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

Old April 13th, 2012 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default What Kind of Economy for a White Society? Money? Trade?

I'm asking this to Rick Ronsavelle.

How does money work in an all-White society (no jews or blacks)? How does trade work internally, among micro-states, and externally with other nations, white or non-white?

Remember, the rules, people. No cursing. Polite replies only. I will be the paragon in this regard, and if I can do it, so can my betters. (I'm not done picking people to post in here yet, but I can't think of more offhand, and I'm trying not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, so why not, in the spirit of Sam Francis, dive right in. What I want this forum to do, since it needs a starting point and direction, is to flesh out my general ideas about how whites can best live with whites - the after-revolution portion of our program.

I envision, as you know, an overstate with a monofunction: protecting the collective racial interests of the citizens who make up the nation. How exactly that bears on the economy and trade is one of the most significant questions we can answer, and one area where there is great confusion, ignorance and disagreement among our side.

So, Rick, I'd like to hear your thoughts. (Any others I've selected for this forum are free to respond, even before he does, I'm asking him because he seems to be well educated in this area, and roughly in line with my thinking, as best I can tell.)
 
Old April 13th, 2012 #2
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default Is money only of government?

The only way to start is to start.

I claim that evil can be defined in one word: monopoly. And that monopolies come from, are established by, and protected by, governmental force.

So our problem boils down to two meta-monopolies: 1) Money 2) Information

So job number one is busting these monopolies. But first our people need to know of the very existence of these monopolies.

I haven't said jew yet. Yes, today, they control money and information.
But there have been non-jews, like John Law and the Medicis, using the state for piggy purposes. As bad as the jew problem is, the general problem is special interests taking over governments.

The internal (WN) war will boil down to those favoring state monopoly versus those opposed. I see no rapprochement Those favoring state monopolies will need to show that these monopolies are not ruled by special interests.

OK. Let us ask the question- is money of the state (government), or can it exist outside of government? Many infiltrators have posted here, and on other WN sites, asserting that "money is of the law because Aristotle said so." They are fighting hard against Austrian economics (to be discussed later) and the idea of competing monies. They may be agents of the powers-that-be. The PTB are OK with any governmental money system, as sooner or later they can take it over and do what they have done for centuries (create loans from nothing).

"Aristotle said" is argument from authority. It won't fly here.

Now, off to see what Aristotle said. "Money is of the law." Where is the proof? Why are some so frightened by free (non-governmental) money?

The stakes don't get any higher.

To be continued.
 
Old April 14th, 2012 #3
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default

(Tracking down Aristotle, which leads to Stephen Zarlenga. Zarlenga wants what we have now, with the "fractional reserve" (fake loans) stripped away. The government [Treasury Dept.] just prints and shoves the money into the economy. [Helicopters as last resort.] It is extreme left wing, which has been adopted by some of the gullible right, including WN. It is still Keynesian inflation. Gary North calls this print and spend "greenbacking" [after Lincoln]- I will use that term. [Dr. North has studied the print-and-spend greenbacking for 45 years!] More later.)

>>>What is the monetary unit assumption?

The monetary unit assumption is that in the long run, the dollar is stable—it does not lose its purchasing power. This assumption allows the accountant to add the cost of a parcel of land purchased in 2006 to the cost of land purchased in 1956. For example, if a two-acre parcel cost the company $20,000 in 1956 and in 2006 a two-acre parcel adjacent to the original parcel is purchased for a cost of $800,000, the accountant will add the $800,000 to the land account and will report the land account’s balance of $820,000 on the company’s balance sheet.

To say that the purchasing power of the dollar has not changed significantly from 1956 to 2006 is quite a stretch. However, the assumption is that the purchasing power of the dollar has not changed. (WTF??)

