“More Right” proposes communism

More right quoting “Men among the ruins”

The preliminary condition would naturally be the overcoming of the typical situation in democracies, where the political element makes promiscuous alliances with the plutocratic element, opening itself to corruption and pretending to represent a “Right” in opposition to Marxism. Again, the pure political power must be released from every bond—first from the bonds of capitalism, and then from those of the economy

This is, the state released from every bond, is the old communist fantasy. If the state is released from every bond, it can decree that everything be lovely.

The state does so. Strangely, everything fails to be lovely. Obviously evil people, wreckers, are disobeying the decree. They must found and destroyed. Then everything will be lovely.

But things still are not lovely. Obviously there must even more wreckers, who must be sought out even more vigorously and destroyed even more thoroughly.

At some point Stalin declares that Utopia has arrived, notwithstanding appearances to the contrary, thereby stopping the madness, or Vietnam invades Cambodia, thereby stopping the madness.

The state cannot be free from the bonds of capitalism, because it needs money and goods, and therefore needs capitalists to tax and to purchase technology from. As for being free from the bonds of the economy, we saw how that worked out for the communists.

Reality is that for the reasons explained by Mises and Hayek, and colorfully dramatized by Ayn Rand, the state cannot directly run the economy, nor directly sponsor science. Private individuals, with private wealth, have to be free to create wealth and knowledge, without which the state has nothing to tax, and no means to pay the army, nor any source for the technology to equip the army.

The state is at best a stationary bandit that keeps mobile bandits at bay. If it consumes everything, it destroys itself. Stalinist Russia kept itself afloat on an illegal but essential and tolerated black market, by letting capitalism that it had thrown out the front door in by the back door and by seizing and pillaging additional capitalist economies.

Stalin’s successors faced an ever more serious conflict between ideology – that everything should be devoured – and reality – that they needed the market and wealthy people, a conflict that gradually became more serious as no more advanced economies fell under their power.

Which eventually led to the open abandonment of the “seize everything” ideology

95 Responses to ““More Right” proposes communism”

  1. peppermint says:

    I stopped reading More Right a while ago due to Anissimov’s increasingly pathetic crankitude; this isn’t the first article he’s published that could have been published by an Occutard in Fall 2011. Nyan Sandwich is great, he should get his own blog.

    Anyway, I’d like to hijack this thread about Stalin’s shift in Soviet policy to bring up the old canard that Lenin and Trotsky were from the Merchant’s Guild and Stalin purged many other Merchants (followed by the Anglo-Soviet Split). While Stalin was planning more anti-Capitalist activities in the “Doctor’s Plot” affair, he was assassinated. Later on, the USSR would be broken up by Gorbachev (half-Merchant) and pieces of the economy would be sold to Merchant oligarchs. Not saying that the Merchants have their hands in every socialist regime, certainly they didn’t have a hand in the Asian ones, but in comparing insane USSR policy and insane USA policy, one can’t help but notice the hand of the Merchant in setting policy. They are good at buying up whole industries and political power.

    One policy in particular that stands out from the USSR and the USA is the insane leniency on violent criminals. Who else could think of violent criminals as “socially friendly”?

    • I sortof have a blog on tumblr, but there’s no comments…

      Maybe I should get a real blog.

    • B says:

      I don’t know who these “Merchants” are, but Jim’s idea of a USSR sliding steadily leftwards until Stalin’s purges is nonsense. The USSR slid leftwards for a few years post-Revolution. Then they put an end to it with the New Economic Policy (i.e., capitalism, China-style.) Then, when Stalin came to power, he ended the NEP, killed off his rivals, starved out the peasantry, launched centralized industrialization with US help, killed off his allies, then killed off his subordinates. The slide leftwards had ended in the early 20s-Stalin rebuilt the USSR as a classic Oriental Empire, like Assyria, using similar methods.

      The USSR didn’t have insane leniency towards violent criminals in absolute terms-only in relative ones. Political criminals were to be exterminated, violent criminals were to be punished severely.

      • jim says:

        Nep was advertized by Lenin as a slower, but still quite rapid, course to socialism. Which it was.

        The right wing of the party wanted to go (relatively) slow, the left of the party (Trotsky) wanted to go fast. But they all agreed where they were going.

        Stalin achieved absolute power on or soon after 1935. The liquidation of the kulaks ended 1933.

        “Dizzy with success” is not Stalin telling the party to move left. It is Stalin trying to stop the party from moving left while reassuring them that he is still as left wing as anyone.

        In his ascent to power we see Stalin trying to be lefter than thou, and simultaneously trying slow the madness. After Stalin’s power becomes absolute with the great purge, the madness halts.

        Stalin was not in absolute power over the party until the great purge. And the great purge ended the slide leftwards.

        • B says:

          Compared to, say, 1920, NEP was a big move right. What Lenin sold it as is irrelevant-it represented more order and property rights.

          Stalin had no serious challengers post-1928, which is why he had to continually “unmask” them. After 1935, there were plenty of insane and evil things he did, such as the Polish Operation directed against ethnic poles living in the USSR.

