|
|
Is the free market inimical to conservatism?A few posts down, a certain commentator put forth the view that a defence of what we conservatives (used in the broadest sense) hold dear is necessarely threatened by the free market. Here is my reply, after cogitating much on the questions and dilemmas raised by the debate. It was stated that we need an economic policy that best serves our interests, with which I can scarcely disagree, and then this was used to conclude that we need a more socialist one then what we have now. I would disagree, arguing on the contrary that reducing the burden of taxation and regulation on middle class enterprise and small business would lead to both greater wealth and a more secure yeoman class (or its modern equivalent). We can argue about this, but we must first stop pretending that pragmatism must necessarely mean more governemnt power. Mention was made of Enron and Oprah as examples of market failure and I would have to agree with that assessment. But what about the great American car companies? (That is, before the US goverment’s irrresonsible taxation policy sold them down the river). What about Tesco or Sainsbury, companies which provide their customers with good agricultural produce? What about the UK mills which created its prosperity? Those comapnies which, like Enron, engage in underhand methods often find themselves quickly out of business, with angry investors and corporate lawyers hot on their heels. More generally, further evidence that private actors are more efficient than the state can be provided. We saw how the USSR and the West before the 80s attempted and failed to run much of its heavy industry. In the UK, coal mining was a viable enterprise until three decades of state ownership had crippled it, leaving the tax payer without his money, and, eventually, the coal workers without their jobs and the country without its internal coal supply. And as for the USSR and, say, Chernobol, that scarcely requires any elucidation. This should concern as especially, as we believe that it is essential that certain industries stay within our borders.Government over-regulation and over-taxation has played a great part in creating the sell off of the western industrial base. I have already said that the state is more efficient when it comes to providing public goods, such as defence and social order, because the benefits are always spread out onto the whole populace no matter who pays for it. As such, the state, whilst inefficient, is the only way certain essential functions can be performed. From this comes my conclusion that the state is inefficient yet necessary. Free healthcare and unemploymenbt benefits seem to be especially highly prized, although both can be a dubious blessing. The former, if extended to cover self-inflicted illnesses (AIDS, obesity, lung cancer from smoking) discourages taking care of one’s health. Surely, a fiscal incentive to such degenrate behaviour is not desirable? For evidence of this, note that levels of physical fitness in the West plummetted with the introduction of free healthcare. U/e benefits carry a similar trap, as they reduce the incentives to work. All men of good faith have to admit that, for the able-bodied man, work is a duty, and that able-bodied beggars deserve no unconditional assistance. Obviously, a different set of cricumstance apply to orphans, widows, etc, but this does not reduce the overall argument that the typical underclass yob does not deserve a living he refuses to work for. As you can see, many features of the modern maternal state create results entirely inimical to our goals. A paternal state - one that is primarely designed to sustain virtue in the citizenry - is almost invariable smaller than its less prudent cousins, as its policies reduce the need for more government intervention. A perfect illustration of this can be seen in Singapore, by all accounts one of the most free-market states in the world. At the same time, unemployment is low, healthcare coverage is broad and Oprah is nowhere to be seen. This is largely because of the Singaporese Social Security system, the only form of welfare provision to be found there. This consists of compulsory savings accounts, which prevent the creation of a class of welfare-leeches (as nobody can get access to money that he himself hasn’t contributed in taxes), whilst esnuing that all citizens can care for themselves in times of unexpected hardship and unemployment. The last point to be made in connection with this is that free markets do not invariably spawn the Oprah syndrome. Indeed, she and her ilk are largely a product of government-imposed affirmative action, followed by government-imposed aracial and anti-white propoganda. Moreover, the causes she pursues are quintissentially maternal statist, caring for the “disadvantaged” (the irrespsoible in the language of a bygone era) and scorning those of who wish to be judged not by pity but by masculine justice. So, to answer the original question, is the free market conservative? In so much as conservatism consists of defending tradition agianst reckless innovation, commonsense against the insanity of political correctness and science-blind race denial, and productive behaviour against invocation of freedom from a responsible life, I can only conclude tht it most certainly can.
