Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567
Results 61 to 65 of 65

Thread: For a Racial Capitalism

  1. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Wednesday, October 20th, 2004 @ 07:58 PM
    Subrace
    Other
    Location
    Malta
    Gender
    Age
    39
    Politics
    Radical Rightist
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    16
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Racialism & Capitalism


    Hi, I have just registered to participate on this forum and started reading this interesting thread about racialism and capitalism.

    First of all, I must congratulate to the people that created and take care of this website. The interface is clean and there is a lot of customization options. The subjects are quite interesting and the discussion level is impressively high.

    As regards to the subject, I must say I basically agree with much of what Moody Lawless say. In my opinion, capitalism is simply not compatible with racial politics. The priority should be race preservation not accumulating money.

    Keeping in mind this priority, the state should control the economy in order to help the race (that includes EVERYONE in the racial family) progress and be superior to other races, mainly the Asians (who I consider as being our most able ?competitors?). A socialist system should be enacted which helps white brothers who are currently living in misery to reach an acceptable standard of living. If there is the need for ?slave? jobs, these should be given to non-whites, either against payment or under slavery conditions

    The currency should be created by the state and it?s value should be decided by the state. The ultimate aim of currency control is to improve the quality of life of all white brothers. A controlled-type of capitalism should be introduced to encourage and incentivate white brothers to be innovative; to create; to invent. Said this, economics must NEVER be considered as more important then race preservation and thus, political power.


  2. #62
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post Re: Racialism & Capitalism

    Thank you for that balanced summary of the position.
    I am astounded that anyone who claims to promote European racial/cultural survival can take any other view!

    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  3. #63
    Spirit of the Reich "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Ahnenerbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Volksdeutscher
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Y-DNA
    I-M170
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Location
    Gau Westmark
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Gemini
    Family
    Polyamory
    Occupation
    Herbalist
    Politics
    Ecological Geniocracy
    Religion
    Vedic
    Posts
    1,220
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    25
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    198
    Thanked in
    105 Posts

    Post For a Racial Capitalism

    This guy seems not to be a WN but all what he says turns around the idea of Racial Capitalism, which is the idea I stand for too.



    Take a look at his very interesting website. http://www.sovereignlife.com



    Democracy is a false God!

    http://www.sovereignlife.com/commentary/08-12-03.html


    Democracy is not all its cracked up to be. In fact, it's a system of government with a built-in self-destruct mode.

    Democracy, at its core, is about forming policy on the basis of majority rule.

    If you can get enough votes, for example, to make eating hamburgers illegal - then you can "democratically" deny the right of any person to eat them. Sure, that's an exaggerated example, but the principle stands (remember the Prohibition!).

    From the perspective of a democrat, this is fine - as it represents the majority will of the people. But what about the minority - which in many cases, could be as high as 49%?

    I recall, many years ago, hearing a politician answer a question on the subject of abortion - where the questioner wanted to know where this particular politician stood on the issue. He gave a "democratic" answer - and stated that he would vote according to the majority wishes of his own electorate. He defended his answer by saying he was a true democrat and a representative of the people.

    Bunkum! What he was really doing was avoiding a moral choice and justifying his position on the grounds that he was being democratic. And in current parlance "democracy = good".

    I wonder if he would have been quite so "democratic" if the question had been, "Hands up those who support the idea of ethnic cleansing?"

    This illustrates the essential problem with majority rule - that it is just as likely to deliver evil as good - and perhaps, more likely.

    If you take an extreme case of democracy - and ask people's opinion on the outcome - the answers are interesting.

    For example: If a nation decided that homosexuality was a capital crime, by conducting a referendum on the issue and winning 51% of the vote - the outcome would be democratic, and also a death sentence to all those so convicted.

    Or, another example - a nation decides to vote on the issue of incarcerating Muslims - on the basis of potential links to terrorism. Once again, 51% vote YES, and tens of thousands of people are carted off to concentration camps.

    Of course, any democrat would label such examples as "extreme" or unrealistic. But that's not the point. In principle it could happen - UNLESS there was some form of limit on the process of democracy.

    This idea of a "limit" is what was behind the forming of the original American Republic - where there were constraints put in place by way of a constitution.

    Thus the USA became a democracy tempered by a constitution.

    The idea has appeal - provided the constitution is both sound, enforceable and not subject to change on the whim of either an individual or the majority - which raises a whole lot of other issues.

    However, the very acceptance of the need for such a limit underlies the real issue at stake - one to which democracy has no answer. Democracy can be a tool of despotism, and it has no built-in safeguards against such abuse.

