Capitalism, Zionism, Exploitation, etc.

I lived in PA for over a year. Johnstown to be exact.
It seemed mostly anti racist there though even amongst many white people.
NE PA seems to be the nicest place in PA just in general and seems to be one of the few places in the state trying to clean itself up like Scranton/Wilkes Barre.

To respond to some of the posts here, I followed the Ludwig Von Misses website.. Someone in the past that I used to talk to always went on that site. This same person actually introduced me to other people online such as Peter Schiff.. I even got into the whole gold thing but realized there was tons of work to it and even more when I sold the few gold coins I did buy and the guy who bought them off me had all this equipment to inspect the gold. Thats when I realized that it would be a hassle to get fully into it + combine that with the fact that Gold can burst too and isn't unstoppable completely. I bought a few gold 5 dollar coins from Canada at lower prices and made some money on them, but thats as far as it went.

As far as capitalism. I am not completely anti capitalist.. I am just anti big business. I like having all small businesses or as many as possible. I do not like monopolies.

I find it funny someone would list both Che and Hitler in his inspirations.. Che was more than likely a secret racist, but since communism doesn't promote racism, it looked like he was a complete multiculturalist, same with Mao or Stalin but they'd marry their own kind if given the chance.. I can bet you.

I have held "non racist" societal visions before but realized they wouldn't work because multiculturalism doesn't work but give me your opinion of them anyhow.. Say you have guarded borders like how many nationalists want to have. You would be screeened at the gates of the country like with a polygraph system. The people would police the place and the main government would be at the borders.. Sound a lot like nationalism doesn't it? Only in the past, I proposed it would be multicultural instead, just with the functional members of the multicultural class and all undesirables of all races would be purged or kicked out. Only educated blacks, hispanics, whites, asians apply. Nowadays I switched the approach to Nationalism so as I learn more, I adjust my views. All I was doing was trying to think of the society that could have worked but all this really sounds like is communism or Star Trek since you need lower class people to do certain jobs so might as well make it a one race society with less classism. Who is gonna fix the pipes otherwise is how I look at it.

ALSO I forgot to add how assuming this multiculturalist society came together with some similar rules as nationalism.. It would actually open doors for nationalism to start since you would have all educated members of all the races and would start to have kids in seperate communities. If this world could start just so this would occur, then I would do it this way since there are members of all races bringing all races down. I didn't really think of killing anyone when proposing this society, just deport anyone detrimental.

Also I was once pro choice in a multicultural society and pro choice in a different kind of way. A way that we were such a crowded society as a multiculturalist world, so being pro choice wasn't so bad to me since it meant less future problems being born, but I realize I am pro life now in a ONE RACE society. My friend was pro life at the time I held these pro choice views, but I was thinking of it non racially and assumed he was too since I never really discussed race. I could have easily been perceived as a communist.. my father thought I was because I didn't believe in a god. I just told my pro life christian friend that I didn't agree with pro life (with race not being discussed) because we are crowded enough with so many people now. What happened was I used to hold racist views, but changed to more multicultural thinking because I have lost jobs or friendship opportunities because I called blacks niggers and stuff, but now I am back to nationalist thinking again because I have had it rough getting a job with many illegals here and stuff and I actually am the type to put myself around homeless people rather than avoid them and especially hear out some of the white homeless people or white struggling lower class folk who have had it hard. True communists don't really do this kind of thing.

MeltinGiovanni wrote:To respond to some of the posts here, I followed the Ludwig Von Misses website.. Someone in the past that I used to talk to always went on that site. This same person actually introduced me to other people online such as Peter Schiff.. I even got into the whole gold thing but realized there was tons of work to it and even more when I sold the few gold coins I did buy and the guy who bought them off me had all this equipment to inspect the gold. Thats when I realized that it would be a hassle to get fully into it + combine that with the fact that Gold can burst too and isn't unstoppable completely. I bought a few gold 5 dollar coins from Canada at lower prices and made some money on them, but thats as far as it went.

The figures associated with the Austrian school of economics are among the most nauseating bourgeois apologists in the entire history of capitalism. The Ludwig von Mises Institute, in particular, engages in the worst sort of reactionary disinformation imaginable. The deceptive gold bug, Peter Schiff, is definitely an appropriate representative of that lot. The only person I even vaguely appreciate who's slightly associated with the Austrian school of economics is the mutualist theorist, Kevin Carson.

As far as capitalism. I am not completely anti capitalist.. I am just anti big business. I like having all small businesses or as many as possible. I do not like monopolies.

How do you suppose we keep businesses small? Are you of the Rothbardian opinion that the only reason corporations even exist today is because of government regulations (which allegedly serve as difficult barriers to entry for smaller firms) and that, under "genuine" laissez-faire market conditions, corporations wouldn't be operationally viable? Or are you suggesting some form of trust-busting?

Moreover importantly, how exactly is a small business any less alienating or exploitative than their larger counterparts? Having labored under both forms of capitalist enterprise, I can tell you, unequivocally, that there's very little difference between them if you're a proletarian—in fact, in many ways, smaller businesses can be even worse. I suppose from a purely superficial level, chain stores are something of an eyesore on the public landscape, but I fail to see how prohibiting them is worthy of any sort of political activism.

I find it funny someone would list both Che and Hitler in his inspirations.. Che was more than likely a secret racist, but since communism doesn't promote racism, it looked like he was a complete multiculturalist, same with Mao or Stalin but they'd marry their own kind if given the chance.. I can bet you.

Che Guevara certainly held racist views during certain periods in his life. Apparently, he referred to Mexicans as being little more than "illiterate Indians" and—according to the black-Cuban capitalist, Luis Pons—when Che was asked, during a radio interview he gave shortly following Cuban Revolution, what the revolution intended to do to advance black interests, he responded: "We're going to do for blacks exactly what blacks did for the revolution. By which I mean: nothing" [Fontova, Humberto. Exposing the Real Che Guevara, p. 167].

Not all communists were in favor of multiculturalism historically. In fact, the contemporary Left has (to varying degrees) revised what proletarian internationalism historically meant in order to make multiculturalism seem to represent the very essence of the theory.

MeltinGiovanni wrote:I lived in PA for over a year. Johnstown to be exact.
It seemed mostly anti racist there though even amongst many white people.
NE PA seems to be the nicest place in PA just in general and seems to be one of the few places in the state trying to clean itself up like Scranton/Wilkes Barre.

I have a lady friend from Johnstown.

To respond to some of the posts here, I followed the Ludwig Von Misses website.. Someone in the past that I used to talk to always went on that site. This same person actually introduced me to other people online such as Peter Schiff.. I even got into the whole gold thing but realized there was tons of work to it and even more when I sold the few gold coins I did buy and the guy who bought them off me had all this equipment to inspect the gold. Thats when I realized that it would be a hassle to get fully into it + combine that with the fact that Gold can burst too and isn't unstoppable completely. I bought a few gold 5 dollar coins from Canada at lower prices and made some money on them, but thats as far as it went.

I am not a fan of gold or the gold standard. Gold isn't even a useful commodity, it is just a hunk of metal found in the ground. Only thing it is, is rare.

As far as capitalism. I am not completely anti capitalist.. I am just anti big business. I like having all small businesses or as many as possible. I do not like monopolies.

To be honest, small time family owned business do not bother me so much as big time capitalist enterprises, however; I do think it would be fairer if the workers ran those businesses and the surplus value wasn't given to the owner.

I find it funny someone would list both Che and Hitler in his inspirations.. Che was more than likely a secret racist, but since communism doesn't promote racism, it looked like he was a complete multiculturalist, same with Mao or Stalin but they'd marry their own kind if given the chance.. I can bet you.

Che Guevara and Adolf Hitler held one thing in common - Love for truth and their people.