Posted by Alex Zeka on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 at 07:00 AM in Conservatism, Economics & Finance Comments:2
Posted by Alex Zeka on August 30, 2006, 08:04 AM | # Retwe, True, that was probably another contributing factor. However, I should add that the two are not entirely distinct: one of the costs of driving a car is the lack of exercise entailed, a cost which is offset by free healthcare. 3
Posted by Al Ross on August 30, 2006, 08:33 AM | # In Singapore, the Oprah Winfrey show is available for subscribers to the cable TV service called Star Hub. I believe that Singaporean Chinese who comprise about 76% of the total population are generally unimpressed by the shameful public display of emotional incontinence which is the programme’s main feature. Singapore is far from being the epicentre of unfettered ‘laissez-faire’ capitalism, preferring instead a combination of entrepeneurial flair and quasi-mercantilist government-directed business activity, the latter being co-ordinated by the vast, 100% state-owned Temasik Holdings Ltd. Just to cement the government connection, Temasik’s CEO is the wife of Lee Hsien Loong, the island state’s Prime Minister. 4
Posted by rustymason on August 30, 2006, 08:55 AM | # This one’s easy: a totally free marketplace, without regulation, is destructive to civilization. It allows prices to be put onto everything, including every vice and horror man can devise. Who can be for a system like this? 5
Posted by Alex Zeka on August 30, 2006, 10:28 AM | # Al, Singapore is not, of course, an example of libertarian anarchy. However, it does have one of the lightest tax burdens in the developed world, and moreover allows its citizenry to both engage in and benefit from entreprenurial activity to a greater extent than almost any other state. That makes it one of the most free market states in my books. rustymason, I agree, although what you are describing would be better called anarchy, which, unlike a free market, allows for no moral or paternalistic restraints on behaviour. I should make clear here that my definition of a free market is Victorian Britain, where the free exchange and production for goods existed side by side with considerable restraint on the use said production could be put to. To put it another way, wehn I say free market, I mean that economic means shouldn’t be regulated, not that the ends to which these means might be put shouldn’t. 6
Posted by WJG on August 30, 2006, 11:00 AM | # Alex, I am not familiar with either Tesco or Sainsbury but when I hear “agricultural produce”, “company”, and “good” used together red flags go up. If they are anything like Archer Daniels Midland, Monsanto, Cargill, etc., then they demonstrate the failure of the “free” market not shining examples of it. Those latter companies are examples of the industrialization of the food supply in the US (and in the world). They have been working tirelessly to destroy the family farm and traditional argicultural practices all in the name of their profits and stockholders. It is the last piece of a puzzle that is already dominated by industrialization. That whole process has been awful for our health, wellness, and spirit, plus it is pro-imperialistic, hence amalgamating. Add to it that it is one more economic area removed from the artisanal and added to the commoditized - for both inputs (labor) and outputs (what it poorly labels food) and the virtues of that example of unfettered capitalism become apparent. The market is a great whore who will service any John she is under as Rusty says. If the people in a country are uniracial and racially-conscious, virtuous and industrious then something approaching a free-market can work. Once it is perverted by fiat currency, usury, excess leisure, and other fruits of capitalism it has become its own peoples’ funeral pyre. Once the source of wealth is taken for granted (the genetic and spiritual endowment of the people) the well-spring (the race) will be poisoned with impunity. This same rotten sequence has been played out (with variations) many times throughout history. I also think we need to approach socialism very carefully. In a multi-cultural empire like the US, socialism is inter-racially dysgenic, since Whites create the structure thru which third worlders can procreate to unnatural excesses. In a national socialist state it can be intra-racially dysgenic since the least successful of the group are supported by the more successful. The challenge lies in finding and maintaining something that is the best of both models. What that is I don’t know but it sure as heck isn’t anything currently in use. Our agrarian medieval past looks like a good starting point as well as the pre-Lincoln US. Having both the survival of our race and the maintenance of our existing faux-prosperity are incompatible. 7
Posted by Alex Zeka on August 30, 2006, 11:17 AM | # WJG, The hyper-mall is a largely American phenomenum. In the UK, many stores continue to stock reasonable, freshly grown produce. I’d say that a people has to be pretty far gone for a bunch of bureaucrats to be more concerned about their health than they are themselves. Not that the American people aren’t pretty far gone. The fiatisation of currency is an expansion of state and bureaucratic power, as it brings all economic values under direct gov’t control. A gold standard, or atleast some sort of fixed monetary value, is the free market solution. Read Rothbard, who, like most libbos, was write about economics if about nothing else. Finally, you said: “If the people in a country are uniracial and racially-conscious, virtuous and industrious”. As I eluded in my post, the discipline of succeeding in the free market often serves to make people more industrious and virtuous. If you don’t mind, could I ask you if you support free healthcare and u/e benefits? Just because we can talk state vs. market all day long, and it’ll come to nothing if don’t actually define what precisely we want the state to do. 8
Posted by James Bowery on August 30, 2006, 02:17 PM | # Alex writes: rustymason, I agree, although what you are describing would be better called anarchy, which, unlike a free market, allows for no moral or paternalistic restraints on behaviour. Be very careful here. Clearly “paternalistic restraints on behavior” are necessary in the case of children. However, “paternalistic restraints on behavior” cannot be applied to adults without falling into theocracy, such as the present Holocaustian cult of political correctness and all its “restraints on behavior” including expression and even thought —what you were thinking when you committed some crime is now the basis for dramatically increasing your punishment if your thoughts were out of line with Holocaustianity. True libertarianism recognizes humans as adults at some stage of biological development, and with this recognition goes one—and only one—fundamental right: Territorial freedom of association within a agricultural carrying capacity sufficient for all humans so choosing to associate. Now, I’m not saying “true libertarianism” is the ultimate value. Clearly there are Malthusian limits that can be, and in some regions are being, reached—at which point all ideologies are for naught. At that point transcendence has failed and the state of nature reasserts herself with remorseless Darwinian ruthlessness. However, as long as we even pretend to have morals and hence engage in what might be called “paternalism” within societies, we must provide room to experiment with different moral systems within different societies formed freely by adults choosing their moral systems. All knowledge, even moral knowledge, is tentative. 9
