out smaller businesses, then gouge people after it has secured a monopoly. Often times companies will also make price-fixing deals.



Well, i guess minimum regulation is probably a necessity regarding the enviroment, although i personally rather the idea of this also being carried out in the private sector....."Self-regulation" where a firm adopts an enviromentally friendly ethic because it is inevitably in it's interest to do so, is a fine illustration of this situation. For example, a firm may generate more wealth in the short term through enviromentally unfriendly means, however negligence in the long term, will most likely result in the lessening of productive resources and decline in market credibility. Therefore, it is in the firms interest to forgoe instant profit for the adoption of enviromentally friendly ethics, because this is more agreeable to the firms long term profit maximization and it's ultimate survival.


This is not going to happen in reality. Most people are too stupid to know what is good for nature anyway. Firms never voluntarily adopt environmentally sound policies. This is not cost-effective for them. They instead buy off enough politicians to stonewall environmental reform, and buy up media shares to spread their message/prevent people from hearing the other side. Companies that are big enough can prevent themselves from 'losing market credibility'. This what is really more conducive to long-term profit maximization. It is always easier/cheaper to hide the problem than to deal with it. Look at how the oil companies in the US deal with environmental policy. They own about half of the politicians, including the current president and vice-president. They also succeed in getting environmental activists labelled as "extremists,"
"hippies," "pinkos," etc. How often do you hear oil spills represented as real crises in the media? You don't. They are 'accidents.' However, savages chopping each other up with machetes in Rwanda becomes a 'humanitarian crisis.'

The best example of what happens to the environment when left in the hands of profiteering capitalists is the corrupt deal made by General Motors and Standard Oil, two shining examples of the free market : :sway
Their chemists knew that simple ethanol, grain alcohol, would be the ideal additive to anti-knock gasoline. However, they also knew that they could use tetraethyl lead, of which they could corner the market and clear a larger profit. They also knew that tetraethyl lead would result in vaporization of the lead when the gasoline burned, and that it would both be inhaled by a lot of people in more crowded areas, and that it would settle on the ground and enter the water table, and be the primary source of lead in groundwater. They went ahead and did this, because it ensured higher profit. Leaded gasoline was not even phased out until the 1973-1986 period in the US. It wasn't banned in most of Asia until 1999!!! The consequences still have an environmental impact today. Lead and mercury are the heavy metals most likely to be ingested and harm people, and both are present due to profit taking priority over sense. I love fish, and I don't even eat it much anymore unless its farm-raised, because wild fish are so full of mercury and PCBs. This situation is unacceptable. I'm not a statist by any means, but I wouldn't mind seeing a strong state environmental agency hammer all of these corporations.

Iron Fist
Saturday, September 27th, 2003, 06:04 AM
Globalisation leads to job exportation and foreign finance. Want your job to go to India? Want your country to keep buying from red China?

Most WNs, I find, are actually Libertarian in nature.

Greeneyeddevil63
Saturday, September 27th, 2003, 07:53 AM
[QUOTE=Phlegethon]The U.S.A. are a perfect example of how this concept still adhered to. They are crying for free markets but do not allow imports. When they cannot compete economically they threaten, sanction and eventually bomb their competitors.

Sore loser...

Whether it's a scam or not... we're winning.

What do you think of how we're gonna turn Russia on to some of OUR oil ???


I say STARVE if it pleases you, but when ever you guys get ready... let us know and we'll turn you on to some of OUR oil too! Send us some troops ... oh, that's right... your troops are actually... we'll hell, it's U.S.

How do you like having American military bases in your country??? :fknight:

They hate me.

I must be doing something right?

Just another BLOODY AMERICAN!, :unclesam

GreenEyedDEVIL

Iron Fist
Saturday, September 27th, 2003, 08:50 AM
I think its funny how free market capitalists can rant and rave about socialism yet they support globalisation and buying from red china on the world market.

It seems to me if they hated socialism that much they wouldnt support funding the communist party through capitalism. Then on the other hand if the reds supported socialism that much they wouldnt buy and sell on the global market. just goes to show both systems dont work i suppose.

