Forwarded from Joel Davis
This tendency in our scene for people to call all people who have a critical analysis of capitalism "Marxists" is fucking braindead and highly counter-productive. Nationalists have always supported a mixed market economy, the idea that we have to reject "socialism" as though there is some kind of absolute dichotomy between the economics of Sean Hannity and Leon Trotsky is asinine. Economics should not be a question of ideological team sports, it should be a pragmatic field. The reality is that neoclassical economics is epistemic trash, its a psuedoscuence. Its defense of deregulated "free markets" should be junked, and the only real alternative to it is mixed market developmentalism. No one is seriously proposing a Soviet-style economic system lol, even the Soviets themselves rejected it in the end.
What is more pernicious about the Marxism-panic on the Right however is that it prevents the ruling class from being properly identified. If you can't describe the financial dimension of power without being written off as a "Marxist", Nationalism's fundamental enemy cannot be clearly identified.
What is more pernicious about the Marxism-panic on the Right however is that it prevents the ruling class from being properly identified. If you can't describe the financial dimension of power without being written off as a "Marxist", Nationalism's fundamental enemy cannot be clearly identified.
Forwarded from Bertie Bassett
They are just openly saying "fuck the poor": https://twitter.com/DaveLapanDC/status/1501350223930605569?s=20&t=ZPyoVeRuZe2hSypulssUGg
Twitter
David Lapan 🇺🇦
@washingtonpost @MaxBoot Agree. The increase in gas prices will definitely hurt many low income, working Americans, but for the rest of us, it’s an inconvenience we can handle. Look at what the people of #Ukraine are enduring, and sacrificing, and overcoming.…
Forwarded from Imperium Press (Imperium Press)
There's a take going around that we shouldn't adopt China's developmental economics because they're yellow and we're white. This is an admirable sentiment because adopting a foreign people's ways does in the long term lead to disaster.
The problem with this take is that the protectionist, state-run economics of China is homegrown in the West—they borrowed it from Friedrich List and the American school of Henry Carey and Alexander Hamilton. This isn't just something I made up, these guys along with Lincoln are cited in the Chinese economic literature as models. This is the central thesis of Ha-Joon Chang's Kicking Away the Ladder, and is a major theme of the 11,000-word introduction in Imperium Press' edition of List's National System of Political Economy.
We're not saying we should import Confucianism or something, we're saying we should reclaim our OWN patrimony. The free market ideology of Smith and Ricardo is not our original economic philosophy—Europe has a long history of protectionism and state intervention in the form of mercantilism, whose economic problems List solves and sets on a proper theoretical footing. This is what native, homegrown Western economics looks like, and in fact America originated and used the "Chinese" developmental model from ~1850-1950, which made it greatest superpower in the history of the world. The "Robber Baron" age is a myth—during the McKinley era tariffs were at record highs and the state was never more entwined with private enterprise. America only adopted free market economics in the 1960s-70s, and we all know the rest of the story.
This is not to browbeat guys and say "read more" like that brainlet Logo. Not at all. This is just to say that what we're told is native and aboriginal often turns out to be new and sometimes even foreign—many cases could be cited. There's a reason our entire history is retconned, because if we went back to our REAL roots it would be bad news for the rest of the world, and especially for the parasite class in our own nations.
The problem with this take is that the protectionist, state-run economics of China is homegrown in the West—they borrowed it from Friedrich List and the American school of Henry Carey and Alexander Hamilton. This isn't just something I made up, these guys along with Lincoln are cited in the Chinese economic literature as models. This is the central thesis of Ha-Joon Chang's Kicking Away the Ladder, and is a major theme of the 11,000-word introduction in Imperium Press' edition of List's National System of Political Economy.
We're not saying we should import Confucianism or something, we're saying we should reclaim our OWN patrimony. The free market ideology of Smith and Ricardo is not our original economic philosophy—Europe has a long history of protectionism and state intervention in the form of mercantilism, whose economic problems List solves and sets on a proper theoretical footing. This is what native, homegrown Western economics looks like, and in fact America originated and used the "Chinese" developmental model from ~1850-1950, which made it greatest superpower in the history of the world. The "Robber Baron" age is a myth—during the McKinley era tariffs were at record highs and the state was never more entwined with private enterprise. America only adopted free market economics in the 1960s-70s, and we all know the rest of the story.
This is not to browbeat guys and say "read more" like that brainlet Logo. Not at all. This is just to say that what we're told is native and aboriginal often turns out to be new and sometimes even foreign—many cases could be cited. There's a reason our entire history is retconned, because if we went back to our REAL roots it would be bad news for the rest of the world, and especially for the parasite class in our own nations.
Forwarded from Bertie Bassett
Cigar Stream: Nationalism (Joel Davis) vs. (Dickie Spencer) Imperialism Debate After Action Report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4gqwAkva68
9.15pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4gqwAkva68
9.15pm
YouTube
Cigar Stream #123: Nationalism vs. Imperialism Debate After Action Report
Davis vs. Spencer (Keith Woods Odyssey Exclusive): https://odysee.com/@keithwoods:e/SpencerVsDavis:2
Charlemagne: https://www.youtube.com/c/Charlemagne_III
Joel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCinfVjuheJWyiQjue3qfYdA
Prudentialist: https://ww…
Charlemagne: https://www.youtube.com/c/Charlemagne_III
Joel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCinfVjuheJWyiQjue3qfYdA
Prudentialist: https://ww…
Forwarded from Bertie Bassett
Can't wait for someone to tell me this is all part of their grand plan: https://thepostmillennial.com/world-economic-forum-cuts-ties-with-russia
The Post Millennial
World Economic Forum cuts ties with Russia
“We are not engaging with any sanctioned individual and have frozen all relations with Russian entities,” spokesperson Amanda Russo said.
Forwarded from Bertie Bassett
Instructions for how to replace DuckDuckGo with Brave here: https://search.brave.com/default. Way cooler looking than Duck Duck Go too.
Redditor goes to Ukraine to volunteer, sits in a barracks, gets shelled by Russian military, prays to a God he doesn't believe in, then quits because he disagrees with "tactical decisions" and thought they'd be liberating cities from the Russians.
You love to see it.
You love to see it.
Probably the most schizo shit I've seen on this app since yesterday. They even added the Silence of the Lambs serial killer music.
https://teleg.eu/foundconscious/1681
https://teleg.eu/foundconscious/1681
Telegram
Found Conscious
Wow, that makes a whole lotta sense 🤯
Are any of the people who ridiculed this prediction ready to admit it was spot on yet?
Forwarded from Gonzalo Lira (Gonzalo Lira)
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Forwarded from Glenn Greenwald
John Podhoretz - scion of one of a royal neocon family - is right about 2 points here:
1) The bipartisan consensus now formed embraces defining neocon principles;
2) The main opponents of neoconservatism no longer are liberals (they support it), but the anti-intervention right.
1) The bipartisan consensus now formed embraces defining neocon principles;
2) The main opponents of neoconservatism no longer are liberals (they support it), but the anti-intervention right.