Posted by Alex Zeka on August 30, 2006, 02:39 PM | # JB, I’ll make several points: 2. The primary purperse of paternal action is to make the subject virtuous: independent, self-reliant, resourceful. If viable moral experiments are actually to be set up, you must first possess a citizenry that possesses these attributes. 3. Paternalism need not be coercive. Often simply letting someone experience the consequences of their actions can breed better character. This is presumably the precise purpose of your differing communities. Now JB you are a ‘libertarian’. Answer rustymason’s question, as it really applies more to your ideas than to mine: 10
Posted by Rnl on August 30, 2006, 05:01 PM | # I share many of Alex Zeka’s free-market ideas/biases, but I think it’s important to distinguish free-market economics _within_ a nation from free-market economics extended across the globe (aka globalization). The latter, championed by deracinated liberals and transnational corporations alike, is surely inimical to what we hold dear. We can also note, as Pat Buchanan often does, that a free market among nations with similar economies and similar standards of living is much different from a free market that includes the low-wage economies of the Third World. No racial nationalist is pleased to see jobs shipped off to Mexico and China. (MR readers with good memories will recall Bill Clinton’s promises about the explosion in jobs that trade liberalization with China was certain to provide.) To state the obvious, we should favor laissez-faire capitalism (or some reasonable facsimile thereof) only if we believe it yields good results. We should cease to favor laissez-faire capitalism if its results are demonstrably bad, good and bad being measured by capitalism’s effects on _us_ rather than by its effects on others. George Bush now speaks of the “principles” of the global free market, as though globalized capitalism were a moral commandment: You shouldn’t kill your mother, and likewise you shouldn’t use the mechanisms of the sovereign nation-state to impede global trade. The market is steadily being transformed from a tool, a tool which either does its intended tasks or doesn’t, into an object of quasi-religious veneration surrounded by inviolable globalist “principles.” 11
Posted by rustymason on August 30, 2006, 06:34 PM | # Well put, Rnl. I wonder how much credit should be given for this transformation to the writers at Mises.org and LewRockwell.com. They really had me going there for awhile. I read their articles much more critically now that I’ve realized that by and large, their ultimate gods are radical-liberal style freedom and money. I still like their articles that push small, local government, but I don’t agree with them that the anarcho-free market is the desert topping / floor wax we’ve all been searching for. If life were that simple, it would be much more obvious to those who looked for it. 12
Posted by WJG on August 30, 2006, 06:55 PM | # Alex asks… “If you don’t mind, could I ask you if you support free healthcare and u/e benefits? Just because we can talk state vs. market all day long, and it’ll come to nothing if don’t actually define what precisely we want the state to do.” In our current crisis nothing should be evaluated outside the context of our EGI. With that in mind I am not sure on either one. It is clear to me they are ruinous to the US economy (especially free healthcare) so in that sense I favor them. The sooner the US goes over the edge the greater our people’s chance of escaping its collapse relatively intact. If you are asking about them in our future state, where we Whites have our own autonomy, I am more against them since they contribute to dysgenics. 13
Posted by Rnl on August 30, 2006, 07:21 PM | # rustymason wrote: I wonder how much credit should be given for this transformation to the writers at Mises.org and LewRockwell.com. They really had me going there for awhile. I read their articles much more critically now that I’ve realized that by and large, their ultimate gods are radical-liberal style freedom and money. I once belonged to the Laissez-Faire Book Club, so I shared these libertarian delusions too. I think most libertarians think of a representative capitalist as a small businessman burdened by high taxes and ridiculous regulations. Laissez-faire makes good sense in that local context. It doesn’t make sense once you recognize that the small businessman and the global corporation have little or nothing in common. It took me much longer than it should have to recognize that fairly obvious fact. 14
Posted by Daedalus on August 30, 2006, 07:33 PM | #
Americans are fatter today than ever before because fast food was unknown before the fifties. Americans work longer hours and spend less time at home, and as a result, they are more likely to eat out. The entry of women into the workforce to pursue careers, to supplement the stagnating incomes of their husbands (in large part thanks to free trade) and to gain disposable income to purchase frivilous goods (thanks to the advertising industry), is also largely responsible for this. Also, structural changes in the economy have created less physically demanding jobs, hence the proliferations of gyms to burn off excess calories. 15
Posted by Daedalus on August 30, 2006, 07:41 PM | #
The biggest supporters of the free market in the United States: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Libertarian Party, the CATO Institute, and the Wall Street Journal. The biggest supporters of open borders in the United States: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Libertarian Party, the CATO Institute, and the Wall Street Journal. 16
Posted by James Bowery on August 30, 2006, 11:06 PM | #
The rearing of children is when you have your shot at inculcating values. Beyond that you’ve got no authority except that which they voluntarily relinquish to you and even that is limited by the “inalienable” right of freedom of association. If by “have to be” you mean “or their ‘moral experiment is doomed” I say: Yes. Some moral systems are doomed and they need to be limited in the damage they cause as well as maximized in the warnings they provide. What better way than to let those who voluntarily abide by those moral systems die slow, horrible deaths (presuming they aren’t accepted into the ‘moral experiments’ of other groups which presupposes a change of heart for them) without recourse to taxing others for their failed morals? 2. The primary purperse of paternal action is to make the subject virtuous: independent, self-reliant, resourceful. If viable moral experiments are actually to be set up, you must first possess a citizenry that possesses these attributes. No. You don’t need to do so. You can let them die as clear examples to all who use words to confuse, confound and deceive others into similar failure. 3. Paternalism need not be coercive. Often simply letting someone experience the consequences of their actions can breed better character. This is presumably the precise purpose of your differing communities. Except for your abuse of “Paternalism” that is my point. But to call this “paternalism” is to deny the very meaning of that word unless you intend to come along and rescue the morally diseased from the consequnces of their morals. If that is so then you are not letting them realy experince the consequences of their actions.
