Morgenstern

Transhumanism and Welfare: Facebook Letter

2010-06-06T15:31:00.000-07:00

"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

2010-06-06T14:55:00.000-07:00

"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

2010-06-06T13:03:00.000-07:00

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

2010-05-28T12:21:00.000-07:00

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

2010-05-27T11:25:00.000-07:00

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

2010-05-25T16:53:00.000-07:00

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

2010-05-25T15:39:00.000-07:00

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.

My Facebook Letters: Political Theory

2010-05-25T15:06:00.000-07:00

1st

Hey there. Thanks for writing.
For me, politics is a complicated subject and I try to ultimately ground it in philosophy. I suppose you could say that I am something of a sort Strasserian, that is to say the Federal left of National Socialism; but I am also strongly influenced by the views of 'counter-revolutionaries' like Edmund Burke and Joseph de Maistre.
I my politico-moral views I suppose I would call myself a Utilitarian Liberal, influenced by John Stuart Mill and Herbert Spencer. This is usually where I find the most difference with many NS and Nationalist-right groups is that I am in favor of free-trade and private dominion over property. I believe it is the minimum requisite for social order and personal responsibility. What I am opposed to is banksterism, pseudo-'capitalism' and democratic disgenic experiments (which are, ironically, also influenced by John Stuart Mill).
I guess I would consider myself 'yet another' Third Positionist, involving a strong, liberal anti-leftist and anti-communist state. In terms of foreign policy I am an 'isolationist' and 'strict' nationalist, that is to say I don't think much in the outside world can or should be attempted to be controlled by the State, and that its military and police powers serve primarily to protect the physical, economic and intellectual integrity of those living within it.

2nd

"Burke was not always 'counter-revolutionary'"
Well, he did support the American Revolution and wrote an extremely radical quasi-anarchist tract when he was a young man, 'The Vindication of Natural Society'. When I say counter-revolutionary I suppose I mean it in its classical sense, as against the French Revolution. Although there are elements I respect in the French Revolution, I think ultimately it became the toy of the rationalists, Republicans and communists. What I like about Edmund Burke (and his admirer, Adam Smith) is their view of the role of organic institutions and social structures which can take a role in organizing society and resolving conflicts; which the French Revolution's 'leveling' totally destroyed without offering a viable alternative.

"Captialism in it's purest achieveable forms would still allow monopolistic controls of certain parts of production. Even if we allowed for increased competition, removed controls etc someone or some company would become dominant and greed would set in."
I disagree. I think these are all artifacts of interventionist measures, subsidy and so forth. More specifically, I am not sure the concept of 'monopoly' makes any sense in an unfettered market economy. I also have nothing against 'greed' or 'acquisitiveness', indeed, under the market system one makes the greatest profits by focusing the most solely on monetary returns. Contrary to the Platonic view of tradesmen, such individuals are an immense material and organizational benefit. The trouble really arises when those jealous of their success, or unable to make it in the market, begin to call for Unionist and State interventions into these regions.
Coming from the standpoint of utilitarian nationalism, the market economy is #1 the only possible system of social organization (socialism is impossible); #2 hampering the market economy simply interferes with the allocation of resources and raises the costs of production. As prices are the only logical connection between production, consumer satisfaction and the various alternative investments of capital goods interventionist policies are about the most clearly net-negative (in terms of society) state policy imaginable.

As for Ron Paul, he seems like a nice old man, but I can not stand 'elections', and I think he really provides no service. He is very much a Constitutionalist, and I am very much not.

"I find that many NS in the US, including Rockwell to a certain degree, support a liberal approach to economics."
Among the American 'conservatives' with a connection to the 'old right', those who formed the core of 'isolationism' and anti-new deal, there is a tradition of at least nominal respect for private enterprise. This never really existed in places of classical NS and Fascism; I think one of the greatest problems with the NSDAP is that huge swaths of former communist-supporters became NS voters and party members. As time went on (partly due to the war) the NS economy became more interventionist til the point where it was practically as bad as Stalin. All this despite a promising start, with Hitler's refusal to nationalize and socialize due to the crippling effects it would have on industry; and the strong controls he placed on inflation.

'Universal health care' will raise the costs of healthcare, reduce the supply and permanently cripple medical science.

3rd

"I do have a lot against greed because resources etc are finite. "
In an ultimate sense, but the thing to see is that goods and capital are subjective properties; they are not 'objective' or 'technical' facts about objects, but the relationship to human satisfaction these hold; and the knowledge people possess about their use. Unfettered markets are constantly generating new and better resources, finding alternatives (often superior) to failing sources as prices for their use increase and developing capital and technology to the highest extent possible. There is some ultimate, ontological limitation on resources but I do not think it is a realistic problem unless one is dealing with socialist policies or trade barriers, which by their very nature restrict production and disrupt investment.

"People starve on the basis of that argument."
No, people starve because of interventions in the economy and trade barriers, as well as the instability of private property under certain regimes. People starve because of stupid wars over tariffs (World War 1) and insane plans to collectivize agriculture. People starve because the American empire subsidizes ethynal, diverting corn away from food uses into worthless, overly expensive 'alternative fuels'.

"I read much of classical liberal and libertarian economic ideas, they are based on seemingly logical arguments. For me the sad thing is that in order to use these arguments one has to describe human beings as consumers"
Not at all. A human being as a purposeful actor, as economizing scarce resources to achieve his ends, is a full human being; not a fiction nor a fractal of a real man. Whether he prefers patronizing prostitutes or the opera, whether he devotes his time to the accumulation of gold or friends, he is always an economizing actor. Laissez-faire in no way inhibits him from being an upright person, and in fact its very material prosperity and responsiveness to demand makes it all the more possible for him to be a genuine person of his own accord.

"National Socialism is so much more than an economic doctrine."
It is, it is a Völkisch movement, a nationalist movement and at its roots opposed to aristocracy, banksterism, internationalism, and egalitarianism. I agree in all these respects, and with many of its actual practices. What I disagree with are concrete examples of classical NS models, I think they were far too much under the sway of cranks and Bolshevik lies.

"I'd love to know about what you see in NS? "
Aside from the above, what do you mean?

Although I agree with human biodiversity and nationalist immigration objectives, I am not a racialist in the classical sense (though I might be called one in a more qualified sense, I do believe there are significant differences between sub-populations and ethnicities on the basis of genetics).
My view of nationalism is legal and cultural, that is someone is a citizen who is both a participant in the sovereign order of the national state and also who has accepted and adapted to the values of the Western dialectic of individual responsibility and national responsibility.