[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/32/ - Psychopolitics

It's all in your head

Catalog

8chan Bitcoin address: 1NpQaXqmCBji6gfX8UgaQEmEstvVY7U32C
The next generation of Infinity is here (discussion) (contribute)
Email
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.

The IRC is active at Rizon's #32.

 No.1459

Money represents human time, energy and claims of ownership.

To control people, you need to control their time, energy and claims of ownership.

The monetary system is the basis of our society. You can control almost any person or organisation to a very great extent by leveraging their need of it. Everybody, in practice, believes in it.

We know propoganda and psychological manipulation is rife. The above suggests that monetary systems are an area that would be focused on intensely. The facts agree.

To be maximally responsive to money, people need to believe intensely in scarcity. So we should expect psyops to focus upon enforcing scarcity by maximally obscure and maximally ubiquitous means. Again, the facts agree.

This is a thread for discussing economic psyops as the basis of social control. Feel free to contribute whatever. I'll lay out how I see it working in the post below. This will inevitably verge into party-politics, in that almost the entire spectrum is a massive distraction from this. That includes all the poltical movements you find represented on 8chan: identity-political rightism, redistributive Marxism, libertarianism, and, most laughably of all, Neoreaction.

 No.1460

There are two stages to understanding this situation. The first is sufficient and convincing. The second is more obscure and ostensibly sensitive to challenge, but important.

The first is the private central banking class and system, and the manipulation of political dialectics over the past two hundred years at least. The second is the suppression of alternate energy technology and consequent abundance by that class.

To understand the first, begin by considering Usury. Usury was universally shunned before the modern age, and regarded as a form of slavery. But both all mainstream and Austrian economic theorists today vouch for it. The Salamancan school of Jesuit economic theorists (no, this isn't a Jesuits run the world narrative) began challenging traditional stances on Usury before Adam Smith.

Usury funnels wealth upwards. From the 90% to the 10%. The 10% to the 1%. The 1% to the 0.1%. And so on.

Usury exists on the gold standard, as advocated for by Austrian theorists, and in modern mainstream central banking. It exists in neoliberal Reaganism and Thatcherism, and it exists in the most far left Western governments.

The Federal Reserve is a privately owned central bank. It is not true that the owners of the Fed own central banks globally. Many countries have publicly owned private central banks (independent from the government, but in a sense owned by them). The point is that they remain controlled. For insight into how this works, take the example of the Bank of Japan. The film Princes of the Yen (watch it) demonstrates how an entire advanced economy, full of intelligent people, was raised up and crashed over decades for the purpose of pursuing the agenda of one banking institution with strong international connections.

Private central banks such as those in the US create massive and unresolvable debt at the basis of the financial system. The balance sheet is the issue here. Money comes into existence with debt. There is no such thing as balancing the budget. It is mathematically impossible. This creates a constant black-hole of money at the source of the economy, which has to be filled by government taxes paid to banks. These taxes are levied by more pressure on the populous: more time and energy has to be expended to gain more credits to feed into the black hole. It can never be filled. All that can happen is that more and more material and human wealth can over time be represented as money and fed into the hole, until the system collapses. Before collapse, this motivates expansionism, emerging any market that can be emerged, and translation of all possible wealth into money. For the people, this will be experienced as part of the race to get ahead and get individually established.

Austrian economic theorists point out many of the scams and financial games which a private central banking system involves. But they focus on the root of this being that the money isn't 'real'. If it isn't 'real', that means it can be manipulated. Big government and crazy socialists manipulate this created-out-of-nothing conceptual forgery, preventing the business cycle and the market from showing the true value of economic sectors and the reality of the country's finances. What a scam! Right?

(example of a full analysis of the Fed from this position. The 'not real! Buy Gold! FREEDOM! part comes at the end: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0)

Actually, no. Gold is well-liked by the private central banking class. It was pushed for as a replacement to the far more troublesome Greenbacks (government printed, non-private, fiat currency). The people of the United States were subjected to great hardship as currency was removed from circulation to implement the Gold standard. And, more importantly, a Gold Standard is both easy to manipulate and excellent for defending the interests of the same people who are beneficiaries of the debt and usury in a private central banking system.

How? Well, firstly pegging all currency to Gold limits the circulation of currency, so that inflation and central alterations can't reduce the debts of common people over time. Secondly, this limited circulation (not enough money to go around) motivates people to take out loans for their needs, and the burden of the debt on these loans constantly increases, so that you end up with the same black-hole of energy where people are struggling to give all they can to the owners just to stay afloat.