          • jim says:

            What Lenin sold it as is irrelevant-it represented more order and property rights.

            It represented a temporary retreat in their attack on order and property rights. They intended to resume the attack as soon as possible, and did so.

            Stalin had no serious challengers post-1928, which is why he had to continually “unmask” them

            If Stalin could have gotten rid of Kirov, Bukharin, Rykov, Kamenev and Zinoviev before 1934, he would have. Therefore, before 1934, the party ruled, not Stalin. It was the party that moved ever leftwards. Once Stalin ruled, no more movement leftwards.

            He got Bukharin etc demoted by being lefter than thou. Once he could have Bukharin killed, no more was he lefter than thou.

            “Dizzy with success” does not strike me as speech by a powerful leader to a party he deems insufficiently left wing. It reads to me like a speech to a terrifyingly left wing party by a leader who fears he may be next to be devoured.

          • B says:

            I have seen no indication that they seriously intended to resume their slide leftwards ASAP, and that they would have done so had Stalin not taken over. I don’t know of any post-revolutionary halts of the slide leftwards of several years’ length that then started up again.

            I have seen no indications that Kirov, Bukharin etc. were left of Stalin, nor that they were behind dekulakization. Rather, I see Stalin in charge post-1928, implementing a policy befitting a Sargon or Nebuchadnezzar-despoiling the countryside, forcing the survivors to move to the cities to be enslaved in factories built by the proceeds of the spoils (and of slave camps, which had their highest mortality in post-1934 year,) building slave weapons factories and slave armies, marching on his neighbors. Was Sargon left or right? He was Sargon, that’s all.

            • jim says:

              I have seen no indication that they seriously intended to resume their slide leftwards ASAP, and that they would have done so had Stalin not taken over

              Again Stalin’s pamphlet “dizzy with success”, which I would paraphrase as “Please top murdering quite so many people, but I am not saying this because I am right wing but because I am a very holy left winger, so please don’t hurt me for asking you for a slightly lesser level of terror and a slightly slower rate of mass murder”

              “dizzy with success” is not the voice of the lion tamer, but the voice of a man riding the tiger.

              You might spin it differently but however you spin it, Stalin is not ordering the party to ease up on the terror, he is pleading with them, and he is very concerned to appear left wing to the party.

              If the liquidation of the kulaks was Stalin commanding the lion, rather than Stalin riding the tiger, you would expect that when he very nicely asks them to stop liquidating the kulaks, they would stop liquidating the kulaks. They did not stop liquidating the kulaks.

              In 1930, Stalin very nicely and politely asks the Party to stop liquidating the kulaks, and says that this is because mass murder is not the best way to achieve socialism, but it seems to me, reading between the lines, he fears that after the kulaks, he will be next.

              Rather, I see Stalin in charge post-1928,

              If Stalin was in charge post-1928, he would have employed a different tone in “Dizzy With Success”, and he would have been obeyed. He employed a pleading and flattering tone, and he was not obeyed.

              The liquidation of the kulaks was the necessary and inevitable end point of the collectivization program begun by Tsar Alexander the Liberator. There are some left wing policies that necessarily and inevitably must go the whole way to the end of the slippery slope, policies that, unless abolished completely, root and branch, will always become more extreme over time, policies that just cannot be compromised with, because each compromise leads to another, more extreme, compromise.

  2. Orthodox says:

    Why does a free economy work towards greater and greater capital accumulation, but also works toward more and more degenerate society? Capitalism is only sustainable when the social capital is replenished or improved, but since this is a public good, it is a tragedy of the commons. It is not communism to have the state declare certain industries (such as porn) illegal or restricted. Like democracy, capitalism will deliver to the lowest common denominator. If allowed to sell humans and monetize sexuality, it will do so. Man does not live by bread alone, but the capitalist can only deal in bread.

    • Aesop Jones says:

      Ding ding ding.

      Also linking Evola with communism is retarded.

    • Kevin C. says:

      “If allowed to sell humans and monetize sexuality, it will do so.”

      First, there are quite a few humans who should be sold. As our host has rather aptly pointed out on multiple occasions, there are natural slaves, who need an overseer to get effective labor out of them, and an owner to provide their needs, as they cannot provide for themselves. And as Mr. Donald has also pointed out, whatever the failings of market slavery, they pale before the disaster that is the socialized slavery of the welfare state. And as for “monetizing sexuality”, while both are less than ideal, which is worse: free market pimps, or one Big Pimp Uncle Sam?

      • Red says:

        Slavery is most worse for the host nation than it is for the slaves. Every nation that’s embraced slavery has lost it’s fighting spirit and yeoman fighters. Slave masters always start favoring the slaves over their own country men which leads to disaster for everyone. The proper thing to do with slaves to is to send them far away or to kill them.

        • Hurlock says:

          There was plenty of slavery in antiquity as well, yet it was almost never a major internal problem.
          The Roman empire declined for a variety of reasons, but having slaves was not one of them.