Siegfried
Saturday, September 27th, 2003, 07:54 PM
Some thoughts on the economy I had this afternoon:

A nation's economy should be as independent as possible to protect its culture from being too much influenced by aliens (boycotting import, no 'colonies' of foreign corporations on its soil, etc). Aside from that, the State shouldn't do much more than prevent the rise of monopolies, and secure a minimum wage for the workers. I think such a 'national capitalist' economy might be a good alternative to Global Capitalism and Marxism/Socialism.

Maybe I'll order a pro-capitalist book from Rand soon.

Jack
Sunday, September 28th, 2003, 08:28 AM
Siegfriend, Atlas Shrugged is probably the best book you can get. And I will still tear you apart in an argument if you turn Objectivist-Capitalist, supposing you want to throw Nationalism in there :)

Jack
Sunday, September 28th, 2003, 08:58 AM
I'm kind of disappointed with the amount of socialist ideals which burgeon from nationalist/preservationist philosophies these days.
It seems to me alot of people here are pretty naive to modern economics, and are far more fond of reading superfluous marxist nonsense than real practical economic theories.

It was modern economic theory and the way it connotes with darwins survival of the fittest, which lead me to studies such as the bell curve, G factor ect, which inspired my interest in racial preservation...

...thus it came as a big suprise when I started hearing WN ranting on about how terrible free market economics is, and how socialism, marxism ect has many great ideas..

Id rather be dead than red.

Nationalists need to be socialists if they are going to stand on two legs as far as logic goes. First, because Capitalism leaves people free to recruit third worlders into their companies, when the jobs could go to native whites. Second, Capitalism leaves individuals free to sell their (land) property to non-whites, and under Capitalism there is no reason not to let it happen. Third, Capitalism aims to sell whatever the consumers are willing to buy. The fact is that sex and violence appeal to people, and so - suprise! Our culture is built on the mass manufacturing, in various forms, of sex and violence. International capitalism (national capitalism is a contradiction - any form of government control/restriction is socialist because it places the community above the individual in importance) has the wonderful effect of homogenising world cultures. Ideologies are a lot more complicated than 'Red vs White', nihilist. Marxism isn't the only socialism.

Siegfried
Sunday, September 28th, 2003, 12:01 PM
Nationalists need to be socialists if they are going to stand on two legs as far as logic goes. First, because Capitalism leaves people free to recruit third worlders into their companies, when the jobs could go to native whites. Second, Capitalism leaves individuals free to sell their (land) property to non-whites, and under Capitalism there is no reason not to let it happen. Third, Capitalism aims to sell whatever the consumers are willing to buy. The fact is that sex and violence appeal to people, and so - suprise! Our culture is built on the mass manufacturing, in various forms, of sex and violence. International capitalism (national capitalism is a contradiction - any form of government control/restriction is socialist because it places the community above the individual in importance) has the wonderful effect of homogenising world cultures. Ideologies are a lot more complicated than 'Red vs White', nihilist. Marxism isn't the only socialism.

You might have a point here. Unchecked capitalism is indeed incompatible with nationalism. But instead of having to work for the community, and then receive food and money from the community (which is the ultimate goal of communism as I understand it), everyone should be able to work for himself, and start his own business, as long as his economic strategies do not harm the nation.

Jack
Sunday, September 28th, 2003, 12:25 PM
What this effectively means is that the community owns the land and leases it to its citizens on a contract basis. :P That's a variety of socialism. I haven't given it a name yet...

Phlegethon
Sunday, September 28th, 2003, 02:09 PM
Siegfriend, Atlas Shrugged is probably the best book you can get. I have been unable so far to explain the Anglo-Saxon fascination with the plagiarist and egomaniac Ayn Rand. In the German world she is a complete non-entity.

Siegfried
Sunday, September 28th, 2003, 02:56 PM
What this effectively means is that the community owns the land and leases it to its citizens on a contract basis. :P That's a variety of socialism. I haven't given it a name yet...

With a few adjustments, couldn't it also result in some form of feudalism? I really have to read up on this stuff...

Jack
Sunday, September 28th, 2003, 03:49 PM
Phelethon - It's because she's not hard to understand, and she built (can you support the plagiarism claim? I've never heard that accusation before...) an entire system from the foundations upwards without relying on 'God' or any unexplainable phenomenon, and ended up with libetarianism. Now if she really took her philosophy to the next level, you would have Anarchist-Capitalism. But she wouldn't do that ;)

Siegfriend Aurelius: Feudalism? That depends on your government system, not the economics. You could have some sort of fluid meritocracy within this socialist system, or a dictatorship (which would mean while the community owns the land, only one person acts as the executor of decisions), or any sort of system.