Part of the monetary unit assumption is that accountants report assets as dollar amounts, rather than reporting in detail all of the specific assets. If an asset cannot be expressed as a dollar amount, it cannot be entered in the general ledger. For example, the management team of a very successful corporation is by far its most valuable asset. However, the accountant is not able to objectively convert those talented people into a dollar or monetary amount. Hence, the team will not be included in the amounts reported on the balance sheet.

http://blog.accountingcoach.com/mone...it-assumption/

Another defintion of the monetary unit assumption:

>>>MONETARY UNIT ASSUMPTION assumes that values can be relevantly measured in current monetary units. It is not necessary that the currency be stable or that inflation effects be negligible. The discount rate (cost of capital) automatically takes into account expected inflationary effect on dollar or inventory values for the specific entity. This supports economic valuation and enhances comparability.

http://www.ventureline.com/accountin...on-definition/

WTF??? The first definition assumes is that in the long run, the dollar is stable—it does not lose its purchasing power The second says the exact opposite- the currency unit need not be stable. There are generally accepted accounting principles. . .yet there is this HUGE inconsistency about money's stability. . . I suppose they think this "money" will have no effect on accounting accuracy:



This Zimbabwe paper is a perfect example of where greenbacking leads. It is print and spend pushed to the logical extension. The Zarlenga/Ellen Brown/Major Douglas system is the same (None of those three are/were economists. Major Douglas gave instruction to Keynes, who gave instruction to Schacht- Hitler's finance minister.) Brown has a book- Web of Debt- which has had enormous influence even with the right. She lost a long debate with North in late '10 AND THREW HER SUPPORT TO BERNANKE.

Supporting Zarlenga or Ellen Brown is akin to supporting Bob Mugabe, who is just as much an "economist" as they are.











Five progressive "economists"- they all think like negroes.

Last edited by Rick Ronsavelle; April 14th, 2012 at 02:01 PM.
 
Old April 16th, 2012 #4
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default

Alex Linder asks-

How does money work in an all-White society (no jews or blacks)? How does trade work internally, among micro-states, and externally with other nations, white or non-white?

I was just looking at an old note by Alex that I had filed away. (Can't find it now.) It was about political views being genetic. He asked "How can people turn their backs on the most obvious facts? I am certain that it is genetic."

Research of identical twins, separated early and raised in different environments, shows a correlation of 0.62 for political views (when tested as adults.) (1.00 is perfect correlation- the scale is -1 to +1. In the social sciences a correlation of .10 or .15 can be considered important.)

Political views are largely genetic. Is any communication even possible? The other WN sites never raise this issue.

The bad guys have different genetics than the good guys.

Before trade and money is analyzed, basic questions need raising- What kind of life do I/we want? Civilized and productive. So far so good. That means White only. No jews, blacks, or mexicans. I'm starting to feel like a White man. Assume we have secured the lower 48 for Whites. Then what? Most/all WN want that. Next- what sort of political arrangements shall be arranged?

I digress. Does no jews mean no jews in our White area (nation)? Or no jews anywhere. . .jews outside will do anything and everything to block our efforts. If jews are on the outside, and not ghettoized- the question is- what then? Basic physical survival looms. . .

Let's say we (Whites) have the lower 48 (at least), and that jews have disappeared. Is it paradise? No- there is another internal war- the socialists vs.the libertarians. The socialists favor (governmental) monopolies, and the libertartians don't. They have different views on money. Very different. Aren't we all happy now with White separation? Can't we all just get along?


No, we can't get along. The chasm between NS and the libertarians may be as big as the breach between Whites and others. Can we go our own ways? Have socialist micro-states next to free gated communities? There may be trade problems/wars even between Whites. Socialism is based mostly on the labor theory of value of Marx. It asserts that profit stems from underpaying workers. Thus, socialists favor labor unions. I foam at the mouth when someone advocates unions. There is real hate on both sides.

The labor theory of value is based on zero-sum economics- that the gain of one (capitalists) comes at the expense of the other (workers). All wealth is prima facie a sign of stealing- all riches are unearned.

What if some folks have a genetic blind spot where they cannot see around zero-sum? Then "what we have here is a failure to communicate."

So the labor theory of value needs refuting. Piece of cake. I have in my hands a book- The Exploitation Theory of Socialism-Communism (The idea that all unearned income [rent, interest, and profit] involves economic injustice.) This is by the Austrian economist Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk (1884). Incomprehensible. So I have my own views and can knock this out in a few paragraphs- later. In a nutshell, yes, profit does come at the expense of the other, but not the worker! Then who loses? The losing capitalist. Socialists have a strange reluctance to discuss the money losses that occur under capitalism. They think just the mere fact of starting a business means "automatic profit." Only government and fractional banking is automatically profitable.

No Rodney- we can't get along. Not with blacks. Not with jews. And not with each other.

