Do the elite crave or fear a global government?

According to you, what is the best form of government if democracy is the worst form?

By the way, what is your definition of democracy?

 

Are you for or against white people becoming minorities in the nations they built? YES OR NO.

The future

 

What nations did white people build?

 

Still not sure what the hell you are talking about, but i'll give it a shot.

There are no white people.

White, Black, Arab, Asian, Semitic and the like are meaningless catagories designed to keep certain groups in positions of authority and certain groups in positions of subservience. The same could be said of the ephasis placed on religion, gender, and sexual oreintation.

They don't matter.

as soon as you think they do, you've lost.

By drawing the line at whites and "minorities", instead of haves and have-nots, you are playing at their game.

Race is a mere distraction from the real issues, economic disparity and institutional hierarchy.

I don't claim to be white, black, or mulatto. i don't claim to be a part of the white, black, or mulatto communites.

I fight for the individual.
i'm not saying that race isn't a factor at all, and i'm not saying that it's not a tool for exploitation and dominance.

Just that it is only a tool.

If your focus is on race relations, then you are trying to cure a symptom, not the disease.

White people are not the enemy
Theists are not the enemy
Males are not the enemy
hell even the wealthy are not the enemy

the enemy is the continuation of the hierarchal institutions that keep these groups dominate over others, not the groups themselves.

in other countries arabs are dominate over kurds
in israel jews dominate over arabs
japanese used to dominate over chinaese
africans dominate over other africans even down to the tribal/blood lines.
In Iraq shiites and sunnis are struggling to dominate.

every nation group has marginalized populations.

Which part of the population is being dominated and which is doing the dominating is secondary to issue of dominance itself.

 

Of course there are white people: they are caucausians of european origin. Moreover, blacks, asians and jews can never be europeans any more than chinese or amerindians can be jews. Race exists (link). Racial loyalties are a fact of life. The question you need to be asking yourself is which race do you consider yourself part of? ANd dont give me this "human race" bullshit because blacks for example are very racially aware and consciously differentiate themselves from asians, whites, jews, hispanics.

I think you will find that racial anarchism (which is what the US constitution was all about - decentralized government with a strong self policing society) was a good thing. I suspect you are an anarchist of the internationalist variety. Understand that only nationalism of the racial variety can defeat world government, not some ridiculous " brotherhood of man"

Read the following:

Read this primer http://www.blr.folkandfaith.com/whatwebelieve.htm

quick excerpt:
[size=-1]"A Nation is a community of communities which has been created in time, a living being that is composed of many diverse parts and yet is one. Every patriot senses Nationhood. The beauty of mountain streams and rolling hills; the power of the windswept cliffs; the intricate bustling life of the towns and villages; the fluttering of our flag and the beating of the drum; the old man, craggy with age, who gave his youth that his people might live; the laughing innocence of the child for whom we carry the torch of life.
[/size]

[size=-1]A Nation is something to be cherished, something for which sacrifices are made, even the ultimate sacrifice. But surely everyone regards the Nation in this way? Well, no, they do not. If they did we would not be in the dire straits we are in . . .
[/size]

[size=-1]For the capitalist - exemplified by the conservatives - Nationhood is an obstacle to his chief desire: Profit. Talk of community, talk of tradition is just so much sentimental hogwash to him. He proclaims: there is no sentiment in business! What does this mean other than that neither morality, nor family, nor Nation will be allowed to impede his conquest for profit? North America is perceived by the capitalist as a pool of material and human resources which is to be exploited for its economic value by the capitalist and then discarded when it has outlived it usefulness.
[/size]

[size=-1]For the communist - exemplified by one concerned purely with class, nationhood is a fantasy - a false consciousness, a superstition that must be finally laid to rest. It may be useful, for propaganda purposes only, to proclaim on's concern for the national interest, but in reality they destroy the national interest through their promotion of a class war. A Nation, to live, must reproduce its kind: a communist kills our Nation by provoking one section of the country to liquidate another. Class war is a cult of death that cuts the throat of a Nation too weak to resist it. The communist replaces the Nation with the party: the power of heavy war industry, of institutionalised envy and hatred, of the brutal secret police.
[/size]

[size=-1]For the capitalist and communist, united in their material quest for money and power, Nationhood must be ruthlessly annihilated.
[/size]

 

"Bigotry and Racism - Beyond the Cliches"

by Rabbi Mayer Schiller

Third Way Publications Ltd.
P.O. Box 1243
London SW7 3PB
U.K.

To hate a human being because of his race, religion or nationality is a horrible thing. The history of all mankind is marred by the outbreak of unspeakable violence against people perpetrated, not because of anything they did, but merely because of who they were. Bigotry is a vile thing, its prejudgment of a man in direct violation of Judeo-Christian morality as well as the norms of Western Civilization.