Free markets aren’t fundamental to libertarianism if you choose Locke’s foundation for it. Territorial allocation to humans for social experiments under freedom of association, however, is. An argument can be made for certain forms of territorial allocation that are market driven but that is secondary. An argument can also be made for certain forms of societies within which free markets range but that isn’t even secondary—its tertiary. As I said, I’m not fundamentally a libertarian in the sense of Locke since I admit that Malthus is ultimately the limit. 18
Posted by Alex Zeka on August 31, 2006, 06:18 AM | # First of all, when I right free-market, I mean it in the sense it was first meant: the pre-globalisation sense. Moreover, much of modern globaloney is bureaucratically driven, e.g. NAFTA, WTO, and free immmigration in particular involves an enormous gov’t usurpation of property rights (in fact, of almost all property rights). Daedalus, I do not claim that other factors do not create more opportunities for living an unhealthy lifestyle. However: 19
Posted by On Holliday on August 31, 2006, 08:41 AM | # First, two points. Point one: the title of this post underscores the vast gulf in attitudes extant here. To the question, “Is the free market inimical to conservatism?” I answer – who cares? A better question: Is the free market inimical to white racial interests?” Perhaps the best question: “Is conservatism inimical to white racial interests?” To which, my answer to this latter question is increasingly likely to be a “yes.” Point two: the occasional typo in quickly written comments is not a problem, but the multiple errors in this ostensibly careful essay are disconcerting. Not that spelling errors in any way detract from the logic of arguments, merely that it is ironic that someone so vehement about the “inefficiency” of “gov’t depts” shows so little efficiency himself. “Mention was made of Enron and Oprah as examples of market failure and I would have to agree with that assessment. But what about the great American car companies? (That is, before the US goverment’s irrresonsible taxation policy sold them down the river).” That parenthetical caveat is all that prevents that comment from being overtly ludicrous. When were the companies “sold down the river?” The pathetically low quality of American cars has been a fixture of the life of automobile users in this country for decades. The only way the “free market” is able to “punish” the companies – and they haven’t learned their lessons yet – is through the same type of economic globalism that is inimical to white racial interests. “What about Tesco or Sainsbury, companies which provide their customers with good agricultural produce? What about Do you refer to the textile mills that created “prosperity” with imported Pakistani labor? “Those comapnies which, like Enron, engage in underhand methods often find themselves quickly out of business, with angry investors and corporate lawyers hot on their heels.” Quickly? And who is it that uncovers, investigates, and prosecutes these examples of “private actor” malfeasance? Other “private actors?” “More generally, further evidence that private actors are more efficient than the state can be provided. We saw how the USSR and the West before the 80s attempted and failed to run much of its heavy industry. In the UK, coal mining was a viable enterprise until three decades of state ownership had crippled it, leaving the tax payer without his money, and, eventually, the coal workers without their jobs and the country without its internal coal supply.” Let me know when you can identify any comments on this blog in which someone, much less me, argued for actual state ownership, rather than regulation, of various industries. “State ownership” in NS Germany would have come to quite a surprise to the big businessmen who financed National Socialism as a bulwark against Bolshevism (and actual state ownership). But, as they were all equally “leftist” (boo, hiss), what do those differences matter? (And we can put aside the issue that the Soviet arms industry out-competed the German, when it mattered. One can argue that bombing raids inhibited German efficiency, but what about loss of significant territory, as well as mineral deposit-laden areas, with respect to the USSR?). In any case, this is a strawman argument, since state ownership is not necessarily the issue here. “And as for the USSR and, say, Chernobol, that scarcely requires any elucidation.” Can we elucidate Three Mile Island or Exxon Valdez? Can we elucidate that the “free market”, concerned only with profits and “economic efficiency”, would ruin our peoples’ ecological niche with nary a worry? “This should concern as especially, as we believe that it is essential that certain industries stay within our borders.Government over-regulation and over-taxation has played a great part in creating the sell off of the western industrial base.” As if differences in living standards and wages have had nothing to do with that. “I have already said that the state is more efficient when it comes to providing public goods, such as defence and social order, because the benefits are always spread out onto the whole populace no matter who pays for it. As such, the state, whilst inefficient, is the only way certain essential functions can be performed. From this comes my conclusion that the state is inefficient yet necessary.” Again, one can make the same arguments about the “free market.” “Free healthcare and unemploymenbt benefits seem to be especially highly prized, although both can be a dubious blessing. The former, if extended to cover self-inflicted illnesses (AIDS, obesity, lung cancer from smoking) discourages taking care of one’s health. Surely, a fiscal incentive to such degenrate behaviour is not desirable? For evidence of this, note that levels of physical fitness in the West plummetted with the introduction of free healthcare.” Americans – with no free healthcare – are more obese and physically unfit that those members of previously western nations that do have such healthcare. NS Germany campaigned against smoking and in favor of physical fitness (and we must not forget that tobacco companies are “private actors”; how is their record for improving heath and fitness?). “U/e benefits carry a similar trap, as they reduce the incentives to work. All men of good faith have to admit that, for the able-bodied man, work is a duty, and that able-bodied beggars deserve no unconditional assistance. Obviously, a different set of cricumstance apply to orphans, widows, etc, but this does not reduce the overall argument that the typical underclass yob does not deserve a living he refuses to work for.” Outsourcing, H1b visa holders, and rampant anti-white ethnic nepotism are in the process of gutting the professions in America as they have blue-collar jobs. When the “free market” is “efficiently” able to ensure that all able-bodied, competent, and eager-to-work people actually can find employment, get back to me on this. “As you can see, many features of the modern maternal state create results entirely inimical to our goals.” Any evidence for this, other than the statement itself? “This is largely because of the Singaporese Social Security system, the only form of welfare provision to be found there. This consists of compulsory savings accounts, which prevent the creation of a class of welfare-leeches (as nobody can get access to money that he himself hasn’t contributed in taxes), whilst esnuing that all citizens can care for themselves in times of unexpected hardship and unemployment.” *Compulsory* savings – very “free market” indeed. And who performs the compulsion, and why can’t “market forces” ensure