Source: Charlottesville Open Thread
I continue to be amazed at how stupid conservatives are. On the Social Medias, there is a canonical example of “fake news,” a story that President Trump has arrested a federal judge, appointed by Mullah Obama, because he was enforcing Sharia Law in the courtroom. Trump, a stalwart advocate of the Constitution, had him arrested for “treason.”
This story is so obviously false – wish fulfillment – it doesn’t even rise above the level of “spam,” but conservative Republicans, especially the ones who have spent the last 8 years buying Donald Trump’s transparent bullshit that Obama was a Secret Muslim with a Fake Birth Certificate taking orders from both the Sunni Muslim brotherhood AND the Shia Mullahs in Iran and of course packed the court with Sharia enforcing Muslims – buy it hook, line and sinker.
It’s about as stupid as opening a spam email that says “You have won the lottery, please send your bank account number to receive a deposit of $999,999,999 billion dollars from the Nigerian Internet Bank” and immediately calling your boss and telling him he can stuff it and you’re not coming into work the next morning.
Just how stupid and gullible ARE White conservative Republicans? I mean, we make fun of dindus for believing “WE WUZ KANGS” but these White conservatives don’t seem to be much smarter, frankly.
Of course, these same White Christian conservative Republicans – just like Trump told them – believe that Obama “hated Jews and Israel” and was involved in a secret Muslim plot to kill the Jews – just like Hitler, who was a left wing liberal socialist.
Frankly I kind of feel sorry for Netanyahu, who must have at least some reservations about the fact that these are the only people in America that really are his allies. I would hold them in contempt too, they are the definition of “cucks.”
Would it be wrong to create a “fake news site” and fleece these conservatives out of money somehow? Wouldn’t it be better to fleece them out of money before they get suckered by the Dead Sea Salt scammers at the mall or give it to some “poor Jewish refugee family in Judea and Samaria?”
Clearly, White conservative Republicans are children that need parental supervision. You can’t give little children a lesson in electrical current – you just have to tell them “NO sticking finger in light bulb socket! Bad! Shock hurt baby!”
That is how White conservative Republicans must be treated, as babies, little children, for their own good.
For whatever reason, Johnson cannot even consider that this is a purposeful development; that it is a feature, not a bug, of the “movement.” Even though there are people openly saying as much: “we have to drive away the ‘normies’ because they aren’t ‘hard-core’ enough.” “Pro-white isn’t enough we have to ‘go back’ to before the Enlightenment, or before the Reformation, or even before Christianity.” “The old intra-white ethnic hostilities must re-emerge.”
No matter how many times various groups are “caught” publishing Jews pretending to be “Nazis,” no matter how many times various groups are “caught” engaging in obvious subversion, and no matter how much “smoke” there is coming from certain personalities and “leaders,” he can’t quite come and out say “fire.”
Right-wing sectarianism is a self-marginalizing, self-defeating tendency, and it could not come at a worse time, for the historical moment has never been more receptive to white identity politics. More people are looking to us for answers than ever before. We must develop new platforms, spokesmen, and messages to try reach and convert every white group: every age group, every social class, every religion, every ethnic group, every interest group, every subculture — everyone. This is how white identity politics will attain complete cultural and political hegemony. But instead of outreach, the movement is turning inward.
he Alt Right “brand” was a White Nationalist entryist and outreach project from the very start. But the Alt Right worked best for White Nationalists by not being exclusively associated with White Nationalism. Normies would never try the Alt Right on for size if it were an exclusively White Nationalist movement, much less associated with people like Nazis and the KKK. The Left, of course, understands the power of such associations to freeze thought and action on the Right, which is why Leftists trot them out time and again.
Some White Nationalists, however, were more concerned with exerting control over a “brand” than outreach to the public. So they hit on the same tactic as the ADL, SPLC, and mainstream media: to chase people away from the Alt Right by associating it with Nazis and the KKK. The best example of this is the troll campaign against Steven Crowder, who made the mistake of calling himself Alt Right, and was rewarded with a storm of memes in which he was welcomed to the ranks of Nazi extremists. It was hilarious, vicious stuff, but completely self-defeating from the point of view of outreach and conversion.
What people don’t seem to get about intelligence agencies, like the FBI and the CIA, is that they always play “both sides.”
If you read the leftist literature about the CIA, you’ll see CIA characterized as “right wing” and supporting various “counter-revolutionary” groups in Central and South America. That’s true, of course, they did. Now the CIA promotes “liberal” and “left” groups in Eastern Europe.
