Natsocs are center left

Socialism is left. If Natsocs are not socialist, need a new name.

One might argue that socialism is only left if demotic. Socialism on das Führerprinzip is the way every well run corporation works internally. But every well run corporation, as for example Apple under Steve Jobs, works by delegating everything except its core competence to the market place, and it then operates its core competence on das Führerprinzip. Steve Jobs decided what sort of glass the Iphone, and thus all smart phones, would have, but he then sourced the glass he wanted in the marketplace – where not only Iphones, but also every android phone, now uses glass made to the specifications originally issued by Steve Jobs.

The sovereign has to grant property rights to his subjects in themselves and in their stuff, or he gets overwhelmed, as depicted in every critique of socialism, I Pencil, Atlas Shrugged by Rand, Ayn (1999) Paperback, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, and The Road to Serfdom, and winds up being puppeteered by ministers and bureaucrats, as depicted in “Yes Minister” and “Atlas Shrugged”, leading to anarcho tyranny.

The Soviet Union wound up depending on criminals, because the criminals, who like the sovereign had primary property rights established by their own violence, were alone able to be productive.

When natsocs propose Kristallnacht, they succumb to the secret stash theory of economics, that smashing up Jewish pawnshops and vodka stills will make non Jews rich. Similarly Venezuela cannot develop its gold mines because thugs from the government keep coming around expecting to find a pile of gold. Jews are a problem, but Jewish professors of social studies and the Hollywood Jews who produced “The Kingdom of Heaven” are a problem. Jewish pawnshops are not a problem. And implying that they are is pandering to the kind of short time preference people who borrow from pawnshops, who think if usury is forbidden they will be able to borrow for free, who think that if they smash up the pawnshop, they will be as well off as the people who run the pawnshop. It has been said that antisemitism is the socialism of the stupid – implying that the peopile running Venezuela are very smart when they smash up every pawnshop instead of only Jewish pawnshops.

Nah. Socialism is stupid, and it becomes less stupid when it fused with racism because the result is less socialist. Antisemitism is the socialism of the marginally less stupid. Obama’s socialism, as for example Obamacare and Obamaphones, the socialism of the supposedly terribly clever people, that is stupid.

Natsocs are right about nationalism. And their socialism, socialism on das Führerprinzip, does not suck nearly as badly as demotic socialism. Notice that it murdered far fewer people than demotic socialism. Not only did the Nazis only murder a handful of Nazis, while the communists murdered enormous numbers of communists, the nazis murdered fewer communists than the communists murdered communists. If you are a communist, the sensible thing to do would have been to vote nazi, vote for people promising to kill you and against the people promising to put you in power. Commmies, such as Obama’s biological parents and mentor, are enormously more evil than nazis.

76 Responses to “Natsocs are center left”

  1. You took the words right out of my mouth on antisemitism.

  2. Mister Grumpus says:

    > The Soviet Union wound up depending
    > on criminals, because the criminals,
    > who like the sovereign had primary
    > property rights established by their
    > own violence, were alone able to be
    > productive.

    Dude I freaking love you man. That makes so much sense. Thank you.

  3. JRM says:

    jim said: “George Soros is socialism, not unrestrained capitalism. By and large he buys up debt of insolvent third world nations at well below face value, then World Bank and/or the IMF, which is to say rich taxpayers in rich countries, bails out the third world nation, and he sells the debt for full face value.”

    “…he buys up debt…”
    “…he sells the debt for full face value.”

    Is that not still Capitalism, as least the actions Soros is taking?

    “… then World Bank and/or the IMF, which is to say rich taxpayers in rich countries, bails out the third world nation…”

    This looks like the Socialism part. And even it may not be, if the true goals of this pseudo-benevolent process were fully known. You can bet the IMF is transferring wealth to some pockets during this re-organizational dance.

    (Look at how real resources were traded for statistical debt in the case of Greece recently.)

    I also suspect this process (the IMF part), described as Socialism, is Capitalism in disguise.

    What Soros *does* with his money, funding BLM and other subversive actors, now that is something other than Capitalism.

    What Russia did when it through Soros out, now *that* was Socialism, or at least Protectionism, in that the body politic was being quarantined from destructive forces.

    • JRM says:

      Correction: “threw” Soros out, not “through”.

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      The US government is responsible for all your problems. The more power you give it to fix your problems the more it will use this power to create more problems for you.

      A libertarian US would see inferior races largely relegated to Malthusian banlieues in places no one wants to visit or live.

      • jim says:

        If it is a libertarian US, how do you stop the inferior races from block busting, driving out the whites from nice places and taking them over?

