Page 7 of 60 FirstFirst ... 234567891011121757 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 593

Thread: Free Market Capitalism Incompatible With Nationalism

  1. #61
    Senior Member Paradigm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Online
    Sunday, July 24th, 2011 @ 06:43 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    English/Irish/German
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Virginia Virginia
    Gender
    Politics
    Anarcho-Capitalist
    Posts
    297
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Yes, that neanderthal is a "capitalist" in the most primitive sense if he:

    1. Has his own goods (property).
    2. Accumulates or saves what he makes and/or works for for future use (saving).
    3. Trades his goods for others goods that he feels have a higher value (exchange).

    ...on a further note...

    4. He may partake in a specific task that he's better at, and the rest of his pack does the same (division of labor).
    5. They have a preferred good to trade between them because of it's value (money).
    6. Design better tools to make hunting more efficient (production).

    In a broad sense he's taking part in "capitalism" or simply is demonstrating economics in action.

    When did capitalism arrive within human history? Answering that is like answering who invented the wheel. All we know is that in some part in history it happened. Trade happened because it benefited. People decided to save goods, and design tools that wold increase their yield in food.

    In your response to mercantilism and feudalism, capitalism is the expansion of individual rights. That the individual can move upwards economically and decide in what area of the market to strive in, and that the individual can become his own boss in the process. That through economics the people are best served when there is more freedom of choice in goods and services, which leads to more types of production and areas of industry.

    It's more or so political, that the less the state was in control, the more freedom their was of choice and of individual rights, and the individual had a say and was equal amongst his fellowmen, than just being a servant to those above him.
    "If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?" - Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

  2. #62
    Spenglerian
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Caledonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 26th, 2011 @ 06:30 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Scottish
    Ancestry
    Scotland,England, Germany,Austria,Switzerland
    Subrace
    Alpinid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Sverige snart nog
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    RecyclingPlant / College Student
    Politics
    Socially Progressive Nationalism
    Religion
    Atheist, Nihilist, And Mystic
    Posts
    2,432
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Paradigm View Post
    Yes, that neanderthal is a "capitalist" in the most primitive sense if he:

    1. Has his own goods (property).
    2. Accumulates or saves what he makes and/or works for for future use (saving).
    3. Trades his goods for others goods that he feels have a higher value (exchange).

    ...on a further note...

    4. He may partake in a specific task that he's better at, and the rest of his pack does the same (division of labor).
    5. They have a preferred good to trade between them because of it's value (money).
    6. Design better tools to make hunting more efficient (production).

    In a broad sense he's taking part in "capitalism" or simply is demonstrating economics in action.

    When did capitalism arrive within human history? Answering that is like answering who invented the wheel. All we know is that in some part in history it happened. Trade happened because it benefited. People decided to save goods, and design tools that wold increase their yield in food.

    In your response to mercantilism and feudalism, capitalism is the expansion of individual rights. That the individual can move upwards economically and decide in what area of the market to strive in, and that the individual can become his own boss in the process. That through economics the people are best served when there is more freedom of choice in goods and services, which leads to more types of production and areas of industry.

    It's more or so political, that the less the state was in control, the more freedom their was of choice and of individual rights, and the individual had a say and was equal amongst his fellowmen, than just being a servant to those above him.

    Yes, that neanderthal is a "capitalist" in the most primitive sense if he:

    1. Has his own goods (property).
    2. Accumulates or saves what he makes and/or works for for future use (saving).
    3. Trades his goods for others goods that he feels have a higher value (exchange).

    ...on a further note...

    4. He may partake in a specific task that he's better at, and the rest of his pack does the same (division of labor).
    5. They have a preferred good to trade between them because of it's value (money).
    6. Design better tools to make hunting more efficient (production).

    In a broad sense he's taking part in "capitalism" or simply is demonstrating economics in action.
    I see you quoting alot of economical terms but how that relates to capitalism in the accepted definition of the word as a type of economical system when it concerns ancient man is beyond me.

    Capitalism by it's very definition means:

    Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the free market; profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism




    You see everything in a primitive community is collectively owned in which there is little privatization in that there isn't so much of a need to privatize alot of things in primitive economies as there is for modern ones.

    More over everything within a primitive community is designed for the collective profit of the community not just specifically for individual interests alone.

