ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2020 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, November 09, 2013

Why there is hope for Europe

And why it is more likely that it is America that will end up experiencing third world status:
As right-wing populists surge across Europe, rattling established political parties with their hostility toward immigration, austerity and the European Union, Mikkel Dencker of the Danish People’s Party has found yet another cause to stir public anger: pork meatballs missing from kindergartens.

A member of Denmark’s Parliament and, he hopes, mayor of this commuter-belt town west of Copenhagen, Mr. Dencker is furious that some day care centers have removed meatballs, a staple of traditional Danish cuisine, from their cafeterias in deference to Islamic dietary rules. No matter that only a handful of kindergartens have actually done so. The missing meatballs, he said, are an example of how “Denmark is losing its identity” under pressure from outsiders.

The issue has become a headache for Mayor Helle Adelborg, whose center-left Social Democratic Party has controlled the town council since the 1920s but now faces an uphill struggle before municipal elections on Nov. 19. “It is very easy to exploit such themes to get votes,” she said. “They take a lot of votes from my party. It is unfair.”

It is also Europe’s new reality. All over, established political forces are losing ground to politicians whom they scorn as fear-mongering populists. In France, according to a recent opinion poll, the far-right National Front has become the country’s most popular party. In other countries — Austria, Britain, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland and the Netherlands — disruptive upstart groups are on a roll.

This phenomenon alarms not just national leaders but also officials in Brussels who fear that European Parliament elections next May could substantially tip the balance of power toward nationalists and forces intent on halting or reversing integration within the European Union.
Unless you live in Europe, you probably cannot understand why its long term prospects are actually better than the USA's. For some reason, probably because they only visit a few of the largest cities, Americans tend to be under the impression that there are far more Muslims in Europe than there are. They also don't understand that left-wing European intolerance would make the average KKK member look like a multiculturalist.

Remember, both the post-Lenin Soviets and the National Socialists were left-wing parties that were strongly nationalistic. Whereas in the US, nationalism is very weak and only a right-wing phenomenon, in Europe, it spans the political spectrum. Notice that the votes for the "right-wing" nationalists come from Left and Right; in the UK, the BNP draws from Labor whereas UKIP is draining the Tory Party dry. Whereas the rise of the new parties has the mainstream parties visibly terrified, the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street remain the object of late-night TV jokes.

There are three primary reasons for the difference in outlook between Europe and the USA. They are as follows:
  1. Parliamentary systems
  2. Trans-ideological nationalism
  3. No popular pro-immigrant mythology
The parliamentary systems are more favorable to third parties. Whereas the Tea Party has gone nowhere and accomplished nothing, several anti-central, anti-globalist parties are on the verge of taking control of their national parliaments. As in the USA, the established parties have allied against them, but that has only bought them a little extra time before being voted out. The American system is much more conducive to effectively barring policies and politicians deemed non-mainstream.

I've already explained the trans-ideological nature of European nationalism. A French Communist and a French Gaulist are both French before they are communists or gaulists. And to both of them, a Senegalese individual is still Senegalese and therefore not French, whether he is communist or a Gaulist.

The absence of the mythology of the melting pot is also important. No one in Europe except a few idiot university students genuinely believes in what isn't true of the USA and has no application in Europe. The EU has turned out to be a fraudulent, corrupt, Germanic empire and most of Europe will celebrate when it inevitably collapses.

Now, I hope both the nations of Europe and the USA will come to their collective senses and cast off the multicultural myths that have Western civilization hurtling towards collapse and conquest. But, on the basis of the political tectonics, at this point, Europe actually, unexpectedly, appears to be in better shape, mostly because far more of them already recognize who their villainous elites are and what they have done.

Labels: ,

230 Comments:

1 – 200 of 230 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous Idle Spectator November 09, 2013 10:28 AM  

Diversity: this is why we can't have nice things.

Anonymous Roundtine November 09, 2013 10:37 AM  

The article came off as very pro-nationalist, for the NYTimes. They mainly contrasted the European right with the Tea Party, making the Tea Party sound bad because they don't support welfare. Which is odd because the American left would really hate if if the right adopted some left-wing economic issues. The Democratic party would then be the "anti-white + abortion" party in American politics, having no issues left.

Anonymous The other skeptic November 09, 2013 10:41 AM  

IIRC, the NSDAP supported welfare.

Blogger Unknown November 09, 2013 10:44 AM  

"A French Communist and a French Gaulist are both French before they are communists or gaulists."

Don't Gaulist and a communist hold quite similar beliefs? I thought they both are on the political left side of things.

Anonymous DonReynolds November 09, 2013 10:51 AM  

I believe Will Rogers was one of the great Americans, who could have easily sat at the table with Ben Franklin, so I will invoke one of his thoughful quotes on this occasion....

"On account of being a democracy and run by the people, we are the only nation in the world that has to keep a government four years, no matter what it does."

Anonymous zen0 November 09, 2013 11:09 AM  

Nationalist movement will meet the resistance Golden Dawn has experienced.


Former Greek Justice Minister: “Golden Dawn Assault was Ordered by International Jewry.”

Former Greek Justice Minister Antonis Roupakiotis has admitted that the illegal assault on the democratically elected leadership of the Golden Dawn was a conspiracy ordered by Jewish powers operating from the United States and the European Union.


“Jewish-American and Greek-American organizations were coming to Greece and pressured for Golden Dawn. Obviously they played a role in developments. Obviously the prime minister had to tell them something,” the former minister revealed in an interview with Skai media.

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey November 09, 2013 11:18 AM  

Well put, VD. Another reason Europe will be better off is the absence there of a Scots-Irish governing elite class.

Anonymous Cajin November 09, 2013 11:27 AM  

Vox, is there any hope of some kind of right-of-return policy in these nations? My family is of strong French decent, speaking French in the home as late as one generation ago.

Anonymous VD November 09, 2013 11:30 AM  

Vox, is there any hope of some kind of right-of-return policy in these nations?

In some of them. For example, in Italy, you have a right to citizenship if you can prove one grandparent was Italian, with a few exceptions that are mostly artifacts of 1940s law.

Anonymous VD November 09, 2013 11:34 AM  

Nationalist movement will meet the resistance Golden Dawn has experienced.

Of course. But it's not going to work. In the USA, they can cry "raciss" or "anti-semitism" and every conservative immediately falls all over himself to deny it. In Europe, they have no slavery guilt and they have zero sympathy for Jews. The more the various elites show their hand, the more opposition they will inspire.

However, the one big thing the USA has going for it is the Second Amendment and a heavily armed conservative base. That's why I expect the sparks to fly there, because there is less political change and much more weaponry on both sides. Remember, in relative terms, the European police and militaries are even more poorly armed than their people are.

Anonymous allyn71 November 09, 2013 11:38 AM  

"Nationalist movement will meet the resistance Golden Dawn has experienced." - zen0 November 09, 2013 11:09 AM

Resistance is to be expected. That doesn't mean it will be successful in stemming the tide.

I would expect that further steps to criminalize Golden Dawn will be forthcoming, that doesn't mean that Golden Dawn or it's ideology is going away.

The status quo is failing, people won't accept a return to the status quo as long as that is the case. Do you think it will get easier for or harder to maintain the current state of affairs?

Anonymous bob k. mando November 09, 2013 11:50 AM  

VD
, the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street remain the object of late-night TV jokes.



while true, it is trivial and irrelevant. the Tea Party or OWS could elect a nominee to the presidency and they ( and their candidate ) would STILL remain 'the butt of late night TV jokes'.

see: Ronald Reagan, 'Shrub' Bush, etc

the 'perceived status' by the MSM is bought and paid for and will not change until the paymasters decide it should change.




The other skeptic November 09, 2013 10:41 AM
IIRC, the NSDAP supported welfare.


well, duh? do you expect anything different when "Socialist" is an official part of the Party's registered name?



Travis Kurtz November 09, 2013 10:44 AM
Don't Gaulist and a communist hold quite similar beliefs? I thought they both are on the political left side of things.



de Gaul was always quite nationalist which does put him at odds with mainstream Marxist thought on the nationalist vs internationalist axis. and, according to Wiki ( with all the associated caveats ), the meaning of the term Gaullist has changed since the 70s:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaullism#Political_group

Anonymous zen0 November 09, 2013 11:51 AM  

Resistance is to be expected. That doesn't mean it will be successful in stemming the tide.

Granted. In some other thread I pointed out that Hitler went to jail for a bit. Did not accomplish a thing.

Do you think it will get easier for or harder to maintain the current state of affairs? Obvously harder as the financial system continues to teeter on the edge of disaster.

Anonymous Van November 09, 2013 11:55 AM  

Interesting things are happening in the US. Cucinelli would've won Virginia if not for being betrayed by the mainstream GOP (abandoned financially while many Repubs endorsed the Dem; Christie refused to campaign for him) and having a Dem-backed phony Libertarian taking votes.

The disaster of Obamacare has breathed life back into the GOP, who still look like they're headed for a split over ideology.

It's difficult to take seriously, but regular GOP cheerleaders like Rush and Hannity can't stop taling about how sick they are of RINOs.

Most interestingly, the themes of the alt-right are being picked up by more mainstream outlets. Every day, American Thinker has several articles bemoaning statists (rather than liberals or socialists).

Interesting times, around the West.

Anonymous zen0 November 09, 2013 11:57 AM  

In Europe, they have no slavery guilt and they have zero sympathy for Jews.

Indeed. Less than zero.



Anti-Semitism on the Rise in Europe, Finds New Survey

Anonymous Mr. Nightstick November 09, 2013 12:23 PM  

While Europe is better off under the metrics you cite, it is much worse off in spiritual terms and unless there is a Christian revival, European Nationalism will end in more tears this time than it did last time.

Blogger stats November 09, 2013 12:40 PM  

and they have zero sympathy for Jews.

Really? What with anti-anti-Semitism laws throughout Europe? Who voted for the politicians that enacted these laws?

Anonymous VD November 09, 2013 1:12 PM  

Really?

Yes. The common Europeans have virtually nothing in common with the elite political class. And they are very, very tired of them.

Anonymous Lorem Ipsum November 09, 2013 1:20 PM  

The fact those laws exist, tell thinking people all they need to know.

Anonymous castricv November 09, 2013 1:23 PM  

I hate to be a downer and I hope your are correct VD despite your sole weakness being political forecating. However, two quick issues spring to mind that would appear too enormous for any nationalist movement to overtake in this crazy modern mindest/systems we have in the US and Europe.

1) Low Birth rates (in Europe it is extremely low, this is not anything new but has to be mentioned)

coupled with

2) Too many "virus" pockets of diversity in almost every European nation.

Even assuming a complete stoppage of ALL immigration, the pockets of unassimilating masses will continue to swell like a tumor while the healthy tissue shrinks and rots away.
This is the reason why we know the US is doomed even if magically all immigration is stopped now. If there is a "spring" of nationalism it will surely be halted inside of two decades or so as the internal virus overwhlems the host politically and then reopens the floodgates.

The only solution (and it will never happen) is a return to kings/dicatators who both forcefully evict the majority of non-indigenous peoples and promotes, by surely extreme measures, the exponential growth of birth rates.

