[fuser]

Actually, this was a pro-free market measure.

I am aware of that, did I sounded like I was saying it was anti market? Then, it was a poor attempt at satire, I guess.

[Potemkin]

It's impossible to satirise this sort of thing; this is pro-free market liberalism producing its own self-parody.

[Rei Murasame]

This led to devastating famines in Ireland and India, which were exacerbated by such 'anti-charitable' legislation. After all, charity distorts the free market by giving stuff away for free.

I've even heard Tea Partiers in their online haunts, using similar logic to legitimise the massive deprivation that American sharecroppers and lease-farmers suffered during the ecological disasters at the beginning of the 20th century as well. They actually argued that if some 'meddling person' like me had organised a service to:

• Prop up farmers by bailing them out,
• Use some of their produce to give as charity to people who were totally broke,

it would place upward pressure on prices (since I'd be reducing the stock of food available to non-broke people) while removing the broke people from the pool of demanding people (since charity would mean they'd no longer be there to bid the price up), thus placing downward pressure simultaneously.

They think this is 'bad'.

When I of course pointed out that if there is both upward and downward pressure, why any of this would worry them at all, they gave the usual responses about 'not wanting to reward failure'. In sarcasm I said "well then I guess you might as well just shoot them all if you feel that way", and it was then that they found me to be out of line.

If the market decrees that Irish or Indian peasants must starve and die, then who are we to dispute the mysterious workings of Divine Providence (aka 'The Invisible Hand')? This is why in Britain, liberalism is associated with a rigid social hierarchy, class privilege and monstrous cruelty to the lowest and weakest members of society, and is why both the far Left and the far Right are united in our hatred of it.

THIS. Full agreement.

[Preston Cole]

No one has a choice over which government falls ontop of their heads so you can forgive the Russian, Ukrainian, Belarussian, Uzbeks, Turkmens, Kazakhs and other peoples for not wanting to see a German victory.

I imagine that a German "liberation" - e.g. puppetization - of Ukraine and the Baltic states would have provided a tremendous propaganda boost for the Nazis in the east. Instead of using that Eastern manpower to man those Waffen SS detachments, Hitler could have gained additional manpower by using liberated national armies of the Baltics and the Ukraine. Maybe it would have made a difference in Stalingrad or Kursk, who knows? There was really no other logic in not doing that other than the Nazis' perverted racial ideology and ignorance. Even the Nazi version of the Drang nach Osten - settling the East with Aryans, pushing the Russians over the Urals, going for the Baku oil fields - isn't contrary to the liberation of all those small states. The Nazis should have concentrated on the Russian Federation, the center of communism. Hell, there's more than enough territory left out of Russia to accommodate German colonists. Compromising that oh-so-glorious anti-Slavic racial doctrine in exchange for a considerable boost to your image, plus additional manpower, is more than worth it in my mind.

All farts in the wind.

[Daktoria]

The British ruling class in the 19th century had an almost religious faith in the free market (except when it was against their personal interests, of course, in which case tariffs were the order of the day). This led to devastating famines in Ireland and India, which were exacerbated by such 'anti-charitable' legislation.

Correction.

The British did have a religious faith in free markets.

That's the problem. Their religion. Literally, the Protestant Ascendancy couldn't have happened without the Protestant Work Ethic.

[Rei Murasame]

Are you claiming that it's the religion in isolate?

[Far-Right Sage]

We are not cheering that communists came to power or raped German women but that a bloodthirsty war-waging regime that was responsible for the destruction of half of Europe and the intentional and premeditated murder of millions of civillians in only a few years came to a deserved end and was pushed into the grave of history never to be admired by anyone more than a handful of posters on Pofo and marginalized right-wing extremist lumpenproleteriat.

Actually, you are cheerleading for the victory of a regime (Soviet Union) which not only raped and tortured, but was a bloodthirsty war-waging regime (bombing and invasion of Finland, occupation of the Baltic states, invasion of Poland in collusion with NS Germany, attempted conquest of Poland in 1920, genocide of Ukrainians, deportations of Koreans, Kazakhs, and other ethnic minorities to Siberia; successful conquest/puppetization of Poland after the war assisted by Western powers, invasion of Hungary, and a multitude of other aggressive actions) which was responsible for the destruction of half of Europe (and its enslavement for half a century) and the intentional and premeditated murder of civilians (not to mention gang rape of children and mothers in front of daughters in Berlin, which German forces had rogue soldiers hanged for should they dare).