The leftist literature about the FBI always points out how the FBI destroyed the Black Panther party and the Jewish New Left. What you won’t read is how J. Edgar Hoover destroyed the Klan and segregation groups in the south.
Many of the social liberals in the 1960s, like feminist pioneer Gloria Steinem, wrote about the “liberal CIA.” And indeed, the CIA created groups like the Congress of Cultural Freedom that promoted “modern art” and jazz music. But the CIA had also created Christian front groups that promoted conservative social policies.
The internet generation has discovered the fact that the “hippie movement” of the 1960s wasn’t some natural development of style that was related to the anti-war movement. Quite the opposite, the “hippie movement” was an astro-turf phenomenon, promoted by the corporate media, the Fortune 500, and helped demonize the anti-war movement and turned “middle America” against the anti-war movement. Nixon won essentially because of a backlash to “hippies.”
The fact that LSD was a major part of the CIA’s MK-Ultra program is now common knowledge among people who research these things. People like “Ram Dass” and Timothy Leary, the gurus of the 1960s LSD scene, are now known to have been employed by the CIA as part of the MK-Ultra project.
But what these people don’t remember is that men like Alfred Matthew Hubbard a decade before was promoting LSD among Christians and conservatives, church leaders, and on “the right.”
Alfred Matthew Hubbard (July 24, 1901–August 31, 1982) was an early proponent for the drug LSD during the 1950s. He is reputed to have been the “Johnny Appleseed of LSD” and the first person to emphasize LSD’s potential as a visionary or transcendental drug. According to some accounts, Hubbard worked at various times for the Canadian Special Services, the United States Justice Department, the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and the Office of Strategic Services, or OSS [i.e., the CIA].
People will often say “both parties are the same” or that “there’s no difference between a Democrat and a Republican” but when it comes time, they always seem to forget and go along with whatever “side” they happen to agree with. “Liberals” will point out how the “establishment” is really run by the “corporate conservative 1% Republicans” while never seeming to notice that their own ideology lines up perfectly with the global corporations that are “the establishment.” Conservatives much the same, never realizing that their reaction to “the left” is typically siphoned into whatever the establishment wanted anyway. It’s comical – hilarious – to see Libertarian types talking about “ending the Fed” by promoting … the hard money policies that bankers have always traditionally wanted.
It’s almost like a case of “reverse psychology” that moms use to “trick” their kids into eating their vegetables. “Oh you don’t want to eat those green beans, that is only for grown ups!”
A quick rundown of how one particular California political lobby was built.
1. Two guys bought a van and a list of mailing addresses from a defunct political lobby in Northern California. The mailing addresses were of people who had either joined or expressed interest in a related cause.
2. The two guys drove around Northern California knocking on doors, passing out pamphlets, and asking for donations for the cause, and also coordinating a letter writing campaign to California legislators on various issues.
3. The two guys had some extremely radical views, but simply presented themselves as “regular folks” concerned about the environment, cute animals, conservationism, etc.
4. At most, one out of ten people donated money. At least 50% of the people just said “not interested” and slammed the door in their face. One out of ten signed something and donated maybe $5-$20 dollars. Maybe two or three out of ten said, “sure here’s my phone number, send me a postcard in the mail and maybe I’ll subscribe to your newsletter.
5. Once they had built up a skeleton of an organization, they hired people – college kids, at $5 an hour – to call people on the phone, twice a year, give a little spiel about the cause and ask for a credit card.
6. They set up a regular system. They relied on a TINY core of hard core people who donated every month and wrote letters to legislators every month, and they had a much larger circle of people who were interested, but not particularly devoted, who would SOMETIMES give money, MAYBE write a letter to a legislator, and typically would drop out completely after a year.
7. They had a much larger circle of people who would make a one time donation, sometimes just to get the canvassers off their lawn or off the phone. But nevertheless sometimes they would make a “convert” who would become a devoted member of the inner core.
8. They took that money and hired a political lobbyist would would literally wine and dine California legislators and propose bills and make public speeches.
9. They ALWAYS presented themselves as normal, all-American concerned citizens and they ALWAYS made their pitch to people in the terms of people’s rational self-interests. Who likes pollution? Nobody. Who wants a clean environment? Everybody.