          • Lesser Bull says:

            It was a factor in the decline of the Republic, which is the real decline worth mentioning. The Empire was just inertia.

          • R7_Rocket says:

            The Roman Empire also failed to industrialize despite having the technology to do so, because it used slaves. The Confederacy lost the Civil War because it lacked the industries that the North possessed.

          • peppermint says:

            Post-revolutionary Haiti failed to industrialize despite having the industry to do so because they lacked slaves… ???

          • R7_Rocket says:

            Post-revolutionary Haiti failed to industrialize despite having the industry to do so because they lacked slaves… ???

            I thought you accepted HBD. Post-revolutionary Haiti failed because it was full of blacks.

    • jim says:

      Why does a free economy work towards greater and greater capital accumulation, but also works toward more and more degenerate society?

      Don’t think it does. Seems to me that when Charles the second (my favorite monarch) granted the East India Company the right to make war and peace, that was a pretty free economy, but society did not degenerate.

      Capitalism is only sustainable when the social capital is replenished or improved, but since this is a public good, it is a tragedy of the commons.

      Supposing this to be true, and I rather think it likely is, that is job of the state religion, which should be teaching kids that gays are bad, instead of teaching them that gays are good, and teaching girls that their window of fertility is limited, so should prioritize marriage and children above career and romance, instead of teaching them to focus on a career, marriage and family supposedly being something that will just spontaneously happen while they are following their pussies to fuck Jeremy Meeks.

      It is not capitalism that is undermining social capital. It is government schools and universities.

      • Red says:

        Yes, but it’s capitalism & leverage that gave the cathedral it’s great wealth and power. You can’t have the elites we have without their forefathers getting massively rich from capitalism.

        • jim says:

          I don’t think today’s rulers are descended from yesterday’s capitalists. Consider for example John Kerry, Jon Corzine and Angelo Mozillo.

          • VXXC says:

            “John Kerry, Jon Corzine and Angelo Mozillo.”

            all of whom are in the slavery/debt slavery business. Also government elites and cronies. As is of course academia K-12-PhD.

            Red is right, slavery causes the depletion of virtue, loss of yeomanry, spread of the mob.

            Not to mention false history. The South’s core demand it went to war over was actually to spread slavery from sea to shining sea, Hawaii, Mexico, Cuba, even to Brazil. Lincoln’s plan was to contain it where it was and that’s what drove the Southern educated aristocracy to war.

            It’s not that there are natural slaves, just natural slave owners [mind you not drivers, that’s actual work]. It seems to begin with written langauge, so natural a dodge to labor that even the stupid darkies in the postwar south wanted to learn Greek and Latin instantly, so as to live by their wits as Booker T. Washington put it.

            Probably the best educator in American History, possibly the Western World, and certainly worthy of emulation.

            • jim says:

              “John Kerry, Jon Corzine and Angelo Mozillo.”

              all of whom are in the slavery/debt slavery business. Also government elites and cronies. As is of course academia K-12-PhD.

              But this is not capitalism, but rather the state: Angelo Mozillo was affirmative actioned to be in charge of other people’s money, which he then used to bribe government employees. Jon Corzine was employed to deal with bureaucrats, not customers, Jon Kerry had no connection to capitalism at all. These men’s power did not come from ownership of capital, but from the state. They did not become powerful because wealthy, but wealthy because powerful by state power.

              Not capitalism corrupting the state, but the state corrupting capitalism.

          • peppermint says:

            > spread slavery to places that already had slavery

            lol no. Now, what’s interesting is the Occidental Dissent guy did an article series about the Confederate grand design of their slave society filling out the Carribean and the Gulf, and likes to complain about the American Revolution that it split British slave colonies like Jamaica from British slave colonies like the Carolinas, leading the bad guys to divide and conquer them.

            Once upon a time people on whom Greek and Latin were wasted were turned away from the universities so that they could at least serve the nation by having babies. Today the universities take in anyone with a pulse so they can roll in that federally subsidised cash, the benefit to the clowns is that they get to sound educated to their clown friends with babies, which to clowns is the same thing as being educated – and their failures in business are explained by The Man.

            You literally have no idea that the world isn’t divided into those who work and those who do not work through trickery. Every boss a rentier who got in on the scheme first – this is the line silently pushed by business school professors, of course, with their spreadsheet assignments.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            You’re not the only one seeing it that way, “Jim”.

    • Alfred says:

      Communists invented “capitalism”. Prior to this “invention”, it was simply called “trade”. Capitalism, thus, isn’t a policy, it’s just the existence of economic action. It does no good to blame anything on capitalism or to try to get capitalism to accomplish something. It is just one of those realities that we have to account for when we make other policies. Capitalism even continues to exist under communism much of the time, though communism is the concerted effort to eradicate this capitalism (trade).

      We must deal with IS, not with OUGHT and Capitalism IS, despite whatever economic policy we think OUGHT to be.