So people have the 'freedom' of choosing what economic activity they engage in. But, functionally, the strain distributed over society acts to enslave people's energies. It's obscure, and people can be made to blame their own success of failure, so it's immensely more sophisticated than classical slavery. This applies to all the systems discussed so far.

...

 No.1461

...


Gold is also already largely owned by big oligarchical players. Interestingly, the estimates financial institutions give for how much gold is in circulation are far lower than those you get by analysing how much has been mined. Which suggests that large and undeclared private holdings could be used to manipulate the core variables of the economy in the case of a gold standard.

Anti-fed sentiment is hugely co-opted by this Austrian 'only gold money isn't real money' doctrine. This is what Ron Paul is all about. If you really think about it, it's absurd. Money is a conceptual tool. There's no indication that pegging it to a particular metal is the best thing to do. In fact, that results in scarcity. Abundance has arisen more easily in a few situations historically, all using government-backed public fiat currency:

England's Tally Stick system.
National Socialist Germany's fiat money.
Lincoln's Greenbacks.
Colonial Scrip

These were more successful for the reason that the medium of exchange wasn't inherently bound up with constant and extreme wealth transfer from the poor to the rich.

This relates to mainstream political discourse as follows:

Left-centrists advocate Keynesianism, in which the central bank remains under the control of the private banking class, who can still profit from manipulating its variables and from Usury and money-as-debt.

Right-centrists agree mostly but focus more on austerity.

Austrian-Libertarians and Goldbuggers advocate for what would LOOK like a radical change in the system but would just perpetuate the wealth of the banking class.

So, you have the possibility of revolutionary-LOOKING changes in the system over decades, which are actually within one well controlled dialectic.

It relates to fringe discourse as follows:

Identity-politics is a distraction.

People argue over extreme redistribution versus extreme absence of it, without focusing on the core scarcity and how it's generated.

Most new movements weave back into this. Tech-comm NRx, for example, is just Austrianism with a futuristic patina. For more on that, see below.

In the case of Austrianism, we know that it was created by oligarchical Social Darwinist with this purpose in mind. But Social Darwinism (the rich are rich because of superior genetics, and should be given maximal free reign) isn't in the common person's interests. So you have to come up with something they do value that it ostensibly achieves. Freedom!

NRx is strange in that somehow its followers have dropped the 'freedom' but kept the economics. Perhaps they don't realise they're not aristocrats? I really do hate to use the word, but it's essentially a form of cuckoldry, if you're not mega-rich. 'I don't think this promotes freedom, but you're amazing and deserve all my stuff and my mating prospects and country and children'.

Freedom vs. Give more to the poor. With each failing to realise that the back and forth and manipulation of the core variables of the system are just transferring ever more wealth into private central bankers' hands over time. And each failing to focus on the core scarcity which allows this, and motivates people to be slaves to money.

...

 No.1462


We've seen how this scarcity is enforced by different centralised banking systems. The next thing to consider is that the economy runs largely on physical energy.

Whether or not you believe in Tesla's tech, his interactions with J. P. Morgan are a parable here. The private central banker who has the alternate energy inventor blackballed, intimidated and has his lab physically attacked.

Since that time, patent offices have essentially functioned as branches of intelligence agencies. Inventors want patents. And are unprepared. Maybe even naive enough to think they'll be welcomed. And the highly prioritised intelligence units dedicated to shutting down potential disruptors to the energy scarcity inevitably scare, kill, or integrate them. Which ensures the continuation of belief in money and therefore control over most humans by a very few humans (the ones with vast wealth and financial system control).

Vast numbers of National Security Orders and equivalent have been served on energy inventors over the past hundred years. And the academic discourse has been manipulated to make the area one of career-destroying ridicule.

This is the reason nuclear power is constantly attacked, and probably also behind several of the nuclear 'accidents'. Believe that or not, it doesn't change the root motives, cui bono, follow the money, and how the banking system works.

Another thing to consider is that, even if any particular alternate energy system is bogus, the fact that society isn't obsessed with this and devoting huge budgets and attention to it is telling. It is at the root of social inequalities and at the root of the scarcity which drives almost everybody to have to work constantly to fulfill the public debt (or private gold-standard, scarcity motivated debt) which, functionally, is a form of distributed slavery.

 No.1463

Evidence of psyops:

Austrianism:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1989989

https://thedailyknell.wordpress.com/

i.e. Ausrianism was bought and paid for. Created out of nothing.

Another psyop to consider here is faux-environmentalism. Obviously, we are devastating the environment and causing horrific despeciation. Although this system is perhaps THE primary driver of that.