In your scenario, I believe you are not addressing the root causes that got Europe to this point in the first place. Nationalism without a hint of pragmatism is nothing more than rooting for your world cup team on tv.
I am interested in what you think of this before I comment any further.

Blogger Aurini November 09, 2013 1:40 PM  

Another factor favouring Europe:

When the economic crisis hits, it's going to hit there first - but the true bottoming-out will happen in the United States.

Anonymous harry12 November 09, 2013 1:41 PM  

.
In the prior USSA national election, I wrote in Nigel Farage.
.

Anonymous Will Best November 09, 2013 1:42 PM  

The US actually was a melting pot. The problem is we took the pot off the fire of discrimination that did the actual melting.

--

The low birth rate will put the pressure on the social welfare state and ultimately kill it. At which point the biological social safety net of have six kids and stay on good terms with a couple of them will reassert itself.

It probably models very similar to a predator-prey diffEq

Anonymous Red November 09, 2013 1:53 PM  

Vox, can Europe still fight? They're going to need armies to drive their 3ed worlders and progressive elites out.

Anonymous VD November 09, 2013 2:02 PM  

Low Birth rates (in Europe it is extremely low, this is not anything new but has to be mentioned)


So what? There are still far more Europeans than there were before.

Too many "virus" pockets of diversity in almost every European nation.

They will drive them out. They've done it many, many times before. There are already several examples of armed attacks on said pockets everywhere from Greece to Hungary. Right now, the governments are mostly standing aside. It won't be long before the governments are directing them.

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 2:05 PM  

Aren't they already starting to round up the gypsies? Don't see how rounding up muslims or other vibrants would be any different.

Blogger Benzen November 09, 2013 2:08 PM  

"The EU has turned out to be a fraudulent, corrupt, Germanic empire and most of Europe will celebrate when it inevitably collapses."

----------------------------

No dispute about the fradulence and corruption, or the celebration-upon-collapse part. I understand that Vox does not approve of substance-less rhetorics on here (which sits right with me). So I will lay down the facts which lead me to believe that the whole notion of the EU being a "Germanic" empire is wrong:

I. No one was complaining about German dominance when the Euro was established. On the contrary, Mitterand made the creation of a common currency a prerequisite for his blessing of German reunification. It was to be a tool for control over the "hard" northern currencies of Guilder and Mark through the weaker southern ones.

II. From the mid-nineties onward, once it was clear that monetary union would eventually come about, the South was able to enjoy the low interest-rates hitherto reserved for the North. In this time of southern boom and investment, no one was complaining about a Germanic empire, which frankly would have been even more evidently wrong than it is today, given the poor German investment and employment figures back then.

II-Bonus: In fact, when this interest-rate convergence began in 1995, Germany was third in per capita GDP in Europe. By the time of the Lehmann bust, we had fallen to 11th.

III. Come around 2000, Germany was done for. It was last in economic growth in Europe, suffered from mass unemployment and the lowest net investment rate of all OECD countries. The Schröder administration had no choice but to make massive cuts in welfare, unemployment aid, and forcing people to work at lower wages. To attest that Germany profited from the euro in this would be a reversal of reality.

IV. While this was happening, wages in the south were shooting up. Again, no complaints up until here.

V. Once the crisis hit, the situation turned upside down dramatically. The bubbles that had been accumulating in the south popped, and it became clear that their productivity nowhere matched their inflated wage levels. In a way, they were facing the same situation the Germans had back in 2000.

VI. Resisting adjustment though (which would have to be by way of decreasing wages, given the single currency), they continued spending. Since they could no longer borrow at low interest rates in the market (no one was willing to lend that low), the EU jumped in and guaranteed to buy off southern bonds in case of insolvency. In other words, the south could continue to go into debt as they wished, to either pay off already existing debts or purchase northern goods, knowing they were backed by the ECB. This is the regime that has been running since 2008, and currently (imho) the only thing keeping the markets "quiet".

VII. Sensing the fragility of this arrangement, the French especially (but really leftitsts all over Europe, also in the north) started pushing for completely mutualized debt by way of "eurobonds". Encountering northern resistance against this plan, and resenting having to comply with northern conditions in exchange for the debt guarantees, a narrative began to brew about how all was really a devious German bid for dominance.

Blogger Benzen November 09, 2013 2:09 PM  

(continued)

VIII. This narrative (insofar as it wasn't completely adhominem, i.e. Merkel = Hitler) focused on the supposed unique benefit of the euro to Germany, in enabling cheap exports. While there clearly is a large German current account surplus, this narrative ignores that as a resource poor country, Germany first has to import (at a premium) resources it can then process and export in turn; not to mention imports purely for consumption.

IX. It is all but clear that there is but no chance for countries like Greece or Portugal to get back on track in this defect currency union. We are left with the absurd situation of the north guaranteeing the debt through which the south keeps on buying northern goods. This is the proverbial bottomless barrel. What is baffling to me is how my own countrymen do not understand the meaning of these Target imbalances (I hope this term is correct in translation).

----------------------------------

Lest anybody starts speculating, yes, I am a German. I hope though to have demonstrated that my reasons for detesting the euro, or the notion of this schlamassel being a "German empire", are grounded in sad reality, and not any animosty towards southern Europeans. We are kin, and I wish you to prosper and grow as much as my own people. Cheers

Anonymous nordicthunder November 09, 2013 2:14 PM  

" Remember, in relative terms, the European police and militaries are even more poorly armed than their people are."



huh, my ignorance is showing, as an american who has not traveled abroad, I have assumed for many years that most EU countries followed the Brit gun control model, (the only exceptions being the Finns and possibly Swiss, who have a requirement to have military arms in house iirc)

through reading I'm aware you posses firearms in Italy, is the process a larger PITA than here ? if this has already been asked and answered, forgive the intrusion

Anonymous Glossy November 09, 2013 2:38 PM  

"Remember, both the post-Lenin Soviets and the National Socialists were left-wing parties that were strongly nationalistic."

This is true in a way. Both Hitler and post-WWII Soviet leaders were economically left-wing, but ethno-nationalist and socially conservative. The Soviet case is complicated by the fact that Stalin wasn't physically Russian. However he gradually embraced Russian nationalism in the run-up to and during the war. Some claim that this was a short-term political expediency (anything to win). The facts argue against that interpretation. Stalin did not abandon implicit Russian nationalism after the war. Khuschev and Brezhnev kept it as well.

Why do most Americans find it difficult to imagine that left-wing, statist economics can co-exist with social conservatism and ethno-nationalism? That's a very easy question to answer. In America statism disproportionately benefits blacks. Any further expansion of the state would result in a net transfer from white taxpayers to blacks. Well, this is irrelevant in countries that are either homogeneous or have a mix of ethnicities with roughly equal levels of human capital. Until massive third-world immigration hit Europe the link between laissez-faire economics on the one hand and nationalism and social conservatism on the other was mostly an American peculiarity. Laissez-faire economics was in fact often called liberal. If I'm not mistaken, the first system of universal healthcare in the world was instituted by Bismarck, a very conservative dude in all other respects.

As Europe receives more low-IQ, tax-consuming immigrants, I would expect European nationalists' views on economics to gradually come closer to the US right-wing view of it.

Anonymous fnn November 09, 2013 2:54 PM  

The French welfare state has its roots in Vichy:

Vichy Lives!—In a Way
(...)
second broad category of survivals from Vichy consists of programs of social and medical assistance. The Vichy regime was a welfare state.3 L’Héritage de Vichy serves as a useful reminder that the welfare state was not originally a socialist or Communist project. It was introduced into European political life from the right, first by Bismarck, with sickness and accident insurance in imperial Germany in 1883–1884, and emulated by Count Eduard von Taaffe in the Austrian Empire in 1887. Bismarck had just outlawed the German Social Democratic Party, and his intention was to eliminate its reason for being as well as to consolidate a paternalist and statist social order. Continental European Marxists opposed piecemeal welfare measures as likely to dilute worker militancy without changing anything fundamental about the distribution of wealth and power. It was only after World War II, when they abandoned Marxism (in 1959 in West Germany, for example), that continental European socialist parties and unions fully accepted the welfare state as their ultimate goal.
(...)

Anonymous Jack Amok November 09, 2013 2:57 PM  

Benzen,

I understand your points, and I agree that the EU didn't start off to be a "Germanic" empire (it started off to be a French one), it has evolved into that simply because the Germans were the most productive and responsible members of it.

One way to view the formation of the EU was as a Franco-German partnership. The French had tried and failed to dominate Europe militarily, and figured they'd try to do it politically. The Germans (as I think P.J. O'Rourke said) got in because then they could be "Europeans" instead of "Germans" and put the Nazi/Kaiser stigma behind them. Plus it gave them better markets for their exports (if Germany had any designs on an empire, it was an economic one, not a political one). So France would provide the politicians (with a few tokens from smaller countries) and Germany would provide the industry (again, with a few token companies from elsewhere), and the rest of the continent would provide the markets.

But the French political class is incompetent, and it's financial class is worse. They bungled their end of it (though honestly, it was probably a hopeless task to begin with), and birthed the various financial train wrecks of the last few years. Germany mostly lived up to it's part of the bargain, and, being almost the only member to actually have been competent and responsible, ended up holding the political bag.

At the same time, a new generation has come of political age in Germany that doesn't feel the need to apologize for Nazi's, even though the rest of the continent still wants to use that as a club to extract money from them.

The tragedy for you Benzen is that is wasn't a Germanic Empire while most of the mistakes were being made. But now that it's falling apart, you guys are stepping up to try and save it and making it a Germanic empire just in time for it to collapse. Bad timing - it's not salvageable and trying to do so is just going to get you blamed. Best to just walk away and write off the losses.

Anonymous John Regan November 09, 2013 3:07 PM  

I also think Europe's advantage has something to do with its common heritage. Whatever may have happened later, the countries of Europe were originally civilized by one influence: that of the Roman Empire and the Church. Even countries that eventually became predominantly protestant didn't start out that way.

By contrast, I often say that the United States is the only country on earth that was actually founded as protestant. Protestantism may have its good points, but devotion to tradition and cultural cohesiveness are not among them.

Anonymous VD November 09, 2013 3:07 PM  

Some additional evidence from Via Meadia:

Three out of four respondents, 76%, believed anti-Semitism had increased over the past five years…. The survey found 29% of those surveyed had considered emigrating because of concerns about safety, with particularly high figures recorded in Hungary (48%), France (46%) and Belgium (40%).

Interestingly, the piece reports that European Jews tend to believe that anti-semitism is coming mostly from Muslim populations and from the European left-wing, not from the European right-wing.


Other than in one evangelical church, I have seen zero philosemitism in Europe in 15 years. The spectrum ranges from complete indifference to open hostility towards Jews. If they took an honest poll, I suspect about 85 percent of Europeans would say that Jews should move to Israel and about 40 percent would favor making them go. Ironically, the least antisemitic are the Italians, which one would expect, and the Germans, which one would not, since the older Germans are somewhat susceptible to Holocaust appeals. But that is rapidly dying out with the WWII generation.

Anonymous TheVillageIdiotRet November 09, 2013 3:32 PM  

The Germans are doing with Banks
What they couldn't do with Tanks
VD

If you can't German it
French it
DannyR

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 3:33 PM  

Vox, what do you think are some of the causes of European hostility towards Jews, compared to America?