    Democracy cannot deliver what it implicitly promises.

    What's really important in a societal context is NOT democracy, but FREEDOM. And the foundation of any meaningful freedom is the nuts and bolts mechanics of protecting property.

    If there is no protection of property, then there can be no freedom.

    In other words, the essential building block of any free and prosperous nation is the concept of property rights. If you look after that - then you have freedom. And if you have freedom - you have no need for democracy or the counting of heads.

    Hong Kong was an interesting example of this policy (while under British control). Hong Kong had no democracy - and yet it was perhaps the freest place on earth. Why? Because those in Hong Kong were subject to the best of the British legacy - a respect for property rights and the Common Law.

    Under the "hands off" approach of the British (unlike their hands-ON approach in the UK), the people of HK were able to build a modern, thriving economy from what started out as virtually a bare rock. No natural resources, no welfare, no democracy - just freedom, as defined by the protection of property.

    Of course all that has changed now - and one of Britain's tasks - before HK was handed over to the Chinese - was to attempt to generate some interest in the idea of democracy. And that was a hard task indeed - for the HK Chinese could not really see the point. After all, they already could do what they wanted, whenever they wanted. Things were so rosy, that they had a saying - "you can walk down the street and kick gold".

    Now, they ARE interested in democracy - because their true freedom was taken off them, and now they have joined the "rest of us" in attempting to protect what they've got (and trying to get what others have got) by way of voting.

    Democracy is like cancer. Once you accept the idea, then politics is introduced into every nook and cranny of everyday life. From there, it eats away at the soul of both the nation and the individual.

    Democracy undermines the very concept of individual freedom.

    You want to open a restaurant? Well, forget the idea that you are the "owner" of such an establishment. If the government, by democratic edict, declares that you cannot allow anyone to smoke in your restaurant - then that is the end of the matter - unless you want to get into trouble.

    No one raises the point that it is YOUR property - and that you have the right to either exclude all smokers, allow some smokers, or even make your restaurant exclusively FOR smokers.

    All concerns over "whose" property are swept away before the god of democracy.

    Democracy "politicises" all human interaction. Everything is now a matter of political process.

    There are homeless people on the streets? No problem, start a campaign to support them from taxes - and some political group will join in, and fight an election on such an issue. And before you know it, you'll be taxed - to solve the problem.

    In this way, democracy divides society, by fuelling a feeding frenzy of "needs" and an ever increasing number of demands. It sets one group against another. It creates an atmosphere of entitlement. It makes everything subject to "politics".

    But this cannot go on forever. The "have-nots" cannot forever vote themselves a living at the expense of the "haves". The "needy" cannot forever solve their problems by blaming and draining the "greedy". Society cannot become prosperous by the process of theft and disregard for property rights.

    In the end, democracy can effectively vote away whatever lifeblood is still left in a nation - and preside, in triumph, over a lifeless corpse.

    So, is there an alternative?

    I'm a great believer in "business" as a template for rational action. Sure, it's not perfect - but it beats the pants off democracy.

    In business, there is no room for silly theories, pet projects, or pointless ideologies. What is required is results. If a business cannot achieve a profit, then it ceases to be. There is no "democratic" bailout and no sympathy.

    Business is organised to achieve its goal - which is profit - and it either succeeds or fails.

    On the other hand, society - via the political process - is largely irrational. The results of a particular policy are never judged by any scientific method or even common sense like "does it actually work?", rather by an ideological one way mirror.

    For example: Whereas a business knows the limits of borrowing as a strategy for success. Society, as a political entity, has no such qualms - and will quite happily borrow itself into fiscal collapse.

    Business is organised for success. Sure, if you own shares in a business, you get to vote. But you do NOT get to vote on strategy or policy. You only get to vote on who makes the decisions. And because such decisions are evaluated in the light of the company's profits - voting is always about ensuring the best outcome - for ALL shareholders.

    No business shareholder can cast a vote to enrich himself at the expense of another shareholder in the same company.

    And THAT is the difference between democracy and business.

    Business builds - and democracy destroys.

    At some point, enough people will hopefully wake up to the fact that democracy, politics, voting et al - are all useless in the quest for freedom and prosperity.

    Democracy is like some major religion that has outgrown its usefulness. Maybe it worked in a local village, a long time in the past - but in the modern world of mass society, it is hopelessly dysfunctional and downright dangerous.