Environmentalism is pushed particularly by figures like David de Rothschild and the Windsors. Leaving aside theories about just how powerful those two are, the first is at least a powerful private banking family, and the second have shown many times to be feudalistically inclined. This is the same group which pushed the 'limits of growth' report, and who, via the House of Orange Nassau, set up Bilderberg. It's a matter of historical fact that Bilderberg was set up by the the House in cooperation with an ex-head of the CIA.

Major environmental organisations like the WWF are supported by the Windsors. And the Windsors know what is going on with energy and banking. Just like the highest in the international think-tank class do. These people are privy to intelligence agency analyses, to friendly conversations with the right people. To knowing.

So why are they pushing an environmentalism that advocates for scarcity? To acclimatise people to it, and to the right reaction to a crash of the present system, and to believing that are at fault and increasing scarcity is a proper response.

Interestingly, Austrian shills/useful-idiots like Land heavily reference shills of this movement like John Michael Greer.

 No.1464

Useful sources:

Princes of The Yen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Ac7ap_MAY

Shows a historical example of manipulation of an entire economy by central bank control of economic variables. And of how easy it is to deceive most people about what's happening with this.

Damon Vrabel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96c2wXcNA7A and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_yh4-Zi92Q

Unfortunately populist and angry, but he's a well educated man who understands the basic lie at the foundation of our monetary system.

realcurrencies.wordpress.com

Best overall source for understanding the economy.

The Money Masters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDtBSiI13fE

An introduction to real history. I.e. the history of the manipulation of the core variables of a society's economy, and the wars to control them and understandings of them.

 No.1465

One final additional factor, introduced in the modern context:

Traditionally, control over fundamental economic variables gave those who had it the ability to profit from fore-knowledge.

Token effort regulatory bodies are designed to stamp out this insider trading. The markets run on information, so can't run fairly if somebody can leverage consistent access to advanced information.

But now we have a total surveillance system, which is itself completely opaque.

It would be extremely naive to expect the parties controlling the intelligence agencies which form this system not to try to profit from their endless access to fore-knowledge of deals and policy decisions. And, given that intelligence agencies aren't externally regulated, it would be trivially easy to do this and to hide the profit via obscure corporate ownership structures or anonymous tip offs given to allies.

So the market itself has been turned into a rigged casino, where outsiders can't hope to compete with insiders.

 No.1473

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this but I'm a little bit butt hurt you specifically called out Neo-reaction.

 No.1474

>>1473

Well they don't get bullied enough, you know? I thought I'd do what little I can to help MPC set that right.

The obsession with status is what makes me really disdain them in particular. It's in such bad taste; and yet so obsessed with 'taste'.

 No.1476

>>1463
>despite the fact that it had been almost universally rejected by the Economics establishment
that's nothing to denounce something by
>Ausrianism was bought and paid for. Created out of nothing.
everything is created out of nothing
the principle of spontaneous market order is not false http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order:
>In a market economy, price is the aggregation of information acquired when people are free to use their individual knowledge. Price then allows everyone dealing in a commodity or its substitutes to make decisions based on more information than he or she could personally acquire, information not statistically conveyable to a centralized authority. Interference from a central authority which affects price will have consequences they could not foresee because they do not know all of the particulars involved.
if governments stepped aside and allowed cryptocurrencies to flourish then the 'order' of individual net-worth would establish and create concordant markets with relative value
simply unless the society exists where no capital exists simultaneously, then 'rulers' (governments) will interfere - to their own advantage - with other people's work
left well alone, the organizational structure would organically grow as per the civilization
this isn't some fantasy and we have evidence of this operating currently http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_India#Vedic_Anarchism (forget the nonsense about somalia and ancient iceland)

 No.1478

>>1476

Oh thank you so much. I was thinking of including the destruction of the cryptocurrency myth in the post, but decided it would be funnier to wait for some Austrian to try to save their dignity with it.

So, let's look at why Austrians love Bitcoin:

If Gold, in conjunction with the bussiness cycle, allows spontaneous market order and and accurate representation of value, and if government is the interfering autocratic enemy of this process, then deregulation is the answer. Small government. But if small government can't be achieved reliably via central political implementation, then another way is needed. Cue Bitcoin/cryptocurrency, the decentralised, limited supply digital Gold Standard. It's backed by the computational mining and the algorithm that prevents the supply from being inflated, and it forces deregulation by, to an extent, preventing government and banking control over individual transactions.

That's meant to be revolutionary. If government and socialism (see Land's constant references to 'democracy moves left') are the enemy, who create a 'fake' reality to distort the 'real' economy of Gold, then this is a new technology that could permanently limit their power, outside the scope of legislation to remedy.

But that's bullshit.