purely voluntary compliance? “The last point to be made in connection with this is that free markets do not invariably spawn the Oprah syndrome.” Evidence? “Indeed, she and her ilk are largely a product of government-imposed affirmative action, followed by government-imposed aracial and anti-white propoganda. Moreover, the causes she pursues are quintissentially maternal statist, caring for the “disadvantaged” (the irrespsoible in the language of a bygone era) and scorning those of who wish to be judged not by pity but by masculine justice.” I see. The privately owned news and entertainment media – which were shilling for equality before government intervention - had nothing to do with this. The government mandates that American white women watch Oprah. Very interesting. Besides error in fact, you wish to avoid the obvious parallels between mass democracy (that the “traditionalist conservatives” here allegedly abhor) and the “free market”, which all here love. In both cases, the “decisions” are made by “voting” by the masses, either in the form of political elections, or “voting” by purchasing or investment choices. In both cases, whether the “decision” is good or bad with respect to a traditionalist reading of race and culture is irrelevant – it is what the political or economic market says that “the people want.” One can argue that in politics, “the wants of the people” are being manipulated by forces to steer things in a particular way. But of course, the same occurs in economics (it is called advertising), and with respect to politics, much of the steering and manipulation is performed by your beloved “private actors” in the news and entertainment media. Thus, mass democracy and the free market share this additional, undesirable characteristic: that the stupid masses, unable to think for themselves, find that their choices are manipulated by “private actors”, for the selfish gain of those actors and, often, to the detriment to society. “So, to answer the original question, is the free market conservative?” Who cares, except individuals who think that “conservatism” is an end to itself? “In so much as conservatism consists of defending tradition agianst reckless innovation, commonsense against the insanity of political correctness and science-blind race denial…” How is the free market protecting against race denial? Even “private actor” companies that sell race genetic testing kits tell us “race does not exist!” “..and productive behaviour against invocation of freedom from a responsible life, I can only conclude tht it most certainly can.” Do better. 20
Posted by karlmagnus on August 31, 2006, 06:18 PM | # I don’t think I care about EGI. Not compared to the free market, and certainly not compared to Conservatism. If I had the choice of living in a world of coffee coloured Pittite Tories with a free market or white working class socialists with heavy government ownership and control, I’d choose the coffee colored Tories. Sorry chaps, but there are several more important things than the colour of one’s skin. 21
Posted by James Bowery on August 31, 2006, 07:12 PM | # If I had the choice of living in a world Stop right there. Who says the world has to adopt one ideal? of coffee coloured Pittite Tories with a free market or white working class socialists with heavy government ownership and control, I’d choose the coffee colored Tories. Right. We all know who is on that side of the fence and who makes the world out to be divided by that particular false dilemma.
And we all know who trivializes EGI as “color of one’s skin”. 22
Posted by On Holliday on August 31, 2006, 07:34 PM | # “I don’t think I care about EGI. Not compared to the free market, and certainly not compared to Conservatism.” There we go. In two sentences, confirmation that conservatism *is* inimical to white racial interests for - despite the pretenses of the “traditionalist conservatives” here and the “quiet approach to race” - “conservatism” will always slide back to “chaps” like Karl telling us that the “free market” and “conservatism” are more important than race. Well done, Karl. You’ve just made my argument for me. Are the “traditionalist conservatives” listening? “If I had the choice of living in a world of coffee coloured Pittite Tories with a free market or white working class socialists with heavy government ownership and control, I’d choose the coffee colored Tories.” Are we allowed to choose otherwise, or does “libertartians” and “traditionalist conservatives” and “economic men” find it necessary to impose their aracial globalist vision of us all? “Sorry chaps, but there are several more important things than the colour of one’s skin.” Yes, like EGI, which does not conflate to the “colour of one’s skin” Remember your advice, Karl, about not posting about things one knows nothing about? I realize that would constrain your posting to, say, the stock market, but, hey, that’s better than nothing. Dr. William Luther Pierce was correct, conservatives can’t win. They don’t even know what it is they are supposed to fight for. 23
Posted by On Holliday on August 31, 2006, 08:04 PM | # See here: and replace “cognitive elitism” with “the free market” and “conservatism.” Do people here support these concepts because of a love for the abstract principles or because they have real world utility in improving the quality of *life?* Can we then asl - *who* is going to have their life so improved? Is that an idle question? I think not. Imagine you are worried about paying for your kid’s college, and some fast-talking middleman minority comes to you with a scheme to pay for the tuition. All well and good, until you find out you’ve been scammed, and it is not *your* kid who is getting their tuition paid, but *his* kid, Mr. Middleman’s kid. Do you shrug that off with a “hey, someone is benefitting, and I consider a college education - regardless of who benefits - more important than my own child’s welfare.” “coffee coloured Pittite Tories” would certainly benefit from Karl’s aracial lack of concern about EGI, but the rest of us can wonder what good are the benefits of free market conservatism if whites are replaced by coffee coloured Pittite Tories? Do the white originators of “the free market” and “conservatism” benefit, if they and their progeny are displaced by others? No, they do not, and “conservatism” displays its emptiness with respect to life’s ultimate interests. 24
Posted by Daedalus on August 31, 2006, 08:29 PM | #
What, precisely, are you supposed to be conserving? Also, since when is conservatism synonymous with liberal free market economics?
When do you plan on moving to Haiti?
It’s unfortunate that we haven’t moved beyond stupid cliches like “race is skin color” here. 25
Posted by Andy on August 31, 2006, 08:56 PM | # Karl Mangus does make a good point about there being more to life than just EGI. From a conservative standpoint, however, his “either or” scenario is ludicrous. It fails completely because the society that any traditionalist conservative would want to live in would necessarily be a white one. “Coffee coloured conservatives” is an oxymoron. Jared Taylor, a conservative advocate for white interests, puts it this way: A society cannot flourish apart from the attributes of the people that created it. (Or something very similar). As a society becomes increasingly multiracial, it becomes progressivly less free. 26
Posted by Daedalus on August 31, 2006, 09:12 PM | #
Why are you opposed to globalization? Globalization is merely the free market taken to its logical conclusion: the destruction of nations, the free movement of capital and labor, and the reduction of human beings to mere factors of production in the generation of wealth for the ultra rich.