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          They can’t afford to live in nice places unless the government pays their rent.

          They can’t survive in nice places illegally unless the government cops protect them.

          When security in the US was provided by Pinkertons or the militia, it was white rioters who terrorised blacks. The Great Migrations began when Pinkertons started to be displaced by government cops, decades after the Civil War.

          • jim says:

            They can’t afford to live in nice places unless the government pays their rent.

            They can’t survive in nice places illegally unless the government cops protect them.

            You tend to get a nice place and a shitty place separated by a railway line or a freeway, as for example East Palo Alto and West Palo Alto.

            From time to time they go into nearby parts of the nice place to rob, rape, torture, murder, and burn. This depressess property values in the nearby part of the nice place, and we get … we have no word for it, for the words are forbidden. We get what happened to the inner city, to Detroit, what is now happening to Milwaukee. It is not section eighters that are ethnically cleansing the whites out of Milwaukee.

            • Cloudswrest says:

              Well in the “nearby” parts of the “nice” West Palo Alto you have (temporarily) poor Stanford graduate students that serve as a buffer to the nicer parts of nice West Palo Alto where the likes of Zuckerberg, etc. live.

            • Mister Grumpus says:

              > It is not section eighters that are
              > ethnically cleansing the whites out
              > of Milwaukee.

              No? Once-removed Section-8’ers? Could you elaborate?

          • peppermint says:

            By the way, Leo Frank hired the Pinkertons to help him blame the rape and murder of Mary Phagan on some nigger or other, but they figured out that he was responsible for it.

            Government cops would have been ordered by the governor who commuted Leo Frank’s sentence after the trial to help him cover it up.

    • jim says:

      “George Soros is socialism, not unrestrained capitalism. By and large he buys up debt of insolvent third world nations at well below face value, then World Bank and/or the IMF, which is to say rich taxpayers in rich countries, bails out the third world nation, and he sells the debt for full face value.”

      “…he buys up debt…”
      “…he sells the debt for full face value.”

      Is that not still Capitalism, as least the actions Soros is taking?

      Since he is, in effect, selling the debt to taxpayers in advanced countries who do not want to buy it, socialism, not capitalism. If they wanted to buy it, would be capitalism. Since they don’t want to buy it at face value, no more capitalism than when Venezuela sets the price of milk and toilet paper in a nominally private supermarket selling to a nominally private customer.

      • JRM says:

        jim said:

        “Since he is, in effect, selling the debt to taxpayers in advanced countries who do not want to buy it, socialism, not capitalism. If they wanted to buy it, would be capitalism.”

        Very good point. We can see however, in machinations like this, how the smart Capitalists, namely (((bankers))) use Socialism (and socialistic measures) put in place by bureaucrats, to enhance their own financial empires.

        Conversely, there are many examples of Capitalism being used to undergird socialist movements (as when Soros takes some of his spare money and uses it on BLM-type groups).

        • jim says:

          Well, yes, and this is, as Ayn Rand points out at considerable length, a one of the big problems of socialism. It tends to wind up leaking money with alarming rapidity to too clever by half capitalists. The socialists try to solve this problem with more socialism, which has the results depicted by Ayn Rand.

    • jim says:

      What Russia did when it threw Soros out, now *that* was Socialism

      Russia did nothing to the business activities of Soros. It shut down his political organizations. That is not socialism. Neither is the Ford Foundation capitalism.

      • JRM says:

        jim: “Russia did nothing to the business activities of Soros. It shut down his political organizations. That is not socialism.”

        No, it is a form of authoritarianism or protectionism; also probably a half-measure in this case. I wouldn’t trust Soros traipsing about in my country for a minute, were I in power. Soros is probably pulling strings for a war of some kind with Russia as we speak.

        ” Neither is the Ford Foundation capitalism.”


  4. Just Sayin' says:

    “In most cases, “mixed economy” refers to market economies with strong regulatory oversight and governmental provision of public goods, although some mixed economies also feature a number of state-run enterprises.”

    How you gonna have nationalism, without checking up on the capitalists to make sure they’re not profiting at the expense of the nation?

    • jim says:

      Venezuela seems to do a fairly vigorous effort to check up on capitalists to make sure they are not profiting at the expense of the nation. How is that working out for them?

    • pdimov says:

      Yeah, “profiting at the expense of the nation” is socialist language apt to wreck the economy. It’s also generally wrong. Harming the nation usually entails spending money, not making money. Focusing on profit is misguided even without taking the wrecked economy into account.