It's bullshit firstly because the new cryptocurrency will be measured against and used to purchase existing items of value. Vast amounts of value already exist in pre-existing distributions of wealth. Those with massive amounts of this wealth will, whenever a potentially relevant currency like this arises onto the scene, be able to make the hedge of buying vast amounts of it early on. At that point, the share of the value in the total global economy which the whole of the suppy of the currency in circulation could buy will be very small. And control of the economic system is a goal worth spending a LOT of money on.

Those people also HAVE the greatest amount wealth others would seek to purchase with this new crytocurrency.

And this wealth was accumulated through the old private central banking system, among other dynamics NOT subjected to the Austrian business cycle. There is no way to remedy that, and start again from some fair starting point, without extreme redistribtion, which is a very unpalatable prospect. That is, unless you're going to focus on abundance for all via non-deflationary measures combined with a focus on new means of energy abundance, which Austrian/cyrptourrency fanboys don't talk about.

The richest people right now control the private banks, which in turn control the private central bank. Those same people will be able to dominate a Gold Standard, as deomonstrated in the OP. And it's a matter of fact that they as a class have historically pushed for the Gold standard as preferable for pursuing their interests over non-usurious fiat money.

A cryptocurrency is revolutionary ONLY in the sense that, if successful (and that's a dubious prospect), it moves the dialectic back to the enforced scarcity Austrian side, in which wealth is funelled upwards by Usury and by the exercise of the power granted by pre-existing wealth structures.

Do you know how much of the land of England and Canada is owned by the Aristocracy? Do you have any idea how much Gold is unaccounte for? Do you have any idea of the vast wealth generated by the present banking system each day, and how far the wealth generated by that outdwarfs libertarian pet projects like bitcoin?

So, bitcoin probably got a few libertarians rich. The ones who got in early. And it genuinely does have some importance, in allowing covert and unregulated transactions. But that's not new. Cash did that during the era when present inequalities and systems were developing. And deregulation of that kind is a mild, not a fundamental change.

 No.1479

>>1476


>everything is created out of nothing

Yes. And this was created out of nothing by Volker and Social Darwinists, who didn't even have academic standing or career posts (not that that's everything), with endless 'independent' organisations spun off from the same funding source to give the appearance of legitimacy, and vast amounts of books printed and given to libraries for free. It's been the ideology of Fed Chairmen and very much in-on-it heads of state, and David Rockefeller, former head of Chase Manhatten Bank (which profited greatly from the present banking system, being one of the main Banks), considered himself an Austrian.

>that's nothing to denounce something by

It was part of the narrative, not a denunciation. The denunciation is in reading and understanding the history, and the linked materials.


>left well alone, the organizational structure would organically grow as per the civilization

That's pretty funny. You think organic growth can fix the present hierarchy, or that hierachy's interests in scarcity? You're deluded. We are not at square one, and we are not getting back there without some kind of extreme measures that Austrianism would regard as horrific government intervention. The only other way out at this point, if you care about that, is an increase in the wealth generally available, by the means I've indicated being the ones those with something to lose are scared of and fight viciously.

But I don't expect that to happen, and I'm posting descriptively, not as an activist. What I think will probably happen is that useful idiots will carry on being duped, and they and their children will be powerless and eventually poor as a result. Best to join in with the duping.

 No.1481

Btw, a currency buyout also allows what has historically been done with Gold:

Manipulation of the money supply.

Profiting extremely from shifts to and away from it as a/the main medium of exchange, therefore giving a motive for further systemic manipulations.

Conservative maintenance of present power structures as a kind of rest between more aggressive Kenesian/private-fiat period. Dialectic. Only to a degree though, in that Usury remains an extremely aggressive form of wealth transfer, and the need for it will be exaggerated by the scarcity of the limited supply currency, that scarcity having been exacerbated by buyouts by forward planning oligarchical players.

And, above all, distraction. That's ultimately what this economic dialectic and the myriad socio-political doctrine spun out of it facilitates. Distraction, while you lose. Ideology, whilst tactical reality is happening.

 No.1485

>>1478
>new means of energy abundance
You answered your own question
If you can explain to me why available energy would remain constant or be immovable then I'll give you a stack of gold right now
Cryptocurrencies rely on physics to generate currency - not work
It's an entirely different ball game
If you could reply without derisory language you may be more amenably spoken to

 No.1488

>Cryptocurrencies rely on physics to generate currency - not work
>It's an entirely different ball game

That actually makes no sense at all. Retreating into mystery and unintelligible language isn't going to salvage your position.

>If you can explain to me why available energy would remain constant or be immovable

Given that you're not using English grammar and pronunciation, it's hard to know quite what you think you're talking about. But energy would remain scarce on a Gold Standard because those with vast wealth benefit from it being scarce, would have the economic means to make it happen, and have a track record of having made it happen. And whatever energy was in circulation would be funneled upwards by Usury. Along with the factors laid out in more detail in previous posts.

