Transhumanism and Welfare: Facebook Letter

"transhumanism promises to turn the financially well-endowed into the most able among us!"

I find this perfectly acceptable. Without banksterism and regulation, wealth will be strictly aligned with reputation and productivity; people deserve the fruits of their labor, regardless of how much they exceed those of others.

"But what's an "intermediary, traditionalist and customary institution?" The church?"

Churches would be one example, but it includes families, friendly societies, and so forth.

I recommend reading the book "From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State". State 'services' simply subsidize sickness, poverty, etc. whereas the use of those funds in economic and mutual aid societies actually aleviates and provides solutions to these issues.

I also think that, without state interventionism, wealth, capital, technology and opportunities would extend to such a great extent that even mutual aid societies would become less and less necessary. Poverty is an artifact of the interventionist state and the cultural degeneration it causes. I think the welfare state is the prime reason for the iniquity of current American and European society.

Nation, State and Economy: Part 2

"How should we define group membership?"

The citizen is defined by his willingness to provide for himself, be responsible and take part in his community duties; and is to be judged by his local community. Thus anyone who wants to move into a community must have the consent of the local population, not merely formal 'democratic' consent but actual vouching, i.e. someone who is willing to employ him an give him a place to live.

"You're obviously a dedicated nationalist, but where would you fit in to a nationalist society?"

In my view nationalism does not entail racialism. That being said I am a believer in human biodiversity and race realism, I think there are (or, at least, can very plausibly be) important differences in genotypes and population groups; furthermore there are also important genomic differences among individuals. As a transhumanist I basically view that those of 'substandard' quality would simply be ostracized from the community, and genomic manipulation will allow the general improvement and perfection of the human being. As it stands I believe western Europeans and east-asians have the best claim to genomic as well as cultural dominance. I am in favor of a strong immigration policy, and a total end to any sort of politically allocated importation that we see in modern America and Europe. I evisage a platform much more along the Chinese model; the only people allowed to immigrate are those who are able to meet certain financial minima and demonstrate respect for the law and culture of the nation..

I really don't think the central state should provide any services, other that protection of the persons, laws and borders of the nation. Intermediary, traditionalist and customary institutions (in addition to markets) would provide the necessary services and resources for the development of the community.

Nation, State and Economy: From a Facebook Letter

My views have developed through highschool and my time in college around the notion of the nature of social organization as being composed of individuals attending to their own self-perceived ends, and the importance of ideology, culture and institutional norms on directing the development of individuals and the resulting social organization they make up. I have been strongly influenced by the writings of Otto Strasser, the classical economists, Aristotle, Adolf Hitler, Proudhon, Mussolini and more.

I am strongly anti-democracy and anti-egalitarian. I wish to see a Proudhonian federation of culturally-ethnically united states under a strong but strictly limited central government, which is to act as a guardian of their interests. There is to be a completely unregulated free exchange of private property, both at home and abroad. The State is no longer to concern itself with 'crimes' like prostitution and drug use, which are moral and social concerns, but instead with thugs, gangsters and con-men.
The state is a 'classless' state, not in the Marxian fashion which eliminates all who do not obey the Bolsheviks, but in the sense that it destroys the opportunity for the Brahmin-elite of WASP international banksterism and the regulatory interference and cultural degradation that produce the 'underclass'.
I am stridently in favor of the preservation and development of true civilization, culture and character and I believe this is best achieved under a strictly liberal, socially regulated and powerful state which can probably be best described as a 'middle-class' state.

Economic dicussion from Nazi.Org

I like a lot of Hitler's views and his critique of democracy as well as his reluctance to ruin German industry by interfering with market forces. On the other hand I also have sympathy with a lot of non-Hitlerian Nazis such as Otto Strasser. I also have sympathies with fascism and bourgeousie or liberal nationalism.
Strasser was a mixture of Proudhonian federalism and syndicalism. His views on Jews were that the issue was not racial but cultural and legal; and that anyone who behaved as a German could be a German whatever his ethnic background.
Hitler was Keyensian, although at first his restriction of inflation really helped Germany's economy.
My views are very laissez-faire (my favorite politician of all time is probably Turgot, who coined 'laissez-faire'). So I depart from most Nazis and fascist groups on economics.

do you mean laissez-faire with a strong government to take care of monopoly and malpratice?

I think governments that are strong (in the economic realms) are what CAUSE monopoly, regulation and legislation reduce competition. Gabriel Kolko and many others have written on how it was government intervention, and not market processes, that caused the cartelization of industry.

I think malpractice would be best dealt with by private review agencies and commercial arbitration agencies. The State exists for Volkisch and security reasons, not to make impossible attempts to change the laws of economics or try to magically do better than prices do at allocating resources. I am firmly with the classical liberals and even modern libertarians in this respect; an economically interventionist State is a state which will make its citizens poorer and create artificial divisions in the nation over the power of the State and the effects of its meddling.

I am in favor of a strong central government with limited powers over a federal system (NOT in the American model, but on a Proudhon + Hobbes model). But in the realm of economic life it simply can do no good, except to ensure the security of people and to unify them into making sound choices on the market.

wouldn't successful companies use money to subvert other companies or buy off their competitor and rise prices?

If a company wants to buy competitors off it is going to have to pay a price that equals the discounted rate of profit and capital value of their investments, and it must continue to do so to prevent new competition from emerging. This will drive its costs up exactly in proportion to any possible gain by such a 'buy-out' attempt at cartelization. Furthermore, there is no reason they ought to make more money anyways: the ultimate point of profitability is not highest prices but lowest costs relative to prices, so that the maximum number of articles can be sold with the highest marginal return. This is exactly why all attempts at private non-productive cartelization has failed, and industries again and again lobby to prevent 'destructive competition' and protection. This is exactly what happened in the 19th century and the Progressive era and gave us 'corporatist' state monopoly capitalism: through extensive regulation and requirements on entry into lines of businesses.

i guess that the state is a not a good mediator for malpratice. but how could private review agencies be held accountable for their decision or enforce them?