Yet, it is also clear that so much of what makes life worth living is to be found in group identity. We are who we are not only as individuals, but also as members of larger entities, i.e. families, neighborhoods, towns, nations, races, religions and civilizations. No man is born into a total vacuum of identity. We are the products of genetic, familial and cultural forces. In the end meaning is provided solely by these extra forces which provide our perceptions and action with conceptual or at least visceral coherence.

Whether these extra personal loyalties be of a metaphysical nature deriving their essence from an essentially spiritual (God centered universe) or be they merely an inherent part of the rational world is a question beyond the confines of this brief essay. What is relevant for our purpose is that man needs identity, meaning and purpose and becomes confused and demoralized without them.

Accordingly it is one of the moral imperatives of our era to articulate a philosophy and seek to implement a policy which will allow men to realize themselves in a group without falling prey to hating or harming other groups. This is far from an easy task. Indeed, there are those who would maintain that the enmity which often goes hand-in-hand with group identification is inevitable and it is best to pursue policies which will inexorably weaken those loyalties. It is an alluring position and one to which the "respectable" media and politicians of our era are all pledged.

It is, an illusory, immoral and unnatural agenda, however. Illusory, for history's testimony is that widely diverse people cannot and will not live peacefully together. Immoral, because its ultimate results will be the end of the truths and virtues of the world's various faiths, races and nations. Unnatural, because group identity is a fundamental need of all men.

The way out of our current impasse on matters of race, ethnicity, etc. would seem not to lie in the direction of totalitarian coercive mixing, but towards voluntary disentanglement by men of good intentions.

All any man really desires is a sense of physical security, some orientation towards a life of meaning, a community whose ways are familiar and pleasant to him and a place to call his (and his peoples') own.

Sadly, today all the above is granted certain groupings but not others. Europeans, White people and those attached to traditional faiths and lifestyles of the West are told by the powers-that-be that they alone among mankind's tribes are forbidden to have or even articulate a collective identity.

Perhaps this is due to their having overstepped the proper boundaries in the past, or alternatively to their own current weakness and gullibility. Whatever the reason none can deny the current threat to Western Man. Other peoples define themselves as groups, only European Man is forbidden to do this.

A solution to our crisis will be found to the degree that all of the world's assorted tribes can say to each other: "You have your way of life and your place to live. We wish you well. Now let each of us live among our own. We bear you no ill will."

It is in the spirit of separation founded on mutual respect that I have attempted on a personal level over the past decade to communicate with nationalists (White and Black), to patriots of many nations and to committed members of many faiths. My goal has been to strip group identity of hatred and the responses I have received have been almost uniformly encouraging. I have found that when you face a man and say; "Your people are a people with a unique identity. They have a right (perhaps an obligation) to survive as a people. Yet you must realize there are other peoples in the world who have similar yearnings. How can we work this out?" - that most men are willing to act in a positive fashion.

To sum up, groups should speak to each other as groups (away from media terror and self-seeking politicians). Far more important than speaking, though, is listening. To hear the other as we remain ourselves is our contemporary task.

 

Thomas Jefferson couldn't have said it better when he said:

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”


In a Democracy, whatever the majority says goes. That's not very good if half the population is dumbed-down and brainwashed by the media and doesn't know its ass from a hole in the ground.

In a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, our elected officials are held accountable for their actions, and this is what the Constitution was designed to do.

Democracy is one of the biggest shams ever perpetrated on humankind. I associate the word democracy with enslavement. That's pretty much what it is. It is a hideous word and is badly overused by people who don't even know what it means.

 

Oh, i get it.

You're a stormfront drone.

Guy, i'm multiracial.

you're not getting me sucked into your racial "purity" bullshit.

It's not real science.

"Of course there are white people: they are caucausians of european origin."

where where were they before they were in europe?

Or are you telling me you believe them to be seperate species?

a real anarchist owes no alliegence to a race, gender, nationality....

be proud of yourself. racial pride is bullshit.

 

Stormfront drone???? Ok...

Reality: Race exists. Science proves it. Oh, you dont like science... Hmm... yeah. Your way of thinking is against the laws of nature. You're ideological fanatical beliefs constitute a moralistic fallacy. You believe racial categorizations are evil and wrong and therefore do not exist. Silly and emotional way of thinking.

Let me throw this at you... If race does not exist as you claim and everyone is an isolated atomic individual then racism cannot exist. In other words, people can't be racist. Yet, people like you are the first to accuse others of racism. Big dichotomy there huh bub...

So once again, according to you, race does not exist, yet you will accuse someone of being racist. Racial nationalism does not exist, therefore everyone is an isolated individual, therefore it would be ridiculous to accuse whites or blacks, asians or jews of ever being racist... Follow your convoluted logic, k??

Because you support multiculturalism, people who think like you are the enemy of all races who want to practice self determination. You're an anarchist all right. Hamburger meat who will be slaughtered first in case of racial conflict.

Chinese racial nationalism
Jewish racial nationalism
black nationalism
white nationalism
Indian nationalism

Racial nationalism is good and healthy as long as different races have their own territories where they can peacefully carryout the continuation of their unique and diverse civilizations. For example, take Israeli Jews, they have a right as do Palestinians to carry on the traditions of their unique heritage. You dont think they have this right?