Nothing is “pushed into the grave of history” really as recorded history continues to inspire. The Roman Empire collapsed thousands of years ago, yet some of the greatest original theorists of Fascism in Italy took much inspiration from it. The victories and achievements of NS Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan stand on their own, and if they seem irrelevant now, they will be inspiring generations which come after us as the conditions for liberalism in the West of modernity begin to severely implode.

Yeah, that good old generation during WW2 was much better for the land it inhabited because their decisions led to their cities being burned to the ground and countless countrymen killed for what was a bad idea in the first place.

This can be applied to any generation in history. Certainly the end of WWII has not slowed the process of cities being burned in war or countless deaths.

Well that's what you don't care about, but people who detest fascism obviously do, so you would do well to remember that fact before you start with your nazi cult of innocent victimhood and outrage as if they never did anything wrong.

I have never denied any German actions. I simply don’t classify them as “wrong”, nor buy into the pathetic slave morality of the decadent liberal world today. All nations in history have to some extent acted aggressively and faced aggression; this is the reality of the world, not a morality lesson.

You fought communists, yet you defend fascists. Guess what, both are incompatible with core american values.

As has been alluded to, sometimes the values of a series of declining generations require re-evaluation.

some people should just come out and say what they're really thinking.

You haven’t been reading in the right places if you believe I or others have failed to do so.

Well... yes, I can imagine that you wouldn't be able to overlook the actions of Codreanu. He had some good points, and then also some not quite so nice points. But FRS is not calling for pogroms, I'm pretty sure he's not interested in suddenly doing something like that.

Indeed, Rei. I have a deep respect for Codreanu and the interesting Romanian Fascist blend which arose from the Legion of the Archangel Michael. The pogroms were a social problem relevant to Romania of the late 30’s and early 40’s, but this does not say that an admiration for the Legionaire spirit today is equivalent with the call for pogroms.

Leftist crap. Fuck the "Palestinians".

No one will take your arguments seriously if you are serious in identifying Rei as a leftist.


I have a plethora of errands to run, but I will return later to tend to further points/inquiries.

[Rei Murasame]

Great post, FRS.

That reminds me, on the point Sephardi is contesting me on regarding the Palestinians, I notice he places it in quote-marks as though it is something that is alleged to exist.

Well I have a pretty nuanced stance on this (hence why I said 'even the Palestinians', it means that there is something peculiar about them), since I think they are actually a nation which is asleep. It is not aware of its own existence, because polls show that most Palestinian men identify with some sort global Islam first, before anything else. Whereas most Palestinian women identify with their immediate family before anything else. The 'Palestinian' and 'pan-Arab' identities get extremely weak showings.

What this means is that in order to save the Palestinians, not only would be it necessary for them to retake the resources and the control of their borders from the Israelis, but they'd also need to gain an actual Palestinian and pan-Arab identity across both genders since otherwise they would lack the material-genetic basis for constructive struggle. But this likely cannot happen for them unless pan-Arabism is revived in the middle east at large.

[Daktoria]

Are you claiming that it's the religion in isolate?

I'm not familiar with English/British history turning for the worse until Protestantism took over. The rise of 14th century merchant capitalism did perfectly fine until Henry VIII, and the Irish Famine's roots go back to the Glorious Revolution (which is also when pilgrims' mass exodus took place to escape religious persecution).

Even with regards to Germany, the Reformation and 30 Years' War tore it apart, open to foreign manipulation. Heck, Cardinal Richelieu's betrayal of Catholicism is what lead to the downfall of the Hapsburg lead HRE.

[Section Leader]

I'm not familiar with English/British history turning for the worse until Protestantism took over. The rise of 14th century merchant capitalism did perfectly fine until Henry VIII, and the Irish Famine's roots go back to the Glorious Revolution (which is also when pilgrims' mass exodus took place to escape religious persecution).

lol, the Puritans weren't fleeing persecution, they went to America to be able to persecute, they were sick and tired of the religious freedom in England that allowed people to adopt a religious preference, the Quakers for instance. They wanted to build a country where their will would be supreme.

[Potemkin]

They wanted to be free to persecute heretics and hang witches. lol

[Baff]

And keep slaves.

[Potemkin]

And massacre Native Americans.

[Daktoria]

lol, the Puritans weren't fleeing persecution, they went to America to be able to persecute, they were sick and tired of the religious freedom in England that allowed people to adopt a religious preference, the Quakers for instance. They wanted to build a country where their will would be supreme.

I won't entirely disagree with you. Puritans were seeking to escape the wrath of King James who was trying to Catholicize Britain after the atrocities of the English Civil War and Cromwellian Protectorate.

Unfortunately, William the 3rd came in and wrecked the whole plan. It's with due merit that the Dutch were later neglected for their "favor".

They wanted to be free to persecute heretics and hang witches. lol

Exactly. More evidence of the wonders of the Protestant Work Ethic.

Wanna work smart instead of work hard? No thanks, we'll brand you, drown you, and burn you at the stake instead.

American "stupid is cool" culture has very deep roots.

[Potemkin]

Ah, the freedom-loving Puritans.... *wipes away a tear of laughter*

[Rei Murasame]

Let's also not forget!

On the territory that is now Massachusetts, the founding administrators of the colonies were committing genocide, in what has become known as the "Pequot War." The killers were New England Puritan Christians, ironically they had been thrown out of England precisely because they were fundamentalist nutcases who were a blight on the intellectual landscape of Britain. They inflicted themselves upon the Pequot instead with a vicious glee.

When however, a dead colonist was found, apparently killed by Narragansett Nation, the Puritan colonists wanted revenge. Apparently they seem to have lost the plot of what they were after, because when they were greeted by Pequot Nation (long-time foes of the Narragansetts) the troops nevertheless made war on the Pequots anyway and burned their all their villages.

The puritan commander-in-charge after one massacre wrote:

And indeed such a dreadful Terror did the Almighty let fall upon their Spirits, that they would fly from us and run into the very Flames, where many of them perished ... God was above them, who laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making them as a fiery Oven ... Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen, filling the Place with dead Bodies: men, women, children. So the Lord was pleased to smite our Enemies in the hinder Parts, and to give us their land for an inheritance.

Because of his readers' assumed knowledge of Deuteronomy, there was no need for Mason to actually quote the words that immediately follow - it was implied: "Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them...", Deuteronomy chapter 20.

Mason's comrade Underhill recalled how "great and doleful was the bloody sight to the view of the young soldiers" yet reassured his readers that "sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents".

Other First Nations people were killed in wildly successful plots of poisoning. The Puritans even had dogs especially trained to kill First Nations people and to devour children from their mother's breasts, in the Puritans' own words: "blood Hounds to draw after them, and Mastives to seaze them". This idea was invented by the Spanish Catholics first, the Puritans appropriated it for their use. Make sure to read this paragraph twice, as it may sound unbelievable on the first reading.

The surviving handful of First Nations people were parceled out to live in servitude. John Endicott and his paedophile pastor wrote to the governor asking for "a share" of the captives, specifically "a young woman or girle and a boy if you thinke good."

Commenter les chrétiens anglo-saxons (French for emphasis!): "God's Will, which will at last give us cause to say: How Great is His Goodness! and How Great is his Beauty! Thus doth the Lord Jesus make them to bow before him, and to lick the Dust!"

Reverend Solomon Stoddard, one of New England's most esteemed religious leaders, in 1703 formally proposed to the Massachusetts Governor that the Puritans be given the financial wherewithal to purchase and train large packs of dogs "to hunt Indians as they do bears".

Peace treaties were signed with every intention to violate them, an example being the Council of State in Virginia:

[When the First Nations] grow secure uppon the treatie, we shall have the better Advantage both to surprise them, & cutt downe theire Corne.

Laissez faire, mes amis?

[Political Interest]

Political Interest, I've thought about that issue of materialism as well, but it seems that ultimately all ideologies must touch that base, or at least attempt to touch it, otherwise it becomes increasingly difficult for it to self-justify or maintain coherence.

Even ideologies that claim to have no material aspect, do have a material aspect, and it is more dangerous to a people not to know what it is, than it is to know what it is and vet it.

Plus, not being able to be materialist, would mean that you would end up accepting a lot of things without knowing whether it is in your interest to really do so.

True, all ideologies relate to the material world in some sense it would seem.

I imagine that a German "liberation" - e.g. puppetization - of Ukraine and the Baltic states would have provided a tremendous propaganda boost for the Nazis in the east. Instead of using that Eastern manpower to man those Waffen SS detachments, Hitler could have gained additional manpower by using liberated national armies of the Baltics and the Ukraine. Maybe it would have made a difference in Stalingrad or Kursk, who knows? There was really no other logic in not doing that other than the Nazis' perverted racial ideology and ignorance. Even the Nazi version of the Drang nach Osten - settling the East with Aryans, pushing the Russians over the Urals, going for the Baku oil fields - isn't contrary to the liberation of all those small states.

I have a Lithuanian background, of course I would have liked to have seen an independent Lithuania as well as Ukraine and Belarus. The fact is that Hitler and Stalin colluded with each other and the Germans did not care for the Baltics. Do you truly believe that the Axis would have granted independence of any real meaning to the country's they occupied? At most it would be a situation similar to today's except with Germany in the place of the USA.

The Nazis should have concentrated on the Russian Federation, the centre of communism. Hell, there's more than enough territory left out of Russia to accommodate German colonists. Compromising that oh-so-glorious anti-Slavic racial doctrine in exchange for a considerable boost to your image, plus additional manpower, is more than worth it in my mind.

Maybe, but did the Germans intend to do this?

The crimes of the Red Army are inexcusable as are the wider Soviet crimes. However all I am asking is if you can blame the people of the Soviet Union for fighting under the red flag rather than welcoming the Germans in to kill them?

[Daktoria]

OK, so if you guys see Puritans for who they are so much, then why do you ignore Protestantism as the root of all problems?

[Rei Murasame]

Because Catholics did the exact same things in the Americas, but for even longer and in overdrive?

Within hours of landfall on the first inhabited island he encountered in the Caribbean, Columbus seized and carried off six native people who, he said, "ought to be good servants ... [and] would easily be made Christians, because it seemed to me that they belonged to no religion."

While Columbus described the Amerindians as "idolators" and "slaves, as many as shall order," his aquaintence Michele de Cuneo, an Italian nobleman, referred to the indigenous peoples as "beasts" because "they eat when they are hungry," (shocking!) and made love "openly whenever they feel like it" (how dare they!). You can guess why I selected this as worth mentioning.

On every island he set foot on, Columbus planted a cross, "making the declarations that are required" - the requerimiento - to claim the ownership for his Catholic patrons in Spain. And "nobody objected." If the Amerindians refused or delayed their acceptance or understanding of what this meant, the requerimiento continued:

I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter in your country and shall make war against you ... and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church ... and shall do you all mischief that we can, as to vassals who do not obey and refuse to receive their lord and resist and contradict him.

On Hispaniola alone, the indigenous population (Arawak), a rather isolationist and happy people living on an island of abundant natural resources, a communitarian and peaceful society, soon found themselves with 50,000 dead bodies. As one of the culprits wrote: "So many Amerindians died that they could not be counted, all through the land the Amerindians lay dead everywhere."

The Amerindian leader Hatuey fled with his people but was captured and burned alive. As "they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar urged him to take Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to heaven, rather than descend into hell. Hatuey replied that if heaven was where the Christians went, he would rather go to hell."

The island's population of about eight million people at the time of Columbus' arrival in 1492 CE already had declined by a third to a half before the year 1496 CE was out. Eventually all the island's indigenous peoples were actually exterminated, so the Spaniards were 'forced' to import slaves from other Caribbean islands, who soon suffered the same death.

Fuck 'Columbus Day', by the way.

[Section Leader]

The crimes of Catholic Spain are above and beyond anything the British Empire did in the Americas, millions of people killed or racially eliminated by forced marriages to Spanish soldiers. Catholic countries were no better than protestant ones like England or the Netherlands and some were far worse, live with it.