10. They have been doing it since the 1970s and still exist, with plenty of victories and plenty of failures. It ain’t glamorous work and – AT MOST – one guy gets to be somewhat of a “celebrity.” ZERO people get to posture as “more hard core than thou” and NO ONE admits that some of them are involved in rather radical groups like Earth First!
If the pro-white movement wants to win, they will have to do something similar.
It ain’t rocket science.
Some of the earliest known condemnations of usury come from the Vedic texts of India. Similar condemnations are found in religious texts from Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (the term is riba in Arabic and ribbit in Hebrew). At times, many nations from ancient Greece to ancient Rome have outlawed loans with any interest. Though the Roman Empire eventually allowed loans with carefully restricted interest rates, the Catholic Church in medieval Europe banned the charging of interest at any rate (as well as charging a fee for the use of money, such as at a bureau de change).
Usury, in essence, is making money from having money, by lending to people who are naïve or have suffered reversals. The lender, like the capitalist, takes some risk and has some overhead, but to the extent one can separate the lender/investor’s contribution of useful expertise from the effect of merely having money at his disposal, to that extent one may raise the issues of undeserved profit and exploitation. Savings and loan associations and mutual insurance companies are collectives where the profit returns to the members. In recent decades many of these companies were taken public by greedy investors who became members and were often in league with management, who invoked spurious reasoning to justify the transition, which works to the detriment of the majority of depositors or policy-holders. The before/after contrast illustrates my idea of profit beyond what is appropriate or necessary. It was not unusual for ‘professional depositors’ to open as many as two hundred accounts around the country to qualify for participation in stock offerings that were (nearly) sure things, but not seen as such by the small fry, some of whom, in any case, could not afford to risk savings even on a sure thing. Peter Lynch has written about this process, which is likely not as profitable for investors today as back when few people understood it.
I agree with your second point but not your first. Defenders of capitalism may cite libertarian premises like yours, in which case they need to explain why people coming newly into the world have a duty to respect the claims of people who amassed land before they were born. Other defenders point to capitalism’s superior productivity, which is a way of appealing to an ethical norm, namely that we should prefer capitalism because it produces a greater level of material well-being for the average person. But most of us distinguish between more and less deserved well-being. We think a doctor deserves his wealth more than a pornographer or an idle rich person who sits back and lets a hired manager invest for him. Libertarians think free exchanges between adults should be beyond the scope of ethical assessment but I don’t see why. Their own view is itself an ethical position. Why is it wrong to interfere with any voluntary exchange? We don’t hesitate where children are parties (nor do we hesitate to regulate drugs and dangerous products), but some adults are as naïve and vulnerable as children, and these are targeted by the archetypal usurer. Nor does looking out for such people automatically ‘infantilize’ the society and lead to communism. At least, I don’t see that it must.
An excellent comment and it’s great to see someone else pointing out the differences between credit unions and mutual companies with collective ownership and private banks. In the former, the owners of the enterprise are the customers, while in the later, an outside group is the owner while the customers are a different group.
The lender, like the capitalist, takes some risk
This isn’t particularly true in the modern financial system and in practice it has never been true in the transactions people decried as “usury.” When a speculator lent money on a shipping excursion the speculator may well have suffered losses when the ship went down. The usurers that people complained about often had the backing of the state to “make them whole” – the borrowers who could not repay the compound interest and fees were often then enslaved. The distinction between “usury” and “investment” is something the Church, despite a heroic effort, never really got right for all sorts of reasons, a primary one being the Church didn’t particular care about the practical effects, they were more interested in their incoherent ideology and their own political power.
E. Michael Jones, a valuable cultural critic, despite being an anti-white fanatic, has at the least tried to come to grips with this in the modern world and tries to retrofit Catholic anti-usury ideas as not being specifically about interest rates, or compounding, but instead a power balance.
I suggest one might try to understand the concept of “barren metal” not with confused analogies of biological reproduction but instead understand “usury” as what we now refer to as “economic rent.”
The Jews were allowed to benefit from “economic rent” on money. There is no economic reason why this should be so:
In classical economics, economic rent is any payment made (including imputed value) or benefit received for non-produced inputs such as location (land) and for assets formed by creating official privilege over natural opportunities (e.g., patents). In neoclassical economics, economic rent also includes income gained by beneficiaries of other contrived exclusivity, such as labor guilds and unofficial corruption.