Phlegethon
Sunday, September 28th, 2003, 04:03 PM
(can you support the plagiarism claim? I've never heard that accusation before...) Well, maybe plagiarism is the wrong word. She simply reinvented the wheel and put her label on it. "Objectivism" is absolutely unoriginal. It is anti-Christian in nature and should more appropriately be labelled as greed, selfishness and exploitation. And that is basically what America is all about.

Jack
Sunday, September 28th, 2003, 04:30 PM
Exploitation is debatable. The rest she'd agree with you on, though.

cosmocreator
Sunday, September 28th, 2003, 07:47 PM
Nationalists need to be socialists if they are going to stand on two legs as far as logic goes. First, because Capitalism leaves people free to recruit third worlders into their companies, when the jobs could go to native whites. Second, Capitalism leaves individuals free to sell their (land) property to non-whites, and under Capitalism there is no reason not to let it happen. Third, Capitalism aims to sell whatever the consumers are willing to buy. The fact is that sex and violence appeal to people, and so - suprise! Our culture is built on the mass manufacturing, in various forms, of sex and violence. International capitalism (national capitalism is a contradiction - any form of government control/restriction is socialist because it places the community above the individual in importance) has the wonderful effect of homogenising world cultures. Ideologies are a lot more complicated than 'Red vs White', nihilist. Marxism isn't the only socialism.


I used to be a fan of AR. Until I thought more about it and debated with people about it. Some of these guys see nothing wrong with selling babies. Women could become baby factories if they want.

Siegfried
Sunday, September 28th, 2003, 07:49 PM
Aloysha: I think we've been using different definitions of 'socialism'. Apparently, you use it to describe any system which does not employ a radically free market, while I used it to describe an economic system in which the State determines the wages to spread income as 'fair' as possible ('to each according to his needs'). Thus, I would call a tax-increase for the wealthy 'socialist', while I wouldn't call import-tax 'socialist', but rather 'nationalist' economics.
But then again, my definition of socialism has been heavily influenced by the writings of Marx and Lenin (which I enjoyed, but rejected).

Siegfried
Sunday, September 28th, 2003, 08:29 PM
Siegfriend Aurelius: Feudalism? That depends on your government system, not the economics. You could have some sort of fluid meritocracy within this socialist system, or a dictatorship (which would mean while the community owns the land, only one person acts as the executor of decisions), or any sort of system.

Don't you think certain economic systems undermine certain systems of government, while other economies will actually strengthen a certain form of government? Besides that, I think you're right that socialism (understood in your definition) can be combined with various systems of government.

Nihilist
Monday, September 29th, 2003, 07:11 AM
Ok, i've got alot to get through, so i'll try to make it as concise as a I possibly can.


Unbridled free markets lead to unilateral media domination as we have now. Remember, the Jews got their stranglehold on newspapers and television back in the 1920's, when laissez-faire was the prevailing philosophy. Coolidge said "the business of America is business." As he said this, all our media was being consolidated into the hands a small cartel. Totally free markets simply take advantage of a large mass of stupid people. Not that these people deserve total sympathy, but their actions impact everyone, not just themselves.


...yes I totally agree, that is a somber reality of free market economics, and i guess it's primary flaw; the fact that the majority of people are stupid and herdlike, and therefore a great quanity of resources are spent on inanity (IE: Nike, mcdonalds, modern popular music ect), with no circumspect towards collective goals.

My only point to make here is that stupid people are reasonably valueless in a libertarian meritocratic laissez-faire system. A well informed elite could still possess, demand and maintain whatever their interests may be without having to retard their attention and ability to the lowest common denominator as in a democratic society. In otherwords a biologically and culturally conscious IN-group could behave within the scope of both individual and collective self interest without being impeded by compromise to the weak, as is the case today.


....As for everything else you said regarding the enviroment, most of these issues can be sorted and through the natural impetuses of demand and supply; Despite the amount of imbeciles out there, from an evolutionary perspective, if self interest is seriously threatened, enviromental adaptiablity will be a necessity. i totally understand your concerns and frustrations however, it would take an extensive amount of time until the majority of the masses woke up and began to demand enviromentally friendly products. And the enviroment is likely to goto hell in the meantime. I guess my advise to all the greenies out there is to take a leading step, fund organizations that wish to achieve your goals of an enviromentally friendly world. Express your opinions through your actions.