    [Also in primitive societies the means of production are collectively owned.]

    What does that mean? Well it means ancient human beings didn't practice capitalism at all where both you and SpearBrave fail in explaining how capitalism has always existed which means capitalism hasn't always existed in that it started somewhere in a specific point in history.

    [Which means that as a economical theory and ideology capitalism started in a specific point in time in history where it was invented by somebody.]

    Also:

    decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the free market;
    In a primitive society all decisions of a community were made collectively which then was relayed to a leader and a leading caste that were also members of that same community who then through collective consensus enacted those decisions.

    You will find this is somthing completely opposite of the capitalist economical system that we have today.

    profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses,
    Being that alot of individuals within primitive societies created their own tools, structures, crafts, and what have you on their own individually there wasn't much of a need for owners.

    [Everybody was owners in what they created in which they bartered in trade amongst themselves in what they produced.]

    [Only upon specialization when it concerns specialists in the history of economics did all of that change where specific groups of people created things that not everybody else could reproduce for themselves on their own. All of sudden people had to start selling their labor to acquire such goods where they became servants to other people and so on.]

    Which means if everybody can reproduce what everybody else has by their own independent self autonomy there is no need to be owned or controlled by another where everybody then becomes owners in a sort of regard to the collective community in that everybody would then own what they produced.

    [And in a primitive society everybody produced somthing useful which was then bartered between themselves for goods or services all of which was shared collectively within the community.]

    and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies.
    In ancient economies currency didn't really exist where there was no centralized form of currency value in place in which there was only barter trade.

    When did capitalism arrive within human history? Answering that is like answering who invented the wheel. All we know is that in some part in history it happened.
    Your exactly right in saying that some point in history it happened.

    I have a guess to when it happened.............

    You see in 1776 there was this book published called the Wealth Of Nations by one Adam Smith that later influenced a great deal of nations to go from a mercantile economical exchange to a capitalist economical model of exchange with his economical ideology of which after it was published a great deal of highly influenced capitalist economists would later keep adding onto the original ideal of capitalism with their newer expanding variations.

    After economical capitalism began to have a stranglehold on global economics later on a bunch of anarchists, socialists, communists, protectionists, nationalists, and previous mercantilists began criticizing it where to this day there is still critiques of capitalism much like on the lines of this thread that we are conversing in by means of typed words right at this instance on the modern day internet.

    In your response to mercantilism and feudalism, capitalism
    So I see that you agree that there was different models of economical systems in place prior to capitalism.

    [Marvelous.]

    is the expansion of individual rights.
    For me capitalism is the monopoly of individual rights by merchants, industrialists, banksters, corporatists, businessmen, and statists alike by privately used means which is why they highly praise privatization versus public collectivization.

    When they are praising the individual rights to private property or privatization what they are really saying is that individuals can only acquire privatization and private property for themselves if only they give themselves away to obedience first by means of individual submission in which allocated profit is their reward that is if they are lucky enough to be rewarded at all.

    That the individual can move upwards economically and decide in what area of the market to strive in, and that the individual can become his own boss in the process.
    Like anything else the market is controlled by somebody especially by those who own big percentages of it.

    In other words the individual isn't independent within the market at all in that more or less is instead dictated by it especially by those who have the most influence within it.

    It's more or so political, that the less the state was in control, the more freedom their was of choice and of individual rights,
    Except that in a free market existence of capitalism the state becomes reduced to nothing beyond a public mouthpiece of which trade monopolies come to replace the state and government where overtime such trade monopolies become centralized into one single coordinated power somthing on the lines of a centralized bank which believe it or not is not a creation of socialism but rather is a creation of capitalism quite inevitably out of the very trade monopolies that come to dominate capitalist economies.

    [Centralized banks are merely those centralized power structures within a free market economy that through competition have come to dominate the market singularly as a giant economical power house in which by owning a large share of a economy by defeating other market players are then able to influence the market and monopolies within it almost acting like a centralized government themselves except for the fact that centralized banks dominate the market whereas typical governments do not in that in today's societies the real power is not in the hands of governments as it is in the centralized banks that come to control the government by usage of the market itself. If one market player comes to dominate all the others by process of elimination it then becomes feasible that such a player will then position themselves as a centralized market authority within a free marketing system especially in the guise of a bank.]