Do you think the increased influence of Christian zionism and the political influence of the evangelical church in America is a factor?

Blogger Unknown November 09, 2013 3:48 PM  

Americans deserve their government... Say it until it sinks in.

A.W.

Blogger Benzen November 09, 2013 4:04 PM  

"The tragedy for you Benzen is that is wasn't a Germanic Empire while most of the mistakes were being made. But now that it's falling apart, you guys are stepping up to try and save it and making it a Germanic empire just in time for it to collapse. Bad timing - it's not salvageable and trying to do so is just going to get you blamed. Best to just walk away and write off the losses."

-------------------------------

You are of course right Jack in that this is the narrative that will ultimately win out. There was never an empire to be had (or a good reputation, for that matter) by trying to hold it all together.

What's really making me cringe is that my people will be twicely duped: first, all anger and blame for the failure of the Euro will be pointed at Germany (in the public's eye). Second, starry eyed as my people are at the moment about these matters (just look at the abysmal performance of the only openly Eurosceptic party in the general elections two months ago), the default will hit them hard. Companies will have to write off hundreds of millions of unpaid bills, laying off unsuspecting workers ('but everything was going so well up until now") by the thousands. Schadenfreude will reign supreme.


I don't mean to derail the thread though. The much bigger issue at hand is of course the colonization of our continent by outside forces, and it is encouraging to see nationalist resistance on the rise. As usually, given our political betaization (or gammaization by Vox's hierarchy), the Germans will be late to join the bunch, although for instance Identitarian ideas seem to make good progress in my age bracket. Cheers

Anonymous Karl Franz November 09, 2013 4:06 PM  

While I dont share any hope for western europe, eastern europe is a whole different matter, I agree with the rest of the blogpost whole hearted. The most immigrant hostile people I have ever met was devoted socialists, if their leaders decide they had enough it will be like flicking a switch, rough policy changes everywhere and they media will support it wholehearted and explain that "we always been at war with eurasia"

Blogger Duke of Earl November 09, 2013 4:32 PM  

New Zealand politics tend to be socialist, I sometimes joke that our hard right parties are to the left of the American democrats (except it isn't a joke). We do prefer financial conservatism though, no party with an uncontrolled chequebook has lasted long. We've ridden out the global financial crisis reasonably well so far thanks to our government cutting costs as much as it could without compromising services and we may be in surplus beginning to pay down our debt next year.

We do have a fairly low immigration rate, a limit just under 50,000 a year, and of course being an island nation makes illegal immigration a difficult scenario. On the other hand we do have a large non-native population, about 20% of the total. We're a bit picky, now they're instituting policies where wealthy well educated foreigners get preferential treatment as immigrants.

Are we nationalistic? We can be, particularly over rugby games. Not so much as Europeans though, possibly because we don't have much of a history. We tend to be wary of excessive enthusiasm on any matter.

Anonymous Daniel November 09, 2013 4:38 PM  

>>>“It is very easy to exploit such themes to get votes,” she said. “They take a lot of votes from my party. It is unfair.”

It's soooo unfair. If she were in America she could get a law passed against unfairness.

Blogger agraves November 09, 2013 4:57 PM  

This article is exactly correct! The U.S. is the biggest obstacle to the world governments recovering their sovereign status. Our two party system is blocking the progress needed to save ourselves as the ruling party stops almost all other voices. An example would be: I live in Illinois, when the general election rolls around and I vote republican that vote is virtually worthless as the majority gets all the delegates, I might as well not vote, even if the election is close in my state my voice goes unheard. No country chooses two party systems anymore, why we did was probably to distance ourselves from England. Alex

Anonymous Scintan November 09, 2013 4:59 PM  

The problem with this theory is that even the so-called "far right" in Europe is realistically just a pretty far left in the U.S.. They'll break things down into tinier pieces, but the those pieces will still have all the problems that were there before. They just won't have size to slow the collapses. Until fundamental thinking regarding the role of government reverses itself in both Europe and the U.S., those areas will remain in the midst of death spirals.

Blogger Markku November 09, 2013 5:17 PM  

Vox, what do you think are some of the causes of European hostility towards Jews, compared to America?

I think a person will hate a Jew, if permitted to do so. Europe has no mechanism as successful as USA to prevent it, hence nature takes its course.

Blogger Hacked acctount 2018/19? hcaacked! November 09, 2013 5:21 PM  

This post was extremely enlightening.

For some reason I get stuck on VAT's, a EURO currency collapse, foreign films or something like that. Anyways, Europe will and always have seemed to survive, muddle through their travails in better health, better quality of life and they have mastered, well, it seems like they have mastered flipping out when necessary but then at other times their coping skills eclipse what is going on stateside. Austerity, blood and gore don't phaze or scare Europeans.

Then again, I know nothing of stateside or overseas life. It just appears from the outside looking in they are generally better off.

I am following the careers of Monti,Grillo, Farage, Merkel, Iceland, Putin, Finland, etc. Of course, I'm mixing up geography and confusing the comment but they seem to be the rational adults of this era. Regardless of their failures, corruptions, good deeds and policies, at least these people make sense.

Then we have or Europe has the issue of Israel and what VD stated above is the coherent reality on that end of the spectrum.

Anyways, I wonder if the citizens over there are as indifferent and not dependent upon gov't, systems, bureaucracies and elections as many Americans are taking this road.

Blogger Unknown November 09, 2013 5:25 PM  

Free lotto tickets for every vibrant abortion and vibrant vasectomies. Plus, send the (anti)family courts after them.

Blogger Bob Loblaw November 09, 2013 5:27 PM  

Whereas the Tea Party has gone nowhere and accomplished nothing, several anti-central, anti-globalist parties are on the verge of taking control of their national parliaments.

Because the Tea Party isn't actually a party at all. It's more of an amorphous movement with agreed upon positions on only a tiny number of issues. Tea Party people from different states believe different things and have different ideas about strategy.

The European parties have advantages in that they're actual parties with a complete platform, and also parliamentary systems are more amenable to small parties (which is probably why the Tea Party isn't a party).

Blogger Bob Loblaw November 09, 2013 5:31 PM  

For some reason, probably because they only visit a few of the largest cities, Americans tend to be under the impression that there are far more Muslims in Europe than there are.

And yet on a percentage basis there are far more Muslims in Europe than in the US. Attitudes will change as the percentage goes up, and I don't see the US reacting to rioting with the same easygoing attitude we saw in the UK, France, and Sweden.

Blogger Whiskey November 09, 2013 6:03 PM  

Vox, I love your writing, but so many other Europeans think you are dead, absolutely, completely wrong:

Do Whites Deserve to Be Attacked? Short version, two Norwegians cohabitating, man and woman (I know, odd for Europeans) are attacked by vibrant multicultural people from South Sudan, in their own home in Oslo. They write an article saying all Whites should be attacked for not letting in the entire Third World. To much applause by all.

Meanwhile the Greek Government has arrested most of Golden Dawn and allowed assassinations on the rest. Because GD is mean to Third Worlders. Greeks largely accept and applaud their nation being over-run by Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Sudanese, Somalis, and Syrians. As do lets face it, Britons, Germans, Spanish, Italians, and more.

The French made "Intouchables" about some Gabonese immigrant who beats up (Whites) becoming the best friend of a wheel-chair bound French guy. They elected Hollande on the promise that he would be more Ghetto than Ghetto (according to his campaign video). The Italians as you know have a Congolese woman as Immigration Minister who is opening up Italy to most of the Congo. The British reacted to the beheading of a White British Soldier in London in broad daylight by ... arresting people who said bad things about the beheaders on Twitter and Facebook.

Europe is even more than America, gripped by religion. That of worship of NAMs. Blacks in particular. Whites mostly believe in White Original Sin, salvation by adopting Black/NAM ways in everything, and a secular savior in the figure of whatever Black politician is around. Heck even Soccer players get expelled from leagues for saying bad things to Black players.

America is in better shape because they still hold to the old-time Christian religion, with all its flaws, than the new NAM-worship religion that appropriated the form but not content of Christianity. As bad as NAM worship and Open Borders are here, they are worse in Europe. If you believe the folks at Gates of Vienna, or Mark Steyn.

Blogger stats November 09, 2013 6:04 PM  

I think a person will hate a Jew, if permitted to do so. Europe has no mechanism as successful as USA to prevent it, hence nature takes its course.

This has been the mantra since WWII, and I believed it for years. But I've become deeply antisemetic over the last 10 years, and it has got nothing to do with an irrational fear of the other. I've watched the Jews actions since 9/11 and because of their inordinate influence in the US, the wars they have gotten us into on their behalf, the lies, mendacity and dirty tricks of the neo-cons and Israel, I've grown to hate and fear them. Because of this I believe that the Europeans have disliked, hated and feared the the Jews for rational reasons.

Blogger Markku November 09, 2013 6:06 PM  

But I've become deeply antisemetic over the last 10 years

As have I. However, I can't see how my claim takes a position one way or the other. I mean, it could as well be that a person will naturally hate a Jew because they are loathsome by nature, or it could be out of envy or whatnot.

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 6:08 PM  

Europe has no mechanism as successful as USA to prevent it, hence nature takes its course.

What mechanisms in particular?

Blogger Markku November 09, 2013 6:12 PM  

What mechanisms in particular?

My theory is that dispensationalism has traditionally placed enough weight on one end of the scale that people who aren't with the program can be browbeaten to submission, at least thus far. And it has also allowed Jews to gain much more power than in Europe, both political and intellectual (television) to help keep the goys subjugated.

Blogger Markku November 09, 2013 6:17 PM  

Sorry, goyim.

Blogger Whiskey November 09, 2013 6:25 PM  

Let me add, Europe has neither the will nor the means to stop massive Third World immigration into it. The will is lacking because European peoples, elites, and their governments all worship open borders and NAMS. And they don't have the money or men to fight to preserve their borders even if they had the will. The Africans and Muslims have lots of young men. The Europeans, hardly any.

Europe will fall, fast and hard, just as Russia is already falling under Putin. The FT had a series on immigration into Russia, not just from Central Asia but also Africa and the ME. Russians have been killed in Moscow, provoking "nativist" riots but Putin has tried to smother them. Because he depends both on Open Borders rhetoric about a reconstituted Soviet Empire and direct payoffs from immigrants to police for support. Hence his many "respect for Islam" speeches and so on.

Lets ponder that. NOT EVEN PUTIN has the ability to close his borders to mass non-White immigration when he has every incentive to do: domestic political support for safer streets and higher wages by workers. Not even Putin.

Meanwhile the center of gravity, European cities, are Muslim dominated affairs with a putative Muslim Protector (Iran) at nuclear breakout capacity. How many nukes does Germany, Italy, the Netherlands have? Will the US protect them? How about France or Britain?

Basically European worship of NAMS + Massive Manpower advantage in Young Men (20:1, basically) + Nuclear Iran + Jihad + Existing Demographics = Europe doomed. And in decades not a century. Probably unless things change radically now, most of Europe save Iceland and maybe Switzerland will be Muslim Republics run by North African and Pakistani Muslims, with a massive African population and marginalized, serf-status Whites. Africans and Muslims can afford catastrophic losses (up to 90%) of existing young men because there literally billions to replace them. Europeans can afford no more than 10% losses of young men because there are literally only thousands in many cases. This makes the case that historically cities have been very bad places to be in warfare fairly irrelevant, particularly given that European militaries are pretend parade creatures, not real fighting forces. Meanwhile the number of young Muslim men in say, London or Paris or Berlin who fought in jihad in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria is frighteningly large.

