Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts


Go Back   Vanguard News Network Forum > News & Discussion > General Discussion
Donate Register Multimedia Blogs Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Login

 
Thread Display Modes Share
Old April 2nd, 2011 #1
Hudson
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Hassling shopkeeps along the information superhighway
Posts: 1,483
Default Newly Capitalist Russia wants increased immigration to replace Russians. Sound familliar?

You guys keep cheering for Capitalism, and keep appologizing for the jews in it.

I'll take commie Russia over this shit, any day.

Quote:
Russia plans to abolish quotas on migrant workers

On March 30 meeting of the governmental commission headed by First Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov will consider a draft concept of migration policy, according to Izvestia. From a document developed by the Federal Migration Service (FMS), that Russia radically changed attitude towards migrants: quotas are eliminated, as employment is facilitated.

In addition, according to members of the public council under FMS, attracting migrants help to overcome the demographic crisis in which Russia's population resides. "We need to draw up permanent residence a few hundred thousand people each year to compensate for the loss of human resources", - one of the developers of the concept of Vladimir Mukomel. The problem of adaptation of migrants is expected through special centers in the countries from which expected a significant influx of foreign nationals.

It is assumed that these centers would-be migrants will teach the Russian language, as well as the legislation of the country of residence and to provide some professional skills.

However, the developers of the new concept of migration policy are not sure that the reform would be perceived in Russian society. Therefore, the introduction of the new program is expected to accompany a powerful propaganda campaign, which would prove that Russian workers are needed.

As reported previously agency of political news, according to the latest poll by the Levada Center, "66% of Russia believes that the flow of visitors should be restricted. In large cities, where primarily involved migrant workers, the percentage of supporters of limiting the flow of migrant workers is 75%. Only 26% of Russians favor the liberalization of policies towards immigrants.
http://translate.google.com/translat.../665899/cat/94
 
Old April 2nd, 2011 #2
Thomas de Aynesworth
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,752
Default

The concept of "realipolitik" is unknown to most WN.
 
Old April 2nd, 2011 #3
Soldatul Vostru
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: The Wrong Parallel Universe
Posts: 3,499
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson View Post
You guys keep cheering for Capitalism, and keep appologizing for the jews in it.
I do not, I'm against capitalism, just like I am against communism. Both are jewish.

Quote:
I'll take commie Russia over this shit, any day.
National-Socialism [and or Racial-Socialism] is the answer, not judeocommunism.

Both capitalism and communism are against nationalism, and against racism [a judeocommie constructed word].
 
Old April 2nd, 2011 #4
Hudson
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Hassling shopkeeps along the information superhighway
Posts: 1,483
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soldatul Vostru View Post
racism [a judeocommie constructed word].
Trotsky did not coin the term racism. It had been in use long before. We already had this discussion on the phora.
 
Old April 3rd, 2011 #5
Simo Häyhä
Senior Member
 
Simo Häyhä's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 860
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson View Post
You guys keep cheering for Capitalism, and keep appologizing for the jews in it.

I'll take commie Russia over this shit, any day.
So you'll take a jewish ill...over another jewish ill? It's not very smart to swap one wound for another; or SMRT, rather...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soldatul Vostru View Post
I do not, I'm against capitalism, just like I am against communism. Both are jewish.
Capitalism is not jewish; it is certainly kiked nowadays, of course, but its origins are not jewish at all.

Capitalism is nothing more than the manifestation of the struggle for survival and power; it is struggle converted into an economical system. And since life is, naturally, a struggle, then an economical system that is founded on struggle is actually something very healthy.

Quote:
Both capitalism and communism are against nationalism
Capitalism isn't necessarily against nationalism, although one could argue that it creates (unnecessary) rifts within our race - a.k.a classes.

This is why I would support a temporary socialist government; our people have been devoid of racial instincts for quite some time now. If doing away with classes is going to pull them together and make them relearn what being part of a race means, I say do it.
 
Old April 3rd, 2011 #6
H.B.
Senior Member
 
H.B.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,749
Default



Notice, the picture they chose is of swarthy-looking subhumans.