    Yes you heard me correctly when I said that centralized banks are a symptom of capitalism itself the very centralized banks you criticize.

    and the individual had a say and was equal amongst his fellowmen, than just being a servant to those above him.
    Let's not be naive here.

    We both know that equality in modern societies is nonexistent.
    National Socialism is the only salvation for Germanics and Europids everywhere. Capitalism, libertarianism, and communism is the enemy.

    National socialized collectivism must prevail over radical individualism.

  3. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Online
    Thursday, November 17th, 2011 @ 06:40 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Norman/British
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Posts
    60
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaricLachlan View Post
    You see everything in a primitive community is collectively owned
    Your definition for capitalism describes exactly what Paradigm began with. This, your rebuttal to it, is just something you've made up. Or that someone else just made up and that you found merely to sound nice in its conclusion - it's the same in either case. If you want to know more about property, this guy is not a Jew, and that book is a bit of a collection of articles that you can make your own way through.

    Please don't attempt to defend your obvious fantasies by adding more 'fantasy' to them: Don't I know that they rode dinosaurs around? Don't I know that they had a strong telepathy before 'greed' murdered it? Look: this one people, who managed to stay as completely impoverished stone-age primitives well into the Industrial Age, managed this through some systematic abuses of property. Which shows that they enjoyed the same paradisical stupidity as the twentieth century Americans did, if you recall the 'Eminent Domain' documents that our team excavated last mid last rotation.

    Error is not a competing social order.

    You see in 1776 there was this book published called the Wealth Of Nations by one Adam Smith that later influenced a great deal of nations to go from a mercantile economical exchange to a capitalist economical model of exchange
    You've described capitalism above. Mercantilism is that plus tariffs, monopolies, subsidies, a view of exports as 'good' and imports as 'bad'. If this definition suggests that we have a mercantilist and not a capitalist economy today, it should, because this is the case even if the US is doing a bad job on that last part. I'd only hesitate to say that we simply have mercantilism today as what we have is enormously more invasive.

    For me capitalism is the monopoly of individual rights by merchants, industrialists, banksters, corporatists, businessmen, and statists alike by privately used means which is why they highly praise privatization versus public collectivization.
    ... 'monopoly of individual rights'? I'm sure that sounds really impressive to someone, but it's meaningless. Reading it as 'privilege': merchants, merchants, banksters, merchants, merchants, and the state do not work together to acquire privileges for themselves under capitalism. These practices are precisely what Adam Smith attacked.

    If by 'capitalism' you do not mean your definition above or what Paradigm described, but "the present system, whatever that may be, the thing that's the cause of all our ills", then please say so. I feel a bit ridiculous in this thread, as I don't really expect you to ever read that book or otherwise improve yourself - sad to say, that may be an unfair expectation brought here from inferior forums with their own anti-capitalists - but mostly as the threat of your wrong ideas catching fire is not what I'm really worried about. I'd much rather have a thieving impoverishing stupid 'socialist' government that at least kept the aliens at bay, than I would a grotesque multiculti parody of a society that at least understood how to produce wealth rather than destroy wealth. Although I guess both are those are preferable to the present situation, where the anti-capitalists and the multicult are indistinguishable allies.
    Last edited by kuehnelt; Thursday, December 2nd, 2010 at 06:09 AM. Reason: excess words words

  4. #64
    Senior Member Paradigm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Online
    Sunday, July 24th, 2011 @ 06:43 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    English/Irish/German
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Virginia Virginia
    Gender
    Politics
    Anarcho-Capitalist
    Posts
    297
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaricLachlan View Post
    You see everything in a primitive community is collectively owned in which there is little privatization in that there isn't so much of a need to privatize alot of things in primitive economies as there is for modern ones.

    More over everything within a primitive community is designed for the collective profit of the community not just specifically for individual interests alone.

    [Also in primitive societies the means of production are collectively owned.]

    What does that mean? Well it means ancient human beings didn't practice capitalism at all where both you and SpearBrave fail in explaining how capitalism has always existed which means capitalism hasn't always existed in that it started somewhere in a specific point in history.

    [Which means that as a economical theory and ideology capitalism started in a specific point in time in history where it was invented by somebody.]
    The foundations for capitalism have always existed. If you want to debate whether neanderthals practiced trade, I could care less, because it's not relevant to humans in this point of history. Look at ancient civilizations, trade was practiced, there were various merchants and artisans.