    We can no more vote ourselves out of poverty, war, epidemics, or violence - than we can vote ourselves into freedom, health and prosperity.

    Democracy - like religion - is a matter of faith. It is nourished by tradition, regenerated by education, and not subject to any form of scientific scrutiny. For if it was, then we'd all be shouting, "the Emperor has no clothes!"

    And that would be the end of it!

    Yours in freedom David MacGregor

  4. #64
    Spirit of the Reich "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Ahnenerbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Volksdeutscher
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Y-DNA
    I-M170
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Location
    Gau Westmark
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Gemini
    Family
    Polyamory
    Occupation
    Herbalist
    Politics
    Ecological Geniocracy
    Religion
    Vedic
    Posts
    1,220
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    25
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    198
    Thanked in
    105 Posts

    Post Re: For a Racial Capitalism



    THE PASSPORT FRAUD: Nation States as Prison Camps



    http://www.sovereignlife.com/commentary/24-11-03.html

    I imagine you take for granted that little book you are required to carry with you when you travel. After all, you NEED a passport for such purposes, don't you?

    Well, it wasn't always so. In fact, the international identity document we call a "passport" is a relatively new invention, only brought into wide use after 1914.

    As the name suggests - a passport is supposed to give you the right to "pass" - to move, to travel from country to country (from port to port).

    In the 19th century, it was relatively easy to leave one country and arrive in another - without the need for such a document - but it appears that World War I put an end to that.

    And maybe it's not just a coincidence, for that war was the beginning of the 20th century's clash of the "states". And even more - the rise of previously unheard of totalitarian state power.

    The fundamental premise underlying the passport is the idea of citizenship - the concept that you belong to a particular nation state, in the same way you belong to a particular family. Nice and cosy like.

    You are born into a family - and you really have no choice in the matter.

    If you were born into a rich, happy family, offering the opportunity to get a good education and a great start in life - well, you are just plain lucky.

    On the other hand, if you were born into a family of drifters - living in the nearest rubbish dump - well tough!

    Who said life was fair?

    The idea of citizenship is similarly explained. You are born into a particular country - and you become a "member". End of story. In other words, your nation is your "extended" family - like it or not.

    Trouble is, in this world of vastly different types of nation states, being born in the "wrong" country could easily cost you your life - either in an agonisingly drawn out process, or quite abruptly.

    But is it a valid comparison - to say that you are born into a country, in the same way you are born into a family?

    No, it is not. There is a fundamental difference - which is clearly illustrated by the idea of citizenship and the little document which enforces it - the passport.

    Sure, you can't choose the family you were born into, but if that relationship is not to your liking - you can always move away, or at least keep the family at arm's length. You CAN leave a hostile, unloving, or even cruel family. You have that choice - at least when you are old enough to make such a choice.

    Not so with your citizenship. Being born into a particular nation state is a much more cloying relationship - which, depending upon where you were born, may suit you fine - or may cause you to want to leave.

    Any "free" nation will let you leave of course. The trouble starts with the fact that you have nowhere else to go! In other words, any right to leave is useless for all practical purposes - because no other nation state will make it easy for you to "arrive" - short holidays not withstanding. Of course, you could always live your life on a boat!

    So, let's step back from the status quo, and ask the basic question: "Why on earth should nations have the right to restrict the movement of individuals?"

    Why indeed!

    The only reason I can think of is because that's the way it has been. That's what we're used to. And that's the way your average nation state likes it.

    The hard truth is that a passport is just a mechanism of control. Like any identity document, it has its "stated" intention, and its REAL intention.

    Since the wide implementation of passports internationally, after 1914, nation states have been on an ever accelerating power binge - in an attempt to nail down their citizens and to be able to know every little detail about them.

    Yes, as it turns out, you ARE a number!

    If you are not convinced of the difference between family and nation - and your "ties" to each - then consider this:

    How would you like a "family" passport - one which restricted your movement between family homes? Ridiculous, you say.

    Okay, what about a city passport - where you need permission to move between cities in the same country?

    Want to move from New York to Los Angeles? Or from Liverpool to London? Sorry - you need documents. A short stay is fine - but don't even think about moving permanently!

    Or how about a state/region passport - one which restricts your movement between states or regions within your own country?

    How would you like to be prevented from moving from Colorado to California (USA), or from New South Wales to Queensland (Australia)?

    Such restrictions would be totally unacceptable to you - I'm sure. But ask yourself - what is the difference, IN PRINCIPLE, between such apparently absurd ideas as city or state/region passports - when compared to passports for nations?

    The fact is, nation states are just arbitrary geographical entities, which over time have established (or fought wars over) borders, in order to separate people - for the purpose of putting "dog tags" on everyone inside - and to exclude everyone outside.

    These entities are reinforced by the ideology of nationalism - which is inculcated from an early age - in the nations' mind control centres (schools).

    But there are signs the system is cracking. The world is increasingly linked by more and more open communications (the internet for example), more travel, and more international trade. People are forming bonds OTHER than those imposed by nationhood. And individuals in undesirable nation states are starting to ask the question, "why am I here?" and "how can I get out?"

    Now, if you're some comfortable, well-paid, mollycoddled citizen of a relatively free and rich country - such a line of questioning has a distinctly unpleasant ring to it. Geez, what do these people want after all?

    People everywhere want what "people everywhere" have always wanted - the freedom and opportunity to live a life of their own choosing. And they are increasingly on the move in search of it.

    This is causing a predictable response in the mature welfare states - where the locals grow up with an "entitlement" mentality (the right to other people's money) - with more and more draconian border protection and enforcement. After all, who wants a boat load of freeloaders arriving on one's doorstep - and signing up for the dole?

    It's a huge problem. But when you dig deeper - and take a closer look at what this really means, then it's clear that the very concept of the nation state is under threat. And in particular - the welfare state.

    There is an inevitability in the concept of "open borders" - when there is a move to more and more international trade, and international co-operation. For if individual goods and services can freely roam the globe - why not individual people?

    Battle lines are drawing on this issue - and already one can see the clear demarcation between opposing sides.

    There are those who are wedded to the idea of the sovereign nation state - who want strict border controls to keep other people out - and strict protectionist trade policies to keep other people's goods and services out. They want their taxes to be used on their own kind - and not squandered on uninvited guests. They want to shore up their welfare state and protect their perceived "national" interests.

    Then there are those who are more committed to the idea of the sovereign INDIVIDUAL - who see nation states as artificial barriers, separating people who are quite capable of managing their own affairs and dealing with one and another in a truly free market place. Such people want to see an end to the welfare state - and its corrupting influence on the morals and well-being of those who are subject to it.

    The battle lines are hardening - and the rearguard action of those hell-bent on stopping the demise of the nation state is bound to get ugly. It already is.

    However the forces of freedom are unleashed. People are no longer prepared to accept the idea that if they were born into a Gulag-style country, or economic cesspit - then they must be compelled stay there.

    This force of "people on the move" will become one of the most pressing issues of our age. It will test the nation state as never before - and it has the potential to undermine the very thinking that supports it.

    Whichever side of the fence you are on, regards this issue, one thing is for certain - the situation is real, and it is gaining momentum.

    Next time you look at your passport - realise what it REALLY is - a membership card to a "life" camp. Maybe yours is a holiday camp, or a prison camp, or maybe just a boot camp. But, whatever type of camp you belong to - your membership card is hard to get rid of - and even harder to replace with a more favourable one of your own choosing!

    Yours in freedom David MacGregor

  5. #65
    Senior Member Oskorei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, December 14th, 2008 @ 05:15 PM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Subrace
    Tydal/Litorid/Nordid
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Location
    Gothenburrah
    Gender
    Politics
    Identitär
    Religion
    Indo-europeisk Traditionalist
    Posts
    2,172
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Post Re: For a Racial Capitalism

    Interesting article. It touches on one of the main problems inherent in NS: how do we combine a system with personal freedoms, with the Fuhrerprinzip (that could easily take these freedoms away)?

    Personally I am becoming more attracted towards some sort of National Syndicalism by the day, with the Fuhrerprinzip more limited, used mostly in times of crisis (a chosen Fuhrer during wars, with powers limited and defined by the community. This also seems to correspond more closely with the ancient Germanic democracy).

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567

Similar Threads

  1. Just 53% Say Capitalism Better Than Socialism
    By Nachtengel in forum The United States
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Tuesday, August 11th, 2009, 01:07 PM
  2. Capitalism for Dummies
    By Demigorgona in forum Economics, Business, & Finance
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Monday, November 17th, 2008, 07:29 AM
  3. Do you think Capitalism is becoming a culture ?
    By Hanna in forum Economics, Business, & Finance
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: Thursday, February 21st, 2008, 09:45 AM
  4. Capitalism is an absurdity
    By Von Braun in forum Economics, Business, & Finance
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Saturday, December 18th, 2004, 12:29 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
  •