      • Just Sayin' says:

        Unrestrained capitalism does not always benefit the nation. It may benefit the nation some of the time,or most of the time, but not always. Sometimes, a capitalist goes full Zuckerberg or Soros.

        Nationalism says that when a capitalist steps out of line and goes full Zuckerberg, he can be stopped.

        If you want capitalists to have free reign to flood the country with cheap labor or sell our secrets to China, with no restraint or no oversight, you’re not a Nationalist, you’re just a libertarian.

        • jim says:

          Maybe not, but I don’t see any nations in trouble because of unrestrained capitalism, while I see lots of nations in trouble because of their disastrous efforts to restrain capitalism.

          For the reasons explained in “I pencil”, competently interfering in other people’s business is hard.

          • Just Sayin' says:

            Unrestrained laissez faire capitalism doesn’t exist, never will.

            Propaganda about laissez faire capitalism is used to legitimize the actions of crony capitalists. “It’s the free market goy, nothing you can do”, while the capitalists happily get in bed with the government and use that combined power to fuck you over.

            Unrestrained crony capitalism has absolutely devastated the united states (that’s what the Trump campaign is about) and laissez faire advocates have been useful idiot foot soldiers for the crony capitalists.

            Until a laissez faire utopia magically arises, we have crony capitalism. And we need to watch these crony capitalists like hawks and punish them when they start fucking us over.

            They’re the biggest enemy that has yet emerged.

            • jim says:

              You are arguing that because socialism fails horribly, we should have more socialism.

        • jim says:

          George Soros is socialism, not unrestrained capitalism. By and large he buys up debt of insolvent third world nations at well below face value, then World Bank and/or the IMF, which is to say rich taxpayers in rich countries, bails out the third world nation, and he sells the debt for full face value.

          And as for Zuckerberg, the most objectionable thing he is doing is implementing government doctrine on his customers.

        • pdimov says:

          You don’t have to be a capitalist in order to harm the nation. If you only focus on capitalists that harm the nation, you’ll miss everyone else. Again,

          The Ford Foundation is not managed by capitalists and is not motivated by profit.

          And of course, wrecking the economy is harmful to the nation, so you might need to include yourself in those who need to be stopped.

          You have to be very careful, when stopping capitalists harming the nation, to explicitly do so because of the harming the nation part and not because of the capitalist (or merely rich person) part, because otherwise, you pretty soon end up stopping all capitalists or all rich people.

  5. Just Sayin' says:

    Modern economies are all mixed economies. That is to say, partially socialist, partially capitalist.

    Nazi Germany, no exception.

    Do you actually want to change this? Fully privatize the armaments industry?

    We’ll get into the incoherence of NATCAP later on.

    • jim says:

      That is to say, partially socialist, partially capitalist.

      What you mean is partially fucked up and failing horribly, partially capitalist.

      Question: What is socialist in the American economy?

      Answer: Banking, education, and health.

      Which should tell you everything about socialism that you failed to learn from the twentieth century.

  6. peppermint says:

    Socialism is a 20th century idea filled with cuckoldry and eschatology/utopianism, and the original NatSocs did various disgusting things like state-sponsored cuckoldry because they were a 20th century movement, which today’s chantards routinely condemn.

    Kristallnacht was a false flag.

  7. JRM says:

    How do we know we aren’t living in a NatSoc state in the USA right now?

    The first objection will be that our rulers are globalists not Nationalists. True, but perhaps a distinction of scope not ethos. When only about three to four countries in the world are not essentially vassals or clients playing by the Pax Americana rules, you have Nationalist-Globalism of a kind.

    Our economy has enough State sponsored entities, re-distribution of wealth, and picking of winners and losers to easily qualify for the “Socialist” piece.

    But a NatSoc State has a favored race and a vilified race, no?

    Yes, we have that. Blacks and Browns are favored. Whites are targeted, vilified, and persecuted.

    NatSoc Germany built roads, and financed a war machine, as our Gov does also.

    NatSoc Germany had a set of ideologies and a mythos. So do we; the ideology is Social Justice. The mythos is Equality. Feminism and LGBTQ Rights are sacred doctrine. Similar to NatSoc Germany, established Christianity is barely tolerated, and only suffered to exist when it doesn’t openly challenge State-sponsored sacredness.

    NatSoc Germany had a pervasive propaganda machine; we once had a semi-independent press, but no more. CNN is virtually an arm of the Democratic Party. Hollywood and Wash D.C. are very conversant with one another, existing in a symbiotic “Progressive” relationship.

    The Leader Principle is a bit weak in comparison; our President is far from the mythic Fuhrer of NatSoc Germany. Yet we drifted closer recently; with the Obama candidacy and Presidency, an argument could be made that “Barack Obama Is Victory”, to paraphrase.