    Even if you are stranded on an island by yourself, you're going to save and accumulate food and supplies, and use those supplies to create better means of catching and obtaining food, and working more on what you're better at.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaricLachlan View Post
    In a primitive society all decisions of a community were made collectively which then was relayed to a leader and a leading caste that were also members of that same community who then through collective consensus enacted those decisions.

    You will find this is somthing completely opposite of the capitalist economical system that we have today.
    If you want to live in a primitive society in the wilderness go ahead. I'll live in a sophisticated civilized world.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaricLachlan View Post
    In ancient economies currency didn't really exist where there was no centralized form of currency value in place in which there was only barter trade.
    The goods that are bartered IS the medium of exchange at that point in time. That was the currency, and also, how ancient? Are we to discuss we hunted with spears and lived in huts, or when Rome was at it's height? There's one I'd prefer over the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaricLachlan View Post
    You see in 1776 there was this book published called the Wealth Of Nations by one Adam Smith that later influenced a great deal of nations to go from a mercantile economical exchange to a capitalist economical model of exchange with his economical ideology of which after it was published a great deal of highly influenced capitalist economists would later keep adding onto the original ideal of capitalism with their newer expanding variations.
    Is Adam Smith and The Wealth of Nations the only god damn economist and book you know of? Why not Ricardo or the marginal revolution that surpassed Smith in economic thought with the likes of Carl Menger who influenced Bohm-Bawerk, Mises, and Hayek? Economic science progressed, when you rely on outdated economist like Smith while trying to refute someone who actually has a grasp of economics it will not work. You'll just get shot down, because Principles of Economics refuted a lot of what was in Wealth of Nations, such as the labour theory of value which is an objective value of labor from the view of the supplier.

    I don't need some plebeian trying to tell me about economic theory and history when he knows none of which he speaks.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaricLachlan View Post
    So I see that you agree that there was different models of economical systems in place prior to capitalism.
    Different political systems that had restraint and control over the market.


    Quote Originally Posted by AlaricLachlan View Post
    When they are praising the individual rights to private property or privatization what they are really saying is that individuals can only acquire privatization and private property for themselves if only they give themselves away to obedience first by means of individual submission in which allocated profit is their reward that is if they are lucky enough to be rewarded at all.
    In the collective everyone's a slave to everyone else. In an individualist state (a state of being or coming, not a political state) people are free to decide amongst themselves what they wish with their own bodies and minds. In the collective, you are already submitted by default to everyone else before you even consent.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaricLachlan View Post
    In other words the individual isn't independent within the market at all in that more or less is instead dictated by it especially by those who have the most influence within it.
    Liberty and freedom are the conditions of man within a contractual society. Social cooperation under a system of private ownership of the factors of production means that within the range of the market the individual is not bound to obey and to serve an overlord. As far as he gives and serves other people, he does so of his own accord in order to be rewarded and served by the receivers. He exchanges goods and services, he does not do compulsory labor and does not pay tribute. He is certainly not independent. He depends on the other members of society. But this dependence is mutual. The buyer depends on the seller and the seller on the buyer.
    - Ludwig von Mises, Human Action

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaricLachlan View Post
    Except that in a free market existence of capitalism the state becomes reduced to nothing beyond a public mouthpiece of which trade monopolies come to replace the state and government where overtime such trade monopolies become centralized into one single coordinated power somthing on the lines of a centralized bank which believe it or not is not a creation of socialism but rather is a creation of capitalism quite inevitably out of the very trade monopolies that come to dominate capitalist economies.
    No monopoly or central bank can exist without a state. This is fact. A central bank is in power, because the state made them the sole suppliers of money, and what they do is legal, and no one can compete with them. Monopolies are corporations who are granted privileges by the state, this is fact. Without the state, there are no privileges, and laws to keep them on top, and their competition out. In a market, they would have to deal with competition, and this would keep them "in check" per se.

    Also, the 5th Plank of the Communist Manifesto is the centralization of credit in the hands of the State.

    Very capitalist, isn't it?

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaricLachlan View Post
    Yes you heard me correctly when I said that centralized banks are a symptom of capitalism itself the very centralized banks you criticize.
    Yeah, the State made the central bank the sole publisher of Federal Reserve Notes, also, it's illegal for anyone to print their own currency by law, the United States law. How could this have come about in a market, if it's not for the state creating these monopolies?