I long for the day the genocidal jew filth is reduced to piles of ashes.
__________________
Smash jewish supremacy. Smash globalism. Smash ZOG. Use ad blockers at all times to starve off the (((beast))).
 
Old April 3rd, 2011 #7
John in Woodbridge
Senior Member
 
John in Woodbridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,749
Default

The problem isn't capitalism. The problem is the government that runs the nation. Every white nation needs advancement of the white race as the "prime directive" written into the constitution or whatever governing document they go by. Anyone promoting activities that harm the white race is subject to execution.
__________________
It’s time to stop being Americans. It’s time to start being White Men again. - Gregory Hood
 
Old April 3rd, 2011 #8
Thomas de Aynesworth
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,752
Default

Communism may be a lot of things, but other than Jewish nukes pointed at them, the Russians were never existentially threatened when the lived under, erm, "communism." You guys are retarded if you think that communism is just as bad as capitalism. In this case, you're completely wrong. Other than the surge in the Muslim population within the USSR, the average Russian in Moscow never had to worry about one of his blond, blue eyed sisters spreading her legs for a 300 pound Congoid gorilla. Thems the facts. The problem is capitalism. That was part of the old order Hitler crushed in the thirties, as well.

I mean, if you really like McDonalds, cheap Chinese goods, chemicals flowing through your veins, then, well, you're going to have non-whites replacing you in many areas. Eat your Big Mac and shut the fuck up.
 
Old April 3rd, 2011 #9
Rae Kiley
Molon Labe
 
Rae Kiley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 1,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas de Aynesworth View Post
Communism may be a lot of things, but other than Jewish nukes pointed at them, the Russians were never existentially threatened when the lived under, erm, "communism." You guys are retarded if you think that communism is just as bad as capitalism. In this case, you're completely wrong. Other than the surge in the Muslim population within the USSR, the average Russian in Moscow never had to worry about one of his blond, blue eyed sisters spreading her legs for a 300 pound Congoid gorilla. Thems the facts. The problem is capitalism. That was part of the old order Hitler crushed in the thirties, as well.

I mean, if you really like McDonalds, cheap Chinese goods, chemicals flowing through your veins, then, well, you're going to have non-whites replacing you in many areas. Eat your Big Mac and shut the fuck up.
I have a close friend who grew up in the former Soviet Union....She has nothing good to say about communism, in fact she despises it! She firmly believes in National Socialism.
__________________
Quote:
This country will not be free until the last nigger is strangled with the intestines of the last social "scientist" `Jhoffa_X
 
Old April 3rd, 2011 #10
Thomas de Aynesworth
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,752
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rae Kiley View Post
I have a close friend who grew up in the former Soviet Union....She has nothing good to say about communism, in fact she despises it! She firmly believes in National Socialism.
What does she think of Niggeropia aka capitalism?

National-Socialism is ideal, of course.
 
Old April 3rd, 2011 #11
Simo Häyhä
Senior Member
 
Simo Häyhä's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 860
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas de Aynesworth View Post
the Russians were never existentially threatened when the lived under, erm, "communism."
Oh?

Quote:
...all copies [of the Protocols] which were known to exist in Russia were destroyed under the Kerensky regime, and, under his successors, possession of a copy by anyone within the Soviet territory was a crime sufficient to ensure the owner's being shot on sight.
http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com/id68.html

And that's just one case; nevermind the Gulags the dissenters were sent to...

Quote:
the average Russian in Moscow never had to worry about one of his blond, blue eyed sisters spreading her legs for a 300 pound Congoid gorilla.
Indeed.

I bet his brother, though, the 300 pound mongoloid gorilla, had to put some effort into it when forcing a German woman to spread her legs.

Quote:
Thems the facts. The problem is capitalism.
Capitalism was never the problem; although I will fully agree that the twisted jewish version of current "Capitalism" is, by all means and aspects, harmful to our race, it is just ludicrous to blame all our ills on it.