The Church, in practice, gave the Jews a monopoly on certain kinds of finance, which greatly hurt Europeans. Whether or not the Church even understood what it was doing, or if they were in fact “in league” with the Jews is open to historical interpretation, and frankly the Church doesn’t come out looking good either way.
It seem obvious that neither the Church, not libertarian ideologues, have any idea nor any motivation to do something about the modern problems of usury/economic rent, but fortunately, it looks like White/European technology will once again save the day. We are already seeing a revolution in our understanding of economics and money.
Here’s my prediction: both Catholic and libertarian ideologues will go out of their way to squash the revolution in economics as both ideologies are once again trumped by European ingenuity.
But expect both to type countless words online to try to maintain some sort of relevance.
Thanks for the compliment and thanks for pointing out that the objection to usury is at bottom an objection to (excessive?) rents. The ‘barren metal’ objection seems wrong, in that money is a proxy for non-barren capital goods. But I wonder if another ‘biological’ objection might have some validity. I am ignorant of the literature but I would guess that if the money supply doesn’t change then the usurers as a group own a larger and larger portion of the wealth over time, provided they can keep their own consumption costs below the usurious profits. But I suppose the entrepreneurial borrowers as a class will charge their customers, including the usurers, enough so that the entrepreneurs come out ahead. So, who loses? I guess the non-entrepreneurial ‘defensive’ borrowers lose and drift into destitution. Interesting. What is this ‘new economics’ you refer to? You have piqued my curiosity!
We do not need to ignore our traditional moral instinct that “usury” is wrong, nor do we have to rely on medieval misunderstandings of monetary systems to explain why it’s always been considered wrong.
For the last 20 years or so, “Islamic banking” has been a regular topic in the financial literature as Western banks seek to incorporate all that oil money into the system.
Sharia prohibits riba, or usury, defined as interest paid on all loans of money (although some Muslims dispute whether there is a consensus that interest is equivalent to riba).
Here we see the same argument over whether riba/usury is any sort of interest on money or something else. Consider the alternatives in Islamic banking:
Some of the modes of Islamic banking/finance include Mudarabah (Profit and loss sharing), Wadiah (safekeeping), Musharaka (joint venture), Murabahah (cost plus), and Ijar (leasing).
Notice that Islamic banking accepts various financial transactions when the interests of the borrow and lender are the same, when the risks are aligned the same way.
If a lender stands to gain more from a default than a repaid loan, that is an obvious conflict of interest – in that situation the lender wants the borrower to default, presumably in order to claim the collateral.
If the money supply doesn’t change then the usurers as a group own a larger and larger portion of the wealth over time
Yes, if in the historical case, Jews as a class have a monopoly on finance, then in the aggregate Jews will wind up with Christian wealth. Actually figuring out the absolute quantity of money is difficult and practically impossible in a decentralized system. In practical terms, whatever class controls the money can always hold back supply of money to force defaults, and this appears to have happened.
Like pornography, it’s likely that many have simply thrown up their hands and said “I know usury when I see it.” “Usury” has traditionally been considered a sin, a moral crime, an evil. Libertarians will try to simply punt on the moral issues and demand you define usury by a specific number, so they can say, “well if 10% is usury, is 5% ok?” “If 0% is the only acceptable interest rate then there will be no lending at all.” By making it a math problem they are ignoring whatever moral instinct that has existed throughout history in many cultures that declares “usury” – however defined – as morally wrong.
“Money,” as in currency, what is used instead of simple barter, is a “social construct” and various forms of money have proved practical in various cases because it’s a decentralized way to coordinate trade. With modern communication technology, “the internet” etc., decentralized coordination can provide alternative to coordinating trade.
Of course there is the crypto-currencies like Bitcoin, but even that relies on traditional ideas of money. There are already thought experiments about decentralized money creation, why give banks a monopoly on money creation? Why can’t money be created and destroyed as needed by individuals?
The path forward for money and banking is not to prevent people from creating money out of thin air but to allow everyone to create money out of thin air.
Counter Currents once published a great article about various non-libertarian ideas of money and other aspects of the economy.
I’m suggesting that there is a reason why “usury” has always been considered a sin and that “usury” may be best defined as something other than simple compound interest.
Another good work to read on the topic is “Debt: The First 5000 Years.”