But please do enlighten as the 'entirely different ball game' of your vaguely hinted at scenario and how it topples the oligarchs, beats their intelligence agencies and makes the poor rich.

 No.1493

>>1488
Your understanding of reality is limited
You are deluded by matter
Virtual work is not the same as physical labour
Creativity creates wealth not minerals
The entire system is changing and those who oppose it will not survive

 No.1498

>>1493

No doubt I'm deluded by matter. My understanding of reality certainly is limited.

But tangibly less so than the one pushed by these economic psyops. Which is what's at stake here.

Evidently creativity creates wealth, as my analysis of this system demonstrates. It's very creatively constructed, as are the masks of different ideologies which protect its principles. It weaves its concepts in such a way that physical energy is depended upon extremely. But that's a mental phenomenon leveraging a physical one, not vice versa.

If you know about some radically new system or plan or etc., that's interesting. I think my critique of Austrianism as presented traditionally or in NRx is correct.

That's not the position suggested in your latest post though. So are you defending their position, or do you have something else interesting to say, or some larger context crypto-currencies are likely to be implemented within?

Who's opposing? I'm just writing. I don't back systems, I back my course through them. Systems are tools.

 No.1500

>>1478

Bitcoin is a great thing, but the actual important aspect of it is the blockchain technology (distributed consensus) - look it up.

This technology could have huge political, societal, and economic, legal, contractual, and informational applications completely shifting how a number of markets function. -- Increasing transparency, accountability, security, and fairness across a number of industries, and markets.


 No.1504

>>1500

Oh ok. So all that was just about the blockchain, which my critique applies to completely. Thanks for wasting my time.

I'm a sucker for mystery. It's how I find things out. Like that behind your obfuscatory language lies the empty void I originally suspected.

I already dealt with the deregulation and different kind of contracts these kinds of things allow, and how it is of some importance but won't change any psychopolitical dynamics globally. What the blockchain allows is potentially interesting and decentralising, but you have done absolutely nothing to show how this would lead to redistribution of wealth, the end to enforced scarcity, or the end to rule by market manipulation and psyops about it.

Time's up. You either present a straightforward argument with supporting evidence and logic, or you admit that you're just an Austrian trying to salvage the unsalvageable.


 No.1506

>>1504

it's quite simple

individualized cryptocurrencies reflect one's creative output

markets exist for every value

there is no need for any local government


 No.1569

Very, very interesting, anon. Though I will have to read further into this(it's like every time I see a thread on this board I have to read 10 books worth of pages and I'm still not done) before buying into it. Especially due to the fact that the sources that you posted are sourceless, I will have to research this myself.


 No.1571

This is my first post in 32, and I ask forgiveness for my bad grammar.

First I would like to suggest, that there are two major discussion platforms for economical, but all so general political discussions; the internet and main stream media. I also talk about the dialectic and the polarization used.

>The open debate - The internet

In many open internet discussions, in major political discussion forums, or any free and open discussion about economics, the discussion is always radically polarized. This polarization has only one job, and it's to limit the discussion. The economical politics is polarized towards globalist far left (Communism) and globalist far right (free market). Both of these are very bad for any country, or a specific society, which wants economical autonomy.

If we want to spread ideas outside of this polarization, then we need to limit discussion by force, or need to attack the ideas some other way; I suggest by shaming. The actual debate is over in my opinion, and our opponents unwillingness to have a honest debate is a sign of this.

>Right wing

In any case, the shilling right wing is divided into two major ideological direction, which are the globalist neo-liberals, or the economical "everyone-lifts-themselves-up-from-their-bootstraps"-economical anarchist.

These people don't want to work towards a community, a society, and don't want to fund political, cultural and economical struggle of their own in-group,. They don't want to contribute with their wealth towards traditionalism, nationalism, or cultural/racial community, and therefore are moot points to begin with, as they don't contribute towards political struggle. They only identify as right wing as to play a role, a narrative of selfish capitalist who is hard working, and earns his money. What ever that is true or not is irrelevant. These people have no idea of the whole picture, or even a part of the picture, and are dead ends and useful idiots. The second right wing shilling narrative is the neo-liberal globalist, who speaks for EU- or any globalist trade agreement. Both worship "private property" like a god, and labels everyone a communist or leftist.

The discussions, which we are not allowed to have amongst right wingers in a free internet discussions is the idea of economical nationalism, or what we would call socialist protectionism. What I've come to realize that these ideas are attacked both from the self proclaimed right and the left. I'm not sure if they are internet shills, or believe blindly in their views. What I do know, is that it's systematical. People get triggered from any form of protectionism. They will call it isolationism, nazi, or even communism.