And tens of thousands land at Lampedusa every year, each year more than the last. While the Pope prays for them and Italy makes those drowned citizens (enabling their relatives to come and get supported by Italians).

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 6:30 PM  

Shut up, Whiskey

Anonymous DonReynolds November 09, 2013 6:30 PM  

Great discussion. Very enjoyable.
Just wanted to mention a few fine points that have not been touched upon.
Not all European countries use the Euro currency and not all European countries belong to the EU.
The EU began as the Coal & Steel Community, which was an invention to supposedly prevent another world war, since no one country controlled their own steel production, which is (was) necessary for armaments.
But the pressures of NATO and the Cold War and the failure of the (Henry) Morgenthau plan, enabled Germany to rebuild and finally re-unify. (Not without problems of their own.)

Blogger stats November 09, 2013 6:33 PM  

Shut up, Whiskey

Why? He makes a very interesting argument.

Anonymous DonReynolds November 09, 2013 6:36 PM  

Whiskey....."How many nukes does Germany, Italy, the Netherlands have? Will the US protect them? How about France or Britain?"

France has their own nukes, so do the Brits. The rest have every nuke in NATO, including those of the USA.
Nutty as they are, the Persians are not nutty enough to even talk about it.

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 6:43 PM  

Why? He makes a very interesting argument.

No he doesn't.

We're already starting to see Europeans turn against immigration. His entire argument is based on the premise that they won't.

Blogger Markku November 09, 2013 6:45 PM  

No, we're not STARTING to see it, we're seeing the point where they are just about to become the dominant political power. True Finns, for example, are just at the verge of becoming the biggest party, which would make Timo Soini the prime minister.

Anonymous fritz November 09, 2013 6:45 PM  

Someone who has chosen flight to Europe might think this way. In fact, Dr. PCR makes a good case for this. It may well be too late. However, there are some better placed individuals. Fairly high-placed individuals. One of them, is actually a resident of Europe. He has higher hopes for his native land.

Give the American people the truth and they will always find the best, most constitutional answer to any problem,”

That was expressed by the widow of Colonel Russell Herrman. What makes her so special, and her late husband one might say? Well, let put it this way. Herrman:

who held the $17 trillion in a gold bullion Contra account which was the reason for an inexplicably cruel and inhumanely torturous death [1]



---------------------
[1] Gee, did anyone catch this? Has anyone connected the dots here? There seems to be another sum of money equal to this lying around. Is it possible the U.S. national debt is ransom? Expected to be paid? By the insouciant (PCR's description) American? Perhaps that why another says this can be written off in 3 banking days.

Blogger Unknown November 09, 2013 6:47 PM  

I like the framing. "In deference to Islamic dietary law." How about: for muslims, eating pork is like eating dog. For non muslims, eating non pork meat is no big deal so you kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

Anonymous DonReynolds November 09, 2013 6:48 PM  

Whiskey......."This makes the case that historically cities have been very bad places to be in warfare fairly irrelevant, particularly given that European militaries are pretend parade creatures, not real fighting forces."

After the Dunkirk evacuation of British (and some French) forces from mainland Europe in May 1940, the British Ambassador and the German Ambassador met for a short chat in Switzerland.....
.
The German Ambassador sounded a lot like Whiskey. He said......The British have no chance of survival but to surrender. The German forces will blot out the sky with bombers and armies of tanks and men will land in England and overrun the Island.
.
The British Ambassador said......"What's keeping you?"
.
So I tell you Whiskey......
Do it today and wonder no longer.
It has been tried before, by people much more scary than Muslims.

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 6:48 PM  

No, we're not STARTING to see it, we're seeing the point where they are just about to become the dominant political power. True Finns, for example, are just at the verge of becoming the biggest party, which would make Timo Soini the prime minister.

I take it you disagree with Whiskey's arguments?

Blogger Markku November 09, 2013 6:51 PM  

I take it you disagree with Whiskey's arguments?

I don't agree or disagree about Europe being conquered. It might be that the Muslims do have the manpower to take over Europe. Especially since they'll have the women's hearts and minds. However, I do think that Europeans are in a better position than Americans, because the first step to winning is to have your side understand that there is a war going on in the first place. And we are MUCH further than USA on that.

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 6:52 PM  

Perhaps that why another says this can be written off in 3 banking days.

Are you making a prediction that this will happen?

Blogger stats November 09, 2013 6:55 PM  

We're already starting to see Europeans turn against immigration. His entire argument is based on the premise that they won't.

The movements are small, mostly invisible. And if there is nothing but dead and dying Europeans left (demographic collapse since introduction of the pill), what is the point? Jewish interest in the US and Europe will support immigration until they've spent their last dollars and there are enough moronic leftist to keep the doors open until it is too late. I suspect Whiskey is right, despite the minor uptick in nationalist sentiment amongst the European serfs, Europe is toast.

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 6:59 PM  

The movements are small, mostly invisible.

As Markku just said, the True Finns are about to become the largest political party in Finland. That's neither small nor invisible.

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 6:59 PM  

and there are enough moronic leftist to keep the doors open until it is too late

Note what Vox said in his post about trans-ideological nationalism in Europe.

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 7:02 PM  

Also, stats, Vox and Markku are actually IN EUROPE.

Blogger Markku November 09, 2013 7:04 PM  

Latest polls. Ps is True Finns, and they are currently second. They would probably be first unless Kesk, in a sudden flash of genius, kicked out their chairwoman and opted for a middle aged man, which resulted in an unbelievable upturn, kicking everybody's asses.

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 7:05 PM  

When are the elections?

Blogger Markku November 09, 2013 7:10 PM  

2015 :(

It was SO annoying when Keskusta figured out the winning move. We True Finns were JUST about to win the political scene and BAM! Out of nowhere comes a middle-aged white male entrepreneur and starts a political juggernaut.

Blogger Markku November 09, 2013 7:19 PM  

Damn this man.

Damn.

This.

Man.

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 7:33 PM  

So are the True Finns doomed?

Blogger Markku November 09, 2013 7:37 PM  

Well, a lot can happen before 2015. Perhaps it turns out that Sipilä has skeletons in his closet, or something.

Blogger Markku November 09, 2013 7:58 PM  

After all, there is a decades old saying, kepu pettää aina, "Kepu always betrays". Kepu being the shorthand for Keskustapuolue. Will this be the first time the saying fails? I think not.

Blogger Markku November 09, 2013 8:10 PM  

Six and a half decades old, in specific.

Anonymous Grinder November 09, 2013 8:13 PM  

National Socialism is very different from Marxist Socialism. Stalin derailed the plans of internationalist jews with his "Socialism in one country" plan (which he only partially followed, with subsequent acquisitions to his prison house of nations).
While commenters here love to always point out that the NSDAP was a socialist, and therefore leftist party like the communists, it is the national vs. international aspect that is more significant in my opinion. Libertarians who would eliminate the social safety net but still open the borders up for the free flow of goods, capital and labour don't have enough of a solution to the problems facing the white nations. I'd like to see libertarians get their chance, however, or preferably constitutionalists. If they don't deliver a better life for their people, they will not last anyway. I believe that the only alternatives for the long term future of the white race is national socialism or extinction. If it is to be the latter, then the white race deserved no better. And dilution of the race by generations of miscegenation is still extinction. Breed your prize winning German shepherd with a spaniel or a mix and you do not end up with a shepherd. You have a mutt and you will never breed another shepherd from that animal again.

Blogger Markku November 09, 2013 8:20 PM  

And dilution of the race by generations of miscegenation is still extinction.

In college (or the closest Finnish equivalent, lukio), in biology class regarding genetics, I remember hearing that skin color is determined by a very large amount of genes randomly combining, but in each individual combination, the white gene is the dominant one, in the Mendelian sense. I remember this because for the end term exams, I memorized this with the mnemonic "white race dominates".

So, it cannot become actually extinct unless everyone on the planet that isn't perfectly 100% black is killed.

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 8:29 PM  

I believe that the only alternatives for the long term future of the white race is national socialism or extinction. If it is to be the latter, then the white race deserved no better.

So it's socialism or bust for you?

See, one of the reasons diversity is bad is that diversity leads to socialism.

So if the only way to prevent diversity is socialism, what's the point again?

Anonymous Shibes Meadow November 09, 2013 8:43 PM  

Note: I have lived in Europe and traveled worldwide.

The one advantage the Euros have over the USA is culture. Nationalism, Europe's only hope, is based upon the existence of nations. And what is a nation? It is an organic unity of people bonded together by culture. And what is culture? It is a group of people defined by what or whom they worship (cultus, "worship") -- that is, by the things which they value the most -- and the means by which they do so. The French, for example, value/worship Jesus Christ ( in the Catholic Church) first and foremost; next, they value their families (DNA, ancestry); and, finally, they value their language (the French language) and its attendant arts and folkways (music, poetry, customs, etc.) by which Christ is adored, their traditions and ancestors are venerated, and communication made possible. The French culture is the worship of Christ as God and the veneration of France as a unique and organic entity. The degree to which a given resident of France participates in this "cult of France" is the degree to which he is truly French.

In America, there is no culture, and thus no American nation. Proto-nations do exist within America (e.g., Negroes, Aztlan, "the South"), but they are deliberately kept from developing naturally by the overwhelming power of the federal entiity. Just as Rome encouraged both Galilean and Gaul to think of themselves as citizens of the Empire first, so too does Washington push the idea of "one nation" -- formerly under God, now simply indivisible.

But when Rome grew weak and began to die the Germans were still there -- because the Germans were a nation, not merely a state. And as the Empire decayed, the Germans took their land back from Rome, and eventually they and others took Rome itself.

The Mexicans are "our Germans". Right now they serve in our Legions and use our roads. But when the roads fall apart and the Legions no longer get paid, their loyalty will revert to "Germany" (Mexico), and they will become a nation. The same is true of Negroes, White Southerners, and others.

The EU will fall. The French Republic will fall. But France as a nation will be there as long as French culture remains. Here, we have no "American" culture. All we have is a flag, a constitution, and taxes -- just as Rome did.

Anonymous allyn71 November 09, 2013 8:48 PM  

"So if the only way to prevent diversity is socialism, what's the point again?" - Josh November 09, 2013 8:29 PM

There you go using that logic stuff again.

Remember it doesn't have to make sense, if it feels good.

What could go wrong with running a world that way?

Anonymous allyn71 November 09, 2013 8:53 PM  

@ Grinder

Please explain the many benefits national socialism that are not present with international socialism. Why will it work on a national scale but not on an international one?

Blogger Markku November 09, 2013 9:02 PM  

The national socialist argument is that helping the fellow man when he is in trouble will result in a stronger society if you get rid of the parasites. Because he will then become a productive member of the society again, and help others in similar trouble.