"The greatest possession you can have in the whole world is your own people" - Adolf Hitler

"The true revolutionary is guided by feelings of love" - Che Guevara

I have held "non racist" societal visions before but realized they wouldn't work because multiculturalism doesn't work but give me your opinion of them anyhow.. Say you have guarded borders like how many nationalists want to have. You would be screeened at the gates of the country like with a polygraph system. The people would police the place and the main government would be at the borders.. Sound a lot like nationalism doesn't it? Only in the past, I proposed it would be multicultural instead, just with the functional members of the multicultural class and all undesirables of all races would be purged or kicked out. Only educated blacks, hispanics, whites, asians apply. Nowadays I switched the approach to Nationalism so as I learn more, I adjust my views. All I was doing was trying to think of the society that could have worked but all this really sounds like is communism or Star Trek since you need lower class people to do certain jobs so might as well make it a one race society with less classism. Who is gonna fix the pipes otherwise is how I look at it.

I do apologize but I am really not sure what you are trying to say, no offence intended. I support a strong Nationalist and Socialist nation where the people share a common goal. You won't have capitalists working simply for their own profit; rather you will have workers - the men who build the nation all working for the betterment of their nation. Those who contribute will be taken care of by their fellow workers and the state.

ALSO I forgot to add how assuming this multiculturalist society came together with some similar rules as nationalism.. It would actually open doors for nationalism to start since you would have all educated members of all the races and would start to have kids in seperate communities. If this world could start just so this would occur, then I would do it this way since there are members of all races bringing all races down. I didn't really think of killing anyone when proposing this society, just deport anyone detrimental.

I support one nation for OUR people. No outsiders. That's it.

Also I was once pro choice in a multicultural society and pro choice in a different kind of way. A way that we were such a crowded society as a multiculturalist world, so being pro choice wasn't so bad to me since it meant less future problems being born, but I realize I am pro life now in a ONE RACE society. My friend was pro life at the time I held these pro choice views, but I was thinking of it non racially and assumed he was too since I never really discussed race. I could have easily been perceived as a communist.. my father thought I was because I didn't believe in a god. I just told my pro life christian friend that I didn't agree with pro life (with race not being discussed) because we are crowded enough with so many people now. What happened was I used to hold racist views, but changed to more multicultural thinking because I have lost jobs or friendship opportunities because I called blacks niggers and stuff, but now I am back to nationalist thinking again because I have had it rough getting a job with many illegals here and stuff and I actually am the type to put myself around homeless people rather than avoid them and especially hear out some of the white homeless people or white struggling lower class folk who have had it hard. True communists don't really do this kind of thing.

I am pro life for all healthy white babies as well. I am not a christian either, no matter what religion you are, infanticide is still a crime.

Celtiberian wrote:

How do you suppose we keep businesses small? Are you of the Rothbardian opinion that the only reason corporations even exist today is because of government regulations which serve as barriers to entry for smaller firms and that, under "real" laissez-faire market conditions, corporations wouldn't be operationally viable? Or are you suggesting some form of trust-busting?

I am in full agreement with your message, but I am curious as to the bold. Was it not Murray Rothbard who wrote the following in his Man, Economy, and State?

Finally, the question may be raised: Are corporations themselves mere grants of monopoly privilege? Some advocates of the free market were persuaded to accept this view by Walter Lippmann’s The Good Society.[77] It should be clear from previous discussion, however, that corporations are not at all monopolistic privileges; they are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such men would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation, and that beyond this their personal funds are not liable for debts, as they would be under a partnership arrangement. It then rests with the sellers and lenders to this corporation to decide whether or not they will transact business with it. If they do, then they proceed at their own risk. Thus, the government does not grant corporations a privilege of limited liability; anything announced and freely contracted for in advance is a right of a free individual, not a special privilege. It is not necessary that governments grant charters to corporations.[78]

* http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap15d.asp

The claim by laissez-faire capitalists that a "perfectly" free market would not tend toward monopoly and oligopoly power as all other derivatives of capitalism invariably do is a pipe dream. Capitalism is structurally inclined toward collusion due to the fact that it is geared toward expansion. To assert otherwise is to fly in the face of the logical underpinnings of the system and real world experience under capitalism.

Revolutionary Wolf wrote:I am in full agreement with your message, but I am curious as to the bold. Was it not Murray Rothbard who wrote the following in his Man, Economy, and State?

Finally, the question may be raised: Are corporations themselves mere grants of monopoly privilege? Some advocates of the free market were persuaded to accept this view by Walter Lippmann’s The Good Society.[77] It should be clear from previous discussion, however, that corporations are not at all monopolistic privileges; they are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such men would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation, and that beyond this their personal funds are not liable for debts, as they would be under a partnership arrangement. It then rests with the sellers and lenders to this corporation to decide whether or not they will transact business with it. If they do, then they proceed at their own risk. Thus, the government does not grant corporations a privilege of limited liability; anything announced and freely contracted for in advance is a right of a free individual, not a special privilege. It is not necessary that governments grant charters to corporations.[78]

* http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap15d.asp

Like most "anarcho"-capitalists, Rothbard spent a considerable amount of time attempting to persuade people that corporations, as we know them today, would fail to exist within the context of a laissez-faire market—since competition would be heightened; smaller firms could more easily take advantage of vital tacit knowledge relative to the layers of bureaucracy large corporations are forced to go through; "state granted privileges" would cease to exist; etc. He employed this sort of populist rhetoric to a substantial degree during the 1960s, when he wrote Man, Economy, and State, and was attempting his opportunistic appeal to the New Left with his short-lived journal, Left and Right: A Journal of Libertarian Thought. Towards the latter part of his career, he was far more blunt about the appallingly reactionary nature of the political philosophy he espoused.

The truth of the matter is, libertarians have no particular problem with corporations per se, so long as they can survive on the market "without state assistance." Even if we took it for granted that corporations would either cease to exist, or at least dramatically change in character within some hypothetical laissez-faire market, the most preposterous assumption libertarians make is to think you could ever actually separate the state from capital (the former primarily exists to serve the interests of the latter within the capitalist mode of production). The "anarcho"-capitalists think they can get around this problem by advocating on behalf of the complete privatization of state functions, but anyone possessing a shred of common sense realizes that the bourgeoisie would do all that it possibly could to reestablish a traditional government as soon as possible. Anyone who has ever seriously studied how capitalism functions knows just how profound the extent to which capital depends on constant assistance from the state just to survive. Absent an intervening state, capitalism would be so unstable that I doubt I could last a decade before completely imploding. Such a realization will never dawn on the minarchist and "anarcho"-capitalist extremists, of course.

Celtiberian wrote:

MeltinGiovanni wrote:To respond to some of the posts here, I followed the Ludwig Von Misses website.. Someone in the past that I used to talk to always went on that site. This same person actually introduced me to other people online such as Peter Schiff.. I even got into the whole gold thing but realized there was tons of work to it and even more when I sold the few gold coins I did buy and the guy who bought them off me had all this equipment to inspect the gold. Thats when I realized that it would be a hassle to get fully into it + combine that with the fact that Gold can burst too and isn't unstoppable completely. I bought a few gold 5 dollar coins from Canada at lower prices and made some money on them, but thats as far as it went.

The figures associated with the Austrian school of economics are among the most nauseating bourgeois apologists in the entire history of capitalism. The Ludwig von Mises Institute, in particular, engages in the worst sort of reactionary disinformation imaginable. The deceptive gold bug, Peter Schiff, is definitely an appropriate representative of that lot. The only person I even vaguely appreciate, who's slightly associated with the Austrian school of economics, is the mutualist theorist, Kevin Carson.