Source: NRx Delenda Est
If you are a highly educated academic, the pro-white movement has you covered. From Kevin MacDonald’s The Occidental Observer to Greg Johnson’s Counte Currents, we have no lack of the “high.” We have extremely educated, well read, historically knowledgable academics who are pro-white and can give us an understanding of European culture, European history and a in depth analysis of anti-whiteness, Europhobia and some extremely detailed strategies for combating it.
If you are a low-brow internet troll, the pro-white movement also has you covered. 4Chan is 20 years old, and whatever /pol/ lacked in explicitly pro-whiteness, Andrew Anglin and the (((Daily Stormer))) picks up the bottom. From racist jokes, to spicy memes, to purposefully offensive trolling, it’s there in spades. Of course, the 14/88 movement has had Nazi LARPers forever, and still does. It’s a bit better now because there’s a post-modern internet irony to it now, a sort of plausible deniability that makes it difficult for anti-whites to shriek “Nazi Frogs” and be taken seriously by anyone.
But what the pro-white movement has lacked, and still lacks, is something in the middle – something that isn’t high brow academia but also isn’t low-brow trolling. This is of course a major lost opportunity, and what we are already seeing is anti-whites moving into that space. For those who are not content with long philosophical essays nor low-rent Nazi trolling, a whole universe exists that leads the “middle” to nowhere.
This universe exists of, for one, NRx/neo-reaction. While NRx does have its highbrow academics, it’s also quite appealing to the middle. But NRx isn’t just not explicitly pro-white, it’s a way to take middle-brow whites away from explicit pro-white identity onto a garden path of irrelevancy. Instead of an explicit pro-white politics, you can emerge yourself into “trad Catholicism,” “anti-egalitarianism,” a reaction against “the Enlightenment,” and the manosphere and anti-feminism.
The “civic nationalism” of the likes of (((Rebel Media))) is also an explicit appeal to the “middle” – it’s not high brow, but it’s more than just internet trolling as well. But of course (((Rebel Media))) isn’t pro-white at all – it’s pro-Jewish and anti-white. It’s all about “based Black guys” and “our Greatest Ally.” But it’s a way to get middle-brow whites on another garden path that leads away from explict pro-whiteness to some sort of vague “right wing” or “conservative” politics that puts race – whiteness – last, after virtually all other issues.
To be clear, the “middle” is NOT civic nationalism, or cultural libertarianism. The “middle” is NOT some sort of middle ground between explicit White Nationalism and some sort of “liberals are the real racists.” The “middle” is a cultural middle that isn’t just the academic philosphy of the “high” but also isn’t the “counter-signaling everything normal” of the “low” internet trolling culture.
If the White movement can’t get the middle – it will continue to lose average, normal White people to NRx, (((Rebel Media))) civic nationalism and more and more Whites are going to go down the garden path of mere “implicit whiteness.”
The people who can and do appeal to the middle? Two prominent figures: Richard Spencer and Paul Ramsey. Both are 100% pro-White, Ramsey is 100% solid on the Jewish problem and Spencer has been getting better on the Jewish problem more and more.
Yet there is now a rift between the two figures precisely over the issue of “low brow” trolling. Ramsey’s mild criticism of “Hailgate” triggered Spencer so hard now he’s calling Ramsey a “faggot.” The low brow found Spencer’s Achilles Heel – call Spencer a “faggot” enough times and he’ll break. After a year of being attacked by the “troll army” as a “bisexual” and “secretly run by the gay mafia” Spencer is now counter-signaling against middle-brow pro-whiteness and embracing the same crowd that spent two years calling him a “faggot.”
Instead of the “middle” being explicitly pro-white, we’re seeing NRx, “trad Catholicism” and “muh egalitarianism” take the space in the “middle” – the difference being that if you are interested in NRx, trad Catholicism and “muh anti-Enlightenment” – you are going to get a better dose of it from the originators, not the pale shadow of it from the Alt Right.
And if you are interested in Nazi LARPing and 4chan trolling – Andrew Anglin is always going to be better than you. You can’t out-troll the King Troll.
So the WN movement is back where it was ten years ago – a high brow, and a low brow, with a shrinking middle that is being co-opted by those who put other issues before race.
4Chan is 20 years old now. What happens when the disaffected trolls grow up, get married, and grow out of posting Hitler memes and screeds about “degeneracy?” Most are NOT going to become academics and start writing for Kevin MacDonald or Counter-Currents. They are going to be looking for an explicit pro-white movement that is somewhere in the “middle” – NOT ideologically, but stylistically, culturally.
Who is going to fill that space?