Quote:
I mean, if you really like McDonalds, cheap Chinese goods, chemicals flowing through your veins, then, well, you're going to have non-whites replacing you in many areas. Eat your Big Mac and shut the fuck up.
Now you're conflating Capitalism with Consumerism; the latter being one of the tenets of current jewish Capitalism.
 
Old April 3rd, 2011 #12
The Bobster
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Filthydelphia
Posts: 10,095
Default

What we and Russia are suffering from is crony capitalism, a kike invention.
 
Old April 3rd, 2011 #13
Thomas de Aynesworth
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,752
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simo Häyhä View Post
Oh?



http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com/id68.html

And that's just one case; nevermind the Gulags the dissenters were sent to...



Indeed.

I bet his brother, though, the 300 pound mongoloid gorilla, had to put some effort into it when forcing a German woman to spread her legs.



Capitalism was never the problem; although I will fully agree that the twisted jewish version of current "Capitalism" is, by all means and aspects, harmful to our race, it is just ludicrous to blame all our ills on it.



Now you're conflating Capitalism with Consumerism; the latter being one of the tenets of current jewish Capitalism.
I'm not going to pretend as if Soviet socialism was completely flawless. That is an idiotic canard and line of reasoning.

It did, after all, fail. Not as a monolithic Spartan warrior state like the Reich, either. But as an old, cancerous, grizzled old man spluttering up some black phlegm in his death throes. Not very glorious.

But racially stable.
 
Old April 3rd, 2011 #14
Simo Häyhä
Senior Member
 
Simo Häyhä's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 860
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas de Aynesworth View Post
But racially stable.
The same way mediocrity is stable?

I cannot even begin to grasp your logic here; you're claiming that a system practically completely, through and through run by kikes was "racially stable"?
 
Old April 3rd, 2011 #15
Fred Streed
Holy Order of Cosmonauts
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,136
Default

The problem is not jew communism or jew capitalism, the problem is jews.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by For Understanding
I even agree with some of your points, Fred. God did regret making mankind (Genesis 6). You just kicked both God's and my ass. Congratulations.
 
Old April 3rd, 2011 #16
Thomas de Aynesworth
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,752
Default

Other than the spike in the Muslim population in around the late 1960s, early 1970s, yes. It's no wonder that when the USSR was reorganized into the 15 successor states in late 1991, Russia had the largest white population in the world. Period.

Had Russia adapted to the Jew capitalistic system in 1917, rather than the Jew Bolshevik system, Russia would be a Russian France today. Lots of talk of "force integration" and the like.

Again, not claiming that the Soviet system was flawless, but it was, to a large extent, racially stable. The easiest way to see this would be pointing out the growing number of nigger immigrants in Russia today, compared to 1984. Also, not sure if anyone knows this but a section of Russian territory was CEDED to China in the early 2000s. Never would this of happened in the Soviet socialist state. Border security was also top-notch, as the Soviet border police were probably the only force in history capable of handling Russia's/USSR's borders (aka no illegals hopping in from Afghanistan). Compare that to the vaunted American capitalist Mexican border.

Was it ideal? No. But it was better than what we have right now, in terms of whether or not your blue eyed progeny would be forced to go to school with little Jamal and Kalash.
 
Old April 3rd, 2011 #17
KraftAkt
Senior Member
 
KraftAkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 926
Default

Modern Capitalism is Jewish.

==========

Gilad Atzmon: Milton Friedman's 'Capitalism and the Jews' Revisited

Given the severity and uncertainty of the economic crisis we are all experiencing, I suggest we look once more at the work of Milton Friedman, the leading economist and a staunch advocate of hard capitalism.

During the 1960s -80s Friedman was regarded by many academics, politicians and world leaders as the most important post- World War Two economist. Friedman was chief economic advisor to Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Menachem Begin. He also went on record advising the Chilean military dictator Augusto Pinochet.

It is far from surprising to note that more and more commentators have realised in recent years that it was Friedman’s ideology and advocacy of free enterprise, zero governmental intervention and privatisation that has led to the current financial turmoil. It was Milton Friedman’s philosophy that also contributed to the transformation of the West into a service economy.