 No.1572

>>1571

>Left Wing

The left wing shilling is all about Marxism, and all the different forms of it. There are three different shilling positions in leftism; international communism, international social democracy, and socialist anarchism. All these positions try to undermine nationalism, borders, and import taxes.

>Communism is the only one with some honesty towards this issue. They openly speak about world wide dictatorship of the proletariat, and world wide economics. Marxist-Lenism is the main economical idealism, which communism is being promoted as. It doesn't work, and in reality is stalinism. This sort of economical inquiry is mostly dead, but it still keeps popping up in anonymous boards and fringe sites.

>Social Democracy was invented by Karl Marx, but the main idealist for the modern social democracy was Leon Trotksy. Leon Trotsky was the father of modern social democratic politics. Leon Trotksy was behind modern economical, cultural, and political strategies which EU, and all the Social democratic nations base themselves upon. This is basically where the mainstream media is focused. We have to note, that this is not so popular in free discussions, but many of the leftist will always refer to social democracy and it's accomplishments when defending general leftist social and economical politics.

>Socialistic Anarchism is all about Anarcho-syndicalism. It's basically flawed in the idea, that anarcho-syndicalist commune is never going to be self-sufficient in today's standards, and is dependent of outside trade. I find this to be most practical in basic organizational strategy, but for a structure of a whole independent nation it's useless.

The leftist keep debating within themselves which of these three options is best, and label anything remotely national protectionist as a far-right, fascist, or nazi. They refuse to have any honest discussion about anything that might suggest self-sufficient nation. Thus they limit the discussion, and never let the economics be about a specific ethnic group, or any group for that matter, and therefore there is never a discussion on how they can archive economical autonomy and be self-sufficient.


 No.1573

>>1572

>Both the right wing and the left wing have the same meta-economics

Both sides keep using the same terminology, and thus they both own up to the same meta-political dialectic. The left keeps shouting about evil right wing greedy capitalist, and the right wing keeps shouting the evil communist, and how they want to take everyone's money and property.

Both deny all national economical interest. The left wing is more open about it, but the right wing tries to play their side as nationalistic, which it really isn't.

Both keep want immigrants to come in to our nations and work. Both keep giving economical excuses for immigration and why labor force should move internationally, and say it is good for "the economy".

Both sides don't want to answer honestly about money creation, or banking. Both sides speak about taxes, as the only revenue source. Nobody is talking about the reserve banking system. When the topic of banking is off limits, the only discussion allowed is around taxation and budget.

Also both sides never specify what they label as economy, what their term they use actually mean. What I am going with this, is the core idea of economical area, a nation. What we are talking about when we talk about economy?

When we real nationalist speak about national economy, we speak about the community, meaning the ethnic people of a given economical area, such as workers, owners, innovators, investors, and all consumers. We want to protect their interest, and keep the wealth increasing in OUR protected community/nation.

What "they" mean with the word "economy" is an economical arena, defined by national borders, and is supervised by law. In their definition it means that any people working inside their arena can be a part of the system. There is no need to protect any natives, when you can import move workers outside.

We use laws and reinsurance to protect our community, our nation, our wealth. They use laws and surveillance to protect wealth of corporations, and few wealthy cosmopolitan individual.

We want to give jobs for our native people, lower the wage cap between our own ethnic people, and make sure that our people are prosperous and happy. Giving jobs to our own makes sure they can earn and prosper, and therefore it's important to limit the concept of economy in our specific group of people, and our well being.

The big question is who benefits from the economy, and who it is serving?


 No.1574

>>1571

>These people don't want to work towards a community, a society, and don't want to fund political, cultural and economical struggle of their own in-group,. They don't want to contribute with their wealth towards traditionalism, nationalism, or cultural/racial community, and therefore are moot points to begin with, as they don't contribute towards political struggle.

you have to create a struggle to contribute to it

>They only identify as right wing as to play a role, a narrative of selfish capitalist who is hard working, and earns his money.

that's your identification of those who don't subscribe to the 'everyone must be taxed to help everyone else' model

>People get triggered from any form of protectionism

yawn

"people get triggered from any form of freedom"

>>1572

>nationalism, borders, and import taxes

which have no legitimacy

>>1573

>Both deny all national economical interest

nations have no legitimacy

>money creation

which doesn't come from nations or banks but individuals' creativity

>the core idea of economical area, a nation

false

the individual is the core idea of economical area

>ethnic people of a given economical area

false

any people in any given area are the inhabitants

>We want to protect their interest, and keep the wealth increasing in OUR protected community/nation

what gives you the right to instruct anyone how to behave or be taxed?