      • peppermint says:

        yup, once you define capitalism as trade,

        oh, but in the USSR, a school child once got in trouble for selling a box of candy bars piece by piece. That proves that capitalism is trade.

        Of course, to Marx, that’s (good) merchant capitalism versus (problematic) industrial capitalism, but no one cares what Marx thinks, not even self-described Marxists, so we’ll just use the words the way they use them…

        …and now we have no word for the qualitatively and transformatively different arrangements of industrial capitalism.

        • jim says:

          The big difference, the things that caused the big difference, were double entry accounting, which made the joint stock corporation possible, made it possible to separate ownership of capital from enterepeneurship. Investors could put an entrepeneur in charge of their capital, and use double entry accounting to keep an eye on him. This is the foundation of western civilization, which began to soar when Charles the Second cut joint stock corporations loose from strong government oversight.

          “Capital” means head, as in head of cattle. Capitalism is bronze age social technology. The biblical bronze age patriarchs were capitalists, in that their wealth was their herds, and their power derived from their wealth. The distinguishing feature of modern capitalism, restoration capitalism, is the entrepreneur and CEO. Since the entrepreneur is in charge, while the shareholder is rather passive, we need to call it a new word, entrepreneurism, if we want to distinguish between bronze age capitalism and restoration capitalism.

    • R7_Rocket says:

      Human sexuality has always been monetized.

    • jim says:

      Man does not live by bread alone, but the capitalist can only deal in bread.

      So give the masses a state religion less destructive than the current state religion of progressivism. But the state has bills, and to pay those bills, needs capitalists to create value that the state can tax. Got to have bread before you can worry about higher things.

  3. […] the very many reasons to revere Jim is that he doesn’t mess […]

  4. James James says:

    http://www.moreright.net/expanding-on-the-antimodern-university/

    “I like the everybody works the fields, everybody defends, everybody eats together idea. The good parts of socialism.

    Would want to maintain an internal economy, but not fully anything-goes. The model might be that the leadership owns everyone’s labour and has to agree to invest the right to do the work on any given project. Eg I spot an opportunity and apply to start working on it. If it’s not obviously stupid, they tell me to go ahead, if it’s degenerate, they tell me to get back to real work. Otherwise free market. This simultaneously allows seamless funding of pure research and prevents degenerate market stuff like advertising, etc. Kind of like how Google works internally.”

    • jim says:

      The model might be that the leadership owns everyone’s labour and has to agree to invest the right to do the work on any given project

      But this means the leadership has to know everything. Which they don’t.

      Eg I spot an opportunity and apply to start working on it. If it’s not obviously stupid, they tell me to go ahead, if it’s degenerate, they tell me to get back to real work.

      But that means they have to understand what you are doing better than you do.

      Kind of like how Google works internally.

      Google sucks. Used to be they had the smartest AI on the planet. Then they started firing their smartest people for being male. Today, I am pretty sure that DuckDuckGo’s AI is smarter than Google’s AI, even though it does not index as many sites and DuckDuckGo has far fewer programmers.

      • James James says:

        Agreed, I was quoting a particularly silly quote. Getting permission from the collective to do anything = communism.

  5. spandrell says:

    I still don’t get why anybody takes Anissimov seriously.

    “Pure political power”? What is he, 12 years old?

    • Daniel Schmuhl says:

      That’s him quoting Evola, not his words. Evola has said many silly things in his works though. Evola did have some insights but they can be distilled into a few paragraphs. He seems to be really stretching this Evola material, i wouldn’t be surprised if he has posted the entire book by now.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      Typical “Spandrell” strafing run. Bye…

  6. Senator Steven Armstrong says:

    The alternative to capitalism is not marxism; we had non-capitalist non-marxist economic systems for millennia before either were invented. Including the mercantilist systems whose successes you attribute to modern capitalism.

    Evola supports the tripartite organic society; priests think, warriors fight, artisans produce. The king doesn’t go around telling the artisan guilds what or how to produce for the same reason he doesn’t go around shoveling shit: because it’s not his job and is demeaning to his higher nature. The whole point of the organic state is that a healthy society can more or less manage it’s own affairs, and the King’s job is mainly to justify the natural hierarchy and produce metaphysical boons for the kingdom.

    If anything, Evola’s vision is closest to Chesterton’s distributism without the mandatory Christian egalitarianism. No usury, subsidiarity, widespread private ownership, guilds. Nothing even remotely like marxism.

    • peppermint says:

      And then what happened? Industial capitalism won.

      Now, are you going to parrot the Marxist line about why that happened, or are you going to parrot the neo-Marxist line about how things are different now, or are you going to parrot the progressive line about how industrial capitalism is pretty cool but needs to be reined in by priests who think, and no one should every buy anything that isn’t artisinal, what are you idiots doing with those non-artisinal goods, all the best women should come have a party at my house.

      • Senator Steven Armstrong says:

        “Industrial capitalism won.”

        And democracy won not too long afterwards. As did anti-racism about a century later, feminism a half century after that, and acronym-rights is looking to win sometime in the next decade or so. With such a good track record for winning, we might as well switch teams right?