    There are so many similarities, that I’m having trouble finding differences.

    • peppermint says:

      (1) Which race is favored in university and government, and which is excluded? NS is Aryan and Jew, US is Jew and Aryan.

      (2) The USSR also had an ideology, and was more nationalistic than the US, therefore the USSR was Nazi.

      (3) How dare you compare Hitler to Obama

      • JRM says:

        peppermint :

        “(1) Which race is favored in university and government, and which is excluded? NS is Aryan and Jew, US is Jew and Aryan.”

        Of course the favored groups and the scapegoated groups are different. It’s the dynamic I’m getting at. Jews are the elite; blacks are the sacred cows. Whites are scapegoated and born suspects (inherent racism).

        It’s clearly a system that treats people differently based on ethnicity and race. Just as a Jew couldn’t do anything “right enough” for redemption in 3rd Reich, Whites cannot truly be redeemed in this country at this period. We are called upon to disappear.

        “(2) The USSR also had an ideology, and was more nationalistic than the US, therefore the USSR was Nazi.”

        But the ideology of the USSR was originally intent on full-scale, world-wide Proletarian Revolution. It was purely economic. Nations and races were viewed as mere illusions, intended to keep working class people of all races and countries from recognizing common interests.

        Later, esp. after Germany invaded, it fell back on patriotism, in part or whole to motivate the troops against German invaders.

        There are similarities between the USSR, NatSoc Germany, and modern US. But the economic controls of Communism are markedly different than the managed economies of NatSoc Germany and modern US. The latter two are much closer in means and aims.

        “(3) How dare you compare Hitler to Obama”

        Yes, well, BHO is a piece of shit. Hitler wasn’t; Hitler did some great things, eventually over-reaching and unfortunately bringing about a horrendous reaction we’re still buffeted by today. You’re right, no comparison between the men.

        My point was, there is a cult of personality behind Obama. Again, I’m driving at dynamics, not resemblances.

        We have a system with sacred and protected races and demographics. We have a system with a scapegoated race (us). We have a system where the Dept. of Justice is anything but, rather resembling an ideological body that punishes those who lack sufficient faith in the official sacredness hierarchy.

        We have a system where the media isn’t outright owned by the Gov, but is in lockstep with one political party. Recall, for example that UFA Studios weren’t owned by the NatSoc party, but were required to coordinate and censor through their approval. Much more like Hollywood today isn’t owned by the FEDGOV but does coordinate with the same set of values.

        We live in a system where if the primary means of production aren’t owned by the State, they are nevertheless dependent upon State sanction to function, and can be destroyed by the State acting through agencies like the EPA and Justice.

        I posit that we are essentially living in a NatSoc State. It’s *values* are revalued, they are essentially the opposite of NatSoc Germany; but the similarities in dynamics of operation can be recognized.

  8. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Especially after monarchial Prussia. 1930s and 40s Germany was the Napoleonic warlord surfacing after removal of the monarch, comparable to aftermath of the overthrow of France’s Louis XVI.

    Then again, I don’t really embrace “Right vs. Left” paradigm as one legitimises the other. Perhaps the better view is Hereditary vs. Revolutionary, which does risk legitimisation of the opponent, but at least, the difference is not as arbitrary as directional definitions…

    • peppermint says:

      The important political axis is cuck vs racist. All other axes are misdirections, especially left vs right that left Whites increasingly angrily voting cuck for the past 20 years and not getting the racist policies they thought they were voting for.

  9. Mike in Boston says:

    Typo, I think: para 5 sentence 3 only makes sense if you meant to say “Jews are *not* a problem, but […]”

  10. Jack Highlands says:

    First a White ethnostate for racially conscious Whites, then we’ll see what develops.

    My guess is that with White pride and without the (((Aschers))) and the (((Bonniers))) and their co-ethnics, even Swedish socialism would have turned out very differently than it has.

    • jim says:

      We have been trying socialism from time to time for over two thousand years. It always turns out pretty much the same. Shakespeare ridiculed socialism by implying that setting prices by decree was going to fail in the way that it always has failed.

    • peppermint says:

      socialism is cuckoldry

      communism is eschatology

      the idea that people will never have to work again, in this world or after they die, is utterly retarded

    • Jack Highlands says:

      @Jim and pep: what I’m saying is that Socialism for the West was basically a softer version of what Bolshevism was for Russia: a mostly unconscious expression of a certain people’s desire to sow class discord and gain power: divide and conquer.