Globalisation leads to job exportation and foreign finance. Want your job to go to India? Want your country to keep buying from red China?

Most WNs, I find, are actually Libertarian in nature.

Third world countries have the comparative advantage when it comes to low skilled menial work. This is primarily due to overcrowded and oversupplied labour markets. If western nations specialize in highly skilled employment, then there's no real threat. Only the benefits of lower priced consumer goods. Inter competition is good for efficiency and productivity, which both raise material wealth.


I think its funny how free market capitalists can rant and rave about socialism yet they support globalisation and buying from red china on the world market.

It seems to me if they hated socialism that much they wouldnt support funding the communist party through capitalism. Then on the other hand if the reds supported socialism that much they wouldnt buy and sell on the global market. just goes to show both systems dont work i suppose.

China is hardly a communist state anymore; the fact that they have opened their markets to foreign investment, multinational companies ect, is a good indication of the necessity for free market/globalization and the adamant failure of socialist/command based economies.


Nationalists need to be socialists if they are going to stand on two legs as far as logic goes. First, because Capitalism leaves people free to recruit third worlders into their companies, when the jobs could go to native whites. Second, Capitalism leaves individuals free to sell their (land) property to non-whites, and under Capitalism there is no reason not to let it happen. Third, Capitalism aims to sell whatever the consumers are willing to buy. The fact is that sex and violence appeal to people, and so - suprise! Our culture is built on the mass manufacturing, in various forms, of sex and violence. International capitalism (national capitalism is a contradiction - any form of government control/restriction is socialist because it places the community above the individual in importance) has the wonderful effect of homogenising world cultures. Ideologies are a lot more complicated than 'Red vs White', nihilist. Marxism isn't the only socialism.

I think it all comes down to two things. Whether you wish to (coercively) help the masses (The socialist option), or whether you wish self interest to guide an esoteric elite in-group to the maintenance of white culture (Which is achieveable through free market). Personally, i cannot tolerate incompetence, regardless of race. If someone from my race wants to miscegenate, destroy their heritage, and level themselves to mediocre compromise, then so be it, they are not worth saving. I only care to help people that help themselves.

As for what you said about third world countries - The muds generally practice low investment reproductive strategy which results in the inundation of cheap labour, and thus hurts the working class of western nations because it severely degrades the value of their labour. From a middle/upper class perspective, this isn't such a troubling transpiring because they benefit from lower priced consumer goods. Considering that i adhere to the idea of both inter and intra based competition I have no problem with survival of the fittest working in this context; In which the working class require to adapt to their new, far more competitive enviroment, by raising their value of labour to highly skilled occupations.


I used it to describe an economic system in which the State determines the wages to spread income as 'fair' as possible ('to each according to his needs'). Thus, I would call a tax-increase for the wealthy 'socialist', while I wouldn't call import-tax 'socialist', but rather 'nationalist' economics.

Bah, what is fair? what is right?
How can a state objectively determine this on an individual level?
All that matter is competence in the real world. If a product is highly demanded, then it is obviously valuable to other people that have successfully produced/supplied contributed something of equal value to society and themselves.
To each according to his needs is fundamentally flawed, egalitarian clap-trap. In nature, every living creature is in need, however only creatures that behave congruously and agreeably to their enviroment are inevitably rewarded. Taxation is larceny, and it's degenerate larceny to boot! It theives from the competent and redistributes to the decadent. Thus it is regressive and malignant to mankinds evolution and adaptibility in the perpetual struggle for existence.

Greeneyeddevil63
Saturday, October 4th, 2003, 02:01 AM
Don't HATE US BECAUSE WE ARE WINNING.......

Phlegethon
Saturday, October 4th, 2003, 02:06 AM
You're winning what exactly?

Jack
Saturday, October 4th, 2003, 04:10 AM
He thinks America's economy is doing well.

Jack
Saturday, October 4th, 2003, 04:44 AM
I think it all comes down to two things. Whether you wish to (coercively) help the masses (The socialist option), or whether you wish self interest to guide an esoteric elite in-group to the maintenance of white culture (Which is achieveable through free market).