        Systemic decline masked by technological advancement is pretty much the core idea of NRx and not a half bad description of the opening of the Iron Age / Kali Yuga. Why are you so confident that our economic system alone has miraculously avoided the general decline of the last few centuries?

        The system Jim admires so much does not resemble any capitalism which has existed for at least two full centuries. Arguably more. The kinds of economies that he Chesterton and Evola all advocate are much closer to mercantilist Trading Companies of the age of sail or high medieval inter-guild trade associations like the Hansa than to anything which has every borne the name ‘capitalism.’

        Those economies produced fewer tons of consumer goods than modern industrial capitalism, but then again Georgian England had a lower life expectancy than modern detroit; judging modernity solely on the merits of it’s technology is the central error which prevents us from seeing the decline in the first place!

        • Jamal_the_Honorable_Black_Gentleman says:

          And democracy won not too long afterwards.

          Second (soon to be first) largest economy in the world: China

          It’s not at all clear that democracy won. In fact, given projected economic growth rates for the next 50 years, the future looks downright dismal for democracy.

          As did anti-racism about a century later, feminism a half century after that, and acronym-rights is looking to win sometime in the next decade or so.

          In Western Europe and America. Most of the rest of the world has either disregarded these movements, or given substantial concessions due solely to Western pressure. If the West declines in influence…

          The kinds of economies that he Chesterton and Evola all advocate are much closer to mercantilist

          Wait, so mercantilism is anti-Capitalist now? The term “capitalism” is so flexible (by design – it’s a propaganda word) that it’s very poorly defined.

          Use some other word. Maybe “libertarian Capitalism” or “open-borders Capitalism”? Or for that matter, “minarchism”.

        • jim says:

          “Industrial capitalism won.”

          And democracy won not too long afterwards.

          A century or two seems quite long enough that one cannot blame industrial democracy for the rise of democracy.

        • peppermint says:

          that’s great. I’ll have this country over here with a capitalist economy, you have that country over there run by “priests who think”, and…

          I’m not saying it’s impossible to come up with a better arrangement, I’m just saying that an economy of artisans who don’t suffer from the alienation of wage labor and priests who tend to their souls watched over by a benevolent king and his warriors tends to not do as well as industrial capitalism. Cry more, commie.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      “Mandatory Christian egalitarianism”

      So you’re a Christ-hater on top of all that?

      • peppermint says:

        if Christ advocated for egalitarianism, then I am a Christ-hater. Now why don’t you fuck off back to your little Christian blog and blog about how no one appreciates truth and beauty while advocating for mass immigration and more rights for faggots.

    • jim says:

      The alternative to capitalism is not marxism; we had non-capitalist non-marxist economic systems for millennia before either were invented. Including the mercantilist systems whose successes you attribute to modern capitalism.

      Capitalism is a bronze age social technology. The bronze age biblical patriarchs exercised power because they owned capital. Marxists, and the essay in question, are complaining about that bronze age technology, complaining about the power of the owners of capital, not merely the recent variant of capitalism that employs double entry accounting and the joint stock corporation to enable the owners of capital to delegate their power to entrepreneurs.

  7. Dan says:

    I don’t think you are being fair to Anissimov:

    (1) He is not speaking himself. He is quoting Evola.

    (2) Evola was very, very anticommunist. Much of his writings show this. In fact, he tried to get onto the Russian front to fight the commies on the Eastern front in WWII. So he was suicidally anticommunist in fact.

    (3) You’ve excerpted out of context. The passage meaning is pretty much opposite to what you suggest. The longer passage shows that Evola means for the state to deal with capitalism’s excesses so as *not* to allow an opening for the Marxists.

    An modern example of this would be, Mark Zuckerberg wants to turn America into a third world hole so he can possibly earn a few more pennies per share by driving down his labor costs. Rather than follow his orders, the government should maybe consider not being captured by him. This will help quell public revolt. Although the publics that Evola knew were more likely to revolt, being more manful back then.

    • Dan says:

      That said, as I read more, I conclude Evola was not all there in the head. He scorned Christianity and favored esoteric interpretations of Hinduism, scorned nature for urbanity, favored hallucinogenic drugs and does not not seem to have had a coherent world view. Never married, no kids. Not a balanced man.

      He was a hippy who wrote all manner of things. I think it is foolish for traditionalist to idolize him.

      • Jamal_the_Honorable_Black_Gentleman says:

        I just realized

        Julius Evola: Charles Manson, plus twenty IQ points

        Julius Evola: the more-fascist-than-thou Hippie

        Julius Evola: the Hippie that Hitler would have liked

        Julius Evola: the mirror image of Allen Ginsburg

    • Dan says:

      In his writings, Evola’s reference point for reaction is apparently thousands of years ago. That seems to be going just a smidgen overboard. If you are a reactionary who wants to go back before civilization arose, you are kind of missing the point, I would think.