And that only those with long roots in the country have incentive to work for the common good, because they really care about their own. International socialism, on the other hand, will bring more of the parasites and ruin the entire plan, because the resources will be mostly spent in feeding the parasites. Which, in turn, will attract more of them.

But I don't think the national part will be enough to combat the parasite effect. The human material just isn't good enough. The power that comes along with such a scheme is too attractive for just the wrong kind of people.

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 9:06 PM  

The French, for example, value/worship Jesus Christ ( in the Catholic Church) first and foremost; next, they value their families (DNA, ancestry); and, finally, they value their language (the French language) and its attendant arts and folkways (music, poetry, customs, etc.) by which Christ is adored, their traditions and ancestors are venerated, and communication made possible. The French culture is the worship of Christ as God and the veneration of France as a unique and organic entity. The degree to which a given resident of France participates in this "cult of France" is the degree to which he is truly French.

Yeah, France is a model of a Christian nation...

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 9:07 PM  

But I don't think the national part will be enough to combat the parasite effect. The human material just isn't good enough. The power that comes along with such a scheme is too attractive for just the wrong kind of people.

When it doesn't even work in modern Sweden or Nazi Germany, where can it work?

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 9:08 PM  

Please explain the many benefits national socialism that are not present with international socialism. Why will it work on a national scale but not on an international one?

Because the French worship Jesus Christ, but the Americans do not.

Anonymous allyn71 November 09, 2013 9:23 PM  

"... that helping the fellow man when he is in trouble will result in a stronger society if you get rid of the parasites." - Markku November 09, 2013 9:02 PM

And how do you get rid of the parasites when there is no incentive to produce because... Socialism? Wouldn't there be more parasites made than could be gotten rid of? If international socialism brings in parasites, but national socialism doesn't make them?

Anonymous Shibes Meadow November 09, 2013 9:25 PM  

When the French stopped worshiping Christ, the nation became dormant, and the revolutionary French State, the Republic, arose. But the Republic is not France. France is the French nation, which is Catholic and organic, and which still exists. It is merely asleep The rise of the Right in France is nothing but the awakening of the French nation, the true France, which is centered upon a king, a king anointed by God through the Church. Once France awakens, the French will shrug off the Revolutionary State and its false laicisme and France will once again be a true nation.

Blogger Markku November 09, 2013 9:28 PM  

By the way, it isn't accurate to say that culture stems from religious origins.
---
culture (n.)
mid-15c., "the tilling of land," from Middle French culture and directly from Latin cultura "a cultivating, agriculture," figuratively "care, culture, an honoring," from past participle stem of colere "tend, guard, cultivate, till" (see cult). The figurative sense of "cultivation through education" is first attested c.1500. Meaning "the intellectual side of civilization" is from 1805; that of "collective customs and achievements of a people" is from 1867.
---

Even though the word cult has some overlap with the word in its origins, the straightforward way to understand culture is as a metaphor of farmed land that is cultivated for a specific purpose, instead of just giving it up to nature. So that it grows grain instead of weeds.

Anonymous allyn71 November 09, 2013 9:28 PM  

"Because the French worship Jesus Christ,.." - Josh November 09, 2013 9:08 PM

Oh yes, I forgot what a bastion of Catholicism France was, I see your point. Grinder does make a compelling arguement doesn't he?

I heard last week they had to run all the tourist out of Notre Dame to make room for all the parishioners attending mass, oh wait...

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 9:31 PM  

The rise of the Right in France is nothing but the awakening of the French nation, the true France, which is centered upon a king, a king anointed by God through the Church. Once France awakens, the French will shrug off the Revolutionary State and its false laicisme and France will once again be a true nation.

Have you met Wheeler? I think y'all might get along.

Blogger Markku November 09, 2013 9:32 PM  

And how do you get rid of the parasites when there is no incentive to produce because... Socialism?

Supposedly because a countryman will have a natural affection for his countryman, whereas an alien will not. However, I don't believe this. Finland was very much not vibrant when I was a child, yet I ended up rejecting socialism because I learned to so much distrust the human material from which it would be made.

Vibrancy has of course made things worse, but I have no faith that even perfect ethnic cleansing could make socialism work.

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 9:32 PM  

By the way, it isn't accurate to say that culture stems from religious origins.

So you mean Shibes' clever little theory is actually rooted in bullshit? Amazing...

Anonymous allyn71 November 09, 2013 9:33 PM  

"... a king anointed by God through the Church. ... France will once again be a true nation." - Shibes Meadow November 09, 2013 9:25 PM

You claim it will be a monarchy, Grinder claims the true France will be national socialistic, will it be a National Socialistic Monarchy? A Monarch or a Dear Leader really aren't that much different, ones sucessor is bred, the other is selected, other than that....

Anonymous allyn71 November 09, 2013 9:39 PM  

"Supposedly because a countryman will have a natural affection for his countryman, whereas an alien will not. However, I don't believe this." - Markku November 09, 2013 9:32 PM

I know Markku, your just pointing out that side since Grinder didn't stick around to play.

Since he ran off before the fun could start I was entertaining myself picking on your presentation of his argument to point out the problem with socialism whether national or international. Either way you run out of other peoples money and those that believe otherwise are living in a fantasy world.

As Josh already pointed out if the Swedes and Nazi's couldn't make it work, who could?

Apparently the French, who knew?

Anonymous allyn71 November 09, 2013 9:42 PM  

"Have you met Wheeler? I think y'all might get along." - Josh November 09, 2013 9:31 PM

Does Wheeler have kin? The other night we learned Asher does so....

Anonymous Grinder November 09, 2013 9:42 PM  

I believe that the only alternatives for the long term future of the white race is national socialism or extinction. If it is to be the latter, then the white race deserved no better.

So it's socialism or bust for you?

See, one of the reasons diversity is bad is that diversity leads to socialism.

So if the only way to prevent diversity is socialism, what's the point again?


That's not what I wrote and not what I believe. I will support a party that reduces non-white immigration but is otherwise libertarian if no better choice is available. I just don't think it will be sufficient even if actually go through with limiting non-white immigration.
I don't believe that socialism is bad but I believe diversity is bad. I don't mind paying taxes to pay for welfare for whites. I hate my taxes supporting non-whites. To me, it is like being forced at gunpoint to dig my own grave. Finally, socialism is not the only way to prevent diversity, there are several others. The National Socialist path is the one I find most preferable. The unrestrained capitalist vision, even if all non-whites were struck down by a genetically engineered super-virus will only lead to the worker underclass mobilized by rivals of the elites to violently overthrow the current aristocracy and become the new aristocracy, with much death and destruction in the interim.

Blogger Markku November 09, 2013 9:43 PM  

I do know, however, that if I was a bit younger, I would probably be much more persuaded by the national socialist argument. It would seem so very logical that if you just took vibrancy away, it would work. It would HAVE to work. Because it just sounds so logical. Had I never seen a time without vibrancy, I would absolutely believe it.

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 9:46 PM  

unrestrained capitalist vision, even if all non-whites were struck down by a genetically engineered super-virus will only lead to the worker underclass mobilized by rivals of the elites to violently overthrow the current aristocracy and become the new aristocracy, with much death and destruction in the interim.

That happens in socialist regimes as well. Probably more frequently than in capitalist ones.

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 9:47 PM  

I don't believe that socialism is bad but I believe diversity is bad. I don't mind paying taxes to pay for welfare for whites. I hate my taxes supporting non-whites.

So what happens when everyone decides to stop producing and go on welfare?

Anonymous allyn71 November 09, 2013 9:48 PM  

"I don't mind paying taxes to pay for welfare for whites...." - Grinder November 09, 2013 9:42 PM

What do you do with the pure whites that survive the genetically engineered super-virus plague that don't want to work because your taxes pay for their welfare?

Is this National Socialist government determined through elections?

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 9:49 PM  

I do know, however, that if I was a bit younger, I would probably be much more persuaded by the national socialist argument. It would seem so very logical that if you just took vibrancy away, it would work. It would HAVE to work. Because it just sounds so logical. Had I never seen a time without vibrancy, I would absolutely believe it.

The argument of every socialist scheme is that it will work this time because this time the right people are in charge.

And every time it has yet to work.

Anonymous allyn71 November 09, 2013 9:50 PM  

"That happens in socialist regimes as well." - Josh November 09, 2013 9:46 PM

Not this one because they are white and French.

Anonymous Anonymous1 November 09, 2013 9:53 PM  

Not this one because they are white and French.

Yeah, they certainly don't have a history of popular uprisings killing off the elites...

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 9:55 PM  

Not this one because they are white and French.

Yeah, they certainly don't have a history of popular uprisings killing off the elites...

Anonymous allyn71 November 09, 2013 9:56 PM  

"Had I never seen a time without vibrancy, I would absolutely believe it." - Markku November 09, 2013 9:43 PM

Had you considered much economic theory before this time of vibrancy? I am genuinely curious as to whether you had read much on economic thought and still would have believed that national socialism could work.

Anonymous allyn71 November 09, 2013 9:59 PM  

"Yeah, they certainly don't have a history of popular uprisings killing off the elites..." - Josh November 09, 2013 9:55 PM

Hey, they stopped once they were down to martyring Carmelite nuns.

Anonymous Vidad November 09, 2013 10:02 PM  

What we really need is a return to constitutional monarchies. Forget this "rule by the people" stuff. It takes a king with his family on the line to make the tough choices that need making.

Blogger Markku November 09, 2013 10:03 PM  

Had you considered much economic theory before this time of vibrancy?

No, I had absorbed socialism from my parents. Kind of Churchianity style, they hadn't really thought hard about it either, it was just the cultural thing to be.

And it wasn't national socialism, it was merely socialism without even the thought that there would be vibrancy around later. There was no reason to think so, unless you were unusually perceptive.

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 10:03 PM  

What we really need is a return to constitutional monarchies. Forget this "rule by the people" stuff. It takes a king with his family on the line to make the tough choices that need making.

One advantage of that is that when things go wrong it's easier to identify whom to kill.

Anonymous allyn71 November 09, 2013 10:04 PM  

"What we really need is a return to constitutional monarchies" - Vidad November 09, 2013 10:02 PM

Can it be a constitutional national socialist monarchy?

Anonymous Rick Johnsmeyer November 09, 2013 10:08 PM  

"Socialism," of course, is not one particular policy or set of policies. It gets used as a catch-all term that often amounts to "things I don't like." But as a political descriptor, it's useless without further reference to specific programs existing within specific cultures.

This is why group cohesion matters. Much of what would be seen as "communitarianism" or a natural outgrowth of human regard for group members in a coherent society would look exactly like the dread "socialism" or "redistribution" in a non-cohesive society like the US. That's because fractious societies must first mediate such things through a state entity which cannot help but feel remote, rather than inherent to a particular culture.

To put it another way, economic "lensing" must be contextual. The East Germans ran their communism with more competence and achievement than Albania did. Haiti and Switzerland are both "capitalist." Economics is sometimes described as the science of autism because it simply blows right past such critical distinctions in favor of entirely deracinated, rule-based systems which are supposed to have general applicability across all groups.

That is not, though, how the world actually functions. A statement "socialism is bad' is mostly meaningless. Whose socialism? Which policies? Where? And at what point in time?