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaricLachlan View Post
    We both know that equality in modern societies is nonexistent.
    Thank god. I'd hate to be your equal. One thing we can agree one, except I say we push the agenda further (and get rid of anti-discrimination laws and egalitarian micromanagement from the state).
    "If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?" - Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

  5. #65
    Senior Member Paradigm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Online
    Sunday, July 24th, 2011 @ 06:43 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    English/Irish/German
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Virginia Virginia
    Gender
    Politics
    Anarcho-Capitalist
    Posts
    297
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by kuehnelt View Post
    If you want to know more about property, this guy is not a Jew, and that book is a bit of a collection of articles that you can make your own way through.
    Hans Herman-Hoppe is pretty awesome. I plan to get his Democracy: The God That Failed soon. Even though he was influenced by people of Jewish descent (Mises and Rothbard) he puts out some very anti-egalitarian ideas mixed with anarcho-capitalism (not saying Mises and Rothbard are bad, but I know there are those who will put up an iron curtain around any idea or theory written by a Jew). He's taken some heat from the liberal thought police for some things he's wrote and said in lectures.
    "If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?" - Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

  6. #66
    Spenglerian
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Caledonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 26th, 2011 @ 06:30 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Scottish
    Ancestry
    Scotland,England, Germany,Austria,Switzerland
    Subrace
    Alpinid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Sverige snart nog
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    RecyclingPlant / College Student
    Politics
    Socially Progressive Nationalism
    Religion
    Atheist, Nihilist, And Mystic
    Posts
    2,432
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts
    To the capitalists in the thread:

    Tell me what one ought to do with a nation where various corporations under the guise of free enterprise rule your government, congress, and politicians that end up making public policy for everybody else?

    What does a nationalist do when confronted by a government that is ruled by various free enterprise corporations or profiteering international banks that have no intention of allowing nationalism to even remotely take place as they stand firm and hide behind international free market capitalism as opposed to a nationalized economy?

    Is a nationalist supposed to embrace international free market capitalism somthing of which hinders their goal and dream of nationalism or a nation state?

    You all speak of international free market capitalism as somthing of which that brings fourth the greatest amount of profit and wealth yet this same very system has brought about a global recession not to mention a crumbling infrastructure of the United States as it was brought about by market capitalists themselves who's only concern is profit.

    It has brought about forclosures, unemployment, lost equity, and misery for a great deal of people.

    More recently is has brought about lowered wages for the working class that has not even increased all that much in the last thirty years to even match a livable wage for workers.

    Free market capitalism in it's value of profit at all cost has brought about international foreign immigration in it's quest to find abundance of cheap labor for the workforce for whom it lobbies with in congress for immigration reforms that only favor in letting even more foreigners in to displace those people who are national citizens.

    I thought the general disposition of this website is the preservation of race, culture, and national identity.

    Free market capitalism is a corporation moving it's production to a foreign country abroad so that it does not have to pay local national workers a livable wage through outsourcing.

    Free market capitalism is that of selling the integrity and pride of nation along with it's national vitality for that of a profit of which is always guaranteed to fall into private pockets.

    If that is what international free market capitalism is then it can be damned for it is nothing but damnation and a blight for any intelligent nationalist to see.

    Someone here earlier called me a plebeian as a sort of sarcastic gesture in making fun of my views and my occupation as a factory worker.

    Although I'm somewhat of commoner now I assure you that in the not too distant future through my own hard work and self educational pursuits I'm a middle class man in the making.

    I'm a intelligent commoner or plebeian and one day when I transcend into the upper class in the back of my mind I will never forget where I came from nor the cruelty from those of the top income brackets where I will transcend my class with new ideas that I will bring with me.

    At any rate yes I'm currently a commoner but being that I live as a common man I have the eyes to see that which is uncommon to both the middle and upper classes.

    I get the privilege as a commoner to observe the ills of this world at first hand up close in observation having even expirienced a great deal of it myself where the upper classes aren't able to in comparison with their comfortable insulated world that leaves them arrogant or stubbornly child like.