    • jim says:

      An modern example of this would be, Mark Zuckerberg wants to turn America into a third world hole so he can possibly earn a few more pennies per share by driving down his labor costs. Rather than follow his orders, the government should maybe consider not being captured by him.

      Mark Zuckerberg employs few if any third worlders.

      If capitalists were responsible for population replacement, immigration would work as it does in Dubai – work visas, making the immigrant continuously dependent on his employer for permission to reside, where dismissal for cause means expulsion. Dubai is importing workers. The US is not importing workers, but voters who live on crime and welfare.

      If Mark Zuckerberg we would at least be importing workers, not underclass.

      The Dubai system works fine, since the capitalists bring in productive people, and any of them that turn out to be unproductive get the boot and are shipped back to their third world hell holes. Our system sucks, because the replacement people live on crime and welfare, predating on the white population.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        I agree, the Dubai system doesn’t have the FORCED assimilation part that is happening alongside the MASSIVE immigration in ALL and ONLY white countries.

        It could eventually turn into the Dubai natives being forcibly assimilated with the immigrants, which would be their geNOcide… But a lot has to change before that would happen.

      • Dan says:

        But Mark Zuckerberg pushes amnesty in any event.

        • jim says:

          If Mark Zuckerberg did not “push” amnesty he would get the Chick-fil-a treatment.

          Note that Chick-Fil-A wound up publicly celebrating gay marriage and forcing their employees to do so. Do you think that was their own idea?

          • Steve Johnson says:

            C’mon, Zuckerberg got into Harvard. You talk all the time about how the filter on Harvard isn’t intelligence, it’s political conformity. He’s either a true believer or has just been faking it his whole life.

            Who cares which is true?

            • jim says:

              Likely he is a true believer – but he is not doing it because he is a capitalist. Capitalists want H1B, not wetbacks. The ideal system for capitalists is that implemented in Dubai, which so far is working out fine for the natives.

              When you hear that H1B has been raised, then blame the capitalists – but what they have in Dubai is better than H1B because the visa holder can be sent back at any time for any reason or no reason at all. If H1B was really the way capitalists wanted it to be, it would be whole lot better.

          • peppermint says:

            Zuckerberg is a Jew.

            See http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/eliteenrollment-large.jpg

            Jews get affirmative actioned into elite universities. We can argue about whether it’s because they are Jews just like Blacks are affirmative actioned in because they are Blacks, or if it’s because they write tearjerker essays about how they lost 5 grandparents in the Holocaust, but with these kinds of statistics either Jews are much more liberal than Whites or Jews aren’t scrutinized as much as Whites because they are expected to be more politically reliable due to their identity.

            It should not escape anyone’s notice that every single prominent Jew outspoken on the immigration issue supports mass immigration into the US, though they may or may not support mass immigration into Israel.

            Now, what Jim is talking about is that it is in the interest of Facebook to import workers, which is what Facebook, Microsoft, Google, and a few other major tech companies lobby for.

            It is also in the interest of Facebook to hide the fact that they have not hired their quota of diversities. It is no longer in the interest of Google to hide that fact, since Google is profitable enough to be interested in forcing other tech companies to accept that dead weight.

            • jim says:

              Google has long hired its quota of diversities. And for a long time, gave them makework to keep them out of mischief and to enable them to pretend that they were doing what the white males were doing.

              Lately, however, has suddenly realized that if everything that matters is done by white males, they are not really diverse, just faking it. And so, Google is dumbing itself down to avoid disparate impact on minorities and women. This is so demented that I can only attribute it to sincere belief in progressivism.

          • fnn says:

            Ross Perot was the last (anti-capitalist?) renegade billionaire. Likely he was more sane than we were led to believe.

          • Jamal_the_Honorable_Black_Gentleman says:

            Where did you get the impression that Perot wasn’t sane?

            The campaign was before I paid attention to politics, but everyone I’ve talked to has described him positively.

    • elsid says:

      why would zuckerburg alienate his future zombies errrr customers?

  8. Handle says:

    If one wants the camaraderie, togetherness, social cohesion, and higher sense of purpose of Socialism, but be subsidized by the wealth generated by capitalism – a bull in a china shop when it comes to protecting important social institutions – then one should join (certain parts of) the military which they still maintain that character.

    • The military should I think be the predominant path to aristocracy in the modern state.

      I would recognize the right and necessity of the state to shoot down enterprises judged to be clearly operating against the common good. I suspect, however, that such a power would, in a non-demotic structure, be wielded far less often than we see today in modern western economies.

      I am still not convinced that large monopolies of the sort Evola (probably rightly) rails against even can arise without state action in restraint of free trade. (And by “restraint” I do mean to include patent, trademark, and copyright law.)

    • VXXC says:

      Yeah!!

      Get out of TDA – land and they still do.

      Garrison sucxx of course.

    • jim says:

      Since the whole people should be at peace or war, rather than some of them at peace while others are at war, the military rightly tends to socialist character, and the state elite should recruit from the military, rather than the capitalists.