But Friedman wasn’t just an economist: he was also a devout Zionist and a very proud Jew. Friedman was interested in the role of the Jews in world finance and politics. He also attempted to analyse and understand the attitude of Jews towards wealth. In 1972 Friedman spoke to The Mont Pelerin Society about “Capitalism and the Jews”. In 1978 he repeated the same talk, addressing Jewish students at the Chicago University’s Hillel institute.

I'd suggest that Friedman deserves our immediate attention, since he contributed to the rise of an ideology and school of thought that bears some responsibility for the rearrangement (some might say dismantling ) of the West's economy.

The Jewish Paradox

Friedman was, no doubt, a sharp intellect, and could offer sharp and succinct criticism. Yet, Friedman was not entirely 'a cosmopolitan' in every sense of that word, since he was deeply involved in Jewish concerns and Zionist affairs, and he was deliberately open and transparent about being so.

In the talks he gave in 1972 and 1978, Friedman examined a unique Jewish paradox : “Here are two propositions,” he said. “Each of them are validated by evidence yet they are both incompatible one with the other.”

The first proposition is that “there are few peoples if any in the world who owe so great a debt to free enterprise and competitive capitalism as the Jews.“

The second proposition is that “there are few peoples or any in the world who have done so much to undermine the intellectual foundation of capitalism as the Jews.”

How do we reconcile these two contradictory propositions?

As one may gather by now, Friedman, the free enterprise advocate, was clearly convinced that monopoly and government intervention were bad news in general; but, more crucially for him, they were also very bad for the Jews.

“Wherever there is a monopoly, whether it be private or governmental, there is room for the application of arbitrary criteria in the selection of the beneficiaries of the monopoly—whether these criteria be color of skin, religion, national origin or what not. Where there is free competition, only performance counts.”

Friedman, clearly prefers competition. According to him “the market is color blind. No one who goes to the market to buy bread knows or cares whether the wheat was grown by a Jew, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, or atheist; by whites or blacks.”

Friedman’s elaborates further: “Any miller who wishes to express his personal prejudices by buying only from preferred groups is at a competitive disadvantage, since he is keeping himself from buying from the cheapest source. He can express his prejudice, but he will have to do so at his own expense, accepting a lower monetary income than he could otherwise earn.”

“Jews” Friedman continues, “have flourished most in those countries in which competitive capitalism had the greatest scope: Holland in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and Britain and the U.S. in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Germany in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.”

According to Friedman, it is also no accident that Jews suffered the most in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, for these countries clearly defied free market ideology.

One may suggest at this point, that though it is undoubtedly true that Jews suffered in Soviet Russia and in Nazi Germany, and though it is also true that these countries defied free market ideology -- Friedman fails to establish a causal or even rational relationship between the opposition to the free market, and anti Jewish policies.

However, the message Friedman conveys is clear -- Jews do benefit from hard capitalism and competitive markets.

Yet, Friedman is also genuinely intrigued by Jewish intellectuals' affinity with anti-Capitalism : “Jews have been a stronghold of anti-capitalist sentiment. From Karl Marx through Leon Trotsky to Herbert Marcuse, a sizable fraction of the revolutionary anti-capitalist literature has been authored by Jews.”

How could that be, Friedman wonders? Why is it that, despite the historical record of the benefits of competitive capitalism to the Jews; despite the intellectual explanation of this phenomenon that is implicit or explicit in much liberal literature from at least Adam Smith onwards, the Jews have been disproportionately anti-capitalist?

Friedman considers some answers --

Rather often we hear from Jews on the left that their affinity to humanitarian issues is driven by their ‘Jewish humanist heritage’. More than once I myself have commented that this is an utter lie. There is no such a Jewish heritage. Driven by tribal precepts, both Judaism and 'Jewish ideology' are devoid of universal ethics. If there are some remote patches of humanism in Jewish culture, these are certainly far from being universal.