First of all, in the market place there are many, many excellent methods to deal with non-compliance, as exemplified in actually existing private arbitration and rating agencies, and many other examples such as the Law Merchant. Finally, if a person is literally breaking a contract then enforcement can (if necessary) be put through the state-courts, though I think these should generally be restricted to enforcing minimal guarantees of security and redress for violent acts.

what about corruption of these same agencies?

As their value depends precisely upon the tendency for informed professionals to take them seriously, and the liabilities they must put forth in order to be taken seriously, normal competition and reputation will do an excellent job; there is no way to make government regulatory bureaucracies under this kind of pressure.

though there is widespread corruption in the state how would they be immune to this?

Well, obviously you need to have a state that is designed and informed in a way so as not to be vastly corrupt, there is no magical way to prevent the interference of unjust force. In this case I would say that people need to get rid of the State they have.

From Nazi.Org and a Video on Oswald Mosley

what is exactly free market anti-capitalism?

I am opposed to traditional democratic capitalism, with its regulations, subsidies, favoritism, special rulings in the courts, government contracts etc. In the 19th century into the 21st governments have used various neo-mercantalist policies to interfere with freedom of trade and the distribution of resources; in ways that systemically favor special interest groups. These interest groups in turn promote democratic politics and interventionist theories. Gabriel Kolko, among others, has elaborately detailed the incenstuous relationship between regulation-protected cartels, big labour, international banksters and democratic governments.
I am free market in the sense of the classical liberalls such as J.S. Mill or Turgot; I believe in real free trade (not protectionist NAFTA), real laissez-faire (rather than corrupt syndicalism) and personal responsibility (rather than faceless institutions who face no consequences).

transhumanism?

The theory of the development of human beings by science and culture into the point where they are beyond human beings. Consider it a combination of advanced technology and Nietzschean elements, as well as messianic theories such as 'New Socialist Man' or 'New Aryan Man'. Basically, it is a belief that through rational effort, paying attention to real circumstances and logic, human beings can be further developed to a point as far 'beyond' present mankind as men are 'beyond' the apes.

strong immigration policy would probably mean strong restriction on immigration?

Yes, at least that is part of it. Immigration policy should also be rational, it should be based around using rubrics for admittance that involve cultural, intellectual and economic sustainability of the immigrant. Likewise, the different federal units should have their own sub-national rulings on immigration and citizenship - the central state should not be able to 'grant' citizenship, it should purely be a matter decided by the autonomous communities.

And what do you think of the law in the United States that allows babies who are born here to become LEGAL citizens no matter what the status is of their unlawful immigrant parents?

A person shouldn't be allowed to be a citizen unless they are willing and able to work within the framework of the national character and to provide for themselves. A person shouldn't even be allowed into the country unless there exists a citizen who is willing to vouch for them.

They do these things in order to rig the democratic machinery so the real citizens wont turn them out of office.

Interesting thought. I read on the Integralist Party's website that they believe that citienship must be earned even by the native born.  Personally I think that the native born at least deserve the immunities of citizenship (Bill of Rights).

I believe there is a prima facie case that native-born people are presumed to have done so unless they have demonstrated otherwise, and although positive benefits should be based on positive performances of duty they nonetheless should enjoy presumed immunities and liberties under the law until they do something which revokes them.

Non-citizens, such as foreign persons, ought to be treated with respect by the authorities so long as they do not do anything wrong, and ought to be presumed to have general liberties insofar as their conduct is spoken for by a citizen of the nation.

From Facebook Again: Liberalism, Race and the Jewish Question

 The Chinese managed to turn Maoist bolshevism into a strong neomercantilist state.I think some of asia is, Japan, South Korea, especially. China and Singapore not so much.

I think most jews live in a psycho-cultural situation where the view themselves as perpetual victims being persecuted; and many of them in power (in order to gain the support of the jewish and pro-jewish masses) make zionistic overtures and so forth.
But I don't think jews as a race really have a lot of control, so much as I think there is a definite 'Jewish Lobby' in the Halls of power. Overall I think it is democratic socialism that has conquered the world, with its egalitarian nonsense. Democratic socialism is such a cowardly philosophy, it doesn't have the nerve for socialism or capitalism. Its pure degeneracy and muddle-headedness.

I don't believe in 'natural rights'. I'm a utilitarian liberal. Liberal in the sense of classical liberalism and Millian and Spencerian utilitarianism.I think that government interference is usually counter-productive.And that it tends to favor the lowest common denominator.Whether it be the idle poor or the idle rich - usually both.

From Another FB Conversation: NazLib

I'm more along the lines of NazLib. I'm a communitarian and a utilitarian, I'm pretty much all for free-trade and non-interventionism. National libertarianism? Mmm, yes, and also somewhat communitarian without the Republican aspects (I mean republican theory, not party). I suppose I'd say I'm an authoritarian free-market anti-capitalist and cultural traditionalist.
I hate democracy, and egalitarianism, and internationalism.I'm not a Proudhonian. Somewhat I like his federal concept and his cultural conservatism. But in terms of economic theory I tend directly toward classical liberalism and its scions in economics. John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, Destutt du Tracy. I like the French economists a lot. Turgot and Condercet. Jean-Baptiste Say. I read a lot of that old French stuff, it's so easy to find online. That's really where I learned about the French Revolution, they never really talk about it in school. I find myself in sympathy with various elements of the revolution and detesting other bits.