I highly doubt this is achievable through a free market. In fact, the only thing capitalism has going for it from a racial perspective is that it allows freedom of association. Blacks are still able to buy up white land, as are Jews, Mesitzos and Asians. Government is incapacitated from enforcing borders precisely because this would infringe on the 'rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness' of the immigrants. Even without welfare, there is nothing stopping (within the idea of property rights) mass migration into white countries. Government turns from being the power-expression of a population into an administration that does little more than collects voluntary tax (that's right, otherwise the Government is violating the private property rights of its population) for the purposes of maintaining an Army and a Police force to make sure the private property rights of its citizens aren't violated.

Freud worked miracles for capitalism: he uncovered the two basic elements of human instincts - sex and aggression. Appeal to those instincts and you will get results. That discovery will not be lost. So the question essentially remains, either an inquisition of sorts against Freudianism begins, or a sort of socialism is to be instituted. Otherwise, white 'culture' remains what it is now - little more than a billion varieties and mixes of sex and violence for sale.


Personally, i cannot tolerate incompetence, regardless of race. If someone from my race wants to miscegenate, destroy their heritage, and level themselves to mediocre compromise, then so be it, they are not worth saving. I only care to help people that help themselves.

If the will of every person and being event combined, then it could be said that all is the Will of God. It has been said 'God saves those who save themselves'. In short: the most adaptable win.


Bah, what is fair? what is right?
How can a state objectively determine this on an individual level?

Fair or right for what? That is the question. The ends subjectively justifies the means.


To each according to his needs is fundamentally flawed, egalitarian clap-trap.

No one said anything about the first motto of Communism. Everyone is discussing means by which European culture and race can be secured for the future. I fail to see how Capitalism can accomplish such ends, only how it can slow down Europe's destruction. Not to mention no one really cares about rights unless there's something to gain from it - and people at core aren't rational creatures. People can invent rights for anything - and it does make sense, if you understand rights as the priveliges of power. Two core questions: how to acquire power, and how to employ it once power is acquired.


In nature, every living creature is in need, however only creatures that behave congruously and agreeably to their enviroment are inevitably rewarded. Taxation is larceny, and it's degenerate larceny to boot! It theives from the competent and redistributes to the decadent. Thus it is regressive and malignant to mankinds evolution and adaptibility in the perpetual struggle for existence.

If we are to speak to power-as-fact, then taxation is a means of control and coordination by the few over the many. Which it is. And there is nothing to say taxation must redistribute to the decadentv - only that it presently does. Taxation, as the means by which the State (as an organisation asserting the soveriegn privelige of power to impose violence over a section of territory) controls and coordinates the resources it guards, could in fact be a means by which a population can survive, enhance and expand itself. That this is not presently being done by Europe or any of its nations does not mean that it should be done away with - only that the ends it attempts to achieve should be radically changed and the means it uses should be modified.

Nihilist
Wednesday, October 8th, 2003, 01:20 PM
I highly doubt this is achievable through a free market. In fact, the only thing capitalism has going for it from a racial perspective is that it allows freedom of association. Blacks are still able to buy up white land, as are Jews, Mesitzos and Asians. Government is incapacitated from enforcing borders precisely because this would infringe on the 'rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness' of the immigrants. Even without welfare, there is nothing stopping (within the idea of property rights) mass migration into white countries. Government turns from being the power-expression of a population into an administration that does little more than collects voluntary tax (that's right, otherwise the Government is violating the private property rights of its population) for the purposes of maintaining an Army and a Police force to make sure the private property rights of its citizens aren't violated.

In a libertarian framework Blacks/jews/mesitzos/asians wouldn't be able gain access to "white" land if the community as a whole wished to remain homogeneous. It would be an expectation that land is only sold to people within the scope of the collectives self interest. Thus if someone decided to be selfish, and sell land to people of inconsonant origin, the community would be able to use abstaining means to drive the aliens out. Harrassment throughout the community and discrimination, to the point where employment becomes an impossibility is a good example of this.


Freud worked miracles for capitalism: he uncovered the two basic elements of human instincts - sex and aggression. Appeal to those instincts and you will get results. That discovery will not be lost. So the question essentially remains, either an inquisition of sorts against Freudianism begins, or a sort of socialism is to be instituted. Otherwise, white 'culture' remains what it is now - little more than a billion varieties and mixes of sex and violence for sale.