You sir, are no friend of racial groups who want to preserve their racial/cultural heritage. You are no advocate of genuine bio-diversity at all. Types like you are part of the problem. The elites commandeer your kind as "useful idiots". The elites that you hate so much promote multiculturalism to undermine ethnic/racial nationalism (which is the only force strong enough to defeat the elites). You unwittingly promote their agenda.

Its all crashing down and I say good!

 

guy, no idea what the fuck you are ranting about.


you mind responding to the actual questions i posed to you?

i never said that i was a multiculturist.

i never said that race doesnt exist at all, just that it doesnt matter.

race doesnt matter.
religion doesnt matter.
gender doesnt matter.
nationality doesnt matter.

these things are tools used to pit one group of slaves against another.

anarchism has nothing to do with race, morality or religion.

try actually replying to what i'm typing instead of what you think i mean.

and without the insults.

 

[size=-1]

[/size]
[size=-1][/size]
[size=-1]Here is revealed, in all its sensual romantic passion, the psycho-sexual energy motivating Patriarchal Nationalism.[/size]

The sexually secure are healthy and whole, and can interact openly within any society including their own.

The healthy and whole are not threatened by other societies, rather they embace other societies with confidence.

However, insecure and inadequate sexual-identities, rejected by their own society, conjure longing phantasies where proving their unrestrained love and loyalty will bring them into society's embrace.

The society that rejects the inadequate, becomes an object of romantic idealization by the rejected.

Clinging when rejected is a classic sado-masochistic homo-erotic impulse.

Patriarchal Nationalism is a latent homosexual motivation common to the sexually repressed.

Class distinctions and class struggle are likewise rooted in the sexual insecurities of Patriarchal Man's latent homosexuality.

Judeo/Christianity's guilt complexes are likewise projections of anal-retentive conflict projected upon the supreme parent symbol, and is directly linked to latent homosexuality and an insecure sexual identity.

The Elite are not conspiring towards a Global Government, rather The Elite, like everyone else, are psycho-sexual slaves to impulses that are now Global.


[size=-1]
[/size]

 

But, our modern form of democracy protects the minority from the majority.

Yes, that is very true that is why democracy without a free media and informed citizens is useless.

How is that different from our current system that we all despise?

 

The European Union

Many of the wealthy elite support the economic integration the EU brings, but oppose the political integration. It is similar to what I’ve said about globalisation those that are gaining from economic integration don’t want political integration because a democratically based government it is likely to limit it’s gains.
In my opinion the EU is stumbling in the right direction, the European Parliament (yes it has a democratic element) is just beginning to flex it’s muscles beginning to take power away from the unelected officials that are appointed by member states elected governments.

I’ve met a few of Members of the European Parliament and all are committed to democracy and serving the people that put them in office. By the way they are elected by a form of proportional representation.

**

Rat

You say that democracy is the “WORST forms of government EVER!” but what would you replace it with? If democracy is enslavement what do you believe gives the people a better voice in how their world is run?

You seem to be praising the idea of constitutional republicanism, but that doesn’t have to exclude democracy. A constitution and even extreme forms of democracy are not mutually exclusive.

Republic comes from the Latin Res publica (res - concerning, publica – the public/the people) Republicanism the rule of the people was formed in opposition to monarchy the rule of one.

The concise oxford dictionary defines a republic as – “a state in which supreme power is held by the people or representatives or by elected or nominated president not by monarch etc”

It says of democracy – “government by all the people, direct or representative; form of society ignoring hereditary class distinctions and tolerating minority views”

A world government could be both a constitutional republic and a democracy.

**

 

Topolm

The nation of mankind is a community of communities which has been created over time, a living being that is composed of many diverse parts and yet is one. Every person senses this link to the planet. The beauty of mountains streams and rolling hills; the power of the windswept cliffs; the intricate bustling life of the towns and villages; the fluttering of our flag, and the beating of the drum; the old man, craggy with age, who gave his youth that his people might live; the laughing innocence of the child for whom we carry the torch of life.

**

You talk about nation and nationhood but what do you mean, I mean you seem to be associating it with some kind of identity but why have you chosen one identity over another?

I’m a human inhabitant of planet Earth so is that my identity? I’m also a European so is that my identity? But I’m also a UK citizen so should that be my identity? But I was born in England but on my male side my ancestry is Scots (is the male or female line the more important when talking about identity?). So I’m a Scot on one side and the other is a mix of Anglo-Saxon and Norman. My male line was from an area of Scotland with Viking settlers so it’s likely I’ve got Norse blood from that side and the Norman’s were watered down Norse so does that mean I can claim a Scandinavian identity? But anyway the Scots tribe originally came from Ireland….

And so on and so on until you get back to the modern humans racial ancestors in Africa with the origins of homo sapiens some 200,000 or so years ago.