As far as capitalism. I am not completely anti capitalist.. I am just anti big business. I like having all small businesses or as many as possible. I do not like monopolies.

How do you suppose we keep businesses small? Are you of the Rothbardian opinion that the only reason corporations even exist today is because of government regulations (which allegedly serve as difficult barriers to entry for smaller firms) and that, under "genuine" laissez-faire market conditions, corporations wouldn't be operationally viable? Or are you suggesting some form of trust-busting?

Moreover importantly, how exactly is a small business any less alienating or exploitative than their larger counterparts? Having labored under both forms of capitalist enterprise, I can tell you, unequivocally, that there's very little difference between them if you're a proletarian—in fact, in many ways, smaller businesses can be even worse. I suppose from a purely superficial level, chain stores are something of an eyesore on the public landscape, but I fail to see how prohibiting them is worthy of any sort of political activism.

I find it funny someone would list both Che and Hitler in his inspirations.. Che was more than likely a secret racist, but since communism doesn't promote racism, it looked like he was a complete multiculturalist, same with Mao or Stalin but they'd marry their own kind if given the chance.. I can bet you.

Che Guevara certainly held racist views during certain periods in his life. Apparently, he referred to Mexicans as being little more than "illiterate Indians" and—according to the black-Cuban capitalist, Luis Pons—when Che was asked, during a radio interview he gave shortly following Cuban Revolution, what the revolution intended to do to advance black interests, he responded: "We're going to do for blacks exactly what blacks did for the revolution. By which I mean: nothing" [Fontova, Humberto. Exposing the Real Che Guevara , p. 167].

As far as the Ludwig Von Mises institute yes, I was referred there, but this person was a college student as well and was interested in anarchy, but wasn't a punk rocker exactly outside of some and a little ska music. More a Social D fan or alternative rock. He has potential for WN though since he never dated black and is from the south.. He claims what Abraham Lincoln did was an atrocity and hes right there. He wants to see a better america, but not the type to say Jews are evil or anything. He likes Schiff, but at the same time says if he were president he wouldn't be perfect at all and his policy would be destructive since an economy cant run fully on gold and that I believe is true. When there was a stockpile of gold last, there was a great depression in reverse. He told me his uncle collected gold and was a smart investor so this is why I was real curious about gold and even bought a few places. I didn't lose the money on the gold I sold though.. I gained, BUT if I were to hold onto it forever, I would be fucked more than likely no doubt. Peter Schiff identifies with the Ron Paul type or a 3rd party guy so I looked at him as a reliable source + he predicted the crash. A good way to indicate though is if a jew like Schiff has bad press from other jews or not. If he does, then maybe hes trustworthy, but until then doesn't seem so. Its like Leonard Cohen.. He gets no press negative or even lots of people that glorify him. I have no idea where he stands even though Bob Dylan is well known and gets press and even negative, but you look up Leonard Cohen (like Schiff) and you will not find much.. I know I am ranting but thats my point anyhow.

As far as corporations go, I believe that if there was no goverment to regulate who got big and who didn't, I feel that whoever would provide the BEST service brings the people and that business becomes rich and well, they can do whatever they want with the money then I suppose. Say we take a world with all smaller business where theres true competition. Someones eventually gonna win and get big, but I don't believe ALL these big corporations provide the best service. Ebay is most convenient of all and they are the biggest, but like take Wells Fargo.. I heard so much bad shit about them, but they only seem to be growing. Wachovia is bad as well but that is banking, different from other types of business. Goodwill for instance started off small and look at how big they got.. Is it because they have the best service and best selection? No, but maybe its because Salvation Army gets a bad rap for something else because of them not wanting to support gays or something. I personally think some of these mom and pop thrift stores have a lot if you look. If you look at Wal Mart vs Kmart, is the service any better? I doubt it. It might even be better at KMart depending actually and they are the littler guy now. I am not drawn to big business because it destroys neighborhoods and takes away many local jobs. I believe in a world in which big business exists only IF they are truly the BEST. This is not the case with Wal Mart. Maybe it WAS back in the 70s and 80s but not once they started expanding. Even if I were a capitalist say who started a business, I would never want it to get too huge. You have to consider that too. Its also pretty selfish to make a huge franchise out of a place. I figure hey, make my business successful, but I am not ever getting too huge since it will ruin the quality that I worked hard to build. I wouldn't want my name attached to an evil business at the end of the day so I EMBRACE Successful SMALL business on the whole.

Yea see.. in the USA our brand of communism is a bit different. Ours embraces full multiculturalism. Its more like an Oilgarchy though I would say and we are quite politically correct here in the US these days. I am not so sure that true communism was as politically correct racially as we are here since there were not all types of people like we have here. This style of government is an Oligarchy anyhow. The ruling class who has all the money is a small few and they do all the manipulating.. I do not think the Illuminati control the media though like many anarchists seem to think. Illuminati is just what it is.. Seems to be a myth that the jews are blaming and making it sound too real, but anyways I think that communism traditionally only involved one race of people.

Break down that last part for me.. Maybe its because its late AM but break this down again for me:


Not all communists were in favor of multiculturalism historically. In fact, the contemporary Left has (to varying degrees) revised what proletarian internationalism historically meant in order to make multiculturalism seem to represent the very essence of the theory

Celtiberian wrote:Like most "anarcho"-capitalists, Rothbard spent a considerable amount of time attempting to persuade people that corporations, as we know them today, would fail to exist within the context of a laissez-faire market—since competition would be heightened; smaller firms could more easily take advantage of vital tacit knowledge relative to the layers of bureaucracy large corporations are forced to go through; "state granted privileges" would cease to exist; etc. He employed this sort of populist rhetoric to a substantial degree during the 1960s, when he wrote Man, Economy, and State, and was attempting his opportunistic appeal to the New Left with his short-lived journal, Left and Right: A Journal of Libertarian Thought. Towards the latter part of his career, he was far more blunt about the appallingly reactionary nature of the political philosophy he espoused.

The truth of the matter is, libertarians have no particular problem with corporations per se, so long as they can survive on the market "without state assistance." Even if we took it for granted that corporations would either cease to exist, or at least dramatically change in character within some hypothetical laissez-faire market, the most preposterous assumption libertarians make is to think you could ever actually separate the state from capital (the former primarily exists to serve the interests of the latter within the capitalist mode of production). The "anarcho"-capitalists think they can get around this problem by advocating on behalf of the complete privatization of state functions, but anyone possessing a shred of common sense realizes that the bourgeoisie would do all that it possibly could to reestablish a traditional government as soon as possible. Anyone who has ever seriously studied how capitalism functions knows just how profound the extent to which capital depends on constant assistance from the state just to survive. Absent an intervening state, capitalism would be so unstable that I doubt I could last a decade before completely imploding. Such a realization will never dawn on the minarchist and "anarcho"-capitalist extremists, of course.

All right. I only wanted to point to the fact that even such a libertarian idol as Rothbard admitted to the possibility of the corporate form and, by extension, monopoly power in general arising within purely unregulated markets. The often adjoined allegation that unregulated markets would serve to greatly undermine such "corruptions" of free market capitalism is, at least insofar as regarding the long-term trends of the system, mere conjecture. I have never quite understood why the existence of the state serves as an alleged necessary precondition for the corporate form and collusion as a whole. To my understanding, human beings are capable of conspiring within or without a formal institution.

SSocialistStateSS wrote:I have a lady friend from Johnstown.

Nice, is she your gf exactly? Small world. I was in Westmont

I am not a fan of gold or the gold standard. Gold isn't even a useful commodity, it is just a hunk of metal found in the ground. Only thing it is, is rare.

True. It is worth a lot for the reason its rare. I won't be moving far from gold country now so I might even be able to grab some and sell. People are buying it still

To be honest, small time family owned business do not bother me so much as big time capitalist enterprises, however; I do think it would be fairer if the workers ran those businesses and the surplus value wasn't given to the owner.