Anonymous allyn71 November 09, 2013 10:11 PM  

"No, I had absorbed socialism from my parents. Kind of Churchianity style, they hadn't really thought hard about it either, it was just the cultural thing to be." - Markku November 09, 2013 10:03 PM

While vibrancy is the main driver in your rejection of socialism, what would you say the influence of the economic thought you have been exposed to here (and elsewhere if appropriate) is compared to the impact vibrancy has had on your ideals?

I know this sounds like some kind of head shrinker session but I am really curious in how the interplay of theory and reality have influenced your ideals in this regard.

Blogger Markku November 09, 2013 10:13 PM  

The main influence that turned me into a right-winger was my closest friend in school, with whom I had numerous debates. With me arguing for socialism. This was before the arrival of vibrancy into my immediate surroundings. That has merely made me fanatical about my political leanings, it has not been their cause.

Anonymous allyn71 November 09, 2013 10:15 PM  

"This is why group cohesion matters." - Rick Johnsmeyer November 09, 2013 10:08 PM

What do you do with the uncohesive members of the group?

Anonymous allyn71 November 09, 2013 10:19 PM  

@ Markku

Thanks for entertaining my questions and providing the personal insight.

Anonymous Grinder November 09, 2013 10:21 PM  

allyn71 November 09, 2013 8:53 PM
@ Grinder

Please explain the many benefits national socialism that are not present with international socialism. Why will it work on a national scale but not on an international one?


Because blood (and race) is thicker than water. But international socialism, as the Marxists see it, can be successful as the Marxist define success. I would agree as well if I thought a white race dying out was not necessary for success. Jews and other non-whites may publicly claim to be non-racial, they behave otherwise. They all have the right to a homeland for their people and they all do. It is only the white nations that must be multicultural.
Their countries, if civilized, only exist because of the industry of the white race resulting in transfer of wealth to them.
White taxpayers are supporting through their taxes, countries that have universal healthcare, free university education, and some social safety net. This is done either through UN dues, foreign aid or assumption of an obligation for military protection.
I believe that the white race, freed from the parasites at the top, not the bottom, can guarantee a comfortable and secure living for our race. White welfare recipients are a small drain on our economies. We suffer far more from banksters and others who draw income without work like through interest, speculation, insider stock trading and other criminal rackets and the politicians who permit it.
Socialism would guarantee a comfortable living and educational opportunity (like university) would be there for all who have the ability, not those who have fortunes that their parents earned or stole. Incentive would still exist for attaining luxuries, fame or recognition. To paraphrase George Lincoln Rockwell, how many Newtons, Teslas or Edisons went unnoticed to their graves in potter's fields because they were limited by dire poverty to toil endlessly just for survival? To those of you who consider yourselves smart and relatively well-off, do you think the system is working well enough as is? Are you as rich as Paris Hilton or Lindsey Lohan? If not, are they smarter than you are? Is it possible that there are smarter people than you who have less money than you? A system that elevates the weak and unfit over the strong goes against Nature. A more successful nation will seek to improve the race over time and should work to identify the strong early and give them the tools to succeed and the incentives to reproduce and multiply fruitfully. I would add that such a system requires a constitutional republic and not a democracy with ironclad individual rights that cannot be overturned by a change in popular opinion with what is currently fashionable.

Anonymous Samson J. November 09, 2013 10:24 PM  

@Nightstick:

While Europe is better off under the metrics you cite, it is much worse off in spiritual terms and unless there is a Christian revival, European Nationalism will end in more tears this time than it did last time.

This is my thought as well every time Vox makes a post like the OP. I would enjoy hearing his take on what Europeans "on the street" really believe about religion, and whether there's a possibility of revival.

Anonymous Jeremy Janson November 09, 2013 10:25 PM  

While there is truth in this article, it is also true that Nationalism as a European would understand it is not really RELEVANT to the United States because America is a fundamentally different kind of nation, a kind that was never the norm in Europe and was completely discarded in Europe with the rise of Nationalism in the 1830's - the convergent empire. This rise of Nationalism saw the decay, either slow or sudden, of convergent empires in Europe from the Hapsburg Empire to the Ottoman Empire, but America is fundamentally PRE-NATIONALIST of a character cast around the same time, ironically enough, but fundamentally different and detached from genuine naitonalism. America is far more similar to China than any European nation, and while Nationalism certainly has something to offer America from the partisan politics standpoint in 2013 that it did not have to offer in the past, in terms of dealing with a number of complete disasters, including a rotted to Hell Mexican border that even well-facaded pre-national America cannot and should not tolerate, America neither will be nor needs to be truly Nationalist, because America is Pre-Nationalist and neither can nor needs to really fit the Nationalist mold. The truth is that we fit the old Imperialist model better than the European Imperialists ever did.

Blogger Markku November 09, 2013 10:27 PM  

My impression is that Europe is not ripe for a revival at this point. If it happens, it has to be a miracle.

However, when the man on the street starts to have enough fear in his heart for what is in store in his immediate future, then who knows. Things might change with breathtaking speed.

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 10:33 PM  

Grinder,

Can you provide three examples of socialism actually working?

Anonymous Rick Johnsmeyer November 09, 2013 10:35 PM  

"What do you do with the uncohesive members of the group?"

Group cohesion isn't an individuated property. Any given population has some folks who are unhappy to be there, and they generally either leave or persist in their disillusionment. We used to call them "curmudgeons" once they got to a certain age.

Anonymous Grinder November 09, 2013 10:45 PM  

It's ok to criticize others' suggestions for solutions for our society but maybe if people also offered their own suggestions it might make questions posed seem sincere and a little less smug.
In my proposed NS Republic, there would be elections. The vote is limited to citizens and citizenship is limited to those who have served in the military as per Starship Troopers. Only those who have served should have a say when to commit the military to any action. What would libertarians do for elections? What would libertarians do to prevent voters from abolishing libertarianism, if anything?
Would libertarians defend the nation from invaders? What is the incentive for ordinary citizens from defending the nation if they are poor? Wouldn't they be easily bribed by the invader to switch allegiance to the invader? That is what happened in the muslim invasions of Iberia and eastern+southern Europe. Is that ok?

Anonymous allyn71 November 09, 2013 10:45 PM  

"White welfare recipients are a small drain on our economies." - Grinder November 09, 2013 10:21 PM

In gross terms whites recieve more "welfare" in both the United States and Europe.

You anwered one of the original questions I had:

"I would add that such a system requires a constitutional republic and not a democracy with ironclad individual rights..."

How would this constitutional national socialist republic be organized? Who or how would the members of the government be determined?


"Are you as rich as Paris Hilton or Lindsey Lohan? If not, are they smarter than you are? Is it possible that there are smarter people than you who have less money than you?" - Grinder November 09, 2013 10:21 PM

I am probably not as rich as Paris Hilton or Lindsey Lohan and statistics say that I am probably smarter than both. I don't know their actual IQ's to be certain. I do believe there are people smarter than I that are less wealthy.

Do you propose that compensation should be determined by intellegence? Do you believe the socialist system should determine compensation? If so, who in the constitutional national socialist republic would be reponsible for determining compensation?

If you address these questions helping me to understand your position could you also answer my previous question that you did not address?

In case you missed it here it is again:

What do you do with the pure whites that survive the genetically engineered super-virus plague that don't want to work because your taxes pay for their welfare?

Blogger Rantor November 09, 2013 10:46 PM  

In berlin this week, my German socialist brother in law is convinced the right won't amount to anything in Greece or Germany. He is more concerned about the rising right wing in Sweden (wher he spends a quarter of the year in his vacation cabin) and the impact that decades of importing cheap labor are now having on crime and the like.

I find it interesting that he considers the problems in Greece will just go away in a few years, he thinks the government, that is economically incompetent, can somehow get control of Golden Dawn and prevent their resurgence as their economy plummets.

Blogger Rantor November 09, 2013 10:52 PM  

Ms Adelborg's comments about the growth of the Danish National Party being "unfair" are so typical of feminized socialist who think the people owe them everything and can't tolerate disloyalty, since they can't even recognize that their own party is not meeting the needs of the electorate. It is a "we are doing our best and you should appreciate that" kind of whine. She needs to be run out of town and shown what fair is.

Anonymous allyn71 November 09, 2013 10:54 PM  

"Group cohesion isn't an individuated property." - Rick Johnsmeyer November 09, 2013 10:35 PM

I didn't say it was. You said "This is why group cohesion matters" I was curious as to what you thought should be done with those that are uncohesive since group cohesion matters. It appears that you believe they will leave or persist in there uncohesiveness.

Why would they leave if their needs are met via "socialism"? At what point does the group cohesion no longer exist if the uncohesive persist?

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 10:58 PM  

Grinder,

Without price signals, how are goods and services most efficiently distributed in the economy?

Anonymous Geoff November 09, 2013 11:03 PM  

I'm with you Markku...it'll be a frikkin miracle. Let's hope Jesus is willing to grant one for Europe or the U.S. (ideally, two miracles).

Anonymous Grinder November 09, 2013 11:04 PM  

Josh November 09, 2013 10:33 PM
Grinder,

Can you provide three examples of socialism actually working?


The first hit on defining Socialism says:
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

So that part is easy. Every country short of an anarchy has at least community oversight over industry and commerce with laws/regs and is somewhat socialist. As for 'actually working', I cannot answer that unless you can define what you mean by 'actually working'? But I will offer an answer the best I can: NSDAP Germany (until world jewry and their dupes destroyed it) Soviet Union (succeeded in rebuilding a country devastated by WWI and strengthening it to win huge territories in WWII and then beat USA in the space race with Gagarin after repairing even worse devastation. And Switzerland - who is debating establishing a guaranteed minimum income for all citizens. These countries have been harmful to the white race in varying degrees with Switzerland the least harmful and the USSR being most harmful. NSDAP Germany went astray with their narrow minded German chauvinism that alienated many white nations unnecessarily (that didn't endanger their survival).

Anonymous allyn71 November 09, 2013 11:12 PM  

"What would libertarians do for elections?"

Have them.

"What would libertarians do to prevent voters from abolishing libertarianism, if anything?"

Probably something similiar to the what the constitutional national socialist republic would do if the voting military members tried to abolish constitutional national socialist republicism.

"Would libertarians defend the nation from invaders?"

Probably if they were a threat to liberty.

"What is the incentive for ordinary citizens from defending the nation if they are poor?"

Liberty. What is the incentive of poor, ordinary citizens to defend the constitutional national socialist republic?

"Wouldn't they be easily bribed by the invader to switch allegiance to the invader?"

Not if they valued liberty more. What would stop the poor ordinary citizens of the constitutional national socialist republic from being easily bribed by invaders and switching their allegiance?

"That is what happened in the muslim invasions of Iberia and eastern+southern Europe. Is that ok?"

Muslim invasions into Europe are never OK


I answered your questions, could you answer mine?

What do you do with the pure whites that survive the genetically engineered super-virus plague that don't want to work because your taxes pay for their welfare?









Anonymous cheddarman November 09, 2013 11:12 PM  

The Chinese may turn out to be the unwitting ally of white nationalism in the U.S. and Europe. If they bring about and end to the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency, america will no longer be able to afford its empire, and has to bring all of its troops home from europe. then the europeans can do whatever they want with their unwelcome immigrants.