Friedman, however, offered a further take on the subject: In direct reference to Lawrence Fuchs who argues that the anti-capitalism of the Jews is a “direct reflection of values derived from the Jewish religion and culture,” Friedman wonders -- if Jewish culture is, indeed, inherently anti capitalist (as Fuchs suggests) how is it then, that Jews failed to successfully combat Capitalism and free markets throughout their history? Friedman analyses that whilst “Jewish religion and culture date back over two millennia; the Jewish opposition to capitalism and attachment to socialism, is at the most, less than two centuries.”

Being a sharp intellect then, Friedman managed to dismantle Fuchs’s argument. He managed to counter the argument that Jewish culture is inherently socialist or humanist. If Judaism is, indeed, inherently and innately bound to such ethics, how is it that this humanism failed to become dominant throughout Jewish history?

Friedman also reflects in a surprisingly respectful manner, on the writing of alleged anti Semite Werner Sombart’s The Jews and Modern Capitalism. Sombart identifies Jewish ideology at the heart of capitalism. “Throughout the centuries, the Jews championed the cause of individual liberty in economic activity against the dominating view of the time. The individual was not to be hampered by regulations of any sort. I think that the Jewish religion has the same leading ideas as capitalism . . . “(1)

Though Jewish intellectuals at the time were largely unhappy with Sombart’s book, Milton Friedman is brave enough to admit that there is nothing in Sombart’s book itself to justify any charge of anti-Semitism (though, he argues, there certainly is in Sombart’s later work). Friedman, a proud capitalist, tends actually to interpret Sombart’s book as “philo-Semitic”.

“If, like me”, says Friedman, “you regard competitive capitalism as the economic system that is most favorable to individual freedom, to creative accomplishments in technology and the arts, and to the widest possible opportunities for the ordinary man, then you will regard Sombart’s assignment to the Jews of a key role in the development of capitalism as high praise. You will, as I do, regard his book as philo-Semitic. “

Milton Friedman may even agree with early Marx, that Capitalism is Jewish 'by nature'. Yet, while Marx believed that in order for the world to liberate itself from Capitalism it had better emancipate itself from the Jews (3), for Friedman capitalism is of profound value and to be respected, and Jews should be praised for their inherent bond with this philosophy and its diverse ramifications. As far as Friedman is concerned, for Capitalism to prevail, Jews should continue to do what they are good at: and that is to trade freely in an open and competitive market.

Friedman seems to dismiss the presumed 'intellectual honesty' behind Jewish affiliation with the left and anti capitalism: He tends to argue that the Jewish intellectual inclination towards the left is a direct outcome of some political and historical circumstances, rather than ethical or ideological choice. He explains that, in his view, Jewish affiliation with the left is the product of a particular occurrence in Europe in the nineteenth century.

“Beginning with the era of the French revolution, the European political spectrum became divided into a “Left” and a “Right” along an axis that involved the issue of secularism. The Right (conservative, Monarchical, “clerical”) maintained that there must be a place for the church in the public order; the left (democratic, liberal, radical) held that there can be no Church at all . . . .”

It was only natural, then, for the Jews to join the left -- in fact Jews could only join the left.

“The axis separating left from right also formed a natural boundary for the pale of Jewish political participation. It was the left, with its new secular concept of citizenship, that had accomplished the Emancipation, and it was only the left that could see a place for the Jews in public life.”

Such a reasoning, then, views Jewish affiliation with the left as a politically opportunistic move instead of a form of ‘moral awakening’.

Such a reading of the 'Jewish left' reaffirms my own critical assessment. It also explains why some Jews join the left -- they support cosmopolitanism, solidarity, an international working class; and yet, they themselves often seem to prefer to operate within ‘Jews only’ racially orientated cells such as the Bund, Jewish Socialists or even Jews For Boycott of Israeli Goods. Friedman’s reasoning might also explain why so many Jews who had their roots in the so- called ‘left’, ended up preaching moral interventionism and Neo Conservatism.(4)

Friedman argues also, that Jewish affiliation with the left might be better understood as an attempt to disown some anti Semitic stereotypes of the Jew as being “a merchant or moneylender who put commercial interests ahead of human values.”