So you just come full circle and have to realise that you are just one more human inhabitant of planet Earth.

So to your question “which race do you consider yourself part of” the only reply possible is ‘the human race’

To me choosing some arbitrary point along this route as a fixed identity seems rather dishonest.

**

I mean you talk of preserving people’s racial and cultural heritage, what racial and cultural heritage? Cultures are human constructs that change, adapt and even disappear, threads can be traced to origins here and there but it would been difficult (and unhealthy) to preserve a culture in aspic. In the same way that limiting racial mix can lead to the problems that come from inbreeding.

**

 

Balbus, yes or no question: would you ever be accepted as a chinese person? A nation is an organic living entity based on common culture, language, race and religion and heritage since time immemorial. Nations have ingroup and outgroup loyalties. This is simply a fact of nature. Moreover if race is not an issue, then explain the peculiar reality that the biggest nations on the planet, right next to each other are racially homogenous relative to each other (China and India). Why arent the Chinese and Indians gung ho about swapping half a billion people from each country with the other???

In otherwords, if this brotherhood of man is a basic part of human nature, why dont societies spontaneously and volitionally gravitate towards multiculturalism??????????????????????????????????????

Answer: because it is part of human nature to discriminate and choose to be around those most like you. Race is one of the biggest factors. As you can see I am very much a race realist. Harmony would exist on the planet if critical masses of unlike people stayed away from each other and gave each other the requisite space necessary to carryout the legacy of their civilizations. Are you opposed to the self determination of the diverse people on the planet if this self determination manifests itself as a form of racial cultural separatism? Would you be of the totalitarian mindset that agitates for and endorses coercive/compulsory mixing of inherently incompatible people????????? I would say that any social policy out of line with natural law belongs in a class about abstract philosophy rather than be implemented in the real world.


While you may be an internationalist, I can assure you the BNP is making massive gains in the UK because of the idea of "Nation". It is well known and obvious that most English people do not like the non-British who are colonizing the UK (linky). What drives this impulse? Fear? If so, so what... Would the Chinese be concerned if 30 million indians decided to park their asses in China???????

In America, Illegals are driven by their desire to carve out Aztlan from the S.West: this agitation for land is an expression of nationhood. Aztlan: for the race everything, outside the race, nothing. That's their motto.

You can be an idealist, but in the long run, you will be mowed down in the crossfire.

 

The Left-Wing Billionaire Collectivist Pigs

Diane Alden
Corporatism Weds Transnational Progressivism

Do you stay up nights trying to figure out why so-called capitalists fund leftist causes or promote a collectivist agenda? Think of Stephen Rockefeller or the entire Rockefeller family, Ted Turner, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Maurice Strong, Enron, Ford Foundation, Pew Charitable Trust, the Nature Conservancy, the American Bar Association and the AMA.

Why did billionaires Bill Gates and Warren Buffett come out against ending or reducing the death tax? Why do multimillionaire Stephen Rockefeller and the entire clan promote the most outrageous leftist globalist causes and malicious and inhumane programs in history? Why does the Rockefeller family actively promote a collectivist nightmare like the Earth Charter? Why did they fund the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in pre-war Nazi Germany?

Why are successful entrepreneurs such as Martha Stewart or Michael Bloomberg supporters of every leftist cause? Why do the trial lawyers of America or a financial guru such as Robert Rubin typically promote Democrats?

Do all these left-wing capitalists consider leftist/"progressive" ideas regarding life, death and taxes as being more meritorious for people and society and the world?

Or is there actually something else going on here?

There are two outstanding articles which may help you understand those questions. Additionally, they will shed light on the fact that we are in a "post-Constitution" and "post-American" world. The essays deal with the economic and political state of modern national and international geopolitics and society. They point to some of the factors that make so many capitalists favorable to collectivism and Marxism lite.

In that regard, Robert Locke's essay on "Corporatism" explains what has taken place economically and politically in the U.S. On the political and philosophical side, the Hudson Institute's John Fonte wrote a brilliant piece titled "The New Ideological War Within the West: Transnational Progressivism."


The Corporate Collectivist State

Leftist/"progressive" religious, cultural, political organizations and individuals rake in big bucks from government and business. Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition is worth millions, much of which was obtained by suing or blackmailing corporate America. Yet neither Jackson nor his organization worry about an IRS audit or a visit from the FBI. His cause is based on group identity politics and grievances. Those are untouchable in modern society.

Environmental groups such as Sierra Club and Nature Conservancy receive disproportionate amounts of government grants and corporate money to fund efforts that are far removed from "saving" the environment. The tax-free status of this clique is unfair to individuals and groups who have no such free ride.

By taking money from a system they criticize and despise, they are free to use public money to destroy the system that allows them power and status. Their agenda has included placing off limits millions of acres of "public" lands to human or "public" use.

It also means the feudalization or collectivization of the landmass of the United States. Either way it allows an elite to maintain control.