Also, the U.S. will have a hard time paying for its welfare state at home, and this could lead to the breakup of the U.S. along ethnic and geographical lines.

The southwest becomes a mexican country, the South goes its own way, as does new england, the pacific north west, and the midwest.

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 11:17 PM  

NSDAP Germany

Nope, fueled by massive borrowing and government spending

Between 1933 and 1939, the total revenue was 62 billion marks, whereas expenditure (at times made up to 60% by rearmament costs) exceeded 101 billion, thus creating a huge deficit and national debt (reaching 38 billion mark in 1939)

Soviet Union

Ultimately collapsed. Could not even feed itself without importing wheat from the West.

And Switzerland - who is debating establishing a guaranteed minimum income for all citizens

Ranks 5th on the Index of Economic Freedom. Not socialist.

Anonymous allyn71 November 09, 2013 11:21 PM  

"The Chinese may turn out to be the unwitting ally of white nationalism in the U.S. and Europe. If they bring about and end to the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency, america will no longer be able to afford its empire, and has to bring all of its troops home from europe. then the europeans can do whatever they want with their unwelcome immigrants." - cheddarman November 09, 2013 11:12 PM

The only thing I disagree with there is that the Chinese are unwitting. I think they know but don't care and are willing to trade white nationalism for ending dollar hegemony, thus ensuring capital flow into the workers paradise. Better to have the round eyes fighting each other than the let the natives get restless.

Anonymous Rick Johnsmeyer November 09, 2013 11:22 PM  

"I was curious as to what you thought should be done with those that are uncohesive since group cohesion matters."

Nothing. For example, let's say there is a proposal in a small cohesive town to build a new bridge, requiring a tax increase. The measure passes with 75% support. The quarter who dissented may feel a bit put-out, but such matters don't damage the town as a cohesive entity unless the dispute is so virulent that the losing minority no longer feels as though it "belongs" to the whole.

Group cohesion is a super-structure (and I don't mean in the old Marxist sense) under which other political interactions take place. Without group cohesion, the superstructure is merely the national government or similar entities.

Now, imagine the same town and bridge proposal, but in a sharply divided early 90's Bosnian community, or a late-70's Lebanese village. What might have been conceived as a helpful community project in the unified town could very well be taken as an attempt to weaken other groups relative to the bridge-benefiting group.

Denunciations of "socialism" have an entirely different meaning and tenor when the polity in question is not cohesive.

Anonymous allyn71 November 09, 2013 11:26 PM  

"Things might change with breathtaking speed." - Markku November 09, 2013 10:27 PM

History says they don't until they do.

Anonymous Glossy November 09, 2013 11:30 PM  

"Soviet Union

Ultimately collapsed. Could not even feed itself without importing wheat from the West."

This was Western propaganda. The Soviet Union was far more economically self-sufficient than any Western state of the time. Almost everything it consumed, from air planes to staples, with most things in between, was locally produced. Since the US has never produced 100% of the food it consumed (which non-feudal society ever did?), one could say that it also could never feed itself, but that would be sophistry. The truth is that the Soviet Union produced a far greater share of what it consumed, in food, manufactured products, electronics, etc., than the US in the same period.

The Soviet Union did not collapse due to economic difficulties. It was abolished for political reasons and then looted by oligarchs and gangsters. The looting came after the fact. Different parts of the Soviet Union were interdependent economically. These dependencies were broken when new borders appeared on the map. That also contributed to the post-Soviet economic collapse.

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 11:32 PM  

This was Western propaganda

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Anonymous cheddarman November 09, 2013 11:36 PM  

allyn71,

i know a number of Chinese, and they are a very proud people. I think it galls them to no end that we are ripping them off under the current dollar as world currency system. They would like very much for it to end.

sincerely

cheddarman

Anonymous allyn71 November 09, 2013 11:39 PM  

"I think it galls them to no end that we are ripping them off under the current dollar as world currency system." - cheddarman November 09, 2013 11:36 PM

Respect is big in the eastern cultures. The Chinese feel disrespected by the current system. Big trouble in little China.

Anonymous Glossy November 09, 2013 11:39 PM  

Again, I'm not claiming that the USSR never imported any food, just that it imported a smaller share of the food (and of the clothes, electronics, cars, planes, etc.) it consumed than did the US in the same period.

Why is the idea of Western powers using propaganda funny to you, Josh? Why do you think anyone would deny himself the use of that tool in war?

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 11:41 PM  

Why was the per capita income in the USA significantly greater than in the USSR is socialism worked there?

Anonymous allyn71 November 09, 2013 11:42 PM  

"For example, let's say there is a proposal in a small cohesive town to build a new bridge, requiring a tax increase. The measure passes with 75% support." - Rick Johnsmeyer November 09, 2013 11:22 PM

You feel that having ballot initiatives for local taxes is a good example of socialism?

I will stick with the Merriam-Webster definitions:

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


Do you disagree with these definitions of socialism?

Blogger Glossy November 09, 2013 11:42 PM  

Josh, the numbers aren't comparable. Rent was basically free, all education was free, etc.

Anonymous Other Josh November 09, 2013 11:46 PM  

Well... since Europe will likely be the seat of the antichrist's power... and will affect the entire world in the end times... ya. It makes sense Europe will survive, prosper, and grow in power in the coming decades.

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 11:49 PM  

Josh, the numbers aren't comparable. Rent was basically free, all education was free, etc.

I meant to type GDP per capita. So the sum total of the economic output per citizen was half that of the USA.

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 11:49 PM  

Also, why were there massive black markets in the USSR?

Anonymous allyn71 November 09, 2013 11:50 PM  

@ Rick Johnsmeyer

I am sorry, I additionally meant to ask what you did with the 25% if the dispute was so virulent that that the losing minority no longer feels as though it "belongs" to the whole?

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 11:54 PM  

I am sorry, I additionally meant to ask what you did with the 25% if the dispute was so virulent that that the losing minority no longer feels as though it "belongs" to the whole?

Ve have dese trains over here, that vill take zem to ze camps...

Anonymous allyn71 November 09, 2013 11:55 PM  

"NSDAP Germany went astray with their narrow minded German chauvinism that alienated many white nations unnecessarily" - Grinder November 09, 2013 11:04 PM

I missed that one, German chauvinism is what caused Nazi Germany to go astray. Ok, thanks for clearing that up.

Blogger Glossy November 09, 2013 11:56 PM  

Josh, I'll give some examples:

There was no advertising of any sort in the Soviet Union. No ads on TV or in newspapers or in billboards. Nothing. Think how much advertising (which is obviously a net-negative for the average person's standard of living) "adds" to the GDPs of market economies. There was no financial sector either. No loans of any sort. You could put money in a bank, but you couldn't get a loan. Think about how much Wall St. and the rest of the financial sector "adds" to the US GDP. If you want I can think of other such examples.

In general in a market economy a smaller share of economic activity contributes to the average person's well-being than in an intelligently-run statist economy.

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 11:57 PM  

alienated many white nations unnecessarily

I can see how invading them would alienate them...

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 11:58 PM  

In general in a market economy a smaller share of economic activity contributes to the average person's well-being than in an intelligently-run statist economy.

How do you measure this well being?

Also, how do you distribute goods and services in the absence of pricing information?

Blogger Glossy November 09, 2013 11:59 PM  

Josh, my point is that the more laissez-faire an economy is, the more economic activity is directed towards swindling fellow citizens, towards things that subtract from the public good. Gambling is another example. There were no casinos int he Soviet Union. Think how much they "contribute" to market economies' GDPs.

Blogger Glossy November 10, 2013 12:02 AM  

"Also, how do you distribute goods and services in the absence of pricing information?"

State officials can make these decisions. Yes, that's very imperfect. So are market economies. I just gave you some examples of their imperfections - advertising, a parasitic financial sector, lots of economic activity whose aim is to swindle fellow citizens.

Anonymous Josh November 10, 2013 12:02 AM  

Josh, my point is that the more laissez-faire an economy is, the more economic activity is directed towards swindling fellow citizens, towards things that subtract from the public good.

Who defines what the public good is? How is this public good measured?

Anonymous Josh November 10, 2013 12:03 AM  

State officials can make these decisions. Yes, that's very imperfect. So are market economies.

Are you denying the law of supply and demand?

Blogger Glossy November 10, 2013 12:06 AM  

"Who defines what the public good is?"

One possible answer is "elected representatives of the people". It's true that there were no competitive elections in the Soviet Union, but the powers that were still knew how popular or unpopular they were. All governments fear unpopularity, regardless of whether or not they hold elections.

Anonymous Josh November 10, 2013 12:10 AM  

One possible answer is "elected representatives of the people". It's true that there were no competitive elections in the Soviet Union, but the powers that were still knew how popular or unpopular they were. All governments fear unpopularity, regardless of whether or not they hold elections.

Well, when you have a Gulag and a KGB...

Blogger Glossy November 10, 2013 12:11 AM  

Josh, I gave you a few examples where supply and demand lead to suboptimal outcomes. To what extent should citizens be allowed to swindle other citizens? Are you so libertarian that truth-in-advertising laws bother you? Do you think that the FDA and similar organizations in other countries should be abolished? Do you think that citizens should be able to buy and sell other citizens? I think that very few people would go for a completely unbridled market. For most people the question is "how much should the market be regulated?"

I'm not denying the law. I'm arguing against the idea that it should never be interfered with.

Anonymous Rick Johnsmeyer November 10, 2013 12:11 AM  

"You feel that having ballot initiatives for local taxes is a good example of socialism?"

In common lazy political discourse, absolutely. This is what I mean when I say that socialism is a catch-all term for some people, in reference to policies or taxes or other such things which they dislike. It's a sloppy usage, but it's very common. And as I mentioned before, in divided societies, any policy which appears "redistributionist" in nature tends to evoke a whole host of negative associations which don't necessarily exist in a more unified culture.

High-trust environments make it easier to enact social welfare measures which have socialistic aspects to them. And if the group is high-functioning, those policies will be easier to maintain.

National healthcare being one example. By the political science definition of "socialism," government-managed healthcare isn't even necessarily "socialist," but in common parlance, it would be put in opposition to "market-based" healthcare, and therefore acquires that sobriquet.

Are Andorra, Luxembourg, Monaco, et. al. at a disadvantage relative to freewheeling "free market" healthcare Haiti or Papua New Guinea on account of their healthcare systems being "socialized"? If you put it on a ballot to scrap all the "socialization" in their systems, do you think those measures would pass?

Now - if a substantial faction of Monegasques suddenly became violently opposed to their healthcare system, the social cohesion would presumably be lost, and there would probably be a host of other related social problems.

But the point is that the cohesive aspect of a society - often a society based around a particular culture or shared history - makes it less likely that policy disputes will become proxies for other grudges, hatreds, and disagreements.

In a multi-factional society, you must always deal with those fissures. Hence, "social" anything becomes a question of "whose society"?

Blogger Glossy November 10, 2013 12:13 AM  

The Gulag was popuklated in the 1930s. Post-war USSR was the complete opposite of pre-war USSR.

Anonymous automatthew November 10, 2013 12:13 AM  

Socialism will work when all the participants think of justice as constraining themselves, not others. Consider a small community of men who feel shame at taking more than they need. In that order there is no free rider problem.

