I have said over and over through the years that no one whose first priority is economics has ever solved an economic problem. Hitler stated flatly that a problem he faced in leading a political party was that he had to come up with economic proposals, and he had never had the slightest interest in any economic theory.
So when the Depression came, only one new regime promptly solved it, and in the country known for having the worst depression of all.
Smallpox was not the first disease wiped out in white countries while it was still a major problem in Asia within my memory. Leprosy was wiped out in the Middle Ages by Europeans, who treated lepers as lepers.
In the 1960s lepers were still begging in the streets in Saigon.
No white countries were as unsuccessful, to say the least, than the Communist ones whose whole basis of life was an economic theology. The world has totally forgotten that Japan was a third-world country until after World War II.
Japan was the first country ever to have a per capita income equal to that of the United States a generation later.
China, meanwhile, was a third world country legendary for its poverty and went DOWN after the Reds took over. China was the bastion of pure Communist economic ideology and Japan had no economic philosophy at all.
Nixon once said, “We are all Keynesians now.” His history was wrong. He quoted the liberal line that economists had demanded a balanced budget in the middle of the Depression, as Keynes said they did. A friend of mine did his dissertation on that subject and proved that not one single economist at the time had advocated balancing the budget in a time of depression.
ALL economists in the actual 1930s advocated anything but a debt-based stimulus of the kind Hitler used to snatch Germany out of its depression. It was the bankers, and the Democratic platform of 1932, that demanded a balanced budget. The bankers had their theology out of economics.
But in a sense Nixon was right. Keynes’ big work was his General Theory in 1936. It was a theology of how government could keep the economy running right. In that sense, they are all Keynesians now.
National interest, race, and all the other considerations have been thrown out. We do not talk about racial survival, but only of affirmative action. We do not talk about having the immigration our national interest requires, but about the theology of “a nation of immigrants.”
Making a theology of economics, whether libertarian or Marxist or Federal Reserve “fine tuning the economy,” is always a failure, and for an obvious reason. Once you decide on an economic theology, you cannot just take care of the economy and go on. You have no choices if your whole philosophy dictates ONE approach to economics.
Hitler did have an economic theology. It was called Lebensraum, the idea that Germany had to take territory to survive. If Germany had concentrated on itself instead of expansion, it would have remained the success it was in 1936, when it alone had solved its economic problems.
This is why America cannot understand Islam. The US is absolutely mystified by people who are really upset about our siding with their enemy Israel. There has to be an economic motive behind it.
Socialists, Randians, economic conservatives, income distribution liberals, Tea Party types demanding an end to abortions and deficits, none of them understand why, in a world where all motivations are economic, a person will blow himself to Kingdom Come without some “practical” motivation.
And, chained as we are to two parties whose only serious basis is two conflicting economic theologies, we keep worrying over deficits until the next crisis makes us forget them and run them up.
The big push to take care of the Runaway Deficits which crested with Ross Perot first in the polls for the presidency against BOTH major parties was forgotten by September 12, 2001.
It’s Big News again.
Meanwhile, let’s talk about something that matters.
#1 by Dave on 02/22/2011 - 10:29 am
Everything in life is over determined. That means a whole bunch of causal factors operate simultaneously.
But that doesn’t mean anything in the face of unrequited crimes.
Crimes sink into the molecular fabric of the world and wait for justice.
A reckoning waits.
#2 by rdc75 on 02/22/2011 - 11:15 am
Of course Hitler had an economic theory, that’s why it’s called National *SOCIALISM*. And it’s socialism with central planning, price controls and gulags.
Socialism *IS* an economic system and the definition is state control either through state ownership (Soviet Russia) or micromanagement through degree (Nazi Germany or Obama’s America)
Actually, if you really look at Nazism it’s basically just a mixture of Judaism (with a different “chosen people”) and Marxist Central Planning. Just look at the Communist Manifesto, Hitler implemented all of it’s planks.
Also he did not “solve” the economic problem at all, some things indeed helped the economy (for example abolishing the labour unions, but that is actually a free-market-move: Yes, unemployment is caused by too high wages (or minimum wages) and if you reduce them to their true value, unemployment disappears.), but most things were only good in the short-run, for example going into huge debt or paying trading partners with worthless pseudo-marks that seemed to be like real marks but had no purchasing power in Germany (or anywhere else for that matter). Sooner or later the trade partners would have wised up and the economy would have collapsed.
He implemented price fixings to hide the inflation which of course came from printing money like crazy. That can also work for short term, but will bite you in the long run.