If some of the micro-states go socialist, they will want paper money. Libertarians will want competing monies. The socialists will want protection against libertarian free-traders. This even before we look outside the lower 48.

There are other "reasons" for socialism's appeal- the Platonic metaphysics. This used to be called philosophy. With what we know now these views are psychological/genetic more than philosophical. I don't see the socialists converting to a free society. I don't see the libertarians giving up freedom (within a White area, of course.)

I don't know if Whiteness is enough to bind us together. MacDonald is openly a Communitarian. Communitarianism is pure NWO. The head intellect is jew Amitai Etzioni ("Itzioni").


Last edited by Rick Ronsavelle; April 16th, 2012 at 03:53 PM.
 
Old May 2nd, 2012 #5
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default Economic Education 101

Playing Roots Backwards says:
May 2, 2012 at 3:10 pm

White & Confederate:

N-ggers benefit society with jobs. Many positions would not exist without them.

How many cops, firemen, EMT’s, Paramedics, emergency room staff, insurance adjusters, funeral home staff, home security systems installers and monitors, welfare hander-outers, Whitopia construction workers, gun sellers, lawyers, prosecutors, judges, jail and prison employees, CSI f-ckers, KFC employees and guys at the Kool-Aid factory would not be getting a paycheck anymore if n-ggers suddenly disappeared.

As a matter of fact, it just occurred to me that since most of our manufacturing jobs have been off shored, n-ggers are the backbone of our economy.

Just watch. Now that I’ve figured out how valuable n-ggers are, the people who run sh-t will be off shoring them next.

(Occidental Dissent)


Last edited by Rick Ronsavelle; May 2nd, 2012 at 02:10 PM.
 
Old May 9th, 2012 #6
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default Polylogism

Many have claimed that "libertarianism is jewish." Why do they stop there? Why don't they refute libertarian arguments?

Because they believe these so-called arguments are really disguised tricks, whose purpose is to once again extract wealth from the long-suffering proles.

Each class in the class struggle has a different logic. Marxists coined the term polylogism:


"Polylogism is the notion that different group of people have different and incompatible modes of logic. According to Mises, polylogism is a false axiom used in many ideologies (Marxism, etc) to form the basis of irreconcilable differences between the different groups.

Basic Refutation

All humans are fallible rational actors. They choose the course of action they believe will increase their subjective standard of living at their lowest subjective cost. Differences are the not the result of different modes of logic, but rather the result different subjective values or relative positions within an exchange. The implication is that humans can and do seek out mutually beneficial exchanges and participate in the division of labor for their own benefit.

Origin of the concept

Until the middle of the nineteenth century no one ventured to dispute the fact that the logical structure of mind is unchangeable and common to all human beings. All human interrelations are based on this assumption of a uniform logical structure. Men enter into discussions; they speak to each other; they write letters and books; they try to prove or to disprove. Some men can think deeper and more refined thoughts than others. There are men who unfortunately cannot grasp a process of inference in long chains of deductive reasoning. But as far as a man is able to think and to follow a process of discursive thought, he always clings to the same ultimate principles of reasoning that are applied by all other men. There are people who cannot count further than three; but their counting, as far as it goes, does not differ from that of Gauss or Laplace. Daily, it is true, people violate logical principles in reasoning. But whoever examines their inferences competently can uncover their errors.

Yet, in the course of the nineteenth century has this been contested. Marx and the Marxians, foremost among them the "proletarian philosopher" Dietzgen, taught that thought is determined by the thinker's class position. What thinking produces is not truth but "ideologies." This word means, in the context of Marxian philosophy, a disguise of the selfish interest of the social class to which the thinking individual is attached. It is therefore useless to discuss anything with people of another social class. Ideologies do not need to be refuted by discursive reasoning; they must be unmasked by denouncing the class position, the social background, of their authors. Thus Marxians do not discuss the merits of physical theories; they merely uncover the "bourgeois" origin of the physicists.

The Marxians have resorted to polylogism because they could not refute by logical methods the theories developed by "bourgeois" economics, or the inferences drawn from these theories demonstrating the impracticability of socialism. As they could not rationally demonstrate the soundness of their own ideas or the un*soundness of their adversaries' ideas, they have denounced the accepted logical methods. The success of this Marxian stratagem was unprecedented. It has rendered proof against any reasonable criticism all the absurdities of Marxian would-be economics and would-be sociology. Only by the logical tricks of polylogism could etatism gain a hold on the modern mind.