    • B says:

      Sure, if you don’t mind:

      1) risking your life and limbs and seeing your friends get killed and fucked up for worthy causes like the right of jihadis to rule Libya and Iraq

      2) having careerist retards making decisions that affect your life based on Powerpoint slides and flowcharts, or, rather, deferring those decisions to whoever wrote the flowchart

      3) having critical aspects of your life depend on paperwork done by minority gummint employees with sub-100 IQs and no accountability whatsoever to anybody. Sorry, white boy, we lost your paperwork axin’ why you ain’t been paid this month, ss-sss-ssss-kekeke!

      4) see above but for medicine. You’re vomiting blood? Have some Motrin, good sir, come back in a week if it doesn’t help.

      5) being regularly forced to sit through Cathedral propaganda about racism, white supremacists, homophobia, how not to rape, etc., poorly done and delivered halfheartedly, but still.

      6) living in or commuting to a community where you are exposed to the shittier parts of American social decline. I’m talking 250 lb sows married to troops and flagrantly fucking around, thug life 17 year old dependents with neck tattoos, hoopties on 26″ rims blasting ghettotech, whatever you want. And don’t give me that “I work at the Fort, everyone here is a Dungeonmaster intellectual” nonsense-you’ve got supply sergeants, don’t you? And even your nerdlings are 4chan material-I once saw an intel analyst with a special ops unit bring his black stripper wife with four kids from prior couplings to a unit barbecue. Welcome to the neighborhood! In ten years, he’ll be the first sergeant you work with daily.

      • jim says:

        In the lead up to the social wars, the elite tried to remake the Roman military into leftists. Did not take.

        • B says:

          1. The Romans lacked the indoctrination mechanisms available to the Cathedral. By the time people enter the military, they’ve been had at for 18+ years.

          2. The Romans didn’t have the luxury of a military tht was 85% show. Check the NYT article today about female “veterans” with “combat” “stress.”

          3. A better touch point, the one that convinced me the coup was not imminent, is the French coup attempt in the early 60s. All participants were harded than 95% of today’s officer corps, bonded by things like dodging the Gestapo after being dropped into occupied France, Dien Bien Phu and subsequent captivity, and the Battle For Algiers. Their coup fizzled because of lack of cohesion and their inability to gather support, and they presented themselves to De Gaulle for a spanking on the 3rd day. Pathetic-but better than what I see the US military delivering.

  9. […] this post Jim attacks More Right’s endorsement of the Evolan argument against […]

  10. Jack says:

    ”where the political element makes promiscuous alliances with the plutocratic element”

    You’re deliberately ignoring this part of the quote which kinda destroys your whole argument. Yes, the state needs taxes. No, it does not need interest groups of rich capitalists. If you’re saying that not serving the interest of those groups is communist and should be rejected ipso facto because of that, you’re not being objective. This neo cameralist discourse is getting ridiculous.

    • jim says:

      “No, it does not need interest groups of rich capitalists.”

      Actually it does need interest groups of rich capitalists.

      See Mark Andreesan on just how badly socialism is wrecking the US economy.

      Consider the recent financial crisis. The financial system was milked to make million dollar no money down mortgages to wetbacks with no income, no job, and no assets. The problem was not that some bankers got bailed out, but that the banks were looted by politicians in the first place. If the Joos were really running things, the major beneficiaries of the financial crisis would not have been the wetbacks.

      If interest groups of rich capitalists were influential, Chick-fil-A would not have been terrorized into supporting gay marriage, we would be importing workers like Dubai instead of being flooded with criminals and welfare bums, and the housing crisis would not have happened.

      Some time ago Google tried to build a little wood bridge over a stream, a footpath so that people could walk across the stream. Could not get permission. You think they get to run our immigration policy?

      • fnn says:

        If the Joos were really running things, the major beneficiaries of the financial crisis would not have been the wetbacks.

        And here I thought the main idea was the hivemind using the mestizos as a tool of racial warfare against the traditional enemy. I think that’s what I recall from either E. Michael Jones or KMAC-or both. With Jones, however, it was in the context of a discussion about the role of Jews in the black CRM.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        The academia and media run the country, they’re the Cathedral.

        This is why, when the estates of the realm were broken into three easily identified parts, the church was the First Estate. A lot of influence, more than the others.

        A.J.P.

      • Van Phauc says:

        The problem with your reasoning is that these rich capitalists don’t care about capitalism as an ideology, they care about getting rich(er).

        And individuals can get rich through socialism (or crony capitalism). In fact, it’s kind of hard to get super rich through the free market, because of competition and all that market stuff that an-caps and libertarians like to talk about.

        So once you’re rich, if you want to get richer you might be do well to use your riches to make sweet insider deals with the government and pull the rope ladder up after you, so that nobody else can compete with you. It’s easier than being really, really good at capitalism for a sustained period of time.

        It may be that ultra-powerful lobbies of rich capitalists are not good for capitalism.