Mussolini did something similar: He was really proud that he has “eliminated the deficit”, but of course that was done by cheating: The state only rented infrastructure and goods that earlier governments had bought – great to eliminate the deficit in the short run, but of course it breaks your neck in the long run, and that’s exactly what happened in Italy: Mussolini soon had a much greater deficit than any government before him.
So basically, the economic theory of these Socialists was the same theory of all Socialists: Lie (price controls), cheat (betray trade partners) and steal.
And Hitler was a Leftist, he even used the same arguments: According to Hitler (and many leftits today) poor countries have the RIGHT to the goodies of the rich countries – you know, for “social justice”.
Anybody who is interested how it really was should read this:
http://mises.org/books/vampireeconomy.pdf
The reason why this book is such a treasure is because it was written BEFORE THE WAR (1939, in the introduction the war is briefly mentioned, but the book clearly describes pre-war Germany).
Just read the first page which is titled “What a German Auto Manufacturer Has to Do to Get 5000 Tires For His Cars” which really shows the crazyness of any socialist system.
Also, please look at Franco’s Spain: He started with a Socialist system modelled after National Socialist Germany but many, many years after the war it became so obvious that it was a failure that Franco switched over to a free-market system and Spain recovered.
Just because Hitler sat on the right and didn’t like Jews doesn’t make him a rightist at all. A man on the right will value virtue and honesty which will pay off in the long run. A leftist will lie, cheat and steal which may pay off in the short run, but will lead him into the abyss sooner or later.
And the myth that National Socialism “solved the economic” problem was carefully planted by socialists, because of course they think that socialism is great for the economy.
#3 by rdc75 on 02/22/2011 - 12:15 pm
“Meanwhile, let’s talk about something that matters.”
OK, let’s think about what kind of environment is good for us Whites.
Was it the free-market 19th century in which Whites actually had children (without welfare!) and conquered almost the whole world…
… or was it the socialist 20th century in which most Whites became marxist socialists, national socialists or keynesian socialists?
Is socialism really good for us? No it is not. It is good for the weak, the stupid and the criminal.
Yes, economics is very important when we talk about the survival of the White race because we are not adapted to the anthill-type of society that socialism brings.
Let’s talk about something that matters: Why do the Amish thrive while most of the rest of White society decays? It seems that they have succeeded in creating (or rather conserving) an environment that is good for Whites to live in and to actually raise families in it.
Now, I don’t think that blindly copying the Amish is the way to go (actually I think their strict pacifism will turn out to be suicidal sooner or later) but surely we can learn something from them. One very important lession is that you don’t have to become a murderous barbarian to thrive, but that honesty, modesty and hard word do pay off (if you can prevent the parasites from taxing it away).
The way to deal with the Blacks and Mexicans in America and Muslims in Europe is not to start a genocidal warfare, but instead offer them voluntary sterilizations in exchange for lifelong welfare. And if they don’t want to be sterilized, just let nature and the next cold winter take care of them. Blacks never had to survive on their own in the tropics, Detroit and Chicago would become White citys again in less than a month during a cold winter. The way to deal with the banksters is just to not bail them out. There is absolutely no need for any aggression against them (but of course we should retaliate if they attack us). And yes, Hitler is a very good example how dangerous the aggressive types are – not just for others but even more so for their own people.
Economics or the way a society is structured is driving everything. A welfare state will lead to the multiplication of the stupid and lazy while the intelligent and competent will be taxed to death. Implement a welfare state long enough and even the finest race will deteriorate into complete morons. The Bantus of Africa evolved in an environment that has no seasons therefore no planning whatsoever was needed. Just live every day as it were your last. Hey, isn’t that a description of the welfare-state? Has the welfare-state turned the climates that whites are adapted to into de-facto tropic regions? Implement the welfare-state long enough, and the White race would become half-apes, unable to plan longer than from welfare-check to welfare-check.
The core belief in welfarism is that the state should not be on the side of justice, but should be on the side of “the poor”. (in Marxist terms this is called class warfare)
So it does no longer matter anymore if somebody “did it”, the only thing that matters is wether he is richer or poorer than his victim.
Of course this leads to a breakdown of justice and morals. And White people cannot thrive without morals.
There is no such thing as genetics “versus” environment because when either is broken, you die. You have to have a healthy environment AND healthy genes.
And the current ECONOMIC environment is killing us Whites.
#4 by rdc75 on 02/22/2011 - 12:54 pm
Sorry, that should of course be: “Blacks never had to survive outside the tropics on their own”
#5 by dungeoneer on 02/24/2011 - 4:53 pm
I cringe at my former pizzant self watching the economic theatre and thinking that`s where the enemy is most vulnerable.
The enemy can talk economics until the sun dies out,with a practically infinite series of concessionary fall-back positions to retreat to.
rdc75 should know better.