You think like that huh? Well like Mike McColgan says THERE is power in a union! I think the business owner should run a business how he wants, but at the same time he shouldn't be allowed to exploit anyone either. Pay cheaper wages and have tons of people do the jobs so it doesn't get too complicated and out of hand OR go to who will willingly pay you more. I am not a fan of the minimum wage if thats any idea.

Che Guevara and Adolf Hitler held one thing in common - Love for truth and their people.

"The greatest possession you can have in the whole world is your own people" - Adolf Hitler

"The true revolutionary is guided by feelings of love" - Che Guevara

It seems so, only said a little bit differently by both. So do you think its possible that if I go into a coffee shop that has Ches picture up, they could also be truly nationalist like on this forum? I always got the impression many like that embraced multiculturalism and anti racism to be like this kind of deal here.

I do apologize but I am really not sure what you are trying to say, no offence intended. I support a strong Nationalist and Socialist nation where the people share a common goal. You won't have capitalists working simply for their own profit; rather you will have workers - the men who build the nation all working for the betterment of their nation. Those who contribute will be taken care of by their fellow workers and the state.

I even forget, I was just talking about how like 6 months ago I had a vision where higher classes of multiculturalist society could exist if you kick out all criminals or problematic people, but one thing I realized was someone could be born by a non criminal educated black parent and could spawn genes from the parents criminal brother or something. I don't support this anymore. The people all need to have a common goal so me and you agree here. You cant have a bunch of multicultural people with totally different goals unless you yourself want to destroy society. This society you propose where the government is big on treating all the workers good include pensions kinda like in the yrs of old when state jobs treated you good. Even Charles Bukowski worked for the Post Office if thats any indication and I considered it too.. only problem is most they hire these days are NON WHITE. I got news for you though, it seems better to be a crew guy with a lot of support than to be a capitalist only working to make tons of money but at the same time, working really hard long hours yourself along with your labor who might turn their back on you if given another opportunity EVEN IN SMALL BUSINESS so I could lean toward this belief of yours.

I support one nation for OUR people. No outsiders. That's it.

Yes but here I was talking about how if this "multicultural society" could work, it would only be to open the doors for race nationalism with every races criminals and problems out of the country and MOST would be white anyhow since the polygraph tests would have questions that many blacks couldn't answer or whatever. It would be perceived as racism without me claiming racism to some anyhow.

I am pro life for all healthy white babies as well. I am not a christian either, no matter what religion you are, infanticide is still a crime.

This is true as well

Nice, is she your gf exactly? Small world. I was in Westmont

Haha I wish, maybe soon.

True. It is worth a lot for the reason its rare. I won't be moving far from gold country now so I might even be able to grab some and sell. People are buying it still

Hey, if it puts money in your hands to prepare yourself for the revolution go for it.

You think like that huh? Well like Mike McColgan says THERE is power in a union! I think the business owner should run a business how he wants, but at the same time he shouldn't be allowed to exploit anyone either. Pay cheaper wages and have tons of people do the jobs so it doesn't get too complicated and out of hand OR go to who will willingly pay you more. I am not a fan of the minimum wage if thats any idea.

I personally think any career that actually produces a commodity (like a trade) shouldn't even have an owner for their business (except the workers themselves) and that wages should be abolished for such a job. Instead workers get paid for the product they produce. Part of that payment would be put into keeping their own shop in good shape and the cost of materials. I am not sure how exactly this system would work with "unproductive labor" though, jobs that don't produce a tangible commodity. Perhaps CeltIberian has a good answer for this one? His posts are usually enlightening.

It seems so, only said a little bit differently by both. So do you think its possible that if I go into a coffee shop that has Ches picture up, they could also be truly nationalist like on this forum? I always got the impression many like that embraced multiculturalism and anti racism to be like this kind of deal here.

It is possible, but at the very least they are probably anti-cappie. Which is a good thing in itself, however; if you look at revleft I am a bit worried about the types of people that seem to be attracted to left wing revolutions. I certainly consider myself left wing, and a racialist no doubt. However, I am also strictly conservative as opposed to some of the freaks on revleft. Bis, gays, transfestites, femminists, race mixers. They have no place in my ideal state.

I even forget, I was just talking about how like 6 months ago I had a vision where higher classes of multiculturalist society could exist if you kick out all criminals or problematic people, but one thing I realized was someone could be born by a non criminal educated black parent and could spawn genes from the parents criminal brother or something. I don't support this anymore. The people all need to have a common goal so me and you agree here. You cant have a bunch of multicultural people with totally different goals unless you yourself want to destroy society. This society you propose where the government is big on treating all the workers good include pensions kinda like in the yrs of old when state jobs treated you good. Even Charles Bukowski worked for the Post Office if thats any indication and I considered it too.. only problem is most they hire these days are NON WHITE. I got news for you though, it seems better to be a crew guy with a lot of support than to be a capitalist only working to make tons of money but at the same time, working really hard long hours yourself along with your labor who might turn their back on you if given another opportunity EVEN IN SMALL BUSINESS so I could lean toward this belief of yours.

Yes, the people all need a common goal to work for that is true. Everyone needs to be working for the betterment of their race and nation, and anyone who contributes is our comrade and likewise their being is just important as our own being. We are not merely a collection of individuals but we must be an individual in itself. We are one machine, where each person represents a cog in the machine. Each one is important and keeps the machine running tight. As A.H. so nobly put it, even if one of our comrades finds himself in the lowest position, we want him to know he has his people behind him, and his property and opportunities in life are insured.

Yes but here I was talking about how if this "multicultural society" could work, it would only be to open the doors for race nationalism with every races criminals and problems out of the country and MOST would be white anyhow since the polygraph tests would have questions that many blacks couldn't answer or whatever. It would be perceived as racism without me claiming racism to some anyhow.

True, though I don't believe a multi cultural and multi racial state is EVER desirable.

SSocialistStateSS wrote:Haha I wish, maybe soon.

Ah I see

Hey, if it puts money in your hands to prepare yourself for the revolution go for it.

Well I will then. It sure cannot hurt.

I personally think any career that actually produces a commodity (like a trade) shouldn't even have an owner for their business (except the workers themselves) and that wages should be abolished for such a job. Instead workers get paid for the product they produce. Part of that payment would be put into keeping their own shop in good shape and the cost of materials. I am not sure how exactly this system would work with "unproductive labor" though, jobs that don't produce a tangible commodity. Perhaps CeltIberian has a good answer for this one? His posts are usually enlightening.

But who do you think pays them? See I am thinking of a business like say a massage therapy facility or construction or plumbing. I don't think the state can control all jobs like this. There is always gonna be private enterprise in some shape or form. The state can't exactly monitor a workers progress either.. the workers maybe, but I dunno, I just can't see workers getting their paychecks right from their fellow workers and not the actual boss/manager. I think everyones too busy doing their own work. Theres unions now, but even then there are still managers and even private companies like GM and Ford had workers unions and they were private. I just cant see the state controlling everything.. its more idealistic if anything

It is possible, but at the very least they are probably anti-cappie. Which is a good thing in itself, however; if you look at revleft I am a bit worried about the types of people that seem to be attracted to left wing revolutions. I certainly consider myself left wing, and a racialist no doubt. However, I am also strictly conservative as opposed to some of the freaks on revleft. Bis, gays, transfestites, femminists, race mixers. They have no place in my ideal state.

I haven't gone on revleft, but looked briefly just now and they were asking why in rough times people go to the right and not the left. Someone answered how the left can be destructive so Hitler wins after all.