My understanding of psychology is pretty limited. I am aquainted with freuds basic psychoanalytic theory, but i have never read much further into him than that. I kinda feel he (like most modern therapists) put far too much significance on enviroment. He seems to treat everyone equal at birth, and explains that all behaviors/personalities can be connoted to the way in which enviroments interact with the unconscious sexual impulses of the "ID". Today we possess the foresight of genetics which infer innate characteristics play a huge (perhaps even an unequivocal role) in personality development - I for one feel they play a far more pivital function than enviroments do. Thus modern psychology comes across as more of a politically motivated slave morality than a substantiated science ....thats not to say it isn't useful and interesting, i just feel people place far too much importance unto it today.

- Regarding his commentaries regarding sexuality and violence; yes they are marketable to most, but not all people in a capitalist society. Again I guess it comes down to a question of whether you want to dogmatically dictate whats best for the majority, or whether you want to lead esoterically, by example, and let the majority join at their own pace and free will........

I think aggression is marketable today because people lack outlets to express it within their own lives. Consequently they seek it out in art or "entertainment" as a form of catharsis, which is inevitably self defeating.
Sexuality is overly marketable due to the hendonistic rejection of western morality, and i guess exemplifies the destruction of traditional values in favor of animalistic, capricious and debaucherous licentiousness. All of which connote with the acceptance and reverential respect western nations now place on negroid culture...
Not that I'm anti-sexuality or for sexual repression either. It's just it's all to obvious that the way in which it manifests itself today is in complete diamentric with the honor/heroic ideals which typifies european culture.


Fair or right for what? That is the question. The ends subjectively justifies the means.

true, however ends can be strived for in a variety of different ways - obviously some means achieve the ends more efficiently than others.


If we are to speak to power-as-fact, then taxation is a means of control and coordination by the few over the many. Which it is. And there is nothing to say taxation must redistribute to the decadentv - only that it presently does. Taxation, as the means by which the State (as an organisation asserting the soveriegn privelige of power to impose violence over a section of territory) controls and coordinates the resources it guards, could in fact be a means by which a population can survive, enhance and expand itself. That this is not presently being done by Europe or any of its nations does not mean that it should be done away with - only that the ends it attempts to achieve should be radically changed and the means it uses should be modified.

I understand your idea, but from an economic perspective, it's an undisputed fact that command based economic decisions are always inefficient in attaining material wealth and technological progression in comparison to free trade.

You might argue that these things are sacrificial in attaining biological cultural necessities, however i feel they can be both achieved simultaneously within a libertarian framework.

dinarid love
Wednesday, October 8th, 2003, 11:37 PM
Some thoughts on the economy I had this afternoon:

A nation's economy should be as independent as possible to protect its culture from being too much influenced by aliens (boycotting import, no 'colonies' of foreign corporations on its soil, etc). Aside from that, the State shouldn't do much more than prevent the rise of monopolies, and secure a minimum wage for the workers. I think such a 'national capitalist' economy might be a good alternative to Global Capitalism and Marxism/Socialism.


I have to agree with you. That really is all our country startedout to be, but we are far to relient on aliens and foreign nations. What do you know about juris naturalism? It seems to be what you are describing.

Jack
Thursday, October 16th, 2003, 12:48 PM
In a libertarian framework Blacks/jews/mesitzos/asians wouldn't be able gain access to "white" land if the community as a whole wished to remain homogeneous. It would be an expectation that land is only sold to people within the scope of the collectives self interest. Thus if someone decided to be selfish, and sell land to people of inconsonant origin, the community would be able to use abstaining means to drive the aliens out. Harrassment throughout the community and discrimination, to the point where employment becomes an impossibility is a good example of this.

The issue is bringing this situation - where the entire European world as a whole is racialist - without violating the rights to 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness' of all Leftists who run the universities, whose disciples fill the entire media-entertainment complexes, and the Jews who run the corporations and manipulate the media-entertainment corporate systems through buying up advertising space. The revolution of values can't be accomplished within a capitalist framework - no doubt capitalism can take place post-revolution, but I don't think it provides an adequate field for the revolution itself to take place.