    Make fun of common people that make up a majority of population of any nation if you must with their common beliefs, goals, and ideals but know that it's the common people who's lives remain destroyed because of recent unregulated international free enterprise to which if they should feel the brunt end of capitalism anymore the common masses will start to revolt in the street where the harmless plebeian as the ancient Latin aristrocratic Romans would once call them will suddenly turn violent into whole entire rebels where you will have national rebellion on your hands.

    I don't expect anybody to pay this post much attention here but it is my warning and future prophecy for this world along with this nation if things continue down this disasterous current path.
    National Socialism is the only salvation for Germanics and Europids everywhere. Capitalism, libertarianism, and communism is the enemy.

    National socialized collectivism must prevail over radical individualism.

  7. #67
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Online
    Thursday, November 17th, 2011 @ 06:40 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Norman/British
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Posts
    60
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaricLachlan View Post
    Tell me what one ought to do ... What does a nationalist do ...
    What you definitely should not do is embrace falsehood and fantasy, which is what you are doing. If the enemy fires rockets at you, pretending that the laws of physics don't exist, or that the basic math they're doing is invalid because you're just certain that primitives couldn't add one and one together, will only get you blown up more dishonorably. Propositions are not true or false based on wishful thinking or how much you like or dislike some agents who, in you yourself recognize with 'guise', only say them to present a false appearance!

    If you'd come of age in the early USSR, the exact same stuff you're saying here would have lead you to ardently support capitalism and markets. Reaction to an enemy is not a standard of truth, and not just because enemies can present a false front for you to react against.

    You all speak of international free market capitalism as somthing of which that brings fourth the greatest amount of profit and wealth yet this same very system has brought about a global recession not to mention a crumbling infrastructure of the United States.
    Are you really saying this good faith? Did you really think that you'd get any answer but "No, it isn't." to this assertion? Are you only trying to slip that 'international' in there so you shout "ah hah!" a little later? This is how incredulous I am. The simplest thing for you to do is to accept that there's an entire body of thought about the global recession that blames it on extra- or anti-market malefactors, such as central banks and credit manipulation. If you think that's all wrong for no good reason, you still can't score any points with this line of attack.

  8. #68
    Spenglerian
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Caledonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 26th, 2011 @ 06:30 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Scottish
    Ancestry
    Scotland,England, Germany,Austria,Switzerland
    Subrace
    Alpinid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Sverige snart nog
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    RecyclingPlant / College Student
    Politics
    Socially Progressive Nationalism
    Religion
    Atheist, Nihilist, And Mystic
    Posts
    2,432
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by kuehnelt View Post
    What you definitely should not do is embrace falsehood and fantasy, which is what you are doing. If the enemy fires rockets at you, pretending that the laws of physics doesn't exist, or that the basic math they're doing is invalid because you're just certain that primitives couldn't add one and one together, will only get you blown up more dishonorably. Propositions are not true or false based on wishful thinking or how much you like or dislike some agents who, in you yourself recognize with 'guise', only say them to present a false appearance!

    If you'd come of age in the early USSR, the exact same stuff you're saying here would have lead you to ardently support capitalism and markets. Reaction to an enemy is not a standard of truth, and not just because enemies can present a false front for you to react against.



    Are you really saying this good faith? Did you really think that you'd get any answer but "No, it isn't." to this assertion? Are you only trying to slip that 'international' in there so you shout "ah hah!" a little later? This is how incredulous I am. The simplest thing for you to do is to accept that there's an entire body of thought about the global recession that blames it on extra- or anti-market malefactors, such as central banks and credit manipulation. If you think that's all wrong for no good reason, you still can't score any points with this line of attack.
    You mean those market malefactors and credit manipulations of private corporate firms on wallstreet.

    What about them?

    What ended up bringing about the global recession is the overt competition of capitalism eating away at itself in a free market system as a parasite eating away at itself when it can no longer eat the corpse of the living body it once inhabitated prior.

    For you to try to blame somebody else from a ardent position of a capitalist supporter just ends up being reduced to classic scapegoating and general absurdity.

    Let us not forget that those same private firms then manipulated congress to take money from the tax paying citizen base by then proceeding to bailing them out where afterwards as a sort of thanks for the gesture those same very private firms decided to spend that money on bizarre expensive luxories and million dollar pay bonuses to ceo's.

    Yeah keep telling me about the benefits of free market capitalism as it erodes a government's ability to regulate a nation not mention as it leads the national interests along with a sense of national identity in erosion altogether. Your position doesn't fool me in the slightest.