Meanwhile, Sierra Club doesn’t think twice about placing issue ads in order to target and defeat conservatives who are supporters of property rights or commonsense environmentalism. As it has indicated recently, Sierra Club will run issue ads that bring up the voting records of candidates who do not do their collectivist bidding. It is their way or NO way regarding the environment and the maintenance of "public" lands in the U.S.

Most environmental groups, like Sierra Club, have a 501© (3) tax-free status. Along with the recently passed McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, they should be disallowed from promoting candidates for office or defeating candidates for office.

Free Speech Only for the Left

Yet they have found ways to get around McCain-Feingold and their tax-free obligations. It appears that Democrat and the media protect leftist/"progressive" organizations, such as Sierra Club, while Republicans fear them.

In his recent column, Lowell Ponte discusses Sierra Club’s special position as a leftist group exempted from the new campaign finance "reform" bill.

Ponte states: "Leftist nonprofit groups have become cat’s paws for the Democratic Party, helping it to circumvent ethical and legal campaign limits. If they are granted special exemption from the advertising restrictions of the new law, this cynical symbiosis will grow even larger. And because of their ability to speak when most other Americans are silenced during the 60 days prior to elections, the influence of these Loony Left groups over policies of the Democratic Party will become more and more powerful."

Then there is the political identity group known as La Raza. The Hispanic anti-assimilationist coterie collects money and takes fees for speaking on American university campuses.

The Hudson Institute's John Fonte relates that this Hispanic identity interest group advocates NON-assimilation of Mexican immigrants into American society. It is funded by a notable capitalist institution.

Fonte states "the financial backing for this anti-assimilationist campaign [La Raza] has come primarily from the Ford Foundation, which made a conscious decision to fund a Latino rights movement based on advocacy-litigation and group rights."

Capitalist funding has allowed a kind of legitimacy to be imbued into nearly any radical identity grievance group. This has made it much easier for them to spread their "progressive" (collectivist-group think) far and wide. While these groups acquire funds for "studies" or educational endeavors to "teach" their collectivist viewpoint, they prefer to call it "education."

This has definitely tainted American "public" schools allowing only one philosophical and political viewpoint to be heard. That point of view is left of Lenin. Yet when some conservative, classically liberal, or Christian group attempt the same, all hell breaks loose.

Conservative organizations do not even compare in the amount of funds or support received from government and corporate sources. Groups that promote limited government, separation of powers, tax reform, individual human rights, reformation of the regulatory state, right to life, U.S. national sovereignty, sensible or reformed immigration policies, the free market, states rights, rural or Christian agendas, are marginalized or demonized.

Just recently, Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., an activist for immigration reforms, found the Republican establishment distancing itself from him and the immigration reform effort. The reason of course has to do with Hispanic vote buying and the bottom line of American corporate interests. Why does a supposedly conservative political party fail to see the need for immigration reform?

What is going on here? Is the American system beyond redemption? Have our political parties betrayed the American identity, the Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution?

It would seem that the big picture has become so complicated it is hardly worth the time and effort needed to pick it apart, let alone do something about it. That is why the Locke and Fonte articles are extraordinary, they put the pieces together.

A Crooked Mile

The Washington Post reported not long ago: "The Federal Election Commission disclosed yesterday it has imposed a record-setting $719,000 in fines against participants in the 1996 Democratic Party fundraising scandals involving contributions from China, Korea and other foreign sources."

The Federal Election Commission describes the DNC fundraising of Bill Clinton and Al Gore in the Buddhist temple shakedown: "For example, organizers would have to contribute a total of $100,000 in return for Gore’s appearance at a Buddhist temple in Los Angeles."

The Post adds "except that some of the corporations have folded and others were dummy operations, with no assets, set up as conduits for money from China, Venezuela, Canada and other countries. Foreign individuals and organizations are barred from contributing to federal elections."

Of course our politicians answer to all this scandal and corruption is to pass the McCain-Feingold bill. Cobbled together by a self-serving bunch of politicians and signed into law by the Bush administration, nirvana achieved - right? Wrong.

There is a developing recognition that there are systemic reasons why things have gone wrong in the American system. Modern economic and political or social realities can't or won't be modified no matter who comes to power in Washington. We get decades worth of "reforms" which are anything but.

Meanwhile, the crashing of mighty business empires, and the loss of thousands of jobs this past year, have business pundits on CNBC and other networks gnashing their teeth and tearing out what is left of their hair.

Politicians play the blame game, and economists and think tanks devise new and improved theories to explain it all. Few of them are asking the right questions. If they did they would not like the answers.


Question 1: Is the latest economic downturn, the plummeting stock market and undoing of business a failure of what 18th-century political economist and philosopher Adam Smith called an economic sense of morality? Or is it really the result of years of government and corporate America shacking up without being officially married?

Question 2: Should free-market capitalists be concerned that at least a dozen CEOs of Fortune 500 companies made out like bandits while their employees can’t make their house payments?