My understanding of psychology is pretty limited. I am aquainted with freuds basic psychoanalytic theory, but i have never read much further into him than that. I kinda feel he (like most modern therapists) put far too much significance on enviroment. He seems to treat everyone equal at birth, and explains that all behaviors/personalities can be connoted to the way in which enviroments interact with the unconscious sexual impulses of the "ID". Today we possess the foresight of genetics which infer innate characteristics play a huge (perhaps even an unequivocal role) in personality development - I for one feel they play a far more pivital function than enviroments do. Thus modern psychology comes across as more of a politically motivated slave morality than a substantiated science ....thats not to say it isn't useful and interesting, i just feel people place far too much importance unto it today.

I agree. Most psychology is rubbish. Hopefully, with the rise of evolutionary psychology, something decent can come into existance.


- Regarding his commentaries regarding sexuality and violence; yes they are marketable to most, but not all people in a capitalist society. Again I guess it comes down to a question of whether you want to dogmatically dictate whats best for the majority, or whether you want to lead esoterically, by example, and let the majority join at their own pace and free will........

Or it comes down to questions of intentions (save the European world) and time (how long do we have to do it?). I don't think we have time for the masses to slowly come around and start buying different products and pull the rug out from under the Jews through capitalism and 'harassing' racial foreigners by not associating with them. People are too stupid, too indoctrinated, and there is not enough time. If we had time, I'd suggest a long march through the institutions as Antonio Gramsci advocated, and we'd do it all without having any real problems. But we don't.


I think aggression is marketable today because people lack outlets to express it within their own lives. Consequently they seek it out in art or "entertainment" as a form of catharsis, which is inevitably self defeating.
Sexuality is overly marketable due to the hendonistic rejection of western morality, and i guess exemplifies the destruction of traditional values in favor of animalistic, capricious and debaucherous licentiousness. All of which connote with the acceptance and reverential respect western nations now place on negroid culture...
Not that I'm anti-sexuality or for sexual repression either. It's just it's all to obvious that the way in which it manifests itself today is in complete diamentric with the honor/heroic ideals which typifies european culture.

I agree. What is needed is a strengthening (or perhaps strong emphasis) of the European will to power along its natural currents (ingroup brotherhood, outgroup enmnity, respect for women and elders, respect for one's opponents, self discipline, determination, resourcefulness, honesty, self respect and the desire to accumulate knowledge). I think this could wash away the negoid culture fairly easily, but in order for those who display these qualities to become socially recognised/emulated, there's going to need to be a crisis (or several of them) in which these qualities are valued over everything currently considered 'normal' (i.e. degenerate).



I understand your idea, but from an economic perspective, it's an undisputed fact that command based economic decisions are always inefficient in attaining material wealth and technological progression in comparison to free trade.

Of course, I certainly agree. But in the near future, capitalism is either going to be threatened by pro-white Governments (because it permits, even though both of us know the welfare state is what actually encouraged, nonwhites to get into European countries) or it will breakdown totally under the pressures of taxation to support/suppress non-European minorities (/majorities?) by anti-white Governments who want to keep the problems from spilling into something uncontrollable. And if it breaks down, the libetarian option is vapourised.


You might argue that these things are sacrificial in attaining biological cultural necessities, however i feel they can be both achieved simultaneously within a libertarian framework.

It would indeed be nice if they could be. But I don't think they can. It'd be nice if I could be proved wrong, but from everything I can tell, I don't think I will be.

Moody
Tuesday, November 11th, 2003, 06:20 PM
Aloysha; "Nationalists need to be socialists if they are going to stand on two legs as far as logic goes.
First, because Capitalism leaves people free to recruit third worlders into their companies, when the jobs could go to native whites.
Second, Capitalism leaves individuals free to sell their (land) property to non-whites, and under Capitalism there is no reason not to let it happen.
Third, Capitalism aims to sell whatever the consumers are willing to buy. The fact is that sex and violence appeal to people, and so - suprise! Our culture is built on the mass manufacturing, in various forms, of sex and violence. International capitalism (national capitalism is a contradiction - any form of government control/restriction is socialist because it places the community above the individual in importance) has the wonderful effect of homogenising world cultures".

Moody Lawless; I agree with you here. Also, to put it simply; every ideology [or '-ism'] describes what it gives 'ultimate concern' to.
Therefore 'capital-ism' vaunts capital, while 'racial nationalism' vaunts race and nation.
So the question is, - 'what is your ultimate concern'?