Polylogism is so inherently nonsensical that it cannot be carried consistently to its ultimate logical consequences. No Marxian was bold enough to draw all the conclusions that his own epistemological viewpoint would require. The principle of polylogism would lead to the inference that Marxian teachings also are not objectively true but are only "ideological" statements. But the Marxians deny it. They claim for their own doctrines the character of absolute truth. Thus Dietzgen teaches that "the ideas of proletarian logic are not party ideas but the outcome of logic pure and simple." The proletarian logic is not "ideology" but absolute logic. Present-day Marxians, who label their teachings the sociology of knowledge, give proof of the same inconsistency.

We may reasonably assume as hypothesis that man's mental abilities are the outcome of his bodily features. Of course, we cannot demonstrate the correctness of this hypothesis, but neither is it possible to demonstrate the correctness of the opposite view as expressed in the theological hypothesis. We are forced to recognize that we do not know how out of physiological processes thoughts result. We have some vague notions of the detrimental effects produced by traumatic or other damage inflicted on certain bodily organs; we know that such damage may restrict or completely destroy the mental abilities and functions of men. But that is all. It would be no less than insolent humbug to assert that the natural sciences provide us with any information concerning the alleged diversity of the logical structure of mind. Polylogism cannot be derived from physiology or anatomy or any other of the natural sciences.

Neither Marxian nor Nazi polylogism ever went further than to declare that the logical structure of mind is different with various classes or races. They never ventured to demonstrate precisely in what the logic of the proletarians differs from the logic of the bourgeois, or in what the logic of the Aryans differs from the logic of the Jews or the British. It is not enough to reject wholesale the Ricardian theory of comparative cost or the Einstein theory of rela*tivity by unmasking the alleged racial background of their authors. What is wanted is first to develop a system of Aryan logic different from non-Aryan logic. Then it would be necessary to examine point by point these two contested theories and to show where in their reasoning inferences are made which — although correct from the viewpoint of non-Aryan logic — are invalid from the viewpoint of Aryan logic. And, finally, it should be explained what kind of conclusions the replacement of the non-Aryan inferences by the correct Aryan inferences must lead to. But all this never has been and never can be ventured by anybody. Polylogism, whether Marxian or Aryan, or whatever, has never entered into details.

http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/wiki/Polylogism

Ideologies do not need to be refuted by discursive reasoning; they must be unmasked by denouncing the class position, the social background, of their authors "Libertarianism is jewish"- nothing more need be said.

[New but related topic: socialism and laws of economics]

>>>Economic laws and socialism

One of the most important of these reasons appears to have been an appreciation by certain Marxists which was inadequate, and sometimes even wrong, of the problem of economic laws and contradictions in socialist economy and society.

An extreme instance of a wrong appreciation of this kind is provided by Rosa Luxemburg who, in a "leftist" view of the future, thought that there would no longer be any economic laws in socialist society and political economy would therefore be deprived of its function.[8]

The same appreciation was made by Nikolai Bukharin in his book on the political economy of the transition period, especially where he writes:

"As soon as we have to deal with an organised national economy, all the basic 'problems' of political economy, such as value, price, profit, etc., simply disappear. . . . This is why there can be a place here for a certain descriptive system and also for a pattern of norms, but none for a science investigating the 'blind laws' of the market, since the market will have ceased to exist. Thus, the end of capitalist-commodity society will also be the end of political economy."[9]

We know how this opinion put forward by Bukharin (who was then defending "ultra-leftist" views) was refuted by Lenin<<<

http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/TSE68ii.html

No laws of economics under socialism!

Tying these topics together- are the "laws of economics" under capitalism another jew trick? To trick the masses out of what is rightfully theirs? When the jew is removed, socialism will appear with no scarcity- scarcity being another jew/capitalist trick!!

The only law of economics we now recognize is how fast can we turn the crank on the people's printing press!! (Jewish fractional reserve is now gone.)

WN who are capitalist must also be secret jews! Why else would they advocate "the laws of economics??"

Is there a class struggle within White Nationalism?
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:51 AM.
Page generated in 0.11139 seconds.