A study commissioned by Fortune magazine (Fortune, 9-2-02) reported that officers and directors of the 1,035 companies that have fallen the most from their recent bull-market peaks, cashed in $66 billion worth of stock before the crash. This was at a time when those companies' non-insider employees were watching as their children’s college fund and their retirement incomes were in a nosedive.

Making out like robber barons were executives from AOL-Time Warner; before the crash they cashed in $1.79 billion. Enron executives raked in $994 million. Charles Schwab’s movers and shakers netted $951 million. This has given rise to heightened cynicism about capitalism and the free market.

However, the ethical lapse of great companies gave both sides of the political spectrum in Congress, something to investigate. Each strives to blame on the other as they invent more ill-conceived laws and regulations to deal with perceived problems.


The Scrooge McDuck Backstroke

The fact is that neither political party can investigate too closely because both parties have been doing the Scrooge McDuck backstroke in the corporate money pool for decades.

Both parties have a lot at stake when major corporate entities crash and burn. Why is that, you say?


Questions 3 to 10: Why did the federal government bail out the airlines this past year? Why did it bail out New York City years ago? Why did taxpayers have to pay for the S&L loan scandal? Why does government fund corporate agriculture? Why does government use our spy apparatus to do intelligence work for corporate America?

Why do they give money to entities which compete with private business and industry? Why do they give money to the National Endowment for the Arts or to the National Endowment for the Humanities or to public broadcasting, which by and large are conduits and instruments for the artistic left?

Why are so many industries dependent on government contracts? Why does the government subsidize everything from Lockheed-Martin to Chrysler to the health care of seniors and the poor? Why does government fund Amtrak? Why does it keep fleets of cars and vehicles for the benefit of government bureaucrats and politicians?

Why! Why! Why!

The answer of course is that the government has become totally involved in the economic, social, and corporate life of America.

 

[
How Corporatism Blends Socialism and Capitalism

As Robert Locke states in his article: "Corporatism blends socialism and capitalism not by giving each control of different parts of the economy, but by combining socialism's promise of a government-guaranteed flow of material goods with capitalism's private ownership and management."

Furthermore, "What makes corporatism so politically irresistible is that it is attractive not just to the mass electorate, but to the economic elite as well."

Government is now considered responsible for the health and well-being of the economy and the culture as well as individuals. It is the guarantor of the movement of goods and services.

Actually, this has been the case since government became involved in westward expansion. But this is particularly true since it discovered income taxes, which tendered an almost inexhaustible source of funds for expansion of the state and state power.

The standard answer from the left regarding taxes is: "Don’t you want the roads and infrastructure that government provides?" The answer should be no. That is not supposed to be a function of government to provide goods and services.

Government’s job is to protect and defend from outside enemies, from fraud, or from government itself. Government has forgotten that man was not created for government but government for man.

Considering the limitations placed on government by the Founders, something has gone seriously amiss. Our history shows that it wasn’t the several states that set up most business deals with companies or individuals. Rather, speculative land deals, for instance, involving the federal government have been with us since almost the beginning of this nation. Those early deals set a pattern that helped corrupt the system.

But the impetus for the Corporate Collectivist State really began in earnest at about the time of the American "war between the states."

Following the Civil War, the federal government started cutting deals with the railroads over land issues. The Western states lost control of their physical sovereignty at that time, followed shortly by the mercantile and monetary system going awry.

Corporatism got a further thrust forward when Washington offered special privileges to early mining, oil, and railroad tycoons such as J.D. Rockefeller and J.L. Hunt. Because of that linkage, capitalism and government became corrupted.

The creation of the Federal Reserve, our central bank, further complicated the picture. The Federal Reserve is a non-federal private corporation with close ties to government. It sets the monetary standard for corporatism. We have been stuck with it since 1913.

Shortly after the creation of the Federal Reserve, the 16th Amendment gave us the income tax. That handed control of the monetary system AND the individual and corporate checkbook to the federal government. We have never been able to get control of that checkbook since.

The era was called "progressive." More likely it should have been called the beginning of the Corporate Collectivist State in modern times.


Capitalism Does Survive

However, capitalism does exist in America. But it exists mostly in the realm of small- to medium-size business. Government of course punishes these smaller entities, the remnants of true capitalism, by taxing them to death, overregulating them, or creating foolish laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act.

In addition, follies such as the Endangered Species Act impact smaller businesses, such as individual farms and ranches, far more than it does Exxon or Archer Daniels Midland.

Do you really think these laws passed in Washington actually harm big business? No, the laws and taxes invariably hurt the "little" guy and infringe on the autonomy of the several states. Big business can handle problems or lawsuits and taxes. Their incestuous relationship with the federal government means government must protect and promote the interests of large corporations or face economic meltdown.

Thus, what has evolved is not free-market capitalism but rather "corporatism" combined with progressivism or the Nanny State.