According to Friedman, the Jewish anti capitalist is there to prove that, far from being money-grabbing, selfish and heartless, Jews are really public spirited, generous, and concerned with ideals rather than material goods. “How better to do so than to attack the market with its reliance on monetary values and impersonal transactions and to glorify the political process, to take as an ideal a state run by well-meaning people for the benefit of their fellow men?”

And yet, in Friedman's logic then, it is not a ‘moral awakening’ that moves the Jew to the left; it is neither humanism, nor solidarity and nor is it kindness, but, instead, it seems to be a desperate attempt to replace or amend the Jewish image.

Surprisingly enough, I find myself in total agreement with Friedman, though I would phrase it differently. I do differentiate between ‘the leftist who happen to be Jewish’- an innocent category inspired by humanism, and ‘the Jewish leftist- which seems to me to be a contradiction in terms, for the left aims to universally transcend itself beyond ethnicity, religion or race. Clearly ‘Jewish left’ is there to maintain a Jewish tribal ethno-centric identity at the heart of working class philosophy. 'Jewish left' is there to primarily serve Jewish interests

I noticed that Richard Kuper, the European Jewish activist behind the recent Jewish Boat to Gaza, was quoted as saying that their goal was to show that “not all Jews support Israeli policies toward Palestinians.”

It seems to me that the message Kuper conveyed was pretty clear: Rather than being driven entirely by a genuine care for the Palestinians in Gaza, the Jewish boat was also engaged in a symbolic exchange. It was also there to save the image of the Jews rather than solely providing humanitarian support. This fact alone may explain why the Jewish boat hardly carried any humanitarian aid for the Gazans. Rather than a ‘humanitarian aid mission for the Palestinians,’ it was probably also an ‘image rescue for the Jews’.

Seemingly then, Friedman managed to resolve the paradox between his two initial propositions (Jews being the benefactors capitalism vs. Jews being profoundly anti-capitalist) by offering an historical and political explanation: Jews or Jewish intellectuals are not really against capitalism; it was just the “special circumstances of nineteenth-century that drove Jews to the left, and the subconscious attempts by Jews to demonstrate to themselves and the world the fallacy of the anti-Semitic stereotype.” It was neither ideology nor ethics.

This interpretation explains why left Zionism was doomed to disappear. During his talks, Friedman reviewed the right/left political division in Israel. He noticed that two opposing traditions were at work in the Jewish State: “an ancient one--going back nearly two thousand years-- of finding ways around governmental restrictions (and) a modern one-- going back a century-- of belief in “democratic socialism” and “central planning.” Friedman was clever enough to gather already in 1972 that it is the “Jewish tradition”, rather than ‘socialism’, that would prevail. Friedman noticed already in the 1970’s that Israel was capitalist to the bone. He predicted that the short phase of Zionist ‘pseudo socialism’ was foreign to Jewish culture.

Yet. It isn’t just Israeli left that was doomed to die. Friedman's reading of Jewish culture also explains why the Bund (5) died; it didn’t really spread to the West; it also explains why the legendary Mazpen and other Jewish tribal anti Zionist revolutionary groups have never attracted the Jewish masses.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Friedman is not free of fault. In spite of his succinct reading of the Jewish left/right divide there are a few crucial points that have to be made about Friedman’s reading of Jewish culture, and his reading of capitalism.

Friedman argues that the free market and competition is good for the Jews. Yet he is also adamant that Government intervention is a disaster that leads to anti Semitism and other forms of institutional bigotry. If Friedman’s model is valid, then Jews in the West had better brace themselves, for Western Governments are currently intervening in the markets in a desperate attempt to slowdown the inevitable collapse of what is left of our economy and relative wealth.

If Friedman’s model is correct, and intervention is indeed bad for the Jews, then anti Jewish bigotry could be immanent, especially considering the gigantic bailout intervention schemes put up by states in an attempt to save what remains of the Western economy.

But it goes further -- it is also plainly clear that the bailout schemes are there to amend a colossal disaster caused by the endorsement of Friedman’s own ideology. We are all paying a very heavy price for free enterprise, hard capitalism, or, in general, the ideologies Friedman was so enthusiastic about.