The true left now seems to be conservative like how are you are describing to be. Its almost like the communists in America aren't the real deal.. They take Ches picture but preach it a little bit differently since many people are indeed multiculturalists and if not, they support feminism at the very least. As far as gays, you can't stop someone from doing what they do in their bedroom. I dlslike more what the personalities of many gays have become. As far as being bi, it can happen if you haven't been with a woman or you will at least flirt with the idea if you feel you can't get a woman in your area or if you go to prison.. no women so guess what happens.. the men try to find the girliest looking guy they can haha. My stance on gay or bisexuality is just don't make it public or march around in the streets if you have thoughts in your head about it. I've been told by people in the past how pride events are so fun and stuff, but I never been to one and from the looks of it, it looked like tons of stereotypical gays went to them anyhow like the freakshows so ya, won't see me going to one of them. Now transsexuals is the main one I want to focus on here.. I did a study on them before and was trying to find out more about it. Many are the most unstable people in the world and on youtube if you look up the transgender community, you will find all these dude looking guys trying to transfer. Many are not passable.. only a few are. In my eyes if you are trying to change your sex, you are doing something unnatural. If you have certain "fem" traits about you, just be yourself as the sex you were born as. I don't believe in perfect gender roles all the time, but I don't support taking hormones and transitioning either.
Transsexuals and gays in their own right may be threats, but race mixing is still our biggest issue and feminists.

Yes, the people all need a common goal to work for that is true. Everyone needs to be working for the betterment of their race and nation, and anyone who contributes is our comrade and likewise their being is just important as our own being. We are not merely a collection of individuals but we must be an individual in itself. We are one machine, where each person represents a cog in the machine. Each one is important and keeps the machine running tight. As A.H. so nobly put it, even if one of our comrades finds himself in the lowest position, we want him to know he has his people behind him, and his property and opportunities in life are insured.

See I like this idea where everyone can work as a team and be more like one since in an individualist society, nobody gives a shit about anyone especially if you look around your streets today probably although in PA I do notice people stop to check on you if your off to the side of the road but if you go to L.A or Miami forget it. Everyone is out for themselves completely. It happens many places, but these are extreme examples of how destructive multiculturalism can be. It seems the only ones in Miami for instance that have community are the Cubans and guess what, Cuba is communist! Everyone else there seems to be SOL though with fake friends and backstabbers around them.

So in essence, I like this idea of the workers all contributing and being one, I just don't think everything can be state run. I like how the National Front is presented. Private businesses, but people get paid according to what the employer WANTS to pay and what wages they want to set since I don't like the minimum wage, this fits my philosophy. The economy would be great, but people also work together like you are talking about here. This seems more realistic to me, but thats just how I see it. The PLE sounds like the best idea plus working class celtic folk bands would be playing concerts all the time.

True, though I don't believe a multi cultural and multi racial state is EVER desirable.

I came to the realization of this awhile ago. It wouldn't work in any way shape or form..High class or low class. The supposed higher class "minorities" have defective genes somewhere to keep producing ghetto ish elements no matter how nice their neighborhoods can be or whatever the parents education level is. Look at Joakim Noah.. mixed race, came from a rich household, but acts ghetto as hell. It seems after all that you'd just be recreating this. Sometimes I've contemplated if mixed race biracial kids can turn out more dumb than dark black people even because of the gene mixing.

MeltinGiovanni wrote:As far as the Ludwig Von Mises institute yes, I was referred there, but this person was a college student as well and was interested in anarchy, but wasn't a punk rocker exactly outside of some and a little ska music. More a Social D fan or alternative rock. He has potential for WN though since he never dated black and is from the south..

Having lived in the South my entire life (originally Miami, more recently the northern part of the Florida), I can say with confidence that simply being of "Southern Heritage," as it were, doesn't endow one with the potential of being more receptive towards nationalism. Suffice it to say, things have changed quite a bit down here.

He claims what Abraham Lincoln did was an atrocity and hes right there.

I disagree. The Confederate States of America were backwards in almost every respect. The Southern workers themselves eventually came to the realization that they didn't stand to benefit at all by maintaining the Antebellum system of elitist agricultural production.

Abraham Lincoln did centralize authority in the Executive, but the nation was at war, so implementing such a policy is fairly understandable. And yes, the Union Army did commit unnecessary atrocities against the Southern states (i.e., General Sherman's scorched earth policy during his "March to the Sea" campaign), but the United States has been committing horrible atrocities throughout its entire existence—I fail to see how President Lincoln's crimes were in anyway unique or deserving of special emphasis; I mean, I've even read certain libertarian lunatics go so far as to label the man as having been a "National Socialist."

Peter Schiff identifies with the Ron Paul type or a 3rd party guy so I looked at him as a reliable source + he predicted the crash. A good way to indicate though is if a jew like Schiff has bad press from other jews or not. If he does, then maybe hes trustworthy, but until then doesn't seem so.

Plenty of people saw this crash coming, and many of them were on the opposite end of the political spectrum of Mr. Schiff—Marxists like Richard D. Wolff and John Bellamy Foster, for example, also predicted this current economic crisis. Anyone who has ever taken the time to study the history of capitalism knows that the system itself is innately prone to economic crises. The Austrian school, however, wrongly diagnose what actually causes these crises. In other words, the Austrian business cycle theory is fallacious.

As for the ever popular "Jewish media" theory, the fact that many of the owners of the corporations which, in turn, control media outlets happen to be Jewish doesn't tell us much, if anything. The media is biased precisely because it's controlled by said corporations, not because the owners of some of those corporations are of Jewish descent. Perhaps the pro-Israeli bias in the American media can be partially explained by the strength of the Israel Lobby and the extent to which Jewish individuals are in positions of power in the media establishment, but to extrapolate beyond that is absurd.

As far as corporations go, I believe that if there was no goverment to regulate who got big and who didn't, I feel that whoever would provide the BEST service brings the people and that business becomes rich and well, they can do whatever they want with the money then I suppose.

Fulfilling consumer desires—which are, in no small part, cultivated into people by the advertisement industry—doesn't address the fundamental injustice of capitalism: exploitation. Capitalists have absolutely no "right" to do whatever they wish with the profits their workers make for them. Perhaps this topic is deserving of a thread unto itself though.

I believe in a world in which big business exists only IF they are truly the BEST.

Why should we uncritically accept that whoever happens to persevere under conditions of market competition is the "best"? Providing superior goods or services are not the only methods by which firms survive on the market.

Yea see.. in the USA our brand of communism is a bit different. Ours embraces full multiculturalism. Its more like an Oilgarchy though I would say and we are quite politically correct here in the US these days.

Are you suggesting that the government of the United States is somehow "communist"? If so, I have to adamantly disagree with you.

Break down that last part for me.. Maybe its because its late AM but break this down again for me

Simply that there were several self-proclaimed 'communists' in history who didn't believe in multiculturalism. Moreover, the Marxian concept of proletarian internationalism does not necessarily lead one to the conclusion that organic nations are illegitimate entities which should be abolished and replaced by a borderless, culturally homogenized anarchism. Many individuals have interpreted proletarian internationalism differently (myself included), and basically assert that socialist movements throughout the world should be supported, but without any socialist nation losing its fundamental right to self-determination—see Walter Ulbricht's "Ten Commandments of Socialist Morality," for example.

MeltinGiovanni wrote:But who do you think pays them? See I am thinking of a business like say a massage therapy facility or construction or plumbing. I don't think the state can control all jobs like this. There is always gonna be private enterprise in some shape or form. The state can't exactly monitor a workers progress either.. the workers maybe, but I dunno, I just can't see workers getting their paychecks right from their fellow workers and not the actual boss/manager. I think everyones too busy doing their own work. Theres unions now, but even then there are still managers and even private companies like GM and Ford had workers unions and they were private. I just cant see the state controlling everything.. its more idealistic if anything

I don't want the state controlling everything, more so it would be more desirable for the workers to control it. The state controlling everything would be more like state capitalism, which is what the soviet union was. The paychecks would come from the customers. However, the workers control the company rather than a capitalist. So instead of a check going to the owner of the company so he can distribute the money into wages, investing, and profit for himself, the check goes directly to the workers and they distribute it out evenly based on the type of work that was done.