>We use laws and reinsurance to protect our community, our nation, our wealth. They use laws and surveillance to protect wealth of corporations, and few wealthy cosmopolitan individual.

right, and that is not morally permissible because everybody is a free individual

>We want to give jobs for our native people

this assumes that jobs are 'created' by nations which is obviously false: one creates one's own work

>The big question is who benefits from the economy, and who it is serving?

right, the economy benefits and serves the observer; i.e., me


 No.1657

>>1574

I'm glad you used this argument.

Now when people suggest any form of nationalism, generally people shoot it down because "who are you to violate peoples freedoms?"

This labors under the notion that we are free individuals, given autonomy from the system.

This is of course a lie, there is a mountain of things you cant do legally in any given western nation, and an even bigger list of social behaviors that while not explicitly illegal will have very negative repercussions.

It's slavery via incentive, you pay your taxes not to be fined or jailed, you go to work to get money so you don't starve, you consume provided media so you know what is popular so you fit in, you avoid deviating in behavior to not violate the social norms the media presents.

And so on.

On their own none of these things look that unpleasant, or even connected.

In fact most people respond very negatively to suggesting any conspiracy that involves more than one group.

If I say to a normal person, that jfk was killed in a plot by the fed, cia, freemasons and mob, they'd call me nuts.

If I said jfk was killed by the cia alone however, they can accept that.

Channers are the same really, if I tell a channer that the world elite are comprised of old nobility like the British royal family, Jewish banking clans, American wasp businessmen connected in the freemasons, and academic think tanks intellectuals, they'd ignore me.

If I say it's the jews?

They can accept that.

And don't give me that crap that you don't have your own people, your people are those you share your cultural memes with, and genes.

This is how the tribal family has always been.

The elite have large connected clans that look out for each other, but to suggest a system that does that for a single ethnic group is somehow heresy.


 No.1671

OP here.

Just to clarify: none of the most recent few postings were me.

But >>1670 is clearly fundamentally deranged in his view on the world. Really an interesting case study in how setting a priori standards for what truth and reality are can lock-in a view on the world in the face of all contradicting facts, and in perpetual service of that worldview's progenitors. Most ideologies do this to some extent, but Austrian-Libertarianism is explicitly focused on A Priori 'realities'.

>'legal or not i do what i want. laws have no meaning because all nations and governments are fictive imaginings of the mind.

I mean, really now? Why are you even on this board? The mental doesn't exist? Because something is mental it has no existence and we don't need to account for it? Humans aren't absolutely swimming in the conceptual and its tendencies and connectednesses? Some psychological factor or sociopolitical dynamic isn't central to analysis because it 'has no meaning'?

What precisely is wrong with you? Does Austiranism and it's 'REALITY backed' currency ideology really distort some people's thinking this much?

>you can only be subject to 'the system' if you subject yourself to any given system

Like gravity, you mean? Your claim certainly seems to hold true there. Or the legal system that kicks in when you walk down your nearest street? Or the system of your body? Oh, I see.

Be a soul all you want. I think spirit transcends matter and incarnation to, as it happens, and unlike most on this board. But whatever's relevant to your presence in this world sure seems subject whether it likes it or not.

I'm really not sure how this a priori economic mysticism and its utter transcendence of factual circumstance are relevant to this board. We're interested in studying things here. You seem to be-- just talking some mental loop into the conversation again and again?

I initially assumed your writing style might hide some underlying profundity. But actually you seem to be just plain incapable of engaging anyone here in factual discourse about what's going on in the world. Why are you here? Did you just get caught in by the mention of your economic ideology and now you can't stop talking?


 No.1672

>>1671

I didn't reply >>1574 because it was obviously something not worth spending my time. Mods should moderate this board harder, and remove irrelevant post.

Obviously he is delusional. You are right that he is perfect for experimentation, but I feel that we should stick to the topic, and ignore those that don't.

I'm behind posts >>1571 >>1572 >>1573


 No.1673

>>1671

>>1672

right, but the simple fact is i'm right and you're wrong

take all the proof you need and stop talking nonsense to me again


 No.1674

>>1673

>>1672

>>1671

>perfect for experimentation

please try your 'experiments'

do you think you work for a government or something?

>>>/catscradle/


 No.1675

>>1674

the problem with these people is that they have concocted some deranged theory of how life works and then try to wedge it into everything

they're going to be seriously fucked when they try to mess with >>1670


 No.1676

>>1672

Despite not agreeing with the poster, I don't see any blatant violations of the rules. If there are any which I am not detecting, please report the post.

