Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: Is there anyone here who believes in vehemently free market/capitalism?

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Phlegethon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, April 4th, 2016 @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Age
    49
    Posts
    2,820
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    30
    Thanked in
    30 Posts

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Aloysha
    (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.
    And all my youth passed by sad-hearted,
    the joy of Spring was never mine;
    Autumn blows through me dread of parting,
    and my heart dreams and longs to die.

    - Nikolaus Lenau (1802-1850)

    Real misanthropes are not found in solitude, but in the world; since it is experience of life, and not philosophy, which produces real hatred of mankind.

    - Giacomo Leopardi (1798-1837)

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,820
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    16
    Thanked in
    14 Posts

    Post

    Exploitation is debatable. The rest she'd agree with you on, though.
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    cosmocreator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Thursday, January 18th, 2007 @ 06:36 PM
    Subrace
    Other
    Gender
    Age
    56
    Politics
    Living in the real world
    Posts
    3,850
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    13
    Thanked in
    13 Posts

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by 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. 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.
    .

    IHR Revisionist Conference, April 24, 2004, internet broadcast:

    http://www.internationalrevisionistconference.c om/

  4. #24
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, March 13th, 2018 @ 09:14 AM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    Dutch
    Gender
    Posts
    2,668
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    22
    Thanked in
    20 Posts

    Post

    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).

  5. #25
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, March 13th, 2018 @ 09:14 AM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    Dutch
    Gender
    Posts
    2,668
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    22
    Thanked in
    20 Posts

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Aloysha
    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.

  6. #26
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, September 30th, 2005 @ 11:10 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Gender
    Politics
    undecided
    Posts
    90
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post

    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.
    Last edited by Moody; Friday, May 7th, 2004 at 04:43 PM. Reason: unnecesary expletive

  7. #27
    Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, October 13th, 2003 @ 01:22 AM
    Subrace
    Other
    Location
    southern US
    Gender
    Age
    57
    Occupation
    freelance analyst
    Politics
    I am for me
    Posts
    28
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post I take a big American Crap on this issue.....

    Don't HATE US BECAUSE WE ARE WINNING.......

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Phlegethon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, April 4th, 2016 @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Age
    49
    Posts
    2,820
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    30
    Thanked in
    30 Posts

    Post

    You're winning what exactly?
    And all my youth passed by sad-hearted,
    the joy of Spring was never mine;
    Autumn blows through me dread of parting,
    and my heart dreams and longs to die.

    - Nikolaus Lenau (1802-1850)

    Real misanthropes are not found in solitude, but in the world; since it is experience of life, and not philosophy, which produces real hatred of mankind.

    - Giacomo Leopardi (1798-1837)

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,820
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    16
    Thanked in
    14 Posts

    Post

    He thinks America's economy is doing well.
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,820
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    16
    Thanked in
    14 Posts

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilist
    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.
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Free Market Capitalism Incompatible With Nationalism
    By Caledonian in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 592
    Last Post: Sunday, January 19th, 2020, 06:30 PM
  2. So Much for the 'Free' Market. Now What?
    By Hanna in forum Economics, Business, & Finance
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Friday, November 14th, 2008, 04:02 AM
  3. Anti-Capitalist Free Market
    By DanseMacabre in forum Economics, Business, & Finance
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Monday, June 2nd, 2008, 03:00 PM
  4. Capitalism Versus Free Enterprise
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Monday, January 1st, 2007, 09:08 AM

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
  •