There is something Friedman didn’t tell his listeners in the 1970s -- He himself probably did not realise the full meaning of his economic model. He himself did not realise that the adoption of his philosophy by Roland Reagan and Margaret Thatcher would eventually bring the West to its knees. He himself did not realise that it was his own advocacy of hard capitalism that would lead Western continents to poverty and deprivation. He perhaps did not realise back in the 1970s that it was his model that would eventually eliminate productivity, and every positive aspect of the welfare state. Milton Friedman did not realise at the time that service economy that suited some ethnic minorities for two millennia wouldn’t necessarily be a successful model once adopted into a macro model. As Friedman had gathered, throughout their history Jews and other ethnic minorities were very effective operating as service economy within competitive and productive markets. However, Jews and other ethnic or religious minorities did well because others were there to work around them. The transforming of the West into a service economy driven by relentless greed, a process that followed Friedman’s economic precepts, is now proving to be a disaster. It means poverty and global depression. It is translated into alienation from labour and productivity.

Friedman may have been correct when he predicted that governmental intervention may lead to anti Semitism -- yet, he probably failed to realise that it was largely his own intellectual heritage that would be responsible for the current financial disaster. It is in fact his own economic model and prophecy that could also introduce Jews to far more suffering.

http://ww3zionism.blogspot.com/2011/...friedmans.html
 
Old April 3rd, 2011 #18
Simo Häyhä
Senior Member
 
Simo Häyhä's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 860
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas de Aynesworth View Post
It's no wonder that when the USSR was reorganized into the 15 successor states in late 1991, Russia had the largest white population in the world. Period.
Errmm...maybe because it's the biggest country in the whole world so it is naturally bound to have a gigantic population?

Quote:
Also, not sure if anyone knows this but a section of Russian territory was CEDED to China in the early 2000s. Never would this of happened in the Soviet socialist state.
Boo hoo; should I start describing what has happened to Germany (*cough* rape *cough*)?

Quote:
Was it ideal? No. But it was better than what we have right now, in terms of whether or not your blue eyed progeny would be forced to go to school with little Jamal and Kalash.
No, instead your blue eyed progeny was forced to go to school with little Mordechai and Ephraim and swear undying obedience to (kike) Lenin and (sub-human) Stalin; again, swapping a wound for another is not a smart thing to do.
 
Old April 3rd, 2011 #19
Simo Häyhä
Senior Member
 
Simo Häyhä's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 860
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Streed View Post
The problem is not jew communism or jew capitalism, the problem is jews.
Quoted for truth.
 
Old April 3rd, 2011 #20
Thomas de Aynesworth
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,752
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simo Häyhä View Post
Errmm...maybe because it's the biggest country in the whole world so it is naturally bound to have a gigantic population?
Perhaps, perhaps not. Large sections of Russia are unlivable, and I'm not talking about population, but the population of ethnic Russians. Seems to me that they were not under the same kind of duress and threat that white Americans are today, under the supposed superior Jew-dominated capitalist system.
Quote:
Boo hoo; should I start describing what has happened to Germany (*cough* rape *cough*)?
Nope, I know full well what happened in Germany prior and after the ceasefire. We're not talking about Germans, though. Guess what? There were no non-whites living in the DDR, either, yet the non-white slurry-gate in West Germany had been running since the late 1940s. Capitalism at its best (or Jewiest).
Quote:
No, instead your blue eyed progeny was forced to go to school with little Mordechai and Ephraim and swear undying obedience to (kike) Lenin and (sub-human) Stalin; again, swapping a wound for another is not a smart thing to do.
No, it's not. But in the United States you get the full "rainbow treatment." Plus, Russians were a lot more racially aware in the USSR than Americans were in the US. Russians did not follow the guilt cults created by the Frankfurt School diaspora, nor were they forced at gun point to go to school with niggers. Even old uncle Joe called the Russians the preeminent nation in the Soviet Union.

Last edited by Thomas de Aynesworth; April 3rd, 2011 at 02:03 PM.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:24 AM.
Page generated in 1.49753 seconds.