        • jim says:

          It is quite certain that ultra-powerful lobbies of rich capitalists are not good for capitalism, but it is also extremely obvious that we don’t have ultra powerful lobbies of rich capitalists – that the basic problem is that our capitalists are being terrorized and their stuff confiscated. If Google is not allowed build a footbridge over a stream on their own land, do you think they get to run our immigration policy.

          The financial crisis was not bankers out of control but bankers under control: That they were forbidden to apply to racial minorities criteria that had discriminatory impact – like having a job, income or assets.

          If a drunk Indio runs you off the road (and in California, the vast majority of dangerous drunks are Indios or Mestizos with a lot of Indio blood) will the police prosecute the Indio? Obviously they will not. But if a rich man accidentally runs you off the road, you are sweet.

          The government favors NAMs against whites, and in the same way it favors poor against rich.

          • Van Phauc says:

            “It is quite certain that ultra-powerful lobbies of rich capitalists are not good for capitalism, but it is also extremely obvious that we don’t have ultra powerful lobbies of rich capitalists ”

            How do you classify Sheldon Adelson? Is he not rich? Does he not have an extreme amount of political influence?

            He is and he does.

            But perhaps a case can be made that he is not ultra-powerful. He is powerful enough to provide strong encouragement to the Republicans to run candidates who are terrible on every issue, but he is not powerful enough to ensure that those candidates actually win.

            So he can spend 150 million dollars to ensure that the Republicans run a bunch of terrible candidates who all lose.

            Bad candidates supporting pro-Cathedral policies who lose anyway. Convenient for the Cathedral. Not exactly great for my opinion of the rich capitalist lobby.

            I guess you could make a case that he’s not a capitalist but a crony capitalist, but as described above his incentives no longer really encourage him to support ideological capitalism.

            • jim says:

              How do you classify Sheldon Adelson? Is he not rich? Does he not have an extreme amount of political influence?

              Never heard of him

              He is and he does.

              I look up Sheldon Adelson. The man buys political influence in order to get gambling licenses. This is extreme political influence? A few gambling licenses?

              The man supports Israel, lower taxes, less spending, and less regulation. The Republican party recently passed a budget with huge increases in taxes and spending, continues to refer to East Jerusalem as “Occupied territory”, and continues to support legislation providing for gigantic increases in regulation, such as Sarbannes Oxley. This is extreme political influence?

              He sounds more like Google, which cannot get permission to build a footbridge over a stream on its own land.

              If he was driving in California, and a drunken Indio ran him off the road, what is going to happen to the drunken Indio?

              If, however, he ran an Indio off the road, what would happen to him? A drunken Indio has more power than Sheldon Adelson.

  11. For me, the ideal is rule by culture instead of government, with an aristocracy that handles the day-to-day decisions of a society.

    This gets us away from tyranny of the masses, and also from the modern sense of government as a separate entity that “does things” to its population to bring them in line with ideological and economic goals.

    It both increases some power of the leaders and decreases the power of the leadership as a whole. The real maxim is: rule by culture, values, GOALS, instead of ideology or economics.

    • Van Phauc says:

      How is television handled in this rule by culture?

    • jim says:

      We usually wind up with rule by priests or rule by aristocrats. Rule by aristocrats is apt to be disturbingly violent and lawless. One the other hand, rule by priests is apt to lead to ever increasing fanaticism. Right now we are ruled by priests, and their fanaticism is getting up our noses.

  12. elsid says:

    lol who would have thought that whatever ideology passes for capitalism under the rubric of capitalism once ripped out of textbooks and implemented in our everyday life would have weird and unforeseen consequences once it interacts with human and natural elements.???

    marxists and capitalists……. all the same.

    Plus since when has Dubai been a model of ideological capitalism?. If that is what capitalism looks like then holly molly ( this coming from a fan of islam and a former muslim )

    • jim says:

      What is wrong with Dubai? Seems like the last refuge of people who can manage high tech. The processor in your smart phone is probably made in East Asia by a company headquartered in Dubai.

      • spandrell says:

        Who’s headquartered in Dubai? Qualcomm is in the US, Samsung in Korea, and most foundries have their HQs in Taiwan afaik.

      • Dan says:

        As a patent examiner, I have in my 12 1/2 year career personally looked at in varying depths several hundred thousand of the 8 million US patents and a similar number of published patent applications. In my career I have not seen a single patent or a single application out of the entire Islamic world and its 1 billion plus inhabitants.

  13. […] Michael Anissimov posted an Evolian excerpt in which Jim detected the odor of Communism. Land loved Jim’s response. (And even if you disagree with Jim, you gotta admit he’s […]

  14. […] on capitalism. Related: Jim responds. Related: Land responds. Related: I’ve always found it odd when people point to an example of […]

  15. […] disagreement, between the mystics who believe in magic, and the more mundane types who don’t. Jim already addressed it in greater detail, to a different […]

  16. […] Michael Anissimov posted an Evolian excerpt in which Jim detected the odor of Communism. Land loved Jim’s response. (And even if you disagree with Jim, you gotta admit he’s […]

Leave a Reply