I haven't gone on revleft, but looked briefly just now and they were asking why in rough times people go to the right and not the left. Someone answered how the left can be destructive so Hitler wins after all.

I have an account there. Trust me, it is weird. They probably think I am a phony leftist just like they are, in love with all the tolerance and internationalism BS.

The true left now seems to be conservative like how are you are describing to be. Its almost like the communists in America aren't the real deal.. They take Ches picture but preach it a little bit differently since many people are indeed multiculturalists and if not, they support feminism at the very least. As far as gays, you can't stop someone from doing what they do in their bedroom. I dlslike more what the personalities of many gays have become. As far as being bi, it can happen if you haven't been with a woman or you will at least flirt with the idea if you feel you can't get a woman in your area or if you go to prison.. no women so guess what happens.. the men try to find the girliest looking guy they can haha. My stance on gay or bisexuality is just don't make it public or march around in the streets if you have thoughts in your head about it. I've been told by people in the past how pride events are so fun and stuff, but I never been to one and from the looks of it, it looked like tons of stereotypical gays went to them anyhow like the freakshows so ya, won't see me going to one of them. Now transsexuals is the main one I want to focus on here.. I did a study on them before and was trying to find out more about it. Many are the most unstable people in the world and on youtube if you look up the transgender community, you will find all these dude looking guys trying to transfer. Many are not passable.. only a few are. In my eyes if you are trying to change your sex, you are doing something unnatural. If you have certain "fem" traits about you, just be yourself as the sex you were born as. I don't believe in perfect gender roles all the time, but I don't support taking hormones and transitioning either.
Transsexuals and gays in their own right may be threats, but race mixing is still our biggest issue and feminists.

I understand we can't stop gays from doing what they do, I don't really care what they do in their own bedroom to be honest. I am strictly speaking of the run around in public in fetish outfits screaming pride and sissy type gays. That is not keeping it in the bedroom. I want to do away with this filthy sex culture. Transgenders are insane, there shouldn't be actual doctors who specialize in mutilating genitals. Agreed though race mixing is a huge threat and feminism breaks up marriage. Nothing worse than a woman with a career I always say...

See I like this idea where everyone can work as a team and be more like one since in an individualist society, nobody gives a shit about anyone especially if you look around your streets today probably although in PA I do notice people stop to check on you if your off to the side of the road but if you go to L.A or Miami forget it. Everyone is out for themselves completely. It happens many places, but these are extreme examples of how destructive multiculturalism can be. It seems the only ones in Miami for instance that have community are the Cubans and guess what, Cuba is communist! Everyone else there seems to be SOL though with fake friends and backstabbers around them.

The extreme individualism we see today is most likely a product of insane materialism and nihilism.

So in essence, I like this idea of the workers all contributing and being one, I just don't think everything can be state run. I like how the National Front is presented. Private businesses, but people get paid according to what the employer WANTS to pay and what wages they want to set since I don't like the minimum wage, this fits my philosophy. The economy would be great, but people also work together like you are talking about here. This seems more realistic to me, but thats just how I see it. The PLE sounds like the best idea plus working class celtic folk bands would be playing concerts all the time.

Well the employer (capitalist) paying what he WANTS to pay wouldn't help at all. He would pay as little as possible, just enough so the worker comes back the next day, so that he increases his profit. Capitalists only ever pay enough to reproduce the worker.

SSocialistStateSS wrote:I personally think any career that actually produces a commodity (like a trade) shouldn't even have an owner for their business (except the workers themselves) and that wages should be abolished for such a job. Instead workers get paid for the product they produce. Part of that payment would be put into keeping their own shop in good shape and the cost of materials. I am not sure how exactly this system would work with "unproductive labor" though, jobs that don't produce a tangible commodity. Perhaps CeltIberian has a good answer for this one? His posts are usually enlightening.

I actually went over that very topic, in detail, several months ago (see my posts in the 'Wage Labor: Absolute Evil or Not?' thread).

Celtiberian wrote:Having lived in the South my entire life (originally Miami, more recently the northern part of the Florida), I can say with confidence that simply being of "Southern Heritage," as it were, doesn't endow one with the potential of being more receptive towards nationalism. Suffice it to say, things have changed quite a bit down here.

I have learned this as well.. Actually don't be surprised if theres a tollerance reversal in the North and South. The South could actually be the place where all the gays and people in interracial relationships live down the road. The North like New England, Eastern PA, NY seem to be becoming more nationalist friendly or I could see it reversed anyhow from traditional stereotypes of both.

I disagree. The Confederate States of America were backwards in almost every respect. The Southern workers themselves eventually came to the realization that they didn't stand to benefit at all by maintaining the Antebellum system of elitist agricultural production.

Abraham Lincoln did centralize authority in the Executive, but the nation was at war, so implementing such a policy is fairly understandable. And yes, the Union Army did commit unnecessary atrocities against the Southern states (i.e., General Sherman's scorched earth policy during his "March to the Sea" campaign), but the United States has been committing horrible atrocities throughout its entire existence—I fail to see how President Lincoln's crimes were in anyway unique or deserving of special emphasis; I mean, I've even read certain libertarian lunatics go so far as to label the man as having been a "National Socialist."

Right.. they may not be a lot different from a lot of other shit, but its true, Lincoln was not a National Socialist. He was more a democrat more extreme than say someone like Al Gore, but ya NS, not at all. He freed the slaves to run amok here in the rest of the USA.. He didn't send them back to their homeland like a true NS would do.

Plenty of people saw this crash coming, and many of them were on the opposite end of the political spectrum of Mr. Schiff—Marxists like Richard D. Wolff and John Bellamy Foster, for example, also predicted this current economic crisis. Anyone who has ever taken the time to study the history of capitalism knows that the system itself is innately prone to economic crises. The Austrian school, however, wrongly diagnose what actually causes these crises. In other words, the Austrian business cycle theory is fallacious.

I don't like capitalism in ways that the business owners have ALL the say, however its tough to imagine it being a whole lot different. I could see unions within private companies though like the auto industry had though. The Austrian school of economics has too much business literature that I didn't want to completely sift through.. that was the problem and sure enough, it turns out to be misguided information. Theres books with several pages on that stuff.

As for the ever popular "Jewish media" theory, the fact that many of the owners of the corporations which, in turn, control media outlets happen to be Jewish doesn't tell us much, if anything. The media is biased precisely because it's controlled by said corporations, not because the owners of some of those corporations are of Jewish descent. Perhaps the pro-Israeli bias in the American media can be partially explained by the strength of the Israel Lobby and the extent to which Jewish individuals are in positions of power in the media establishment, but to extrapolate beyond that is absurd.

I believe much of the fact that corporations can control things to a small extent, just not all the media outlets, but I do believe The Jews in Hollywood do and the bank people like Goldman Sachs and the RothChilds. Even David Duke said it best... The guys pulling the strings are the ones to go after and a Woody Allen type is just that type of guy and made a Wizard of Oz reference as well. The ones who are good at hiding behind the things they do or some big bad monster, yet when you see them, they're as wimpy as can be. Corporations like Wal Mart I don't believe control the media as much though. Banks and the Jews in Hollywood do is what I would go with most.

Fulfilling consumer desires—which are, in no small part, cultivated into people by the advertisement industry—doesn't address the fundamental injustice of capitalism: exploitation. Capitalists have absolutely no "right" to do whatever they wish with the profits their workers make for them. Perhaps this topic is deserving of a thread unto itself though.

You do have a point there.. I do think its wrong to use people to help fund your personal desires like some business owners do. Like if you work for an italian restaurant even independently owned, I heard of stories where the owners drove flashy cars and went on Yachts quite often. This should not be. However, I still don't think all the workers can control certain things such as fine dining restaurants or even food service. We would have to be a unionized labor society where many people work in factories because its just tough to see this in many types of sectors.

Why should we uncritically accept that whoever happens to persevere under conditions of market competition is the "best"? Providing superior goods or services are not the only methods by which firms survive on the market.

The best is what people will go to. What more needs to be said about that? Does a corporation getting big because it sucks make sense? Only if it is propped up it will and thats wrong.

Are you suggesting that the government of the United States is somehow "communist"? If so, I have to adamantly disagree with you.

It tries to be I think and there are elements of it within the capitalism.. Some may actually consider Wal Mart to be communist because they get rid of all the other competition and want to be the only standing force. I said it was an Oligarchy if only you caught that part, but guess you didn't.

Simply that there were several self-proclaimed 'communists' in history who didn't believe in multiculturalism. Moreover, the Marxian concept of proletarian internationalism does not necessarily lead one to the conclusion that organic nations are illegitimate entities which should be abolished and replaced by a borderless, culturally homogenized anarchism. Many individuals have interpreted proletarian internationalism differently (myself included), and basically assert that socialist movements throughout the world should be supported, but without any socialist nation losing its fundamental right to self-determination—see Walter Ulbricht's "Ten Commandments of Socialist Morality," for example.

Most people are led to believe this, but do you actually know that Hitler wanted the European Union? The equivalent to the world without borders that the UN wants for North America. So yes, maybe communism does not always advocate this. Stalin didn't seem to include this in his beliefs in everything I read or even Che.

SSocialistStateSS wrote:I don't want the state controlling everything, more so it would be more desirable for the workers to control it. The state controlling everything would be more like state capitalism, which is what the soviet union was. The paychecks would come from the customers. However, the workers control the company rather than a capitalist. So instead of a check going to the owner of the company so he can distribute the money into wages, investing, and profit for himself, the check goes directly to the workers and they distribute it out evenly based on the type of work that was done.

So the paychecks would come from the customers?? That doesn't seem to add up. But dude, what if some of the crew members had no clue how to manage money? Sometimes thats best left for those who are experts at it. There might be a lot of fuck ups within a whole crew of workers controlling everything. Many are not business savvy or business minded. It seems like one of those things that sounds good on paper, but can't work. Your best bet.. work for a private company where the complete BEST shine and this includes service, management and who runs the place and the workers WILL be treated good and fair. Those who do not provide all these will fail and this even includes getting paid. Communism is right though in ways that if there were no workers, the capitalist be fucked, but workers need the capitalist as well.. You can't be black or white with things.. You need a mix of both. NTM like I said, everyone would be focused on their own work and cannot all keep track of everyone elses work and progress. If nobody can do that at all now, what makes you think they can all do that then? The capitalists and the management he hires are the best at assessing this. If its not broke, don't fix it. Just have enough jobs so that you won't have a select few taking double or triple the work load. Thats my main policy.

I have an account there. Trust me, it is weird. They probably think I am a phony leftist just like they are, in love with all the tolerance and internationalism BS.

I won't waste my time there honestly

I understand we can't stop gays from doing what they do, I don't really care what they do in their own bedroom to be honest. I am strictly speaking of the run around in public in fetish outfits screaming pride and sissy type gays. That is not keeping it in the bedroom. I want to do away with this filthy sex culture. Transgenders are insane, there shouldn't be actual doctors who specialize in mutilating genitals. Agreed though race mixing is a huge threat and feminism breaks up marriage. Nothing worse than a woman with a career I always say...

Right this is extremism.. You should not parade in the streets in latex and clown looking wigs and screaming GAY PRIDE! If you have the beliefs, keep em to yourself is my take and this comes from someone who understands that people can have thoughts. I actually like the idea of a nationalist group talking as a group about sexuality issues and how if you preach them openly it can be destructive like a small section dedicated to this topic and how you can think things, but its your job to control your actions and stuff. I suggested this on Stormfront as well.
Yes there are all kinds of crazy doctors out there that are trying experiments and WHY? Some people think they are trying to improve humanity by coming up with all these formulas and experimentations or cloning, but thats nonsense. Transgender people should do as everyone else should.. Have the feelings, even play around in your spare time if you are comfortable with it, just don't push it on everyone and actually get a sex change much like how I feel about being openly gay.

The extreme individualism we see today is most likely a product of insane materialism and nihilism.

This is exactly true.. Materialism did cause all this as well as nihilism. Nihilism looks so cool when you see it on TV like I believe in the Anarchist Cookbook they talked about Nihilism, but all it leads to is greed. I think you should believe in something at least and have more to live for than denying ALL existance of a greater power. If its not Jesus Christ, then make it something else is what I say. My new god is named Cumida Mumida.. I won him in a contest.. Just figure I'd tell you this.

Well the employer (capitalist) paying what he WANTS to pay wouldn't help at all. He would pay as little as possible, just enough so the worker comes back the next day, so that he increases his profit. Capitalists only ever pay enough to reproduce the worker.

If workers won't work for him for dirt cheap, he will have to raise his wages now won't he? I know its the standard argument that they will just pay next to NOTHING for the work, but if the people who want to work for him want to be paid more, he will have to pay them won't he? He just might have to jack up prices some if he feels he isn't making a ton of profit.

MeltinGiovanni wrote:So the paychecks would come from the customers?? That doesn't seem to add up. But dude, what if some of the crew members had no clue how to manage money? Sometimes thats best left for those who are experts at it. There might be a lot of fuck ups within a whole crew of workers controlling everything. Many are not business savvy or business minded. It seems like one of those things that sounds good on paper, but can't work. Your best bet.. work for a private company where the complete BEST shine and this includes service, management and who runs the place and the workers WILL be treated good and fair. Those who do not provide all these will fail and this even includes getting paid. Communism is right though in ways that if there were no workers, the capitalist be fucked, but workers need the capitalist as well.. You can't be black or white with things.. You need a mix of both. NTM like I said, everyone would be focused on their own work and cannot all keep track of everyone elses work and progress. If nobody can do that at all now, what makes you think they can all do that then? The capitalists and the management he hires are the best at assessing this. If its not broke, don't fix it. Just have enough jobs so that you won't have a select few taking double or triple the work load. Thats my main policy.

Yes, the money comes from the customers. Where do you think the capitalist gets the money to write paychecks anyway? The workers can elect someone to fairly distribute the money among themselves if they have trouble doing it, that dosn't mean this person owns the means to produce and takes more than he deserves though.

As for you saying the worker needs the capitalist, I STRONGLY disagree. Robert Blatchford couldn't have been more right when he wrote

"To say that we could not work without capital is as true as to say that we could not mow without a scythe. To say that we could not work without a capitalist is as false as to say that we could not mow a meadow unless all the scythes belonged to one man. Nay, it is as false as to say that we could not mow unless all the scythes belonged to one man and he took a third of the harvest as payment for the loan of them."

Right this is extremism.. You should not parade in the streets in latex and clown looking wigs and screaming GAY PRIDE! If you have the beliefs, keep em to yourself is my take and this comes from someone who understands that people can have thoughts. I actually like the idea of a nationalist group talking as a group about sexuality issues and how if you preach them openly it can be destructive like a small section dedicated to this topic and how you can think things, but its your job to control your actions and stuff. I suggested this on Stormfront as well.
Yes there are all kinds of crazy doctors out there that are trying experiments and WHY? Some people think they are trying to improve humanity by coming up with all these formulas and experimentations or cloning, but thats nonsense. Transgender people should do as everyone else should.. Have the feelings, even play around in your spare time if you are comfortable with it, just don't push it on everyone and actually get a sex change much like how I feel about being openly gay.

Agreed.

This is exactly true.. Materialism did cause all this as well as nihilism. Nihilism looks so cool when you see it on TV like I believe in the Anarchist Cookbook they talked about Nihilism, but all it leads to is greed. I think you should believe in something at least and have more to live for than denying ALL existance of a greater power. If its not Jesus Christ, then make it something else is what I say. My new god is named Cumida Mumida.. I won him in a contest.. Just figure I'd tell you this.

lol what. I am not sure what you mean by Cumida Mumida. But I agree. We should all have something we work for the greater of; not just mindless individualism. We all need to pledge ourselves to a higher cause. I am not sure who said it but they said it well when they said "Atheism is the return of man to an animal state".

If workers won't work for him for dirt cheap, he will have to raise his wages now won't he? I know its the standard argument that they will just pay next to NOTHING for the work, but if the people who want to work for him want to be paid more, he will have to pay them won't he? He just might have to jack up prices some if he feels he isn't making a ton of profit.

That is what labor unions were about. We wouldn't need those however if we just break the process of wage slavery. No need to jack up prices at all then.

MeltinGiovanni wrote:I have learned this as well.. Actually don't be surprised if theres a tollerance reversal in the North and South. The South could actually be the place where all the gays and people in interracial relationships live down the road. The North like New England, Eastern PA, NY seem to be becoming more nationalist friendly or I could see it reversed anyhow from traditional stereotypes of both.

This seems very plausible to me.

He freed the slaves to run amok here in the rest of the USA.. He didn't send them back to their homeland like a true NS would do.

Well, he was assassinated after all.. Moreover,

"Like Jefferson, Lincoln favored African repatriation for freed slaves or their colonization elsewhere—as did many abolitionists, including blacks. The fact is that very few Americans before or after the war could imagine an America that included whites and blacks on the basis of full equality.

For this reason, among others, Lincoln was never bitter or recriminating toward white Southerners."
Delbanco, Andrew. The Portable Abraham Lincoln, p. XVIII

I don't like capitalism in ways that the business owners have ALL the say, however its tough to imagine it being a whole lot different.

I'm reminded of the trite remark that it's "easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism," and I couldn't disagree more with such a notion. It has already been conclusively proven that capitalists are completely unnecessary for the production of goods and services to transpire. The capitalist qua capitalist merely provides his capital to be used during the process of production; and it is through this passive ownership alone that the capitalist is entitled to exclusive control of the surplus value his workers produce. The socialization of the means of production, couple with workers' self-management, would render the role of the capitalist obsolete.

Corporations like Wal Mart I don't believe control the media as much though. Banks and the Jews in Hollywood do is what I would go with most.

And exactly what is "Hollywood," if not a conglomeration of corporations involved in the production and distribution of movies and television programs? It's becoming exceedingly difficult to differentiate between 'industrial' and 'finance' capital in the modern era—quite frequently, the same group(s) of individuals participate in various boards of directors and, likewise, the large shareholders of various corporations (both financial and industrial) are often the same individuals. The media is owned by those same corporations and, thus, ensures that the so-called "news" that is aired isn't a threat to their bottom line, let alone their very existence.

My contention is (excluding the issue of Western support for Israel) Jewish capitalists don't possess some 'esoteric racial agenda' to undermine gentile nations. On the contrary, their agenda is indistinguishable from their gentile counterparts': to maximize profits.

However, I still don't think all the workers can control certain things such as fine dining restaurants or even food service. We would have to be a unionized labor society where many people work in factories because its just tough to see this in many types of sectors.

It is common for individuals to question the applicability of workers' control over sectors like the food service industry, due to such as issues as the high turnover rate endemic to such industries. However, it has already been proven that workers' control can easily be introduced into the food service sector—the Arizmendi Bakery, the Mondragón Bookstore & Coffeehouse, the innumerable restaurant cooperatives in Emilia-Romagna, Italy, etc. are testament to this fact. In such industries, all that's required is a somewhat longer apprenticeship period before giving full voting rights to a worker, and that managers be given somewhat more leeway in order to execute decisions more rapidly.

The best is what people will go to. What more needs to be said about that? Does a corporation getting big because it sucks make sense? Only if it is propped up it will and thats wrong.

That's patently false. People make decisions based upon far more than the quality of the goods or services their consuming, there are also: convenience factors, following popular trends, adaptive preferences, etc. The notion of the "dollar democracy" producing socially desirable outcomes is a fiction:

It tries to be I think and there are elements of it within the capitalism.. Some may actually consider Wal Mart to be communist because they get rid of all the other competition and want to be the only standing force. I said it was an Oligarchy if only you caught that part, but guess you didn't.

Forgive me if I rushed to a faulty assumption. "Oligarchy" is definitely a much more appropriate label—given that communism is about far more than simply eliminating market competition—though I believe "plutocracy" is an even more accurate term to describe the United States.

Most people are led to believe this, but do you actually know that Hitler wanted the European Union?

I'm unaware of this. To my knowledge, aside from advocating a Germanic colonization of Eastern Europe, Hitler's lebensraum theory sought to have Germany play a leading geopolitical role in the mainland of Europe—leaving foreign imperialism with the British and geopolitical control over Mediterranean affairs with Italy.

So the paychecks would come from the customers?? That doesn't seem to add up. But dude, what if some of the crew members had no clue how to manage money? Sometimes thats best left for those who are experts at it. There might be a lot of fuck ups within a whole crew of workers controlling everything. Many are not business savvy or business minded. It seems like one of those things that sounds good on paper, but can't work.

Within the context of a socialist market economy, workers would be remunerated by the sales of the goods or services their collective provides. As for the management of money, you seem to be thinking that the entire division of labor would be completely transcended, and that's simply not the case in labor-managed firms. Workers' self-management simply requires allowing each member of a firms' collective to possess an equal vote in how the firm is ultimately governed. However, there would obviously still be individuals who would specialize in the task of managing the firms assets and so forth, though the decisions such individuals make would be subject to review by a democratically accountable workers' council. Not only has this method been empirically proven to work in practice but, quite frequently, it also increases productivity and overall job satisfaction.

Your best bet.. work for a private company where the complete BEST shine and this includes service, management and who runs the place and the workers WILL be treated good and fair.

Workers would have every incentive to hire the best qualified personnel and fire unproductive workers, since their incomes would be intimately tied to their firms' success. Should they end up managing their collective unsuccessfully, they'll be outcompeted and, consequently, they will go out of business and have their capital assets redistributed to a new group of workers.

Telling someone to "go work for a good private company" is of little value, considering such businesses are few and far between. More importantly, by making such a suggestion, you're implicitly saying to them "you'll be a happier wage slave in such a business." Chattel slaves who worked for benevolent masters were undoubtedly happier than those who labored for malevolent masters, but it was still slavery nonetheless. The goal, even to this day, remains to emancipate ourselves from all forms of exploitation.

If workers won't work for him for dirt cheap, he will have to raise his wages now won't he? I know its the standard argument that they will just pay next to NOTHING for the work, but if the people who want to work for him want to be paid more, he will have to pay them won't he?

It depends entirely on the bargaining power of the laborer. Capitalists won't increase wages unless there happens to be a labor shortage in his specific industry—which, for a variety of reasons (e.g., immigration, automation, outsourcing, etc.), is no longer a common phenomenon in most industries. There's a reason real wages haven't risen since the 1970s in the United States: capitalists solved their labor shortage crisis.