The Nanny State and "corporatism" have many things in common. As Locke so insightfully explains: "The first thing big business has in common with big government is managerialism. The technocratic manager, who deals in impersonal mass aggregates, organizes through bureaucracy, and rules through expertise without assuming personal responsibility, is common to both."


Marriage Made in Hell

What is really frightening is that economic globalization means we are facing the marriage of corporatism and transnational progressivism.

Government, our intellectual leftist elite, and transnational corporatism and progressivism, are crushing the nation-state, national sovereignty and the American identity.

But this new creature is not merely a modern version of Farben loves and support Adolf Hitler, aka fascism.

This creature is a brand new model that might be called fascism with a smiley face. Allied with international police-state procedures it eventually could be something far less than benign. With the correct combination of self-interested power groups and egomaniacal individuals, it might become extremely dangerous to ALL individuals and freedom. Conspiracy buffs have dubbed it the "New World Order."


Post Everything

Corporatism married to transnational progressivism is what Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Gerhard Shroeder, Chretien and Newt Gingrich dubbed the "Third Way."

That marriage is post-American, post-industrial, and post-constitutional. It calls for "open borders" rather than national citizenship. It proposes transnational citizenship. Before Sept. 11, 2001, George W. Bush was pushing it.

Unfortunately, many libertarians have been sucked into supporting "open borders" and unrestricted immigration because it promotes the interests of corporations and the bottom line.

However, the marriage of corporatism and transnational progressivism fails capitalism. It is also destructive of the rights of the individual and a butcher of the American identity. It is definitely an assassin of the sovereign nation-state.

This new paradigm finds leftist/"progressive" or Marxist intellectuals desperately trying to rearrange themselves, in order to accommodate the new reality. That is another reason the left now calls itself "progressive."

The corporate collectivist ideal, the new criterion, is nothing more or less than a historical elite attempting to impose its order or solutions on society and government. It’s the same old song and dance that the elite, powers-that-be, or establishment have done since the beginning of time. That, of course, is to order society according to their best interests, in their best interests.

What is evolving nationally and internationally is an oligarchy of corporate entities joined at the hip to a strong central managerial-technocratic government, a government that will be international in scope, and when all is said and done, totalitarian. The offspring of this marriage is a redistribution of income and power to "groups" on the basis of their victim status or identity.


Collectivist Pigs

Meanwhile, the growing oligarchy of transnational corporations uses the government for its own purposes, and government is obliging. That is neither capitalism nor the free market. What it IS: a few collectivist pigs dressed up and living large. Occasionally they call themselves CEOs of the Fortune 500, bureaucrats, heads of American foundations, senators, congressmen or president.

Their counterparts in "progressivism," i.e. Marxism lite, take the money and power created by this incestuous relationship and pass it out to the identity groups most favored by "progressives." Nevertheless, those groups are still subject to manipulation by the world’s economic elite.

That is ONE reason why American education is beyond reform. That is why we have "School-to-Work," "Outcome Based Education" and the suppression of individual excellence in "Project Learning." That is why we are experiencing the destruction of an American identity through multiculturalism and diversity "training." It all fits the corporate, progressive and government bill of goods.

As George Orwell confirms in his masterpiece "Animal Farm," some pigs are indeed more equal than others. Nevertheless, all of them remain porkers in collectivist drag.

It could be inevitable that the Corporate Collectivist State may replace the nation-state on an international scale. The effort by those in power to create such a social, economic and political order is a work in progress.

In that regard, Alfred Rocco, the leading spokesman for fascism, explains modern fascism: "For Fascism, society is the end, individuals the means, and its whole life consists in using individuals as instruments for its social ends."

Personally, I would add economic and political ends favorable to those elites. Think Rockefeller, think Gates, think Enron, think U.N., think federal government and elite control on a national and international scale.

Think.

(Next time: Robert Locke defines "corporatism" as socialism for the bourgeois … the outward form of capitalism in that it preserves private ownership and private management … but government guarantees the flow of material goods, which under true capitalism it does not. John Fonte on "transnational progressivism," i.e., transnational progressivism, assigns primacy to group rights as opposed to individual rights in the American Constitution; and it promotes transnational citizenship (a la the European Union) over national citizenship emphasized in the American republic and in the non-EU European countries.)


Check out my Web site at www.aldenchronicles.com.

 

Balbus, yes or no question: would you ever be accepted as a chinese person?

Yes

If I were a Chinese citizen I would be accepted as a Chinese person just as if I was an American citizen I’d be accepted as an American person.

**

A nation is an organic living entity based on common culture, language, race and religion and heritage since time immemorial.

So you believe we have always had nation states? I think most historians, archaeologists and anthropologists would disagree with you.

**

Nations have ingroup and outgroup loyalties. This is simply a fact of nature. Moreover if race is not an issue, then explain the peculiar reality that the biggest nations on the planet, right next to each other are racially homogenous relative to each other (China and India). Why arent the Chinese and Indians gung ho about swapping half a billion people from each country with the other???

Hey Topolm ever heard of the Mughal (mongol) Empire that ruled most of India? It brought about an influx of Persian and Asian into the Indian sub-continent.

Do you have any idea of the role of geography in population distribution?

**

In otherwords, if this brotherhood of man is a basic part of human nature, why dont societies spontaneously and volitionally gravitate towards multiculturalism??????????????????????????????????????

They do.

Sometimes through conquest and migration sometimes by peaceful migration, but when peoples have come together they usually end up mixing. There maybe resistance but it is never rationally based and usually disappears over time.

**

Answer: because it is part of human nature to discriminate and choose to be around those most like you. Race is one of the biggest factors.

No, whenever racial groups have come up against each other they have mixed to one degree or other.

**

As you can see I am very much a race realist.

No, you have chosen a way of thinking and ignore the evidence that contradicts it.

**

Harmony would exist on the planet if critical masses of unlike people stayed away from each other and gave each other the requisite space necessary to carryout the legacy of their civilizations.

What? How? Why?

**

Are you opposed to the self determination of the diverse people on the planet if this self determination manifests itself as a form of racial cultural separatism? Would you be of the totalitarian mindset that agitates for and endorses coercive/compulsory mixing of inherently incompatible people?????????

Incompatible? In what way are they incompatible, are they of a different species from a different planet, what? Are you saying a Scots person should not marry an English person because the two ethic groups could not mix or produce an offspring? Are you saying a man of Congolese ancestry has an incompatible physiology with a woman of Swedish ancestry and could not reproduce?

And what do you mean about endorsing “coercive/compulsory mixing”?

**

I would say that any social policy out of line with natural law belongs in a class about abstract philosophy rather than be implemented in the real world.

What natural law are you on about?

**

It is well known and obvious that most English people do not like the non-British who are colonizing the UK.

You seem confused here do you mean English people or British people or UK citizens, or EU citizens?

**

 

topolm, you have yet to answer any questions already posed to you in this thread. So why are you asking more?

Are you hear to discuss or to flame?

 

No. You wouldnt.

**

No. They do not. A nation is different from a state. A state is a geo-political entity whereas a nation is a collection of people that are racially, culturally, linguistically, religiously similar. The lines are fuzzy, but they are there. Jews are a nation no matter where they are on the planet. They have peculiar ingroup and outgroup loyalties. A nation does not required a nation state.

**

What point are you trying to make?? India is still predominantly Indian. Indians resisted multiculturalism. The point still stands that critical masses of racially unlike people will not mix and will likely be hostile to one another culturally, economically, militarally etc. Nothing you said changes this.

Common sense dictates that you always have peripheral mixing. This does not change the fact that a critical mass of racially unlike groups WILL NOT MIX.

No they do not. Spontaneous mixing occurs as a side effect of ingroup individualism but will MOSTLY lead to ingroup mixing, rather than outgroup
mixing. Spontaneous mixing excludes political, economic and military coersion. The term spontaneous requires individual volition to pursue a course of action without persuasion from anyone else.

Multiculturalism by conquest IS NOT SPONTANEOUS. It is forced, it is compelled. I am not arguing this at all. Anything that is forced is not natural.
Peaceful migration of one race to the territory of another race leads to violence. Strip a person of their culture, language, religion etc and you are left with race. Remember, you as a human ARE NOT ABOVE the laws of nature. Your capacity to emotionally respond to certain stimuli is hardwired into your genetic code. Emotions are behaviour modifying mechanisms that facilitate survival. To argue that survival mechanisms are irrational is silly since you are, by extension saying that "human nature" is silly. Condemnation of human nature is known as a moralistic fallacy. You are committing one with your flawed paradigm.


**

No. I am right. You are wrong. My evidence is that critical masses of different racial groups ARE NOT MIXING in terms of inter racial relationships, neighborhood racial makeup etc. Peripheral mixing is tangential and irrelevant to the points I am making.

**

LOL!!!!!

Evidence... what evidence???

This evidence???

Not sure what you're confused about here...

**

Are you opposed to the self determination of the diverse people on the planet if this self determination manifests itself as a form of racial cultural separatism? Would you be of the totalitarian mindset that agitates for and endorses coercive/compulsory mixing of inherently incompatible people?????????

Incompatible? In what way are they incompatible, are they of a different species from a different planet, what? Are you saying a Scots person should not marry an English person because the two ethic groups could not mix or produce an offspring? Are you saying a man of Congolese ancestry has an incompatible physiology with a woman of Swedish ancestry and could not reproduce?

And what do you mean about endorsing “coercive/compulsory mixing”?

**

Natural law is the all binding natural reality that dictates how the components of the natural world (including humanity) are to act in order to facilitate natural and humane equilibrium. A more thorough definition is provided below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

**

Nope. Not confused. Scale 1-10, 10 meaning most unsatisfied with this particular type of immigrant to England:
your avg english person would rate satifaction with immigrant as follows, this is based off common sense.

eastern european 3
western european 3
african 10
arab 9
pakistani 10
indian 10
oriental 10