Thank you.


 No.1679

>>right, but the simple fact is i'm right and you're wrong

About not being subject to gravity unless you choose to be, you mean?

Or about the 6 billion other psychological actors on this planet existing?

Most of us here are more interested in method than anything. But if you want to talk about 'truth', there's a word for most of your propositions in Truth-valued logic. 'Nonsense'. They can't be evidenced or falsified. They're just empty noise, referring to no particular states of affairs and thus of no factual status.

When we take the less generous interpretation, and treat them literally, they're just clearly wrong by any commonly understood meaning of the words you're using.

This thread isn't meant to be about your particular arcane idiosyncrasies, though. Would you kindly go elsewhere? I don't think anybody's into your thing here.


 No.1684

ITT Austrians and Thirdpositionists (rightly) accuse each other of being vapid ideologues.

Economic policy ranges across a spectrum with #Fullcommunism (no freedom.) on one end and pure austrian capitalism (Maximum freedom.) on the other and mixed-economies (Social democracy, fascism whatever.) in-between. Realistically, all economies are going to fall somewhere between those two extremes, and optimal positions along that spectrum are going to vary over time and from country to country. Debating economic policy in the purely abstract isn't a useful exercise.


 No.1693

>>1463

Lol no

A heavy regulatory environment favors the elites far more than a free market

It enables them to by laws that favor their companies and stife competition - it also enables them to get massive subsidies from the government

A true free market would wipe out the stagnant ruling class because they are not innovators


 No.1697

>>1684

Presumably none of those optimal positions involve doing away with Usury? Or implementing revolutionary energy technology? Or public debate not being within the boundaries of present scarcity?

The entire range is different depending upon the presence or absence of those factors. That aside, of course a society's system will be best adapted to context.

That's not abstract. That's structural, tangible and specific. Your range and its middle ground are the true abstract, as every position on it is transformed by the presence or absence of particular and tangible factors. Paying attention to the range rather than those is precisely the Austrian-Keynesian dialectic, and the black box present discourse operates within.

You're basically just saying 'muh pragmatic middle ground'. Sure, be pragmatic. But so what? You haven't analysed anything or identified the optimal pragmatic course given present fairly universal economic structures/conditions.


 No.1698

>>1693

Hence the pre-fed move to Gold? Or hence how much they loved NS Germany? Or hence major money backing and creating Austrianism. You ignored history and parroted the party line.

'Freedom' as a generalised concept is a distraction. Civic and personal liberty aren't what's happening when powerful entities are liberated from any constraining influence to run roughshod over a society.

Societies are power-balances, and complex systems. If you loose one element like you want, it just goes wild and then assumes all the characteristics of totalitarianism as soon as it is able to do so.

Besides, elites are innovators. Rockefellers were immensely creative in what they did to American society and in their power politics. Roths were courageous and ingenious in their ascendancy. And think-tanks plan ahead and strategise a lot more creatively than your average person.

In a 'free market' present wealth structures will succeed in just hoarding wealth and underlying resources and controlling the economy by the power this gives them to set market conditions, and control loans to everybody else who's struggling to get enough credits to survive.

And if a true free market did wipe out this ruling class, most of humanity would go with it. It would likely be by a robotic (or etc.) revolution. And those profiting by this would have a motive to keep relative scarcity in place to safeguard their victory.


 No.2247

>>1460

>. It is mathematically impossible.

stopped reading there. you're confusing a stock with a flow. It is absolutely possible to pay off money created through debt without incurring more debt. [sigh]

>>1463

American libertarianism was a Cold War psyop. But, not without some good reason, though, as the Soviets were pretty shitty.

>>1464

>Damon Vrabel

>the IRS transfers money from people to the Fed

>the State is in debt to the banks

WRONG! Stopped watching there. Don't fill your head with this retarded shit. This guy is either stupid or a liar (psyop) or both.

The system is fucked up, and does somewhat act like a pyramid, but not at all in the way he says.

>Money Masters

This is actually pretty good. Would recommend.

>>1465

>So the market itself has been turned into a rigged casino, where outsiders can't hope to compete with insiders

BINGO! They've been caught rigging LIBOR twice in the last year, and the issuance of T-bills at least once.

>>1473

>butt hurt you specifically called out Neo-reaction

Neoreaction is one of the most ass-hat pants-on-head-retarded pseudo-intellectual propaganda act that has come out in the last 40 years. It deserves everything it gets.

>>1476

>cryptocurrencies

Oh god, you can't be this stupid. That shit only works bc it is fringe. It would be monopolized and manipulated just like everything else if it ever went mainstream.

>>1479

SMART SMART SMART!



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]