      I’m saying that Sweden would never have gone so far into socialism without that influence.

      But ultimately I cannot even blame (((them))) much – they are just acting out their traditional role of the parasite/scavenger. Civilizations that have attained extreme prosperity are prone to a variety of something-for-nothing schemes, from slave labor and Visigoth mercs to imported care aides. Clearly we must work to eat.

  11. Is this even real that NS exists in 2016? I mean, I get it, as a channish trolling, rustling liberal jimmies. But for teh realz? Why would anyone seriously and not trollingly adopt an ideology that was specific to a given time, place and stupid enough to start unwinnable wars? Beyond that part of being evil like fuck – maybe some people don’t believe in the ovens, but do those people also don’t believe what they wanted to do with Poland and partially did, kill all the elites, enslave the rest while expressly forbidding medical care etc. ?

    If people seriously want to adopt something far-right from that period, Salazar is the best bet, the closest to Carlylean government. His books e.g. How To Reerect A State, are long overdue for an English translation. I know little about his stuff, as I can’t speak Portuguese, but that little is impressive. Another good one is Pinochet a bit later. Maybe Franco could teach a trick or two as well. Maybe even Peron, but I doubt that. But all those guys were intelligent enough to not start gigantic wars fueled by crazy ass imperial dreams and occult esoterism kill off or drive away some of their most productive citizens.

    As a general rule, the sane ones you can learn from tend to be isolationists, not imperialist. This rule of thumb is extremely helpful for evaluating a period of a nation. Do they manage to mind their own business while giving the finger to anyone who butts into their business?

    • viking says:

      I hope the for real natsoc are confined to the lads at stormfront and are only trying to improve their brand by pledging fidelity to the altright.The problem is anyone not redpilled cant see a whit of difference between alt right and storm front or for that matter NRX.And the implications of certain knowledge to many of who are not even quite alt right sympathetic to ethnonationalism and arguments against Jews. I might want to assimilate and salvage the jew I like the jew except for certain bits, but when I have to imagine all sorts of convoluted strategies to safely handle him one has to wonder. So wheres that leave you. Oh no Im not a natsoc because im not a soc and i dont hate the other i just fear him. sure to me theres a huge distinction but to the left im a nazi and to the right im a cuck. This is what happened in germany you were given a choice between extremes because one side was surely going to annihilate the other.Yes youre right a lot of the early chan stuff was just neckbeard fun and games they morphed into newfag reactionaries but as the libs tumbled to the game and attacked reaction a schism developed and alt right came to mean ethnat reactionary which inspired the lads at stormfront to claim an intellectual caste and emulate the chan war. And of course Trump came along and BLM and the muslim invasion and joe sixpack starts getting existential angst and some in the far reaches of the conservative right like Breitbart Coulter Buchanan and later guys like Fernandez et al start noticing something new is happening. Noonan is now on the trail its hard not to see the ethnic implications of globalism. Maybe the answer is we are all NAZIs now.

  12. Deutscher says:


    please don’t attempt to impress the impressionable by peppering your posts with German nouns if you don’t know the language well enough. First, it is “DAS Fuehrerprinzip” (DAS Prinzip, DER Fuehrer), second, it is “Kristallnacht”, or, more correctly, “Reichskristallnacht” as the reference is normally to one particular incident during the Nazi regime.

    • jim says:

      thanks for the correction.

    • DW says:

      Your daily reminder that America has more or less obliterated the good aspects of German culture, but couldn’t manage to kill off the self-righteous pedants.

  13. Greg says:

    “When natsocs propose Krystalnacht, they succumb to the secret stash theory of economics”

    They don’t, and you know it.

    Secure property that allows capitalism and markets to thrive is a collectively maintained public good, a commons. Smashing the Jew’s property without recourse is simply to deny the Jew the privilege of property secured by the host, to deny access to the commons to an overgrazer.

    If NatSocs prosper after smashing windows, it is not by having gained access to any “secret stash”. It is by getting to enjoy the unspoiled fruits of the public goods they maintain.

    Maybe we should call it Ethnic Capitalism.

    • jim says:

      I will happily support Ethnic Capitalism. Public goods need to be maintained, and need to be protected against the tragedy of the commons.

      However, Ethnic capitalism needs to start by securing the property rights of ethnics, not start by attacking the property rights of non ethnics. If Jews instigate a black mob against Korean private property, as they recently did, and the mob gets turned back by Korean sharpshooters sniping from rooftops, as recently happened, the sniping is ethnic capitalism. Instigating the mob against a competing ethnicity is not ethnic capitalism.

      Jews notoriously attack the institution of private property on which they depend, like a man sawing off the branch on which he sits. The 1905 anti Jewish pogroms in Russia started off as anti private property riots instigated in substantial part by Jews, which, like today’s Black Lives matter Movement, also initially Jewish instigated but now massively anti semitic, got out of hand and out of Jewish control, as their mascots started displaying alarming independence.

      Not going to support National Socialism. Because socialism is stupid. After the twentieth century, should have figured this out.

      You may be aware that there is no secret stash, but a lot of my natsoc commenters seem to believe that there is a secret stash, which they can obtain by lighting fires and smashing windows.

      • viking says:

        Yes NatCap is the play. I would only add that euros seem to have a low threshold for suffering and like a certain amount of what we think of as socialism to solve it.While it might be true very northern euros might actually be able to sustain socialism this should never be allowed because its evil and can spread. However there are perfectly capitalist solutions to spread risk that in a highly productive white world do the job with reasonable cost and room for profit. Its when you load up the system with niggers, allow commies to politically target it and then subsidize it when it can no longer operate profitably that spreading risk loses the feedback.

      • peppermint says:

        Churchill demanded to avoid war that Hitler be killed and Germany return to international finance capitalism with the gold standard.

        Socialism is remarkable for being even stupider than letting Jews run your money supply.

  14. jsmith says:

    please delete entire comment….as I didn’t realize it would be moderated

    Or at least please delete everything after the sentence: “and we’ll call it even…”


  15. jsmith says:

    “When natsocs propose Krystalnacht, they succumb to the secret stash theory of economics, that smashing up Jewish pawnshops and vodka stills will make non Jews rich.”

    There’s no reason to smash up Jewish pawnshops.

    Just give us back the TRILLIONS of dollars that was lost to bankers (Bernanke, Greenspan Hank Paulson, Lloyd Blankfein, Robert Rubin, Jamie Dimon, etc) during the financial collapse of Wall Street…

    ….and the trillions (not to mention lives) LOST during the collapse of the US military from neocon wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc… brought to us by Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, etc

    And we’ll call it even…

    Jews are in controlling positions in every segment of our lives, from the financial collapse of Wall Street, to the collapse of our currency by the Federal Reserve Corporation, the collapse of the US military from Jewish wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a de facto Jewish war against Pakistan and a threatened Jewish war against Iran.

    Trillions of tax dollars have been lost to the pockets of Jewish bankers and speculators.

    • jim says:

      But it was not lost to bankers. It was lost to borrowers, mainly “Hispanics” – Mexican mestizos with no income, no job, and no assets buying million dollar houses.

      The biggest villains in the recent financial collapse were Angelo Mozillo (white “Hispanic”, a beneficiary of affirmative action intended for people with darker skins than his), and Jon Corzine (rootless cosmopolitan, but not Jewish)

      • jsmith says:

        “capitalism” in America now means socializing losses and privatizing profits generated by State and Central Bank intervention. Imagine for a moment the “beauty” of this system for owners of private banks: in a truly socialized banking system, the taxpayers would absorb any losses, but the State would also benefit from any future bank-sector profits. In the U.S. system, the losses are socialized but the people draw no benefit; the profits flow to the top 1/10th of 1% private financiers.

        This is the perfection of State-financier crony capitalism.

        In a nation in which rule of law existed in more than name, here’s what should have happened:

        1. The scam known as MERS, the mortgage industry’s placeholder of fictitious mortgage notes, would be summarily shut down.

        2. All mortgages in all instruments and portfolios, and all derivatives based on mortgages, would be instantly marked-to-market.

        3. All losses would be declared immediately, and any institution that was deemed insolvent would be shuttered and its assets auctioned off in an orderly fashion.

        4. Regardless of the cost to owners of mortgages, every deed, lien and note would be painstakingly delineated or reconstructed on every mortgage in the U.S., and the deed and note properly filed in each county as per U.S. law.

        That none of this has happened is proof-positive that the rule of law no longer exists in America.

        The term is phony, a travesty of a mockery of a sham, nothing but pure propaganda. Anyone claiming otherwise: get the above done. If you can’t or won’t, then the rule of law is merely a useful illusion of a rapacious, corrupt, extractive, predatory neofeudal Status Quo.

        The essence of money-laundering is that fraudulent or illegally derived assets and income are recycled into legitimate enterprises. That is the entire (((Federal Reserve))) project in a nutshell. Dodgy mortgages, phantom claims and phantom assets, are recycled via Fed purchase and “retired” to its opaque balance sheet. In exchange, the Fed gives cash to the owners of the phantom assets, cash which is fundamentally a claim on the future earnings and productivity of American citizens.

        Here’s the (((Federal Reserve’s))) policy in plain English:

        Debt-serfdom is good because it enriches the (((bankers))).

        All hail debt-serfdom, our goal and our god!

        • viking says:

          I dont think MERS was nefarious by intent it served a function that was later distorted however i think a better solution should have been found in the information age.
          I could [did ] even get behind the bailout on the understanding it was to avoid the innocent suffering and that the guilty would be punished. alas how naive no liars were charged with mortgage fraud, no mortgage brokers or banks, of course to prosecute anyone they would have to admit that starting with the redline laws then acorn and the crt then clinton and worse bush and obamas history as acorn council all strong armed the banks into this. and the banks just collected the fees administering the plan.

      • viking says:

        yes but jim who was behind the the entire concept of redistribution undercover of crap like anti redlining who filed the lawsuits who organized the communities who whispered in the ears of the presidents.No doubt many had a hand in it and while by no means a nazi or even jew hater i cant help thinking they have been the key ingrediant all along.

        • jim says:

          I don’t think Acorn is particularly Jewish.

          • viking says:

            in about 1950 Lionel Trilling states that progressivism isnt just the dominant ideology but the only ideology in america currently. How did that happen.From the 20s-60s A lot of bright young WASPS and Catholics from the heartland moved to the cities to make their mark in the and became influenced by anarcho commie jewish intellectuals. By the 60s well we know what happened.I dont even think it was a conspiracy I even think they had good points but here we are.

            • peppermint says:

              easy times make soft men by allowing them to get into these retarded ideologies that allow them to avoid being men. Soft men create hard times by ruining everything. Hard times create hard men (you are here). Hard men create good times, and this time we will record all the articles from Gawker and show them to anyone who thinks cuckoldry is a good idea in the future.

    • viking says:

      isnt Paulson a christian scientist

      • jsmith says:

        It was Ezra Pound who launched upon a study of Byzantine civilization, and who reminded the world of this happily non-Jewish land.

        From the Byzantines, Pound derived his non-violent formula for controlling the Jews.

        “The answer to the Jewish problem is simple,” he said.

        “Keep them out of banking, out of education, out of government.”

        And this is how simple it is.

        There is no need to kill the Jews. In fact, every pogrom in history has played into their hands, and has in many instances been cleverly instigated by them.

        Get the Jews out of banking and they cannot control the economic life of the community.

        Get the Jews out of education and they can not pervert the minds of the young to their subversive cultural marxist doctrines.

        Get the Jews out of government and they cannot betray the nation.

        • jsmith says:


          the comment above was not meant to be a reply

          but yes, Hank Paulson was some kind of Christian scientist, or something. Or he practised some form of Judaism lite….

        • viking says:

          Ive said as much myself many times keep them from the levers of power we would have to add media in todays world. But they are going to aquire great wealth some other way which might again be used against our interests. They are so fucking stupid to keep bring this shit on themselves if they would stop seeing themselves as the other we would too but they anticipate the worst and bring it on thelselves

          • jsmith says:

            @ Viking

            Yes, now Ezra Pound would have to add Hollywood & Media to his list.

            Here’s a partial list of Hollywood/media (((chieftains)))….not sure if the list is exactly up to date, but I doubt anything has changed

            Fox News President Peter Chernin
            Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey
            Walt Disney CEO Robert Igor
            Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton
            Warner Brothers Chairman Barry Meyer
            CBS CEO Leslie Moonves
            MGM Chairman Harry Sloan
            and NBC/Universal Studios CEO Jeff Zucker.

            And that just the tip of the iceberg!!

            There’s also Charles Krauthammer, Thomas Friedman, and David Brooks.

            All three are ardent Zionist whack-jobs who who demand that the U.S. attack Iran, provide billions more in foreign aid to favored nation Israel, and so forth.

            so yeah, in an ideal world you’d have to keep them out of the media as well…

          • pdimov says:

            Great wealth (such as f.ex. the Ford Foundation) destroying the country is a serious problem that is not limited to Jews. And I’m not sure whether this problem has a solution in a capitalist framework. If it has, I can’t think of it.


            • viking says:

              its a very tough question not simply because theres a lot of money and its tempting, but because capitalists have perspective worth listening to and probably a right to be heard if paying taxes.
              Where i think its worth poking around is first are we talking about actual capitalists or corporatists.Next should a distinction be made or offered to businesses as to whether they want national status or international status. I say this because one of the things that strikes me is the value of the US patches communications transportation infrastructure, its civil and criminal legal and police/penal system and military that protect. the value of its labor force and consumer markets and the its education and core science and R/D infrastructure all have tremendous value to businesses that want to do business with the owners of all that. If the owners were another corporation the terms would be substantial but we not only give it away we allow them to take massive shits on us besides like bypassing our labor while having us welfare subsidize their imported or outsourced labor but taking our consumers.And yes think about it we even subsidize the labor when they outsource it. So if youre a molbuggian and the US were a patch would you let the patches you trade with have all that free shit not in my patch. I think the US patch is rightfully owned by the productive citizens that built the US In fact i would deny the vote to non net tax payers. and pass a balanced budget law and then see how many basic human rights the liberals want to trade at the budget talks for police officers judges or teachers in their own neighborhoods. Liberalism is based on the lie that there is unlimited money or that it can be stolen from someone else as soon as its limited money and their money all liberalism dries up. The US ought to be run as patch owned bu its taxpayers non taxpayers will soon be shown the door.

              • viking says:

                I have to add another thought thats always misinterpreted. It never works but for what its worth ill again preface it by saying ive alway been an extreme capitalist galts gulch let them eat cake austrian school etc. that said

                why do we love capitalism? Because it serves us so well. You can admire its elegant emulation of evolution its self adjusting feedback loop just love its design. But if you lose sight of the fact that that is all in service of us and like some start to dream of capitalists robots doing away with humanity as a good thing then youre no better than soros.
                My point is there are things we have to be willing to look at people are not as rational as we supposed capitalist will sometimes go for short money knowing it wrecks the market in the end, people if allowed will make economic decisions that will first wreck their lives then wreck civilization in aggregate.etc etc while keeping in mind the disastrous unintended consequences that messing with capitalism has so often triggered we also have to carefully be willing to make adjustments at times.This is not anti capitalist capitalism is not interchangeable with state, perhaps in the distant future we may be able to develop a stateless world thats largely organized around capitalism and culture but for now they both must be subordinated to the state

        • jim says:

          There is no need to kill the Jews. In fact, every pogrom in history has played into their hands, and has in many instances been cleverly instigated by them.

          I don’t think the pogroms were “cleverly” instigated by them. Rather, Jews, and in particular and especially, Jewish leftists, are notoriously self destructive. They did stupid stuff that was bound to get them killed, and then were astonished when they were unable to control their mascots. And promptly blamed the government and the Christians for their inability to accurately target the mob violence that they had incited.

          George Soros wants Palestinians to get Israeli citizenship and the Israeli vote. He works for policies that are likely to result in the murder of every white man if implemented, but are certain to result in the murder of every Jew in the middle east if implemented. Is he being clever?

          About as clever as Obama with Arab spring.

          That a great many pogroms against Jews resulted from too-clever-by-half Jewish plots does not mean that Jews intended that outcome, any more than Obama intended Arab spring to turn out the way that it did. I am sure George Soros thinks that if you allow unlimited Muslim immigration into Israel and give them the vote, they will all turn into progressives like George Soros and come together singing Kumbaya.

    • peppermint says:

      The reason conmen wear expensive suits is to make you think the money still exists and at any point you can call the cops and garnish their capital assets to get it back.

      There are exactly two ways for a government to hold onto money: it can buy gold to sell later for foreign goods, or it can invest in the infrastructure and economy. Instead, 30-50% taxes plus 10% Social Security was extracted, and infrastructure crumbled. GenXers normalized childlessness and “marriage” and divorce. There is nothing to pay for these people’s retirement and I wish someone had given their journalists and ministers and professors what is due to communists – enslavement – 50 years ago, but I will laugh as the oldfags are taxed out of their houses and their houses are turned into Section 8 homes for minority families.

  16. Salger says:

    Nazi Germany was by all accounts another example of Socialist failure. Adam Tooze tackles this in his book The Wages of Destruction.

    • jim says:

      The Greeks were nazis, but the nazis pissed them off by starving them. Economic failure. Not enough butter to feed all your loyalists – rapid loss of loyalists.

  17. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    >the secret stash theory of economics, that smashing up Jewish pawnshops and vodka stills will make non Jews rich.

    In this schema I’d say the depiction is more like jews as ‘wreckers’.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      Basically what I’m saying is jews are less productive than Whites.

      • jim says:

        Well, one might doubt that lawyers are productive, but if you are going to hire a lawyer, you will probably prefer to hire a Jewish lawyer and pay extra for the privilege.

        Jews do tend to be overrepresented in activities of doubtful productivity, such as professors and lawyers, and I rather doubt they make good professors, but they do make good lawyers.

Leave a Reply