Globalization is fueled by multinational corporations, private interests, that have captured and butchered the state to advance their own private interests at the expense at the expense of the majority of human beings. In this sense, globalization is merely the latest phase of predatory capitalism. The first, of course, was the transatlantic slave trade and the racial chaos it left behind in the sugar islands of the Caribbean. The New World was considered “beyond the line,” outside of the scope of international law, in the seventeenth century; in other words, a lawless free market where the rich and powerful were free to do as they pleased (like the sugar barons of Barbados or the legendary pirates of the Caribbean), something of a new feudalism, but without the civilizing aspects of Christianity. That’s the state of affairs we are returning to.
What does state subsidized health care have to do with anything? The U.S. is one of the fattest countries in the world, but one of the few that lacks a national healthcare system. Why are people fatter today? It’s because their diets have changed. Why have their diets changed? Because women, who used to prepare meals in the home, have entered the workforce to pursue material wealth and have less time to do so. Americans live further away from their workplaces in less physically demanding jobs. It’s probably more economically “efficient” to eat fast food and tv dinners than to spend valuable working hours (when one could be pursuing Mammon) at home preparing elaborate meals.
It’s a combination of factors: eating fast food because of the entry of women into the workforce, less physically strenuous service jobs, living in the suburbs further away from your workplace, overconsumption caused by greater wealth. Aristocrats have often been overweight throughout history, and now everyone is an aristocrat in diet. Where were all the gyms that have proliferated today a few decades ago? They didn’t exist because the structural changes in the economy that have given rise to this problem didn’t exist then.
Why weren’t there so many gyms a few decades ago?
I think you are confusing republicanism with liberalism. Republicans would have no objections to regulating the “free market” in order to curtail vicious behavior. The social promotion of virtue would be considered a worthy objective. That’s why we used to have laws against all the perverse, degenerate lifestyle preferences, say, sodomites and fornicators, that no longer exist. Liberals take for granted that the good life is unknowable. Morality, well, that’s something for every individual to decide for himself. Just don’t get in the way of his pursuit of license. How do you promote virtue by abdicating your conscience and allowing every man to do as he pleases? You can’t. Not surprisingly, the liberal states of the West today are hardly examples of virtue. 27
Posted by Daedalus on August 31, 2006, 09:23 PM | #
The results of laissez-faire capitalism are demonstrably bad. I have noticed there are many Victorian enthusiasts around here. Funny. It was the Victorian Age in which Britain went into decline relative to the United States and Germany. It got so bad that by Second World War the formerly self-sufficient British were hocking away their possessions to America to keep from starving. Not that the U.S. is any better. We have been steadily declining relative to the other great powers since we swallowed the Bretton Woods koolaid. 28
Posted by Andy on August 31, 2006, 09:30 PM | # “There we go. In two sentences, confirmation that conservatism *is* inimical to white racial interests for - despite the pretenses of the “traditionalist conservatives” here and the “quiet approach to race” - “conservatism” will always slide back to “chaps” like Karl telling us that the “free market” and “conservatism” are more important than race. Well done, Karl. You’ve just made my argument for me. Are the “traditionalist conservatives” listening?”
Why must they be displaced? What’s the logical contradiction between conservatism and the defense of EGI? Your arguments against the free market are a little confused. First of all, the parallels between democracy and the free market are illusory. Not all “choices” are created equal. In the United States, the “choice” is between two parties that are essentially identical on every issue that matters. No matter who I choose, I’m forced to live with the most popular choice. Imagine if the market worked like this: Everyone in the United States would have a choice between watching Oprah and watching Dr. Phil. There would be no other choices. My personal preference would be neither, but I would be forced to watch the winner of the election. In reality, the market, in contrast to democracy, offers *actual* choice. I don’t have to watch television. 29
Posted by Daedalus on September 01, 2006, 02:34 AM | #
“Stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.” 30
Posted by On Holliday on September 01, 2006, 05:40 AM | # “Your arguments against the free market are a little confused. First of all, the parallels between democracy and the free market are illusory. Not all “choices” are created equal. In the United States, the “choice” is between two parties that are essentially identical on every issue that matters. No matter who I choose, I’m forced to live with the most popular choice. Imagine if the market worked like this: Everyone in the United States would have a choice between watching Oprah and watching Dr. Phil. There would be no other choices…” Are there actually other choices? If you want to talk about “illusory” comments, what about this: “I don’t have to watch television.” Very well - you don’t have to vote either. Both American politics and the “free market” are based upon - in theory - the principle of “mass democracy” and advertising. In theory, nothing stops Jared Taylor from running for President. Let’s follow through what would happen. Would he win? No. The “people” would not vote for him. That’s the “choice” of the “political market.” And from where would much of the anti-Taylor propaganda come from - yes, the “private actors” of the news and entertainment media. 31
Posted by On Holliday on September 01, 2006, 05:44 AM | # “Why must they be displaced? What’s the logical contradiction between conservatism and the defense of EGI?” Because once you admit to a philsophy that raises proximate interests to a level equal to, or, as Karl does, higher than, ultimate interests, it is inevitable that the ultimate interests will be increasingly marginalized. Besides which defensive philosophies cannot compete against more offensive ones. 32
Posted by On Holliday on September 01, 2006, 06:11 AM | # ” Jared Taylor, a conservative advocate for white interests, “ Which is precisely why a naive linear “description” of ideology between (the good and great) “rightist conservatives” and the (bad and skulking) “leftist libera-socialists” does not work. Is Jared Taylor in any way shape or form the ideological bedmate of Bush, Magnus, or Ray? On the other hand, he may agree with them on economic issues than with me. Childish labels are for childish minds. Pass the oysters and wine. 33
Posted by Steve Edwards on September 01, 2006, 09:59 AM | # Not only are private property exclusivity, voluntary exchange and freedom of association the necessary ingredients for the revival of Western Man, they represent the very foundations of any “civilisation” worthy of the definition. Hans Hoppe has long exploded the Buchananite protectionist nonsense - if you want to reduce demographic pressures against Westerners, you must disembowel the welfare state, privatise absolutely everything, and allow property owners to practice strict discrimination against anyone they wish to dissociate from. Free trade is more likely to facilitate the geographic separation of ethno-culturally distant peoples by allowing capital/produce migration, rather than labour migration. PS - NAFTA is not a “free trade” agreement, because it actually increased the volume of economic regulation - these FTAs are typically more concerned with raising intellectual property restrictions than any genuine relaxation of trade barriers. The NAFTA highway is similarly unrelated to free trade - it is coercive government-imposed desegregation, pure and simple. 34
Posted by On Holliday on September 01, 2006, 10:15 AM | # “Not only are private property exclusivity, voluntary exchange and freedom of association the necessary ingredients for the revival of Western Man…” Those three things are not the same as “the free market”, at least in the sense used here. ” Hans Hoppe has long exploded the Buchananite protectionist nonsense - if you want to reduce demographic pressures against Westerners, you must disembowel the welfare state, privatise absolutely everything, and allow property owners to practice strict discrimination against anyone they wish to dissociate from. Free trade is more likely to facilitate the geographic separation of ethno-culturally distant peoples by allowing capital/produce migration, rather than labour migration.” Er, no. A nationalist state can very well have “protectionism” and “welfare” and be ethnoculturally exclusive. Very simple: don’t let *them* in, and if *they* try to come in illegally, treat it *exactly* the same as you would a military invasion. I trust everyone is aware of the usual, historic respose of national entities to military invasion. 35
Posted by Top on September 01, 2006, 03:49 PM | # “Hans Hoppe has long exploded the Buchananite protectionist nonsense “ People like Pat Buchanan and Jean-Marie Le Pen are attacked because they are potential populists who have policies that defend the interests of the native majorities over those of special interest groups. They are attacked for that reason and not because of their economic policies. If they are attacked for their proposed economic policies it’s solely a pretext, just like most of the other pretexts they are attacked over. “if you want to reduce demographic pressures against Westerners, you must disembowel the welfare state, privatise absolutely everything, and allow property owners to practice strict discrimination against anyone they wish to dissociate from. “ By disembowling the welfare system we have already paid a price for the demographic shift that has happened. The price is only going to get higher - and these arguments will only gain strength. Privatising everything will NOT relieve demographic pressure on the West and I don’t see how anyone can make that argument. Our economic overlords have made an unholy alliance with outside entities in order to capture the flow of wealth and in order to centralize power. Their future political/economic model is Mexico - or worse. This is just an extension of the old peasant vs. aristocrat struggle, but this time the aristocrats are importing an outside population, in order to replace the troublesome peasants. Maybe they think mexicans will make better subject. Most likely though they don’t think anything, and just go with the greedy default, while the whole system gets greased with corrupt money. This is not the future I want! I don’t want a future where sleazy, special interests rule over a Babylon-like society, where mafia-like armies enforce their law du jour, while they use a 1984-type information apparatus to shut all discusion and surpress all rebellion. Free market by itself with no social direction or law enforcement is an illusion. So while free market has its functions it’s merely a tool for our interests and certainly not the other way around. It’s a means and not an end. 36
Posted by Alex Zeka on September 01, 2006, 04:38 PM | # On Holliday explodes again. Why, oh why does he presume that I see the free market as an end rather than a means? Throughout the blog entry, I emphasised practical objections to socialist policies: that they are historically inefficient (see USSR, the West in the 70s), that they often create perverse incentives, that they often fail to accomplish their original goal of helping the workers. Sigh. Holliday, I’m going to turn the spotlight on you. Why do you support subsidies for degenerate behaviour (able-bodied beggary, not taking care of one’s health)? Please answer this question. Daedalus, freedom is not a unitary concept. I can support some freedoms but not others. I can support the free market within our borders because that leads to the most efficient outcome, but oppose it across borders because that is an abdication of national determination. Top, largely agreed. You should consider the argument that as the nation is our communal property, unrestricted immigration is the equivalent of the gov’t declaring that we must let everyone into our homes, businesses, etc. Not free market at all, but rather an effective subsidy to large corporations (everyone’s proerty being used in their interests). Moreover, you seem to be suggesting that our wlefare states have been disembowelled. Checked your tax bill lately? Before I go, I just laughed when I read this: Childish labels are for childish minds - Holliday What, like Moron? Hypocricy is for childish minds. 37
Posted by On Holliday on September 01, 2006, 05:18 PM | # “Sigh. Holliday, I’m going to turn the spotlight on you. Why do you support subsidies for degenerate behaviour (able-bodied beggary, not taking care of one’s health)? Please answer this question.” Sigh, Alex, because all that white IT workers in Silicon Valley who need U/E because of outsourcing, H1b visas and ethnic nepotism are not “able-bodied beggary”, but competent and hard-working people economically disenfranchised by the “free market.” And, as I have pointed out, the fact that Americans do *not* get free health care has not prevented them from being obese and unfit. Of course, benefits have strings. U/E comes with the proviso that the person will take a job if the wonderfully efficient “free market” actually allows for white folks to be employed in America, rather than Chinese or Indians. Health care should not subsidize lung cancer treatment for smokers. Actually, it would be more important to subsidize eugenic reproduction, having intelligent young couples to be paid for having children even if their finances do not allow.
What, like Moron?” If the shoe fits, wear it. “Hypocricy is for childish minds.” I’m what sure what “Hypocricy” is but if you mean “hypocrisy”, there is none. I refer to naive ideological labels, not accurate descriptions of the mental capacities, or lack thereof, of bloggers/commentators here, or of Aolon Ziv. 38
Posted by Daedalus on September 01, 2006, 06:05 PM | #
I haven’t suggested the repudiation of any of these things; merely the repudiation of liberalism.
That’s interesting. In the United States, we have long had an illegal immigration problem, even before the creation of the modern welfare state. Hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens from Mexico were deported under Hoover at the onset of the Great Depression. More were deported under Eisenhower in Operation Wetback before the creation of the Great Society social programs. That’s simply the logical consequence of living in an extremely wealthy society while sharing a border with an impoverished third world country. We have a much longer border with Canada, but without the same problem. The “protectionist nonsense” of Pat Buchanan made the United States the most powerful, industrialized nation in the world in less than a century. In contrast, Great Britain went into long term decline relative to the United States and Germany while practicing radical free trade in the late nineteenth/early twentieth centuries. The British also lost their edge in science and technology to America during this period which was investing heavily in public education and state guided industrial development.
Free trade, like individualism generally, is a disintegrating force that rips nations apart. As I pointed out above, the biggest supporters of free trade in the United States are also the biggest supporters of open borders. This nonsense has already led to one catastrophe in America - the Civil War. It is inducing another one along our southern border right now.
Are you suggesting that we have LOWER trade barriers with Mexico now after NAFTA? Thousands of American jobs have been shipped to Mexico because it is harder for Mexico to export to the United States? :p 39
Posted by Matra on September 02, 2006, 03:13 PM | # (My 20 or so attempts to publish this failed so I’ll put it in this thread). Capitalists for race replacement Once again a large corporation has stuck the boot into European-Americans. This article, originally published in The Chicago Tribune informs us that the Miller Brewing Company (SAB Miller) is sponsoring pro-illegal alien groups. Some excerpts:
And if the price for wooing those so-called Latinos is to promote bringing in more of them to replace the European-American nation so be it. Unsurprisingly labour unions are also involved, but we all know leftists support mass migration into Western countries. Businesses usually get a pass from people on the political right.
Yet another supporter of free trade and “the free movement of people.” Nations just get in the way of making more money. A dollar bill from a Mexican is just as good as one from an American. By reducing us all to mere consumers capitalism is very egalitarian. When capitalism is not tempered by the state its economic reductionism puts all traditional social institutions in danger - not very conservative is it? To libertarians and other capitalists it’s Economic Man that matters - not European Man. 40
Posted by On Holliday on September 02, 2006, 07:05 PM | # Able-bodied beggary?: http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_090106.htm No, the efficient market in action. 41
Posted by Matra on September 02, 2006, 07:17 PM | # KarlMagnus:
Can you name this “coffee coloured” nation of Tories? It certainly isn’t India. Such a country does not exist and never will. Toryism cannot be separated from the Anglo-Saxon political culture. A “coffee coloured” world will be one in which we are oppressed or extinct. Libertarians make the same mistake. They hold up some supposedly ideal early US republic as a model for the future whilst supporting Mexican and Asian immigration. There is nothing in the 500 or so years of Mexican or thousands of years of Chinese and Indian history to suggest that such people will one day appreciate libertarianism. Expecting non-Westerners to champion Toryism or libertarianism is as naive as expecting Iraq to become a Western liberal democracy. 42
Posted by Daedalus on September 02, 2006, 07:31 PM | #
Don’t worry. The conservatives have a plan: We should be doing everything possible to ensure it is even easier for these vultures to dominate our society. It’s government that is the problem, not out of control private interests empowered by a weakened state. Buchanan summarizes the problem in State of Emergency. Page 79-80:
43
Posted by Daedalus on September 02, 2006, 07:41 PM | #
Bizarre. Early America was anything but libertarian. 5 of the 7 earliest presidents (Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Jackson) were themselves slaveowners. Slavery was not abolished in America until 1865. The American Founders treasured republican liberty, not license, which is the central idea of libertarianism. 44
Posted by Bill on January 08, 2009, 08:07 AM | # Is Capitalism Conservative? November 2000. For me, this clarified a few ‘grey’ areas. Next entry: The letter VDare won’t print Previous entry: Illegal immigrant driver’s license bill is back in California |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 10:51 AM. (go) (view) Michael commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 10:46 AM. (go) (view) Bill commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 10:05 AM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 09:00 AM. (go) (view) Dan Dare commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 08:37 AM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 08:10 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 08:05 AM. (go) (view) Helvena commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 08:04 AM. (go) (view) The Socal group scam commented in entry 'Yo! Cop = Scum Cow!' on 02/09/12, 07:16 AM. (go) (view) The Socal group scam commented in entry 'The Moral high ground?' on 02/09/12, 06:50 AM. (go) (view) Hyman commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/09/12, 05:47 AM. (go) (view) RES commented in entry 'Who caused the 2008 housing bubble to burst in the U.S.?' on 02/09/12, 05:44 AM. (go) (view) Robert Reis commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 04:07 AM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/09/12, 12:27 AM. (go) (view) anon commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 11:18 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 10:51 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 10:28 PM. (go) (view) Silver commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 09:48 PM. (go) (view) J Richards commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 09:48 PM. (go) (view) Mary commented in entry 'Anti-white ideology is like anti-biotic overuse' on 02/08/12, 09:24 PM. (go) (view) J Richards commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 09:04 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 08:15 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 08:09 PM. (go) (view) Guessedworker commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 07:52 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 07:48 PM. (go) (view) jamesUK commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 07:36 PM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 07:10 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 06:49 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 06:45 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 06:27 PM. (go) (view) marloe commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 06:21 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 06:17 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 06:08 PM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 06:07 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 06:03 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by Retew on August 30, 2006, 07:55 AM | #
Physical fitness levels might also have plummetted in the UK since World War II because of the huge increase in personal motorised transport, especially car use.