Where can we find such an oikumene, where all men are monsters of virtue? Certainly not where nations mix, and trust is low.

Anonymous Josh November 10, 2013 12:14 AM  

I'm not denying the law. I'm arguing against the idea that it should never be interfered with.

So you are arguing for shortages, hoarding, and malinvestments?

Anonymous allyn71 November 10, 2013 12:16 AM  

@ Rick Johnsmeyer

Do you disagree with the Merriam-Webster definitions of socialism?

Socialism:

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


and

What do you do with the 25% if the dispute was so virulent that that the losing minority no longer feels as though it "belongs" to the whole?






Anonymous allyn71 November 10, 2013 12:19 AM  

"The Gulag was popuklated in the 1930s" - Glossy November 10, 2013 12:13 AM

It is your claim that there was no Gulag system in the USSR post WWII?

Blogger Glossy November 10, 2013 12:20 AM  

There were no shortages in the Soviet Union after the post-war years. There were food shortages until 1947 because the economy was destroyed by the war. After that you're dealing with Western propaganda.

Market economies produce investments in swindling activities (gambling, Wall St., all sorts of scams). I would call those malinvestments. Do statist economies lead to malinvestments? Sure. The extent depends on the honesty and the ability of the powers that be.

Blogger Glossy November 10, 2013 12:21 AM  

"It is your claim that there was no Gulag system in the USSR post WWII?"

Essentially yes. My claim is that after the war more than 99% of the people who were imprisoned were imprisoned for regular crimes. Murder, theft, etc.

Anonymous Josh November 10, 2013 12:22 AM  

There were no shortages in the Soviet Union after the post-war years. There were food shortages until 1947 because the economy was destroyed by the war. After that you're dealing with Western propaganda.

Comrades, the wheat harvests are at record levels!

In other news, the daily grain ration has been reduced!

Anonymous Josh November 10, 2013 12:22 AM  

Essentially yes. My claim is that after the war more than 99% of the people who were imprisoned were imprisoned for regular crimes. Murder, theft, etc.

Where is your evidence for this claim?

Anonymous Josh November 10, 2013 12:23 AM  

There were no shortages in the Soviet Union after the post-war years

If there were no shortages, why did the black market exist?

Blogger Glossy November 10, 2013 12:24 AM  

"In other news, the daily grain ration has been reduced!"

That's the thing. There were no rations for grain or anything else after the immediate post-war years. The idea that those existed is a product of Western propaganda. The picture of Western life that Soviet citizens received was always closer to reality than the picture of Soviet life that Western citizens received.

Blogger Glossy November 10, 2013 12:27 AM  

"If there were no shortages, why did the black market exist?"

Same phenomenon as food imports. There was a black market, but it was smaller than in the West. The Western drug market, all of which is "black" surely dwarfed black market phenomena in the USSR. I don't have any numbers on this, but just going from personal impressions I'm pretty confident in the above.

Anonymous Rick Johnsmeyer November 10, 2013 12:28 AM  

"Do you disagree with the Merriam-Webster definitions of socialism?"

No - why would I? Those are valid definitions of socialism, but in common usage, the meaning of the term is broadened quite a bit. That being said, the definitions remain quite vague and incomplete. "Means of production and distribution" is a phrase that has meant different things at different points in history and in different societies.

This is why I keep referring to local factors. Politics and economic policies may be devised theoretically, but they have to be enacted in practice, by specific groups in specific areas. A common slam against libertarians in the past decade was the country closest to their dream of low taxes and regulations was Somalia.

Libertarians often responded that Somalia was actually under all kinds of oppressive governments, in the form of warlords and clans. What they rarely did was note that perhaps "libertarianism" as they desire it for the modern west may not be suitable for Somalis living in a clan-based society.

Culture matters more than dictionaries, to put it another way.

"What do you do with the 25% if the dispute was so virulent that that the losing minority no longer feels as though it "belongs" to the whole?"

What does anyone ever do? Look to history for many different examples of what has happened in the past. But I can predict that non-cohesive societies are going to have more problems in this regard than cohesive ones, for the reasons described above by myself and others.

Going back to the original post, cohesion aids collective action. That's why European cultures may indeed be at an advantage relative to the US in this regard.

Anonymous allyn71 November 10, 2013 12:28 AM  

What regular crime did Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn commit that had him imprisoned until 1953 and then exiled to Kazakhstan until 1956?

Anonymous Josh November 10, 2013 12:28 AM  

During the Eleventh Five-Year Plan, the country imported some 42 million tons of grain annually, almost twice as much as during the Tenth Five-Year Plan and three times as much as during the Ninth Five-Year Plan (1971–75). The bulk of this grain was sold by the West; in 1985, for example, 94 percent of Soviet grain imports were from the nonsocialist world, with the United States selling 14.1 million tons

What were you saying about grain imports?

Blogger Glossy November 10, 2013 12:29 AM  

There was no illegal drug use in the USSR. Yes, vodka can be thought of as a drug, but it was legal. There was no black market on it.

Blogger Glossy November 10, 2013 12:33 AM  

Josh, but the US was importing food at the same time. You know, bananas from banana republics and the rest of it. has the US never imported grain from Canada? I don't know the answer to that question, by the way. Just guessing.

Anonymous Josh November 10, 2013 12:33 AM  

There was no illegal drug use in the USSR

Wrong

Blogger Glossy November 10, 2013 12:35 AM  

allyn71, I said "more than 99%", not "100%".

Anonymous Grinder November 10, 2013 12:35 AM  


What do you do with the pure whites that survive the genetically engineered super-virus plague that don't want to work because your taxes pay for their welfare?


Feed them, house them, ostracize them publicly unless they have legitimate disabilities. If they don't rob, attack or kill anyone or peddle drugs to kids, I think they should be able to live their lives as they please, such as it is. If they are biker nomad types, they would still need to work occasionally to make gas money and gas would have a tax at the pump so unless someone is donating to help them with that, they will become bicycle nomads or pedestrians in a hurry or still occasionally contribute to the tax coffers.

How would this constitutional national socialist republic be organized? Who or how would the members of the government be determined?

Parliamentary elections with voting rights limited to citizens (military veterans). Parties awarded seats based on popular vote. President elected by direct vote from citizens would select party to lead the government as Prime Minister. Those found guilty violating their oaths of office to uphold the constitution would be removed from office. Those found guilty of treason would face execution by hanging.

Grinder,

Without price signals, how are goods and services most efficiently distributed in the economy?


I feel that the market is the most efficient mechanism to match resources to demand. People are often stupid, however. I'm in favour of playing with the market when it pisses me off. I support progressive income taxes to really scale back the money that big sports stars and entertainment figures take home after the first million or so, but they could still be richer than anyone they know.

Blogger Glossy November 10, 2013 12:36 AM  

Josh, I grew up there. I know what I'm talking about. There was no illegal drug use. No porn either.

Anonymous Josh November 10, 2013 12:37 AM  

I support progressive income taxes to really scale back the money that big sports stars and entertainment figures take home after the first million or so, but they could still be richer than anyone they know.

Why?

Anonymous allyn71 November 10, 2013 12:37 AM  

"That is not, though, how the world actually functions. A statement "socialism is bad' is mostly meaningless. Whose socialism? Which policies? Where? And at what point in time? " - Rick Johnsmeyer November 09, 2013 10:08 PM

If I were to use the Merriam-Webster definitions which utilize:

system of society or group living in which there is no private property

and

collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


Would that type of socialism in this current point in time in the EU and the US be bad?

Anonymous allyn71 November 10, 2013 12:39 AM  

allyn71, I said "more than 99%", not "100%".

Ahh, so he was just a rare example.

Blogger Glossy November 10, 2013 12:40 AM  

"Ahh, so he was just a rare example."

Correct.

Blogger Glossy November 10, 2013 12:42 AM  

allyn71, and I would like to point out that relatively small numbers of people were imprisoned for political crimes in Europe throughout the post-war period. Holocaust denial, etc.

Anonymous Josh November 10, 2013 12:43 AM  

Josh, but the US was importing food at the same time. You know, bananas from banana republics and the rest of it. has the US never imported grain from Canada? I don't know the answer to that question, by the way. Just guessing.

The US is a next food exporter. The USSR was not.

Anonymous Grinder November 10, 2013 12:43 AM  

Whoa, power outage in my area there for over an hour. On the anniversary of Kristallnacht, no less.

And Switzerland - who is debating establishing a guaranteed minimum income for all citizens

Ranks 5th on the Index of Economic Freedom. Not socialist.


Josh, you didn't explain what the definition of 'working' was. Unless you can be more specific, my impression is that there is no country that reaches your threshold of 'working' except perhaps Switzerland. With that one, you dispute that it is socialist. What definition of socialism are you operating under? Is it different from what I offered?

Blogger Glossy November 10, 2013 12:46 AM  

Josh, but it is true that the USSR imported a smaller percentage of the things it produced than the US at the same time. Up till 1990s all the cars on Soviet roads were Soviet-made, more than 90% of the clothes were Soviet-made, etc. Pens, airplanes, electronics, furniture, wine - all mostly local.

Anonymous Josh November 10, 2013 12:46 AM  

Whoa, power outage in my area there for over an hour. On the anniversary of Kristallnacht, no less.

Those devious Jews...

Anonymous Josh November 10, 2013 12:48 AM  

What definition of socialism are you operating under? Is it different from what I offered?

Socialism is state control of the means of production.

Anonymous Josh November 10, 2013 12:50 AM  

Josh, but it is true that the USSR imported a smaller percentage of the things it produced than the US at the same time. Up till 1990s all the cars on Soviet roads were Soviet-made, more than 90% of the clothes were Soviet-made, etc. Pens, airplanes, electronics, furniture, wine - all mostly local.

Did the average soviet citizen own as many cars as the average American?

Blogger Glossy November 10, 2013 12:51 AM  

Josh, no. I'd say that 30% to 40% of families owned cars. The average Soviet citizen had access to better public transportation networks than the average US citizen.

Anonymous allyn71 November 10, 2013 12:53 AM  

"Feed them, house them," - Grinder November 10, 2013 12:35 AM

Would you educate them also? Why would anyone work if they are fed and housed?

"I feel that the market is the most efficient mechanism to match resources to demand...I'm in favour of playing with the market when it pisses me off."

So you are in favor of market economies except for when your pissed at the market economy?

"I support progressive income taxes to really scale back the money that big sports stars and entertainment figures take home after the first million or so, but they could still be richer than anyone they know."

Only media and sports stars? What if they know someone that has 2 million?


Anonymous Josh November 10, 2013 12:55 AM  

Josh, no. I'd say that 30% to 40% of families owned cars. The average Soviet citizen had access to better public transportation networks than the average US citizen.

So did they not want cars?

Blogger Glossy November 10, 2013 12:55 AM  

Josh, the thing about the USSR buying grain in Canada worked as a Cold War-era PR win for the West because Russia has always been associated with grain in the world's imagination. It's as if some Caribbean island started buying sugar. The thing about the US importing a large percentage of its cars works the same way. I wonder if the Chinese are using it in internal propaganda right now. America is associated with cars in the world's imagination. Henry Ford, Cadillacs, etc. And at some point (the 70s?) it started buying large numbers of cars.

1 – 200 of 230 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts