You tend towards which school?

Robert Burns
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:48 am

Re: You tend towards which school?

Post by Robert Burns » Sun Feb 20, 2022 3:49 pm

"Socialism" did not mean remotely the same thing to the National Socialists as it did to the communists, and that should be apparent for any number of reasons. It is literal, meaning "pro-social", for the people, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the communist idea of a revolt of the proletariat and establishment of a new system ("socialism") as the precursor to communism. National Socialism is aristocratic and communism seeks to destroy anything resembling aristocracy.

Robert Burns
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:48 am

Re: You tend towards which school?

Post by Robert Burns » Sun Feb 20, 2022 7:52 pm

Steam-Powered wrote:
Sun Feb 20, 2022 6:30 pm
Riley wrote:
Sun Feb 20, 2022 3:49 pm
"Socialism" did not mean remotely the same thing to the National Socialists as it did to the communists, and that should be apparent for any number of reasons.
Obviously NS is not the same as Communism. Nevertheless, both systems advocated socialist economic policy to a greater or lesser extent. Ask any farmer who lived during WWII in Germany (I grew up with MANY such folks). Their livestock and eggs were taken for the good of "society" and they went hungry, not able to enjoy the fruits of their labor. That is socialsm: having the fruits of your labor stolen for "the good of society".

Taking eggs from my hens for "society" or any other reason, without my consent, is theft. I don't care if you're giving my eggs to those of my race or not, NOBODY has the right to my property, labor, and assets, without my consent. Again, it's a matter of consent. Majority white countries in Europe are ripe with corruption, stealing from the working class in the name of "society". I don't buy it.
So you think that even if you had more eggs than you could eat, and the rest of your White brothers and sisters in the village were starving to death, if you don't consent then nobody has the right to take anything from you?

Robert Burns
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:48 am

Re: You tend towards which school?

Post by Robert Burns » Sun Feb 20, 2022 9:17 pm

Also, I really don't like your insistence on comparing National Socialism with what I consider to be fake socialism. The modern US, for example, is supposedly a sort of socialist country, but it is not racial socialism, first of all. That alone is enough to put National Socialism in its own category, but the truth is that European countries are not real socialist countries, because the confiscated wealth is not redistributed for the benefit of all the citizens of these countries. That's just the lie they tell us. In reality, it benefits the Jews far more than any other group, so that is not for the good of society, not even the terrible excuse for one that exists now. As far as I'm concerned, these countries are socialist only in a tertiary sense at most, and it is much more accurate to say they are Jewish oligarchies.

NS Germany, on the other hand, supported collectivist policies for the good of the German people. It wasn't just a big scam so Hitler could line his pockets. You can still argue it is misguided or wrong in some way, but it's not the same type of system just because sometimes they vocalized support for similar types of policies. So please, stop comparing them.

User avatar
Will Williams
Posts: 4400
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:22 am

Re: You tend towards which school?

Post by Will Williams » Mon Feb 21, 2022 12:39 am

Riley wrote:
Sun Feb 20, 2022 7:52 pm
Taking eggs from my hens for "society" or any other reason, without my consent, is theft. I don't care if you're giving my eggs to those of my race or not, NOBODY has the right to my property, labor, and assets, without my consent. Again, it's a matter of consent. Majority white countries in Europe are ripe with corruption, stealing from the working class in the name of "society". I don't buy it.

Those hypothetical government egg goons will have to get up awfully early to requisition my eggs. When they show up, maybe I'll invite them in to share an omelet or some French toast. ;)

They don't call economics the "dismal science" for nothing. Almost any economic system will be better than the debt-driven, usurious system we have today. Don't worry. We'll have plenty of time to devise the appropriate economic system for our people after the revolution. Here's what's in What is the National Alliance? that every member is required to read and comprehend:

An Economic Policy Based on Racial Principles

Personal gain must not be the only motivation for our new society.
Personal gain must not be the primary motivation for citizens in our new society, and capital must never be able to purchase legislation.
There are two fundamental criteria that must be used for judging each and every governmental intervention in economic matters. They are, first, the long-range welfare and progress of the race; and second, human nature. Which is to say that in evaluating any economic policy we must ask ourselves two questions: Will this policy ultimately be beneficial or detrimental to the quality of our race? And is it in accord with human nature?

We look first at the racial effects of a policy and insist that they must be positive—or at least not negative—and then we insist that the policy be based on a clear and realistic understanding of human nature, so that it is workable.

We can understand better the significance of these two principles if we consider briefly two quite different economic systems, Marxism and laissez-faire capitalism.

Marxist economics has human happiness rather than racial progress as its ostensible aim, and it is based on assumptions that are at odds with reality and with human nature. It aims at providing material comfort for everyone, more or less equally. It cannot even admit the possibility of racial progress, because that implies that some types of men are inherently superior to others and that some directions of development are more desirable than other directions.

Whether one prefers the Marxist goal of the greatest happiness for the greatest number or the National Alliance goal of stronger, wiser, and more beautiful men and women is a matter of one’s values. It was not on its choice of values that Marxism foundered, however, but on its refusal to recognize the fact of human inequality and the nature of human motivation. When people are not permitted to work for their own profit and advancement, they do not work well; and when a society’s leaders do not attain their positions through their own merit, that society is likely to be poorly led.

In contrast to the Marxist system, we recognize the need to permit people to compete, to reap the fruits of their labor, and to exercise leadership according to their demonstrated ability. They will work harder and more efficiently and will order themselves in a hierarchy of ability. The result will be a stronger, better led, and more prosperous society. There will of course, be those individuals who will not work or whose natural abilities are such that they cannot compete effectively. Rather than following the Marxist path of robbing the successful in order to reward the unsuccessful, we must take measures to ensure that society’s lowest elements do not multiply and become more numerous in later generations.

The laissez-faire capitalist system provides another illustrative contrast. Under such a system the society as a whole has no goals: there are only the goals of individual men and women. The capitalist system, like ours, provides strong incentives for individuals: the strong, aggressive, and clever rise and prosper, and the weak, indecisive, and stupid remain at the bottom. Leaders tend to be capable—at least, in the capitalist economic environment, with its special conditions.

Without a unifying principle, however, a capitalist society easily can fall prey to certain inherent weaknesses. One of these weaknesses is the instability that leads the rich to become richer and the poor to become poorer, not solely because of differences in ability but because the possession of capital gives the possessor an enormous advantage in the competition for more capital. When personal gain is the only motivation in a society, those who already are rich can arrange things to favor themselves: they can buy the legislation they want, and they can block threats to their power in ways that may be destructive to the welfare of the society as a whole. They can hold down the price of labor, limit healthy competition within the society, and exploit the environment without regard for the long-range consequences.

The overly rigid social stratification resulting from unrestricted capitalism can lead to endemic class hostility and even to class warfare. It can slow racial progress by making the ability to acquire and hold capital the supreme survival trait.

We need an economic system that, in contrast to Marxism, allows individuals to succeed in proportion to their capability and energy, but that, in contrast to capitalism, does not allow them to engage in socially or racially harmful activity, such as stifling competition or importing non-White labor. We need to structure our economic system so that it cannot fall prey to the instability of capitalism. We need to maintain social flexibility, so that capable and energetic individuals always have the possibility of rising. We need to ensure that capital does not have the possibility of changing society’s rules to suit itself.

The way to achieve and maintain an economic system that meets these criteria is to design and to govern the system subject to the supreme principle: the ultimate aim of all economic policy is racial progress.
---
BTW, Riley, I saw today where you had reviewed my book on Amazon. Thanks! Those SOBs have rejected every review I've ever written. :)
If Whites insist on participating in "social media," do so on ours, not (((theirs))). Like us on WhiteBiocentrism.com; follow us on NationalVanguard.org. ᛉ

Robert Burns
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:48 am

Re: You tend towards which school?

Post by Robert Burns » Mon Feb 21, 2022 7:24 pm

Steam-Powered wrote:
Mon Feb 21, 2022 12:43 pm
Riley wrote:
Sun Feb 20, 2022 7:52 pm
So you think that even if you had more eggs than you could eat, and the rest of your White brothers and sisters in the village were starving to death, if you don't consent then nobody has the right to take anything from you?
If my white brothers and sisters are suffering hunger due to laziness, refusing to work, drug addiction, and expect to eat my eggs, then they deserve to starve to death.

That wasn't my question. You don't get to modify my hypothetical just because it suits your argument better. Did I say that I think those who work harder should not be rewarded for their greater efforts, and that non-contributing scum should be given the fruits of someone else's labor despite their lack being entirely their fault? I'm pretty damn sure I didn't, but your response implies otherwise.
Having grown up on a farm, I know from experience what it means to labor for one's food. I also knew many white farmers who were lazy and expected government handouts, choosing to let fields go fallow and receiving compensation. That compensation came from taxing those who choose to work and produce food. My family chose to work and I noticed that the white family who chose not to work had nicer clothes, nicer cars, and newer farm equipment. All paid for from taxing hard working farmer such as my family. And when it comes to the policies of the NSDAP in the 30s to 40's, we need to be honest: there was plenty of corruption! Growing up, a friend's father served in the SS Leibstandarte and I trust that he was telling the truth, as he echoed what other neighbors (who served in the Wermacht) shared regarding taking from the poor farmers so that some of the elite could eat to their hearts content.
I'm not saying NS Germany did everything right, but this example is more an argument for preventing corruption in general than it is an argument against collectivism on principle. If what you say is true, then these elites weren't actually doing this for the sake of the nation, they were doing it to fulfill their own selfish, individualistic desires. I'm sure Hitler would not have approved of such abuses of power, and neither would I. Those types of people deserve the harshest of punishments. But now I'm stating the obvious.
The fact is that we are not living in 1930s/1940s Germany. We are not being subject to Versailles. Those of us fortunate to be living in the USA are not facing the economic reality suffered by the German people after World War I. The policies of the NSDAP were necessary at the time. The NSDAP lifted the German people out of misery and offered a gleam of prosperity. Still, we are living in the 21st century and it would be a mistake to model 21st century economic policy in response to Versailles.
This is all I was saying, that there are real situations where such policies can become necessary, not that it's ideal or that it should be the norm for government to override individual rights. So now you contradict yourself, because before you said you don't care at all about the circumstances, as your consent is more important than any other consideration. That is pure individualism, and as the Alliance is collectivist, this is what I took issue with. Now you seem to be saying something different.
Please don't misunderstand, though. I'm in complete agreement with the "An Economic Policy Based on Racial Principles", that any such policy must ask the questions: Will this policy ultimately be beneficial or detrimental to the quality of our race? And is it in accord with human nature?
But I am misunderstanding, because now I don't even know what you are arguing for or against. Before you said it clearly: nobody can take your eggs, regardless of the stated or real reason, without your consent, therefore individual consent is the highest value of all. Now you're saying that maybe some such policies were necessary in the past for Germany because of the harsh Treaty of Versailles, but never will be necessary again because it's 2022 and nothing like that will ever happen again? Even if I grant that the possible set of circumstances is as narrow as you say, how could you possibly know that we wouldn't face a nearly identical situation in the future? I certainly hope you're right, but I'm not so sure.

Robert Burns
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:48 am

Re: You tend towards which school?

Post by Robert Burns » Mon Feb 21, 2022 9:28 pm

I just wanted to add, I don't really want to get into a big argument about this. I just have little patience for people misconstruing what I'm saying. I enjoy discussing questions like this, but not if we're going to stay stuck talking about things like the fact that drug addicts should not be rewarded for their behavior. That should be obvious to anyone with half a brain cell, so I don't appreciate being talked to like I don't already know that.

Robert Burns
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:48 am

Re: You tend towards which school?

Post by Robert Burns » Mon Feb 21, 2022 9:37 pm

Will Williams wrote:
Mon Feb 21, 2022 12:39 am
BTW, Riley, I saw today where you had reviewed my book on Amazon. Thanks! Those SOBs have rejected every review I've ever written. :)
No problem. Hopefully we can get more members to review it as well.

Thomas S NJ
Posts: 103
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:31 pm

Re: You tend towards which school?

Post by Thomas S NJ » Thu Feb 24, 2022 10:26 pm

Going back to the original question of what economic arrangement [you] might prefer, I would like to address your positions as I feel we might have had similar philosophical backgrounds. I am a former libertarian, as I think you may be. I also had a background in economic study from a philosophical frame work of discovered ethics via Mises and Hoppe, which I think you may be familiar with. Lastly, like you, I came to realize the truth of the Alliance and Dr. Pierce's message, including the economic ideals.

While I love to discuss how I went from a die-hard libertarian enemy of "Statism" to an avowed National-Socialist, I believe that really covers enough background information for now, unless there are any questions.

My simple, short answer to what economic arrangement I favor is this: whatever my noble Race needs at that moment. If we require a free market for our creative genius to flourish, then let the individual work for his own good! If we require a powerful hierarchical State centrally dictating economic measures to arrest the flow of wealth into the Jewish oligarchy and to stamp out the social and cultural poisons that have been wrought in their wake, Sieg Heil!

I do believe that the default "best" for our Race, in most times, is a free market. We are a Race of immeasurable creative genius which seems to flourish best when each is free to direct his aims to our greatness in his own way. This would be the case, were the state of our Race one of general spiritual health; but such is the realm of "should-land" right now.

Alas! Here on "is-land", we exist in a society where Jewish poison has rotted the very bones of every Nation we have built. It must be excised, and the mercantile nature of the Semitic tribe means that such surgery will necessarily include seizing economic power. If I must seize a farmer's eggs directly because the Jew wrecked our grocer and supply chain, then I pray he will have the Racial loyalty that it will not need to be at gunpoint, but...

Well, you get the idea, I think.

It is not that I favor strict control; rather I see it as akin to chemotherapy; in many ways more unpleasant in the short term than the disease it purges, but the best bet for long-term health and, one day, that glorious free market in which our creative genius shines.

Regarding NS Germany in the thirties, and their policies; I encourage you to read "Hitler's Revolution" by Tedor. One note I stumbled upon in it that was eye-opening to me, was that Hitler actually expelled from the party those members who'd confiscated farms "for the workers" in ...I'm afraid I forget the town at the moment. Whenever a given resource had to be seized for the needs of the Nation, it was re-privatized as soon as the need was met and, in many cases, entire industries which had been nationalized in the latter Weimar government were privatized immediately on Hitler's ascent.

Just as a brief note, I am citing that source from memory and I am tired; so if I am mixing up my sources and anyone has the correct one handy, please share.

Lastly, I would like to point to Goebbels' speech to the Party rally in 1939(or was it 38...it was the famous one in which he described that the good (morally) propandist does not need to lie, in short, must not) in which he relayed the success of the Winter Relief. A key aspect of that relief was that no tax was needed, and that the only nationalization required of it was to utilize the railroads for distribution of the voluntarily donated goods from the German people to their less fortunate brothers.

I'm pretty sure a war against most of the rest of the world prevented the planned reprivatization of said rail system, but that's another story.
H0195

Thomas S NJ
Posts: 103
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:31 pm

Re: You tend towards which school?

Post by Thomas S NJ » Fri Mar 04, 2022 3:34 pm

Steam-Powered wrote:
Thu Mar 03, 2022 11:19 pm


Yep, I've been a die-hard libertarian for many years. Over the past month, though, I've listened to dozens of ADV broadcasts and read many articles from National Vanguard on economics and National Socialism ("Hitler's Revolution is on my short-list, per your recommendation), forcing me to re-examine my values regarding individualism. The cognitive dissonance I've experienced is throught the roof!
I hear you, brother. It was a very tough pill for me to swallow to go from "Hitler is just a Marxist with a funny mustache and a hatred of Jews!" to even being willing to read Mein Kampf. By that time, luckily, Clown World was in full swing, my local libraries were hosting Tranny Story Hour, and statues were being torn down. When I got to Hitler's description of the Weimar era, I had no doubt he was not exaggerating.
H0195

User avatar
Jim Mathias
Posts: 3292
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:48 pm

Re: You tend towards which school?

Post by Jim Mathias » Thu Mar 10, 2022 12:34 am

Economic systems aren't a topic I really care to discuss as these matters are far down the list of things we Whites who care about our race's survival are in need of thorough knowledge at this time. As Will said, "after the revolution is over."

In the meantime, we individually should deal with each other Whites as honestly as possible. An example of the farmer and his eggs came up,
If I must seize a farmer's eggs directly because the Jew wrecked our grocer and supply chain
and instead of stealing from that farmer, let's offer to trade instead. I've had nothing at certain times in my life and gladly shoveled horse manure in trade for my "eggs" rather than stoop to bad character behavior. Believe it or not, that earned me high respect from the owner of those horse-stalls. We in the National Alliance must hold standards such as good character up more religiously than non-members--- others are watching us, judging.
Activism materials available! ===> Contact me via PM to obtain quantities of the "Send Them Back", "NA Health Warning #1 +#2+#3" stickers, and any fliers listed in the Alliance website's flier webpage.

Post Reply