    Also all of you here are so ready to criticize central banks forgetting that historically it was a conglomerate of many private banks that got together in forming central banks in history to begin with. [Capitalism at work again where bank centralization is not opposed to the free markets where instead it is actually a representation of free market capitalism somthing of which you guys deny so poorly here.]

    [Not only is centralized banking a consequence and creation of international free market capitalism but so is globalization the damnable enemy of every nationalist.]
    National Socialism is the only salvation for Germanics and Europids everywhere. Capitalism, libertarianism, and communism is the enemy.

    National socialized collectivism must prevail over radical individualism.

  9. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Online
    Thursday, November 17th, 2011 @ 06:40 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Norman/British
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Posts
    60
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaricLachlan View Post
    You mean those malefactors and credit manipulations of private corporate firms on wallstreet.
    Let me just interpret this as a request for a pointer to information on the body of thought I referred to. Here you go. You don't have to agree with it, but you can't attack it without knowing what it is.

    For you to try to blame somebody else from a ardent position of a capitalist supporter
    Thank for this comment: I am now very aware of why I find discussions like this so infuriating. It is because there is often a grave insult insistently implied in them - that is, in the case of this thread, there is the suggestion that I hold my positions for the same reason you hold yours, that I have invested as much thought in them as you have yours, that I am as serious about as you are yours. Every reply you make, which you base on your not knowing anything about anything, is spittle in my face - not because you know nothing, but because you think what you can say can cancel out what I've said to you, and because at the end of the thread you'll still say, well, I must only support capitalism because I'm somebody's lapdog, because 'interests' and 'alliances' are the only reason that anyone supports anything.

  10. #70
    Senior Member velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    2 Hours Ago @ 09:07 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    46
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,941
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,246
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,354
    Thanked in
    589 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Paradigm
    Do you realize how impossible it is to literally uproot one government and replace it with another who would have national interest at hand, and at that white national interest? In the United States, it will not happen. Ever.
    No, in the US this certainly would not happen. Because you people over there love rampant "freedom" to screw over everyone - while at the same time oppressing the rest of the world to play along with your screw-everyone-for-some-profit-greed system.

    Germany tried. Germany became in just 12 years, rising literally out of of ashes, the most successful economy in Europe. National Socialism IS a massive threat to capitalism, and you dont want to claim that Germany was anything like a "planned economy". Oppression existed here only for those who didnt belong here anyway, the German people thrived, were supported, there was almost no unemployment, women could work although they had kids etc.

    Then the US and the Allies decided that this system must be crushed, because it would spread like a wild fire and would eradicate "free market capitalism". The US and Allies bombed us into the ground, they pulverised Germany and rally relentlessly since 70 years against National Socialism. Because it was evil? Most of the BS is made up, so no. Because the US and the Allies thought fascism is bad? They run themselves a (left) fascist oppression system, so that cant be the reason either. The only fuckn reason why National Socialism got crushed and demonized the way it is is because it would render the NWO wet dreams including rampant free market capitalism nonexistent and still would generate thriving economies.


    Quote Originally Posted by Paradigm
    Whatever paragraph I removed was worthless, useless, and took up too much space.

    Okay, fine, discuss with whomever you want, I think we two are through.

    I think its anyway pointless to discuss with someone who is not the slightest interested in the preservation of his own people or the nations they live in.

    Enjoy all your "competition" on your free market with all the Hispanics and Asians and lately also Muslims swarming into your country and adding some competition on the labor market for you. Maybe when you have to start your 4th job in order to survive and notice that the fuckn day just isnt long enough to do all that you'll notice that some limits to this would be a good thing.
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

Page 7 of 60 FirstFirst ... 234567891011121757 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. So Much for the 'Free' Market. Now What?
    By Hanna in forum Economics, Business, & Finance
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Friday, November 14th, 2008, 05:02 AM
  2. Anti-Capitalist Free Market
    By DanseMacabre in forum Economics, Business, & Finance
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Monday, June 2nd, 2008, 04:00 PM
  3. Capitalism Versus Free Enterprise
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Monday, January 1st, 2007, 10:08 AM
  4. Replies: 33
    Last Post: Tuesday, November 11th, 2003, 07:20 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •