Six Policies Economists Love and Politicians Hate

[Crazed Rabbit]

From NPR; (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-policies-economists-love-and-politicians-hate) there was a discussion among economists right, left, and center about great policies that no politician would support. You can listen to the show at the link or read the main points below.

The proposals

One: Eliminate the mortgage tax deduction, which lets homeowners deduct the interest they pay on their mortgages. Gone. After all, big houses get bigger tax breaks, driving up prices for everyone. Why distort the housing market and subsidize people buying expensive houses?

Two: End the tax deduction companies get for providing health-care to employees. Neither employees nor employers pay taxes on workplace health insurance benefits. That encourages fancier insurance coverage, driving up usage and, therefore, health costs overall. Eliminating the deduction will drive up costs for people with workplace healthcare, but makes the health-care market fairer.

Three: Eliminate the corporate income tax. Completely. If companies reinvest the money into their businesses, that's good. Don't tax companies in an effort to tax rich people.

Four: Eliminate all income and payroll taxes. All of them. For everyone. Taxes discourage whatever you're taxing, but we like income, so why tax it? Payroll taxes discourage creating jobs. Not such a good idea. Instead, impose a consumption tax, designed to be progressive to protect lower-income households.

Five: Tax carbon emissions. Yes, that means higher gasoline prices. It's a kind of consumption tax, and can be structured to make sure it doesn't disproportionately harm lower-income Americans. More, it's taxing something that's bad, which gives people an incentive to stop polluting.

Six: Legalize marijuana. Stop spending so much trying to put pot users and dealers in jail — it costs a lot of money to catch them, prosecute them, and then put them up in jail. Criminalizing drugs also drives drug prices up, making gang leaders rich.

There you have it, six major proposals that have broad agreement, at least among economists. Though we should note that there were some pretty significant quibbles about just how to implement the income-tax and carbon-tax proposals.

Ah, one can dream ...

Their's a list of economists on the site and links to their websites.

CR

[lars573]

2, 3, and 4 are libertarian fantasies that would destroy any country that tried and implement them.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well that would mean left of center/democrat economists are libertarians. Two contributers:

Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C., and widely published blo "You could probably describe me as left of center. It'd be fair."

Robert Frank, professor of management and economics at Cornell University's Johnson Graduate School of Management. "I'm a registered Democrat. I think of myself as a radical pragmatist."


But seriously, you don't know what you're talking about.

CR

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well that would mean left of center/democrat economists are libertarians. Two contributers:


But seriously, you don't know what you're talking about.

CR

Many Democrat policies are Libertarian, American politics don't map well to any recognised political axis.

To your point: eliminating income taxes completely would be foolish, as they garentee a minimum income for the government that scales up as the economy grows. HOWEVER, Scandanavian countries do have very low income taxes, but at the expense of extremely high consumption taxes.

As pretty much everyone in the US refuses to institute VAT, your ideas will never be workable.

[ajaxfetish]

As pretty much everyone in the US refuses to institute VAT, your ideas will never be workable.

I think that was pretty much CR's point: that the ideas are politically unworkable, but he would love to live the dream where people would be willing to make such changes.

Ajax

[Ironside]

Many Democrat policies are Libertarian, American politics don't map well to any recognised political axis.

To your point: eliminating income taxes completely would be foolish, as they garentee a minimum income for the government that scales up as the economy grows. HOWEVER, Scandanavian countries do have very low income taxes, but at the expense of extremely high consumption taxes.

As pretty much everyone in the US refuses to institute VAT, your ideas will never be workable.

We don't have low income taxes. But yeah, the VAT is one of the main income sources, but it's still a lower source than the income tax. Corperate income tax comes after reinvestment iirc, so point 3 is odd. One big point of it is to keep the money within the company for reinvestment, rather than coorperate cannibalism.

Capital gains tax should be comparable to income tax as well.

[Xiahou]

1. Good idea.
2. Sounds reasonable.
3. Eh... how about just massively slashing it instead?
4. Consumption taxes are difficult to enforce and require alot of tweaking to keep them from being regressive. Also.... "Taxes discourage whatever you're taxing, but we like income, so why tax it?" So, we like income but hate people spending it? How about we instead just flatten our tax brackets and streamline our tax code and not use it as a social engineering tool?
5. This is just stupid. A consumption tax would tax the gas you put in your cars (we have that), not what comes out.
6. I'm willing to entertain this notion...

[Papewaio]

1,2 & 5 are all done here.

We get a 30% deduction on private health costs. And if you earn over a threshold you get a tax penalty for not having private health. So clearly number 2 does not bring on the apocolapse. :rolleyes:

[Jolt]

I can understand why 3 and 4 are politically unworkable: They are simply downright stupid. Any government that has projected spendings on the country (e.g. All governments) would never do away with Corporate Income Tax (Which makes complete sense, since if the taxed money is invested into projects which are for the public good - Health care, roads, illumination, police, military, etc - Something which is not in the company's or shareholders primary investment concerns. And most especially 4. That's one of the most stupid economical statements I ever seen. Replacing an income tax with a consumption one using the excuse of protecting the low earners when the consumption tax is widely known to be one of the most regressive taxation methods still being practiced.

[Fragony]

Most of these are in effect here

[Lemur]

Any government that has projected spendings on the country (e.g. All governments) would never do away with Corporate Income Tax
Actually, here in the U.S.A., corporate income tax only accounts for about eight percent of total tax revenue. So eliminating it would make a hole, but not a bottomless hole.

There's no doubt that the U.S. tax code is due for a radical overhaul and simplification. Unfortunately, I do not see the Republicans in the House, the Dems in the Senate, or President 44 arriving at anything sensible anytime soon.

[Fragony]

Actually, here in the U.S.A., corporate income tax only accounts for about eight percent of total tax revenue. So eliminating it would make a hole, but not a bottomless hole.

There's no doubt that the U.S. tax code is due for a radical overhaul and simplification. Unfortunately, I do not see the Republicans in the House, the Dems in the Senate, or President 44 arriving at anything sensible anytime soon.

Over here corporate profit isn't taxed at all, it works fine. The extra jobs are well worth it

[Kralizec]

What are you talking about? Our corporate tax is 20-25% ("vennootschapsbelasting")

[Fragony]

What are you talking about? Our corporate tax is 20-25% ("vennootschapsbelasting")

There is no tax on profit for foreign company's investing here

[Kralizec]

Well yeah, corporote tax is levied in the country of origin.

[Fragony]

Well yeah, corporote tax is levied in the country of origin.

You can do it here is well, but you would have to pay to explain it. It's quite easy to evade taxation if you know how,hint: if you borrow money from yourself they got nothing on you

[Kralizec]

One: Eliminate the mortgage tax deduction, which lets homeowners deduct the interest they pay on their mortgages. Gone. After all, big houses get bigger tax breaks, driving up prices for everyone. Why distort the housing market and subsidize people buying expensive houses?

We have that over here; they recently agreed to narrow it down in a half assed manner - most economists agree that it needs to go entirely at some point, but that's blocked by certain parties.


Three: Eliminate the corporate income tax. Completely. If companies reinvest the money into their businesses, that's good. Don't tax companies in an effort to tax rich people.

Aren't investments already tax deductible? Over here you can write off an investment, proportionally, over the years of the economic life of the investment. Scrapping the corporate tax will just make it relatively more attractive to give away the profits as dividends. Unless I'm missing something here.


Four: Eliminate all income and payroll taxes. All of them. For everyone. Taxes discourage whatever you're taxing, but we like income, so why tax it? Payroll taxes discourage creating jobs. Not such a good idea. Instead, impose a consumption tax, designed to be progressive to protect lower-income households.

I'm guessing the idea here is to make it more attractive to work and earn money. But if you at the same time discourage people from spending it, how's that any better? People will put it into their bank accounts, shifting the focus from demand from domestic consumption to financial products.


Five: Tax carbon emissions. Yes, that means higher gasoline prices. It's a kind of consumption tax, and can be structured to make sure it doesn't disproportionately harm lower-income Americans. More, it's taxing something that's bad, which gives people an incentive to stop polluting.

I don't think that this is the best way to discourage pollution, personally.


Six: Legalize marijuana. Stop spending so much trying to put pot users and dealers in jail — it costs a lot of money to catch them, prosecute them, and then put them up in jail. Criminalizing drugs also drives drug prices up, making gang leaders rich.

No argument here.

[Fragony]

'Aren't investments already tax deductible? Over here you can write off an investment, proportionally, over the years of the economic life of the investment. Scrapping the corporate tax will just make it relatively more attractive to give away the profits as dividends. Unless I'm missing something here.,

You are missing something here, my money is in a BV tax can't get it. If they try I will do my utmost best to hurt them personally and that is not a threat it's a promise.

[Kralizec]

'Aren't investments already tax deductible? Over here you can write off an investment, proportionally, over the years of the economic life of the investment. Scrapping the corporate tax will just make it relatively more attractive to give away the profits as dividends. Unless I'm missing something here.,

You are missing something here, my money is in a BV tax can't get it. If they try I will do my utmost best to hurt them personally and that is not a threat it's a promise.

I don't really see how that is relevant to what I wrote there, but...

You'll have to pay taxes over your BV as soon as you liquidate it. If it was worth 50.000 when you started it and 150.000 as soon as you liquidate it, the extra 100.000 are considered profits and taxable for you, personally.

[Fragony]

Not smart

[HoreTore]

I always find it fascinating that when a libertarian wants to fix the economy, they want to change something in the public sector.

Apparently, it's the belief of the libertarians that the market cannot turn things around, they need to use to state to turn things around... Just like any good little commie does.

[Fragony]

I always find it fascinating that when a libertarian wants to fix the economy, they want to change something in the public sector.

Apparently, it's the belief of the libertarians that the market cannot turn things around, they need to use to state to turn things around... Just like any good little commie does.

Ok explain that one, I see leftist logic, everywhere

[HoreTore]

Ok explain that one, I see leftist logic, everywhere

I have the worst hangover ever, so my ability to formulate what I want to say is probably not very good today.

I'll try again: Libertarians wants a minimalist state, and to have problems solved in the market. However, when society faces a problem, they don't seem to talk about what the market should do to solve it, but rather discuss how changing the state will fix the problem.

For example, take the problem with rising house prices. The libertarian solution is to change the state a little(remove a tax cut), not one word about how the market can work within its current set of laws and regulations to fix the problem.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I always find it fascinating that when a libertarian wants to fix the economy, they want to change something in the public sector.

Apparently, it's the belief of the libertarians that the market cannot turn things around, they need to use to state to turn things around... Just like any good little commie does.

Or, you know, it's distortion caused by government intervention in the first place, and the simplest way to correct is to lessen how the government intervenes.


For example, take the problem with rising house prices. The libertarian solution is to change the state a little(remove a tax cut), not one word about how the market can work within its current set of laws and regulations to fix the problem.

Like I said - lessen the government intervention in order to let the free market fix things. With these issues, it's not the the free market can't lead to a better solution, but that the government is actively preventing this.

CR

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

CR, do you play any of the Elder Scrolls games?

Take a look here: http://oblivion.nexusmods.com/mods/topalltime/?adult=0

See the top 25 files of all time? Naked chicks, skimpy outfits and actual in game porn.

That's the free market for you, right there.

[Papewaio]

Interesting I thought most of the action to resolve the GFC was government bailing out private companies not vice a versa.

Corporations are formed to protect shareholder investments. Unfettered there is nothing that stops chemical companies dumping waste in rivers as long as the shareholder profits. So can someone explain to me again how maximized profit for some means better quality of life for all. Because this is the assumption that the free market is a better choice then a regulated one.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Interesting I thought most of the action to resolve the GFC was government bailing out private companies not vice a versa.

Corporations are formed to protect shareholder investments. Unfettered there is nothing that stops chemical companies dumping waste in rivers as long as the shareholder profits. So can someone explain to me again how maximized profit for some means better quality of life for all. Because this is the assumption that the free market is a better choice then a regulated one.

It isn't and "maximise the profit margin" should not be the driving force behind Capitalism, efficient long term investment of Capital should be.

The clue is in the name and as these people aren't proper Capitalists I see no philosophical reason why an actual Capitalist should object to regulating them.

[Xiahou]

There's no doubt that the U.S. tax code is due for a radical overhaul and simplification. Unfortunately, I do not see the Republicans in the House, the Dems in the Senate, or President 44 arriving at anything sensible anytime soon.Hey, I do agree with him sometimes!

[ajaxfetish]

Corporations are formed to protect shareholder investments. Unfettered there is nothing that stops chemical companies dumping waste in rivers as long as the shareholder profits. So can someone explain to me again how maximized profit for some means better quality of life for all.

I think most libertarians would agree that preventing companies from dumping waste in shared natural resources is one place the government SHOULD intervene.

Ajax

[Greyblades]

CR, do you play any of the Elder Scrolls games?

Take a look here: http://oblivion.nexusmods.com/mods/topalltime/?adult=0

See the top 25 files of all time? Naked chicks, skimpy outfits and actual in game porn.

That's the free market for you, right there.

First, You do realise the list you linked to had only 2 files that are even slightly pornographic in any way, in the top 25, right?
Second. What the heck does the elder scrolls' modding scene got to do with free markets?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Interesting I thought most of the action to resolve the GFC was government bailing out private companies not vice a versa.

Corporations are formed to protect shareholder investments. Unfettered there is nothing that stops chemical companies dumping waste in rivers as long as the shareholder profits. So can someone explain to me again how maximized profit for some means better quality of life for all. Because this is the assumption that the free market is a better choice then a regulated one.

Absent regulation (and I do support environmental regulations) there are things that stop dumping toxic chemicals; private agreements between the company and people who live nearby, the shareholders/workers not wanting the dumping of chemicals because they don't want to ingest chemicals, etc. But that's beside the point.

You're arguing a position that no one is taking, and then saying it's what we free market supporters are advocating. It's not.


That's the free market for you, right there.
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg576/scaled.php?server=576&filename=bunnypancake.jpg&res=landing

CR

[Strike For The South]

That example was terrible. Absolutely terrible. You should feel bad Phillip

As far as the suggestions go, grand sweeping changes work well in hypotheticals, but can't be implemented readily in a society where parameters are already set.

[Kralizec]

That example was terrible. Absolutely terrible. You should feel bad Phillip

I agree. If you're going to use some far fetched excuse to post porn in the backroom I expect better than this. Try again.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think most libertarians would agree that preventing companies from dumping waste in shared natural resources is one place the government SHOULD intervene.

Ajax

That's interesting because I hear calls from libertarians to eliminate the EPA entirely.

[HoreTore]

That example was terrible. Absolutely terrible. You should feel bad Phillip

As far as the suggestions go, grand sweeping changes work well in hypotheticals, but can't be implemented readily in a society where parameters are already set.

Small changes over time is the way to change things.

[Ironside]

I have the worst hangover ever, so my ability to formulate what I want to say is probably not very good today.

I'll try again: Libertarians wants a minimalist state, and to have problems solved in the market. However, when society faces a problem, they don't seem to talk about what the market should do to solve it, but rather discuss how changing the state will fix the problem.

For example, take the problem with rising house prices. The libertarian solution is to change the state a little(remove a tax cut), not one word about how the market can work within its current set of laws and regulations to fix the problem.

That's because the underlying assumption is that the market will fix the problem by default. So simply applying the free market is enough. Unless when it isn't, but that almost never happens does it.

It would be simular to a leftie always saying that taxing and regulating it should work.

[HoreTore]

That's because the underlying assumption is that the market will fix the problem by default. So simply applying the free market is enough. Unless when it isn't, but that almost never happens does it.

It would be simular to a leftie always saying that taxing and regulating it should work.

Yes, but that's the thing, isn't it? In addition to regulation, "lefties" say things like "priate companies should show more restraint with ceo wages", which is an appeal to the market to fix things without the state intervening.

We don't see the same from those who truly believe in the free market. And that puzzles me. Is the market so weak that a single regulation renders it unworkable? Why would we ever want it then?

[Beskar]

I agree. If you're going to use some far fetched excuse to post porn in the backroom I expect better than this. Try again.

I was looking at the list, apparently the evils that PVC are making example of are less popular than "pretty flowers", "shiney sword" and "pretty lights".

From this assumption, I think oblivion players are tree hugging hippies with a crow-like tendencies than depriving in lustful temptations.

[Fragony]

Yes, but that's the thing, isn't it? In addition to regulation, "lefties" say things like "priate companies should show more restraint with ceo wages", which is an appeal to the market to fix things without the state intervening.

We don't see the same from those who truly believe in the free market. And that puzzles me. Is the market so weak that a single regulation renders it unworkable? Why would we ever want it then?

The wages at the top are nothing compared to the money that actually flowing, you want the best person on top of it, you just don't get the guy but also his network. Cutting their wages is just false symbolism from politicians. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be held unaccountable, the banks who got government support are on a tight leash, rightfully so imho

[Lemur]

Since this thread is entirely about taxation, seems like the right place to leave this article. American tax system: perfectly flat? (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/07/taxes-and-rich-0)

federal income taxes account for just 27% of total government revenue collected in America. And the remaining three-quarters of the tax pie is quite regressive. The middle class may not pay much federal income tax. But they sure pay the payroll tax for Social Security and Medicare, which the rich can mostly skip out on since it only applies to the first $110,000 of wage income. (The Medicare levy, unlike its bigger Social Security counterpart, is not capped). The masses also pay a much greater share of their income in sales and excise taxes than the rich do, because they cannot afford to save.

The fact of the matter is that the American tax code as a whole is almost perfectly flat. The bottom 20% of earners make 3% of the income and pay 2% of the taxes; the middle 20% make 11% and pay 10%; and the top 1% make 21% and pay 22%. Steve Forbes couldn’t have drawn it up any better.

[Fragony]

Since this thread is entirely about taxation, seems like the right place to leave this article. American tax system: perfectly flat? (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/07/taxes-and-rich-0)

federal income taxes account for just 27% of total government revenue collected in America. And the remaining three-quarters of the tax pie is quite regressive. The middle class may not pay much federal income tax. But they sure pay the payroll tax for Social Security and Medicare, which the rich can mostly skip out on since it only applies to the first $110,000 of wage income. (The Medicare levy, unlike its bigger Social Security counterpart, is not capped). The masses also pay a much greater share of their income in sales and excise taxes than the rich do, because they cannot afford to save.

The fact of the matter is that the American tax code as a whole is almost perfectly flat. The bottom 20% of earners make 3% of the income and pay 2% of the taxes; the middle 20% make 11% and pay 10%; and the top 1% make 21% and pay 22%. Steve Forbes couldn’t have drawn it up any better.

We are having a discussion on that on a Dutch forum I also frequent, common consensus is that it's ok that the rich pay a little more, but there is a point where taxing the rich more doesn't live up to the returns the government provides. At some point it's no longer fair even with a flat-tax, at that moment there should be cap. Where that cap should be I dunno, wherever it's reasonable should do

[rory_20_uk]

I disagree with a cap as there is no cap on salaries. No one is worth tens of millions. Recent studies have found no link between CEOs' salaries and company performance. If there was, I'd be more agreeable to this idea.

I look at my salary in terms of my take home (Net) pay. I don't care if my gross pay is £10,000,000 a year - if I only get £3,500 a month. when I go for another job I will base the increase in the same way. If taxes were to be cut, Id doubt there would be a corresponding drop in the salaries that are paid.

Finding and stopping schemes to avoid paying should be resourced more. Perhaps if there was less avoidance, those who are not rich enough to do so could have a reduction as well.

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

We are having a discussion on that on a Dutch forum I also frequent, common consensus is that it's ok that the rich pay a little more, but there is a point where taxing the rich more doesn't live up to the returns the government provides. At some point it's no longer fair even with a flat-tax, at that moment there should be cap. Where that cap should be I dunno, wherever it's reasonable should do

Just having them pay the same percentage would be great.

Also, the CEO of the company belonging to the richest man in Norway(Olav Thon) earns around 250.000usd. I don't buy the argument that you have to pay insane amounts for a ceo. Nor the insane increase in wages they've had these last decades. If todays wages are what is needed to get a good ceo, where were all the good ceo's in the 80's? Were all the companies leaderless? Nah, they got on just fine back then too...

[Lemur]

Recent studies have found no link between CEO's salaries and company performance.
Confirmed (http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/02/focus-0). But man, what a nice racket if you're on the inside. "I like your haircut." "Well, I like your haircut, too!" "Here's another ten million, great job!" "Thanks! Just wait 'till I review your compensation, since I sit on your board as well!"

Currently, of the largest companies in America (those in the S&P 100), CEO pay has no correlation with either performance or market capitalisation.

[classical_hero]

1,2 & 5 are all done here.

We get a 30% deduction on private health costs. And if you earn over a threshold you get a tax penalty for not having private health. So clearly number 2 does not bring on the apocolapse. :rolleyes:

What are you talking about, number 1 is not done here, but i wish it was. You obviously have not heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_gearing_%28Australia%29 since you can get a tax benefit if you make a loss on the interest you pay for the house.

[Beskar]

CEO's basically want to be paid more because they can. Their living standards do not make any significant increases in comparison to people lower down on the payroll. This applies to many other "jobs" such as footballers who are paid 100,000 a week to kick a ball around. Anyway, going back to the proposals in the opening post.

One: Go ahead with that.

Two: I think basic and essential healthcare should be free at point of use anyway. (paid via taxes or some other contribution system). So this doesn't really apply.

Three: I disagree with this. The means of production should pay taxes, after all, they are taking money out of the hands of the people, that should go into improving the quality of life for people. Not simply holding peoples wallets to ransom in overpricing goods in the name of profit and silver-lining the pockets of a few individuals.

Four: Eliminate income tax and institute/increase VAT on consumption? I am perfectly okay with that. As the rich will also buy more luxury items than a poorer person (as more is spent on essentials and vat-exempt items), they would end up paying a higher percentage of tax through their lifestyle choices.

Five: This would work, but I believe this is already implemented to some degree already?

Six: Just slap a big tax on it to cover the expenses of use on society. So if smoking the stuff means you use up more funds on healthcare, the tax on the product should compensate for these things.

[Goofball]

How do you make consumption taxes progressive so that low income people are less affected? Do you have to show your prior year tax return every time you make a purchase in order to pay a lower rate? It doesn't seem practical to me. What am I missing here?

[Beskar]

How do you make consumption taxes progressive so that low income people are less affected? Do you have to show your prior year tax return every time you make a purchase in order to pay a lower rate? It doesn't seem practical to me. What am I missing here?

You don't pay VAT on food. Given basic maths of you would need hypothetical $100 of food per month (per person) to live, and you got $500 and some other guy got $5000, it stands to reason that the poorer person only has £400 to spend, opposed to the $4900. Which means that person will most likely buy far more luxury items which since it is based on consumption, they would be consuming far more resources, therefore, they end up paying far more tax and using the money on things which are not exempt as a per-ratio.

You could argue they would not consume anything extra, which means that surplus money just ends up sitting there in a bank account or underneath the mattress, but the figures are more socio-economical averages.

[Fragony]

Just having them pay the same percentage would be great.

I don't think so, that same percentage is unreasonable as long as their is nothing in return. Quid pro quo, I don't believe in mankind being selfish and economics being predatory. Nobody really wants to wrong anyone, it's a system of benefit.

[rory_20_uk]

I don't believe in mankind being selfish and economics being predatory. Nobody really wants to wrong anyone, it's a system of benefit.

Cobblers. Most thieves steal from others. There is no benefit for anyone else, merely self interest. "Blue collar" thieves who steal cars, break in and take one's possessions, attack and rob people. The concept behind the financial sector is sound, but most of it is not to distribute money to where it can be best utilised, but screw over everyone to make money.

Many companies, industries and individuals do help people. But to say "nobody" is far too broad.

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

I don't think so, that same percentage is unreasonable as long as their is nothing in return. Quid pro quo, I don't believe in mankind being selfish and economics being predatory. Nobody really wants to wrong anyone, it's a system of benefit.

Nothing in return? Rich people get plenty in return. Some examples:

- the infrastructure needed to run a business
- an ordered legal system(see russia for an example of what happens to businesses otherwise)
- a rich supply of well-educated workers
- low crime, meaning they get to keep their stuff

Etc, etc.

[Ironside]

I don't think so, that same percentage is unreasonable as long as their is nothing in return. Quid pro quo, I don't believe in mankind being selfish and economics being predatory. Nobody really wants to wrong anyone, it's a system of benefit.

There's 3 ways to come on top. Playing fair, "positive" cheating and "negative" cheating.

For runners, the positive cheater is strapping on a rocket+rollerblades. The negative cheater shots off the others' kneecaps (well the actual test was: are willing to spend money to sabotage for the others). While all types do exist in a society, the last type is unusally common in proffessions like stock brokers. Also worth remembering is that people are adaptable. In all directions.

[Fragony]

Nothing in return? Rich people get plenty in return. Some examples:

- the infrastructure needed to run a business
- an ordered legal system(see russia for an example of what happens to businesses otherwise)
- a rich supply of well-educated workers
- low crime, meaning they get to keep their stuff

Etc, etc.

So do all, needs a cap. It's unreasonable to think in percentages at a certain point, the point being the point where they have payed enough. They won't have to store their money abroad if you don't steal it.

[HoreTore]

So do all, needs a cap. It's unreasonable to think in percentages at a certain point, the point being the point where they have payed enough. They won't have to store their money abroad if you don't steal it.

"Steal it"?

Let's take "random rich guy #1"s rise to wealth.

When he was born, his parents got free healthcare for the birth and subsequent medical care. His parents also got child welfare money to raise him. Then he got subsidized child care, allowing his parents to keep working so they could afford a proper standad of living. Then he got to go to a school without paying. He got higher education for free, he even got money from the state for doing it. Then when he started his business, it was subsidized by the government. His access to a safety net allowed him to take on the risk of starting up.

Yeah, taxation is sooooo like stealing.

The simple fat is that social mobility is higher in countries with higher taxation(and higher average wages). Which means that you have a higher chance of becoming rich if you pay lots of taxes. It's not the other way around.

And introducing a cap to avoid people taking their money to other countries is rather irrelevant, since with a cap there's no reason for us to have their money here.

[Fragony]

"Steal it"?

Let's take "random rich guy #1"s rise to wealth.

When he was born, his parents got free healthcare for the birth and subsequent medical care. His parents also got child welfare money to raise him. Then he got subsidized child care, allowing his parents to keep working so they could afford a proper standad of living. Then he got to go to a school without paying. He got higher education for free, he even got money from the state for doing it. Then when he started his business, it was subsidized by the government. His access to a safety net allowed him to take on the risk of starting up.

Yeah, taxation is sooooo like stealing.

The simple fat is that social mobility is higher in countries with higher taxation(and higher average wages). Which means that you have a higher chance of becoming rich if you pay lots of taxes. It's not the other way around.

And introducing a cap to avoid people taking their money to other countries is rather irrelevant, since with a cap there's no reason for us to have their money here.

Yes stealing it, with the police as hired guns when the socialism can't hold up it's own pants

[gaelic cowboy]

Yes stealing it, with the police as hired guns when the socialism can't hold up it's own pants

I think you will find Horetore's point is that this fictional rich person has greatly benfitted from various subsidies and common goods due simply to the fact they were born in a western society.

Naturally these people become obssesed with denying others the same chance, which is essentially about ensuring there potential to make greater wealth. If more people rise to a certain level of income they are obviously required to increase there effort at wealth generation as opposed to relying purely on capital.

It's a sound strategy for the already wealthy as reducing the incomes of the less wealthy, middle class and working poor will result in a cheaper labour force which eventually feeds into asset prices. This allows them to control more assets easily and effectively force people to rent these assets from them.

Thats why no matter what country you go to from the USA to Sweden from Ireland to Argentina and any compass point in between the rich constantly complain about regulation, red tape and the lazy poor people.

Of course very few rich people want to live in an actual place that follows there creedo as that would effectively be Somalia.

[Fragony]

I am not into jealously. Some people are better of then me, I don't care. Good for them they are doing well. I don't feel I have any right on their money just because they have it and I don't

[HoreTore]

I am not into jealously. Some people are better of then me, I don't care. Good for them they are doing well. I don't feel I have any right on their money just because they have it and I don't

Where on earth did I advocate giving some of their money to me...?

[Fragony]

Where on earth did I advocate giving some of their money to me...?

Isn't that what taxation really is

[a completely inoffensive name]

Isn't that what taxation really is

Nope.

[HoreTore]

Isn't that what taxation really is

Not in any way whatsoever.

Taxes are collected so money can be spent improving a society. They benefit all, and so should be paid by all. The richest have benefited the most from society, so they should obviously pay the most(dollar-wise).

[Papewaio]

Absent regulation (and I do support environmental regulations) there are things that stop dumping toxic chemicals; private agreements between the company and people who live nearby, the shareholders/workers not wanting the dumping of chemicals because they don't want to ingest chemicals, etc. But that's beside the point.

You're arguing a position that no one is taking, and then saying it's what we free market supporters are advocating.
CR

Right because no good idea has unintentional consequences or people who will exploit something for money.

Read up how western companies export industrial waste to third world countries.

Pollute rivers with mine tailings.

Coal seam fracking

Bhopal

[HoreTore]

Right because no good idea has unintentional consequences or people who will exploit something for money.

Read up how western companies export industrial waste to third world countries.

Pollute rivers with mine tailings.

Coal seam fracking

Bhopal

You don't have to go any further than Naples, really...

[Fragony]

Not in any way whatsoever.

Taxes are collected so money can be spent improving a society. They benefit all, and so should be paid by all. The richest have benefited the most from society, so they should obviously pay the most(dollar-wise).

Society is a common decency but it's a decency that ends where some have to pay unreasonably much to uphold it. The money will just go somewhere else if you ask too much of it. And asking too much of the rich is unreasonable, just because they have much more doesn't mean they should pay much more for the same thing.

[Lemur]

Society is a common decency but it's a decency that ends where some have to pay unreasonably much to uphold it. The money will just go somewhere else if you ask too much of it. And asking too much of the rich is unreasonable, just because they have much more doesn't mean they should pay much more for the same thing.
Obviously this entire thing is predicated on what you mean by "unreasonable" and "too much."

I pay more income tax than most of my fellow Americans, due to the fact that I earn a good wage and don't jump through hoops to hide my money. (Really? Fake charitable trusts? That's the latest thing?)

I see it like this: If I choose to own a million-dollar home, I have to pay more insurance on it than if I choose to own a small home. If I choose to drive a tricked-out Lexus, I pay more insurance than if I drive a used Ford Focus. By the same logic, I pay more than most people in taxes, which is legit since I benefit greatly from the protections and conveniences of society. Have I worked hard? Sure. But I know people who work hard their whole dang lives and still can't get ahead. And there are hardworking, smart people who can't make ends meet because they happened to be born in, say, Somalia. I benefit from where I am, I benefit from society at large, and I don't mind paying my bit toward sustaining it all.

If you don't like your taxes, there are all sorts of shady characters who have interesting schemes to hide your income. Just hire a very flexible CPA and let him know you don't mind a bit of gray area. It's not hard to do, and you can literally choose how much legal risk you're willing to accept. When you have money, all sorts of people want to help you out.

Or you can man up, pay your fair share, and quit whining. We live in a great country, at a great time, with fantastic protections and mind-boggling opportunities.

[Fragony]

Obviously this entire thing is predicated on what you mean by "unreasonable" and "too much."

I pay more income tax than most of my fellow Americans, due to the fact that I earn a good wage and don't jump through hoops to hide my money. (Really? Fake charitable trusts? That's the latest thing?)

I see it like this: If I choose to own a million-dollar home, I have to pay more insurance on it than if I choose to own a small home. If I choose to drive a tricked-out Lexus, I pay more insurance than if I drive a used Ford Focus. By the same logic, I pay more than most people in taxes, which is legit since I benefit greatly from the protections and conveniences of society. Have I worked hard? Sure. But I know people who work hard their whole dang lives and still can't get ahead. And there are hardworking, smart people who can't make ends meet because they happened to be born in, say, Somalia. I benefit from where I am, I benefit from society at large, and I don't mind paying my bit toward sustaining it all.

If you don't like your taxes, there are all sorts of shady characters who have interesting schemes to hide your income. Just hire a very flexible CPA and let him know you don't mind a bit of gray area. It's not hard to do, and you can literally choose how much legal risk you're willing to accept. When you have money, all sorts of people want to help you out.

Or you can man up, pay your fair share, and quit whining. We live in a great country, at a great time, with fantastic protections and mind-boggling opportunities.

I would agree with this if the government would ever consider cutting out a pound of their own flesh. But they don't and never will, the ony solution that comes to mind is raising taxes.

[HoreTore]

I would agree with this if the government would ever consider cutting out a pound of their own flesh. But they don't and never will, the ony solution that comes to mind is raising taxes.

Damn governmentz gonna eat mah babiez.

Edit: no wait, it was "execute mah grandmaz", sorry 'bout that....

[Lemur]

I would agree with this if the government would ever consider cutting out a pound of their own flesh. But they don't and never will, the ony solution that comes to mind is raising taxes.
Different issue. Do bureaucracies naturally accrete over time like coral reefs? Yes.

Do regulations compound and grow in complexity, resulting in a self-directing maze of confusion? Yes.

But these are separate issues. I was addressing the notion that it's somehow "unfair" that successful people pay more income tax. Which I find absurd. As anybody who's owned a nice home and a nice car can tell you, when you got more, you pay more.

[HoreTore]

Different issue. Do bureaucracies naturally accrete over time like coral reefs? Yes.

Do regulations compound and grow in complexity, resulting in a self-directing maze of confusion? Yes.

But these are separate issues. I was addressing the notion that it's somehow "unfair" that successful people pay more income tax. Which I find absurd. As anybody who's owned a nice home and a nice car can tell you, when you got more, you pay more.

What's the most important contributor to the beauraucracy, by far?

The need to avoid wasting money.

That's the most significant driving force, and it's a pet-peeve of conservatives, actually. And it's the same in any big corporation. What do you do if your shop keeps throwing away bad apples? You add to the beauraucracy to decrease it. What do you do to prevent "freeloaders" getting social security money? Up the beauraucracy. What do you do to avoid cameraderie and bad decisions in government aquisitions? Up the beauraucracy. What do you do when you want to decrease mistakes in healthcare? Up the beauraucracy. And so on, and so on...

The beauraucracy is the only profession everybody wants to both decrease AND increase at the same time.

[Fragony]

Different issue. Do bureaucracies naturally accrete over time like coral reefs? Yes.

Do regulations compound and grow in complexity, resulting in a self-directing maze of confusion? Yes.

But these are separate issues. I was addressing the notion that it's somehow "unfair" that successful people pay more income tax. Which I find absurd. As anybody who's owned a nice home and a nice car can tell you, when you got more, you pay more.

If a nice car or a nice house offends you that's up to you, for me it's just a nice car and a nice house. Good for them.

[Lemur]

If a nice car or a nice house offends you that's up to you, for me it's just a nice car and a nice house. Good for them.
Fragony, I am one of "them." Gah, nevermind, I give up. It's like talking to a brick wall, where the bricks are drunk and the mortar is grumpy.

[Fragony]

Fragony, I am one of "them.".

I don't care, I don't want your property. Good for you you are doing great, there isn't any envy in wishing you the best

[Strike For The South]

Speak for yourself Frags, I want his stuff!

#OccupyLemur

[Lemur]

Speak for yourself Frags, I want his stuff!

#OccupyLemur
Specifics, please. You'll have to choose precisely which of my stuff you want. The kids are off-limits, but I might be willing to part with one of the cats. And I already hate my sofa, so maybe you can have that. I'm willing to give you unwashed hippies something.

[Fragony]

Well her legs look great, nice biceps as well

[Lemur]

Well her legs look great, nice biceps as well
You're operating off old information, I upgraded to Wife 2.0 some time ago. (Lots of improved functionality, bug fixes, better compatibility with my OS, fewer crashes. Definitely a worthwhile upgrade.)

I also went with Child 3.0, but he's really more of the same, kinda like buying an extra license for an Office Suite.

Exterior packaging of Wife 2.0 and Child 3.0.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/553660_10100207605624056_574555445_n.jpg

[Fragony]

That's cute congrats

[SoFarSoGood]

Of course in current day Europe the thing that scares economists most is democracy.

[HoreTore]

You're operating off old information, I upgraded to Wife 2.0 some time ago. (Lots of improved functionality, bug fixes, better compatibility with my OS, fewer crashes. Definitely a worthwhile upgrade.)

I also went with Child 3.0, but he's really more of the same, kinda like buying an extra license for an Office Suite.

Exterior packaging of Wife 2.0 and Child 3.0.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/553660_10100207605624056_574555445_n.jpg

I noticed the two major upgrades, yes........

[a completely inoffensive name]

Society is a common decency but it's a decency that ends where some have to pay unreasonably much to uphold it. The money will just go somewhere else if you ask too much of it. And asking too much of the rich is unreasonable, just because they have much more doesn't mean they should pay much more for the same thing.



"Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally.
Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came."
-Agrarian Justice Part Three

Yes, I got this from reddit r/politics today. But it's a relevant quote.

[HoreTore]

Yes, I got this from reddit r/politics today. But it's a relevant quote.

Communist full of envy and hatred.

[Fragony]

Yes, I got this from reddit r/politics today. But it's a relevant quote.

If you want to commit suicide perhaps

[Lemur]

Yes, I got this from reddit r/politics today. But it's a relevant quote.
Or to put it even more simply, when Margaret Thatcher said "There's no such thing as society," she was not actually saying that we're living in the Road Warrior. She was trying to say that people needed to be more self-reliant, and take more responsibility. The quote was widely parroted as some sort of dismissal of the entire social fabric, but I don't think Thatcher was a sociopath, so I don't think that reading is valid.

Likewise, when Obama says, "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." (Which is shortened in the conservative echo chamber to "If you've got a business, you didn't build that.") He's clearly parroting Thomas Paine, saying that social and individual advancement are intertwined and dependent on one another. Microsoft, for example, could not happen in Somalia. He's not saying that business and entrepreneurship are extensions of the Soviet Will, although it's being sold in that self-evidently false reading.

In both cases leaders were trying to make a valid, if a bit obvious, point. In both cases they are being taken out of context and clubbed like a baby seal.

I was going somewhere with this thought, but it's been a damn long day, and I've lost it. Gah. Never mind. Carry on.

[HoreTore]

It's always good to be reminded that the writings of one of the US' founding fathers would've been labeled as unamerican socialism today by those who express their love for those founding fathers and everything they stood for.

Selective reading is fun.

[Fragony]

It's always good to be reminded that the writings of one of the US' founding fathers would've been labeled as unamerican socialism today by those who express their love for those founding fathers and everything they stood for.

Selective reading is fun.

Tell me about it, I pride myself on inventing it. I did.

[a completely inoffensive name]

If you want to commit suicide perhaps

I'm interested in hearing you actually give an explanation as to why he is wrong. If you can give one that is.

[Fragony]

I'm interested in hearing you actually give an explanation as to why he is wrong. If you can give one that is.

Is the guy who packs the toothpaste such an asset to society, or is he just packing toothpaste. He didn't invent it.

[HoreTore]

Is the guy who packs the toothpaste such an asset to society, or is he just packing toothpaste. He didn't invent it.

That's not a rebuttal to Thomas Paine. In any way.

[Fragony]

That's not a rebuttal to Thomas Paine. In any way.

Sure it is, no part of the accumilation proces after all. It's called production

[HoreTore]

Sure it is, no part of the accumilation proces after all. It's called production

No.

Thomas Paine's statement was in response to attitudes like the one you posted. He showed why he believes it is false. If you want to disprove it, you can't just repeat the original statement, you have to show why Thomas Paine's statement is wrong and yours is correct.

What you did was essentially being a parrot.

[Fragony]

No.

Thomas Paine's statement was in response to attitudes like the one you posted. He showed why he believes it is false. If you want to disprove it, you can't just repeat the original statement, you have to show why Thomas Paine's statement is wrong and yours is correct.

What you did was essentially being a parrot.

Show me where he's right

[gaelic cowboy]

Is the guy who packs the toothpaste such an asset to society, or is he just packing toothpaste. He didn't invent it.

Mr toothpaste packer has a job that is his benefit from society.

He gives back to society in pretty much any number of ways.

If he does not exist in Fragistan then it's local economy is poorer and possibly even less safe.

If the citizens of Fragistan want toothpaste packed by machine then it will require a more complex society capable of building and maintaining such a system.

However even here there is a job for mr toothpaste packer delivering the machine parts needed for repairs in his new job as a postman.

[Fragony]

I don't understand what you are trying to say, sure he is an asset to society. But he's just part of the production proces he just puts it in a box. He was no part in what happened and has no claim to it.

[Centurion1]

Did you all read the same quote as I did or are you drawing from it what you want. Paine is simply saying money, property, goods and services mean nothing without a society behind oneself. Now he uses the desert island or even continent statement where a man is completely alone. Obviously in this situation your money doesn't mean crap and property is an imaginary concept since you don't have to share it with anybody. It's a pretty simple point and has nothing to do with communism.

For example in a "limited" society which doesn't value property as a concept or tries to say that all services are equal. These societies attempt to use currency and capital as an equalizer. However, ignoring the historical flaws of such systems let us look simply upon the fact that it is false. Property is still possessed even if only by the state because property and ownership is a inherent human concept. And services are not equal. The doctor is of greater value than the manual laborer the officer is of greater value than the private, so on and so forth. You can say this is false but at the end of the day certain factors seperate such individuals from their peers regardless of money.

Anyway all Paine is saying is that without society none of these things are relevant or in any way achievable. I do not hear many free marketers and libertarians screaming about getting rid of society and placing each of us on our own "desert islands". Nobody is denying the fact that society is important. Most people aren't arguing that we shouldn't be paying taxes back to the nation. You will notice that he does not say how many taxes an individual should pay.

Regardless I am not sure if you have read agrarian Justice before? Needless to say after this the man essentially says the government should safeguard mens wealth because poor people are stupid and willwaste it.

Personally I think the man was writing to instigate the french.

[Fragony]

Guess I misunderstood

[Beskar]

because poor people are stupid and willwaste it.

I argue the opposite, poor people don't waste it on things like gold-plated golf clubs. They waste it on being able to feed themselves.

[Centurion1]

I argue the opposite, poor people don't waste it on things like gold-plated golf clubs. They waste it on being able to feed themselves.

Okay please direct it towards Mr. Thomas Paine he said it in Agrarian Justice, his working mans manifesto, not I.

[Fragony]

I argue the opposite, poor people don't waste it on things like gold-plated golf clubs. They waste it on being able to feed themselves.

In front of the 1457864844 inch flatscreen they can't realistically afford.

[Lemur]

Paine is simply saying money, property, goods and services mean nothing without a society behind oneself.
Socialist!

[Centurion1]

Socialist!

money and society obviously mean nothing without society i think thats pretty self explanatory, they are social constructs. Services are still necessary.

Also, superb quote cherry picking sir I tip my hat to you.

[Kralizec]

People were arguing against Fragony's idea of a capped tax. That there was a certain limit to what people ought to contribute.

Suppose the cap is 1 million, and person A owns a factory that nets him 1 million of profits, exactly on the treshold. Person B owns a factory that produces the same things in the same way, but is twice as big in every way. B's benefits twice as much from the educated workforce, tax paid infrastructure and whatnot and causes twice as much polution. B also makes twice as much profit, yet is only obligated to pay the same amount of tax as person A?
Granted, the former only applies to business owners and not necessarily to professionals with rare skills, such as neurosurgeons or extremely good lawyers.
But there's a more fundamental reason: the only reason you can earn money at all is because we have a functioning economy and a legal system, and we have that because of the state. If you don't like the terms of this relationship you can move to Somalia.

[Lemur]

Also, superb quote cherry picking sir I tip my hat to you.
Socialist cherry picker!

Why don't you and Comrade Stalin go have a parfait while you're at it? Sheesh.

Give Chairman Mao and the fruit salad song (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gB4MNu6W9sg) my warm regards, commie.

[truth1337]

i think national banks should be abolished

[Centurion1]

i think national banks should be abolished

Thanks for the contribution tell me again more about how america's growth is negative.

[Centurion1]

People were arguing against Fragony's idea of a capped tax. That there was a certain limit to what people ought to contribute.

Suppose the cap is 1 million, and person A owns a factory that nets him 1 million of profits, exactly on the treshold. Person B owns a factory that produces the same things in the same way, but is twice as big in every way. B's benefits twice as much from the educated workforce, tax paid infrastructure and whatnot and causes twice as much polution. B also makes twice as much profit, yet is only obligated to pay the same amount of tax as person A?
Granted, the former only applies to business owners and not necessarily to professionals with rare skills, such as neurosurgeons or extremely good lawyers.
But there's a more fundamental reason: the only reason you can earn money at all is because we have a functioning economy and a legal system, and we have that because of the state. If you don't like the terms of this relationship you can move to Somalia.

What happens when all those businesses leave.... go visit the american rustbelt and tell me how it looks bro. It is a symbiotic relationship that requires both businessmen and the state. And whenever state decides to take over more and more and demand more and more the businessman simply moves on to other eager less clingy governments.

[truth1337]

Thanks for the contribution tell me again more about how america's growth is negative.
sorry i'm not sure i understand your question ???

[Beskar]

In front of the 1457864844 inch flatscreen they can't realistically afford.

I have one of those said flatscreens (50 inch), you can get them for 300 euro. They're not that expensive.

[Centurion1]

I have one of those said flatscreens (50 inch), you can get them for 300 euro. They're not that expensive.

Completely unaware of what it is like to not have money apparently. 300 euros is a lot of money when you bring home 17k a year. So are 300 dollar Jordan Galaxies but poor people love and provde the main purchasing power for jordan.

[Beskar]

Completely unaware of what it is like to not have money apparently. 300 euros is a lot of money when you bring home 17k a year. So are 300 dollar Jordan Galaxies but poor people love and provde the main purchasing power for jordan.

Considering smokers spend 1825 per year on average and a TV will last you a few years minimum, 300 isn't -that much-. It is all about priorities, cash on hand, savings and the like. As you said, you are talking about these "Jordan Galaxies", simply don't buy those and there is that TV money there?

I know all about "what it is like not to have money", I am however, 'money intelligent' so I know what I will be able to afford and the impact of certain lifestyle choices.

[Centurion1]

Considering smokers spend 1825 per year on average and a TV will last you a few years minimum, 300 isn't -that much-. It is all about priorities, cash on hand, savings and the like. As you said, you are talking about these "Jordan Galaxies", simply don't buy those and there is that TV money there?

I know all about "what it is like not to have money", I am however, 'money intelligent' so I know what I will be able to afford and the impact of certain lifestyle choices.

It is too bad that poor are overwhelmingly
NOT intelligent which is why they are poor so they buy 300 dollar tvs and sneakers. "what if they just don't buy the sneakers and use the money for a tv" is maybe the most misguided thing I've ever read

Also news flash poor people are the most likely smokers

[Centurion1]

:inquisitive:

Are you serious Cent? There's plenty of stupid middle class people and stupid rich people too.

I swear.. its like you're saying poor people aren't allowed to have fun. That they'd better suck it the hell up and devote every waking moment to fixing their poorness, god forbid they smoke!

But hey, its not like society isn't geared to take advantage of the poor or anything, right? Surely there wouldn't be targetted advertisements based on income demographics, or banks who go out of their way to steer poor people towards unfair loans, or anything like that...

Of course there are. But are you going to put money on if you lined up 10 rich poor and middle class people the smartest would be the poor? I'm not talking some questionably poor (ie poor people but not minimum wage) i am referring to bottom of the barrel 17kers.


That they'd better suck it the hell up and devote every waking moment to fixing their poorness, god forbid they smoke!

Yeah I am saying that. My family didnt have too much money for awhile after my dad retired from the navy. And it wasn't the happiest of times in the centurion household. But we made sacrifices and it was hard but my father managed to get a good job and now it's more than comfortable. But that time was very hard and isnt something I forget. My father quit smoking, they didn't drink etc etc. These aren't big consumers to begin with but for that period they cut out any frivolous spending whatsoever (or it certainly seemed so in my young mind) and thus stayed out of debt.

People who don't know what they can afford shouldnt be swayed by a bank telling them they can afford it. If a bank official told me I could afford a 250000 dollar house on my current income I would laugh in their faces.

[a completely inoffensive name]

sorry i'm not sure i understand your question ???

He is saying that your mind is weak and your opinion is vapid.

Btw, welcome to the backroom.

[Fragony]

It is too bad that poor are overwhelmingly
NOT intelligent which is why they are poor so they buy 300 dollar tvs and sneakers. "what if they just don't buy the sneakers and use the money for a tv" is maybe the most misguided thing I've ever read

Also news flash poor people are the most likely smokers

In a poor area here you will see more people wearing prada's and gold juwelry then in the rich parts.

[Ironside]

Of course there are. But are you going to put money on if you lined up 10 rich poor and middle class people the smartest would be the poor? I'm not talking some questionably poor (ie poor people but not minimum wage) i am referring to bottom of the barrel 17kers.


Economically, that's actually a good question. Some poor people might moan and bitch about it, but at least they get some economic sense beaten into them (that they soon forget as soon as they'll get more money). Same type in the middle class has no real savings and any economical disruption will cause a crash and burn.

Some people are always "poor", no matter their income, since they lack any economic sense.


In a poor area here you will see more people wearing prada's and gold juwelry then in the rich parts.

That has to do with that social status amongst poor are often related to clothing. If they can squeeze it in by having a very low rent for example, it's not really a problem.

[gaelic cowboy]

i think national banks should be abolished

Why??

Without central banks who prints the money and who makes sure banks dont loose your deposits.

[rory_20_uk]

In a poor area here you will see more people wearing prada's and gold juwelry then in the rich parts.

I'm not rich, but my idea / value of "self" is related to my job and qualifications. Thus I value and put a lot of effort into my job, looking towards promotion and to new qualifications.

Those devoid of anything else will collect trinkets, be they the poor or rich cattle.

~:smoking:

[truth1337]

He is saying that your mind is weak and your opinion is vapid.

Btw, welcome to the backroom.
Thank you for clarifying ;)

[truth1337]

Why??

Without central banks who prints the money and who makes sure banks dont loose your deposits.

Maybe you're right, that we need guys creating money out of thin air (i.e. causing inflation = hidden tax), then ledning it to the government and demanding it back with interest, i.e. lending something they didn't have but demanding money back for it. Also it is very good that these bank gangsters steal our gold reserves. Did you know, the European gold reserves have been halved because traitors such as Gordon Brown sold out the gold reserve to Bilderberg group gangsters for buddy prices? The founders of America created America for one reason and one reason only - to create a country free of the Rothschild national bank cartels. The Federal Reserve tried to force itself upon America several times, but was driven back, thanks to heroic sacrifices from many brave presidents who lost their lives in the struggle. In 1913, that dream was crushed, as the Federal Reserve established itself permanently, and it has now existed for 99 years - 99 years filled of engineered crises, and debt slavery for almost everyone in the world including American citizens, to the House of Rothschild, as well as Warburg, Rockefeller, Schiff, Kuhn&Loeb (sponsors of the mass murder of 60 million white Christian brothers in Russia through communism).

And of course - war - the favorite method of Rothschilds to make money, indeed the way that little clan begun making its fortune, by forcing young men of Hesse to be conscripted and sold as warrior slaves, where they among other things were forced to murder Americans, to ensure Rothschild made money out of selling them.

National banks are communist by nature, and belong in the trash can along with liberalism, feminism and zionism.

Or is there any compelling "advantage" of national banks I have foreseen?

[Centurion1]

Maybe you're right, that we need guys creating money out of thin air (i.e. causing inflation = hidden tax), then ledning it to the government and demanding it back with interest, i.e. lending something they didn't have but demanding money back for it. Also it is very good that these bank gangsters steal our gold reserves. Did you know, the European gold reserves have been halved because traitors such as Gordon Brown sold out the gold reserve to Bilderberg group gangsters for buddy prices? The founders of America created America for one reason and one reason only - to create a country free of the Rothschild national bank cartels. The Federal Reserve tried to force itself upon America several times, but was driven back, thanks to heroic sacrifices from many brave presidents who lost their lives in the struggle. In 1913, that dream was crushed, as the Federal Reserve established itself permanently, and it has now existed for 99 years - 99 years filled of engineered crises, and debt slavery for almost everyone in the world including American citizens, to the House of Rothschild, as well as Warburg, Rockefeller, Schiff, Kuhn&Loeb (sponsors of the mass murder of 60 million white Christian brothers in Russia through communism).

And of course - war - the favorite method of Rothschilds to make money, indeed the way that little clan begun making its fortune, by forcing young men of Hesse to be conscripted and sold as warrior slaves, where they among other things were forced to murder Americans, to ensure Rothschild made money out of selling them.

National banks are communist by nature, and belong in the trash can along with liberalism, feminism and zionism.

Or is there any compelling "advantage" of national banks I have foreseen?

What do you smoke?

And gold standard and gold in general is outdated and for backwoods resident to long for with no real idea of how real world economics function on a global scale.

[rory_20_uk]

Maybe you're right, that we need guys creating money out of thin air (i.e. causing inflation = hidden tax), then ledning it to the government and demanding it back with interest, i.e. lending something they didn't have but demanding money back for it. Also it is very good that these bank gangsters steal our gold reserves. Did you know, the European gold reserves have been halved because traitors such as Gordon Brown sold out the gold reserve to Bilderberg group gangsters for buddy prices? The founders of America created America for one reason and one reason only - to create a country free of the Rothschild national bank cartels. The Federal Reserve tried to force itself upon America several times, but was driven back, thanks to heroic sacrifices from many brave presidents who lost their lives in the struggle. In 1913, that dream was crushed, as the Federal Reserve established itself permanently, and it has now existed for 99 years - 99 years filled of engineered crises, and debt slavery for almost everyone in the world including American citizens, to the House of Rothschild, as well as Warburg, Rockefeller, Schiff, Kuhn&Loeb (sponsors of the mass murder of 60 million white Christian brothers in Russia through communism).

And of course - war - the favorite method of Rothschilds to make money, indeed the way that little clan begun making its fortune, by forcing young men of Hesse to be conscripted and sold as warrior slaves, where they among other things were forced to murder Americans, to ensure Rothschild made money out of selling them.

National banks are communist by nature, and belong in the trash can along with liberalism, feminism and zionism.

Or is there any compelling "advantage" of national banks I have foreseen?

You're going to fit in well around here...

~:smoking:

[truth1337]

What do you smoke?

And gold standard and gold in general is outdated and for backwoods resident to long for with no real idea of how real world economics function on a global scale.
Gold is the only thing of real value that a state can accumulate, as paper money is merely worth what you can make people believe it is worth. If Rothschilds steal all our gold, outsource everything to China, then provoke a global war between USA-Israel-Europe on one side and Syria-Iran-Russia-China on the other, while fleeing themselves to China, they will have total economical control when the ceasefire is signed. I wouldn't say Rothschilds have shown in the past, to be hesitant to make such sacrifices of other people's lives.

It is the Rothschilds that want us to believe we're stupid when we say the obvious - that their system is a criminal fraud and that they should be arrested, hung, drawn and quartered for it. They keep saying that there is some "complicated economical truth that you simply can't understand unless you're one of those with the magical talent". Yet they never provide any arguments. Believe me kid, I was a commie junkie/Federal Reserve banker fanclub member unknowingly for 10 years until I woke up, so unless you got some real arguments to support your statement, I'm not going back to the Satanic thing that communism is.

[rory_20_uk]

Is it a coincidence that the groups you blame for this happen to be... Jewish?

~:smoking:

[truth1337]

Is it a coincidence that the groups you blame for this happen to be... Jewish?

~:smoking:
If they were eskimos or Irishmen, I'd blame them just as much.

[Centurion1]

Gold is the only thing of real value that a state can accumulate, as paper money is merely worth what you can make people believe it is worth. If Rothschilds steal all our gold, outsource everything to China, then provoke a global war between USA-Israel-Europe on one side and Syria-Iran-Russia-China on the other, while fleeing themselves to China, they will have total economical control when the ceasefire is signed. I wouldn't say Rothschilds have shown in the past, to be hesitant to make such sacrifices of other people's lives.

It is the Rothschilds that want us to believe we're stupid when we say the obvious - that their system is a criminal fraud and that they should be arrested, hung, drawn and quartered for it. They keep saying that there is some "complicated economical truth that you simply can't understand unless you're one of those with the magical talent". Yet they never provide any arguments. Believe me kid, I was a commie junkie/Federal Reserve banker fanclub member unknowingly for 10 years until I woke up, so unless you got some real arguments to support your statement, I'm not going back to the Satanic thing that communism is.

Gold has imaginary value silly boy.

[rory_20_uk]

Dem Jewz didn't sign it into law. It was the President.
The Senate and Congress wasn't full of Jews.

The blame is squarely with the legislative and executive branches of state.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Gold has imaginary value silly boy.

True, but you could also call it the only real concensus mankind ever achieved

[truth1337]

Dem Jewz didn't sign it into law. It was the President.
The Senate and Congress wasn't full of Jews.

The blame is squarely with the legislative and executive branches of state.

~:smoking:
So what? Are you implying that it matters whether they're Jews or not? The only thing that matters is that the Federal Reserve is criminal and communist and liberal by nature and should be abolished ASAP and all the ringleaders sentenced for crimes against humanity.

[Centurion1]

True, but you could also call it the only real concensus mankind ever achieved

Gold has been worthless in certain societies. I understand your point but it doesn't make its value real.

[Ironside]

So what? Are you implying that it matters whether they're Jews or not? The only thing that matters is that the Federal Reserve is criminal and communist and liberal by nature and should be abolished ASAP and all the ringleaders sentenced for crimes against humanity.

Well, the tiny matter of big warning signs of balony conspiratist theories (connected by Jews somehow) shows up when you're talking about zionism, liberalism, communism, the federal reserve and feminism in the same sentence. Please educate us of the historical connection between feminism and zionism that awoke you from your slumber.

And please educate on who is profiting directly on the inflation tax. I can give you the reson why it's prefered, but that's an indirect reason.

Also, it can be good to read up on what happened to the silver coins, to understand the problem with the gold standard.

[Fragony]

Gold has been worthless in certain societies. I understand your point but it doesn't make its value real.

Real enough to be bombing the Libyans

[Centurion1]

Real enough to be bombing the Libyans

say what

[Strike For The South]

I always laugh when people say Gold has real value.

Gold has as much value as we deem it to.

[Fragony]

say what

He wanted to switch to gold, that's why Libya was attacked

[Fragony]

I always laugh when people say Gold has real value.

Gold has as much value as we deem it to.

Take another look at our own cash, it's really a piece of iron or a piece of paper, yet it's worth something, you can buy stuff with it

[Strike For The South]

That's my point

[Fragony]

That's my point

And mine, gold always keeps it's relative value on any currency, I don't know why we like it so much but we all do wherever you go

[Centurion1]

And mine, gold always keeps it's relative value on any currency, I don't know why we like it so much but we all do wherever you go

Gold doesn't have any intrinsic value dude. It holds no purpose, like food, oil or fabrics. Get that through your silly little blond head.

[Ironside]

And mine, gold always keeps it's relative value on any currency, I don't know why we like it so much but we all do wherever you go

It doesn't. Ask Spain, who got so much gold and silver that it destroyed their economy historically. Or see current gold prices compared to before.

[Fragony]

Gold doesn't have any intrinsic value dude. It holds no purpose, like food, oil or fabrics. Get that through your silly little blond head.

I never said it has any real value, but it's still the only currency that will always be universally accepted though

[Kralizec]

He wanted to switch to gold, that's why Libya was attacked

I believe the conspiracy theory goes: he wanted to introduce the gold dinar, a currency for the African Union, and NATO didn't like it. And it's nonsense.

[truth1337]

I believe the conspiracy theory goes: he wanted to introduce the gold dinar, a currency for the African Union, and NATO didn't like it. And it's nonsense.

The Federal Reserve keeps printing new dollars and unless dollar retains its status as world currency, those papers would become worth nothing pretty fast. If raw material trade esp oil isn't done over dollars, but over a gold dinar - and this tendency spreads over the entire oil countries region - the dollar would lose value faster, since the world currency status disappears. Rothschilds, Warburgs and Rockefellers, as well as Ben Shalom Bernanke, would be the biggest losers from that.

So there certainly is a motive. They would surely not have missed any opportunity to push in favor of a war through their lobby groups, rather than against one. Because if the war had not been fought, the massive inflation of the dollar would have made Americans revolt and demand the Federal Reserve abolished.

[Kralizec]

For the gold dinar, I dealt with that in this post:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?141669-lol-at-arab-spring-again&p=2053456934&viewfull=1#post2053456934

Now the dollar currency isn't as influential or desirable as a reserve asset as it used to be and it probably will be less so in the future, but thinking that a pan-African currency would have the potential to take its place is a bit far fetched.

[Centurion1]

I never said it has any real value, but it's still the only currency that will always be universally accepted though

If the world engages in apocalyptic destruction the survivors aren't going to give a crap about gold. If we find a way to replicate gold somehow despite its status as a element than it will become worthless. If we find an easy source of gold somewhere it will become worthless. You are wrong fragony. Something like an ear of corn or a rod of steel has real value.

[ajaxfetish]

Gold doesn't have any intrinsic value dude. It holds no purpose, like food, oil or fabrics. Get that through your silly little blond head.

My understanding is that is does have intrinsic value as an electronics component. It's highly conductive and corrosion resistant. But yeah, that's probably not too closely connected to the way it's valued in general.

Ajax

[Papewaio]

For your currency you don't want it to have any innate value or external inputs or outputs that will artificially change the demand for the currency. Currency should also be portable, much easier to move a gold nugget then a calf.

Now gold is almost perfect as it doesn't corrode, looks nice and feels solid. Give a young child the choice between a $2 gold coin and a $5 note and they will chose the one that is heavier. It's a concrete physical item.

Problem is that gold has uses. It's too pretty and ductile meaning it is used in jewelry artificially puting it's value up. It is also used in electronics to connect parts. So as a currency it isn't very good when it's value changes with fashion.

Second problem is you can dig up gold. More gold = more supply = devaluation of the currency. There is enough gold that has been dug up to fill approximately 3 olympic sized swimming pools. Imagine what would happen to the value of gold if a mountain of it was found. It would devalue overnight and and currency tied to it would have hyper inflation.

Can't happen? It already has. Silver used to be in a similar position where it was a currency standard. Then an entire mountain full of it was found and now silver is worth far less then gold.

Can't happen again? Underwater sea mounts might. They might not be only be rich in rare earth metals but also gold. With enough geothermal energy generators plenty of gold could be collected in their filters. Last but not least with space exploration gold and other metal values will plumit literally with meteorites falling to the ground.

Gold fails. It is too physical, has too many sinks and inputs to stay a stable currency. And more then any other currency is subject to human emotions. Just look at its perceived value increase since 9/11. Emotive non thinking animals run to the pretty shiny objects. Might be great for birds doesn't really recommend it for a modern human society that understands the historical pitfalls (pun intended) of mined minerals.

[Fragony]

I believe the conspiracy theory goes: he wanted to introduce the gold dinar, a currency for the African Union, and NATO didn't like it. And it's nonsense.

Sure, oh these poor Libyans we got to save them. That's the official story. Which seems more likely.

[Beskar]

Sure, oh these poor Libyans we got to save them. That's the official story. Which seems more likely.

Rushing on behalf of the civilians.

[Fragony]

Rushing on behalf of the civilians.

If you want to believe that fine, don't we all love spending billions on them

[PanzerJaeger]

Not sure about the Dinar, but the Libya adventure had nothing to do with civilians.

[Kralizec]

Sure, oh these poor Libyans we got to save them. That's the official story. Which seems more likely.

Yes it's more likely, because the dinar theory is about as credible as "teh moon landin is a hoax!!111!1"

Conspiracy theorists have a knack for calling people who believe quality media stupid and gullible while not displaying any degree of critical thought whenever they read some random crap on a blog.

I'm sure that France and the UK had other reasons to push for Ghadaffi's exit. For one thing, Ghadaffi was a bad-shit insane opportunist who would have gone back to financing terrorists against western nations if he thought that it would benefit him; he even alluded to that possibility himself as a blackmail bargaining tactic over the years. I do think humanitarian motives played a part, allthough it wasn't the only reason.

[rory_20_uk]

There are much better, cheaper, ways to save lives than military interventions. THe money blown on Afghanistan is far greater than all the aid programs for the rest of the world over the same time period.

The UK had an old debt to collect, and luckily we managed to do so. Going into countries when they are hostile is not wise. Appearing to "help" one side whilst completing one's own agenda is going to be far cheaper and less likely to have blowback.

In Syria for example, it would be to go in, capture and render inoperative all biological / chemical and nuclear weapons as the most important task with helping the rebels or the people as a distant second - but it gives us an excuse to get in there and do what needs to be done.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Yes it's more likely, because the dinar theory is about as credible as "teh moon landin is a hoax!!111!1"

Conspiracy theorists have a knack for calling people who believe quality media stupid and gullible while not displaying any degree of critical thought whenever they read some random crap on a blog.

I'm sure that France and the UK had other reasons to push for Ghadaffi's exit. For one thing, Ghadaffi was a bad-shit insane opportunist who would have gone back to financing terrorists against western nations if he thought that it would benefit him; he even alluded to that possibility himself as a blackmail bargaining tactic over the years. I do think humanitarian motives played a part, allthough it wasn't the only reason.

Sure Kraz, you keep believing what is spoonfed to you, you are sure that France and the UK had other reasons but you never given it any thought what those might be. Teh civilians!!!!1! How very critically thinking of you

[gaelic cowboy]

Maybe you're right, that we need guys creating money out of thin air (i.e. causing inflation = hidden tax), then ledning it to the government and demanding it back with interest, i.e. lending something they didn't have but demanding money back for it. Also it is very good that these bank gangsters steal our gold reserves. Did you know, the European gold reserves have been halved because traitors such as Gordon Brown sold out the gold reserve to Bilderberg group gangsters for buddy prices? The founders of America created America for one reason and one reason only - to create a country free of the Rothschild national bank cartels. The Federal Reserve tried to force itself upon America several times, but was driven back, thanks to heroic sacrifices from many brave presidents who lost their lives in the struggle. In 1913, that dream was crushed, as the Federal Reserve established itself permanently, and it has now existed for 99 years - 99 years filled of engineered crises, and debt slavery for almost everyone in the world including American citizens, to the House of Rothschild, as well as Warburg, Rockefeller, Schiff, Kuhn&Loeb (sponsors of the mass murder of 60 million white Christian brothers in Russia through communism).

And of course - war - the favorite method of Rothschilds to make money, indeed the way that little clan begun making its fortune, by forcing young men of Hesse to be conscripted and sold as warrior slaves, where they among other things were forced to murder Americans, to ensure Rothschild made money out of selling them.

National banks are communist by nature, and belong in the trash can along with liberalism, feminism and zionism.

Or is there any compelling "advantage" of national banks I have foreseen?

About all gold is useful for is selling to one of those cash for gold crowds.

Nobody I repeat nobody backs there money wth it these days.

[gaelic cowboy]

The Federal Reserve keeps printing new dollars and unless dollar retains its status as world currency, those papers would become worth nothing pretty fast. If raw material trade esp oil isn't done over dollars, but over a gold dinar - and this tendency spreads over the entire oil countries region - the dollar would lose value faster, since the world currency status disappears. Rothschilds, Warburgs and Rockefellers, as well as Ben Shalom Bernanke, would be the biggest losers from that.

So there certainly is a motive. They would surely not have missed any opportunity to push in favor of a war through their lobby groups, rather than against one. Because if the war had not been fought, the massive inflation of the dollar would have made Americans revolt and demand the Federal Reserve abolished.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: I was going to write a big articel about fiat currency and gold standards finite resources but whats the point.

[Kralizec]

Sure Kraz, you keep believing what is spoonfed to you, you are sure that France and the UK had other reasons but you never given it any thought what those might be. Teh civilians!!!!1! How very critically thinking of you

Uh, I gave one reason in my post.

Conspiracy theorists reason from the axiom that their own government is always acting out of sinister motives, and that what mainstream media say about it is always wrong. Conspiracy theorists barf up some selective bits of information, half-truths and speculation and put it on a blog as being the truth about 9/11, JFK, Libya or whatever. Next: conspiracy sheeple read the blog, take it at face value and write posts on the internet where they criticize others for not thinking critically and swallowing whatever the quality media report. You are a case in point: you clearly didn't think of the dinar theory yourself, posted it as being the truth anyway, did not respond when I challenged the theory with actual arguments and posted it again yesterday.

I generally go by what's reported in the major news outlets, but I don't put all of my faith in any particular one. Mistakes are made, and there's the occasional scandal in a paper or TV station, but there's not an alternative which is more reliable - certainly not "the blogosphere".

[Fragony]

I find blogs to be quite reliable, not in the least because they have no reason to lie, quality media does because they are in it for the €. Especially when it comes to the EU they can't be relied upon.

quality media = ministry of truth

[rory_20_uk]

If one were to read enough blogs this might be true in term of crowds often are better than individuals.

Blogs are often written by those with an axe to grind or with a role closely related to what they are blogging about.

~:smoking:

[Kralizec]

not in the least because they have no reason to lie

You don't know that. Everybody and their mother can set up a blog to broadcast misinformation that suits their purpose. And even if a blogger believes what he writes, the content could be the result of confirming his pre-existing biases. If a journalist does that, it's called faulty journalism and a cause for a scandal. If a blogger does it and is called out, people shrug.

[Fragony]

If one were to read enough blogs this might be true in term of crowds often are better than individuals.

Blogs are often written by those with an axe to grind or with a role closely related to what they are blogging about.

~:smoking:

It's a blog's nature to be of a single issue of course, it are not newspapers.

@kraz, I know which ones are reliable. Best one is probably artikel7

[Beskar]

Not sure about the Dinar, but the Libya adventure had nothing to do with civilians.

Considering that Britain lost a lot with the removal, including multiple big money arms manufacture contracts in a middle of a recession, I don't think they were there for any tangible profit.

As for the gold dinar, it is a complete joke, biggest threat to the dollar was the euro mostly because of the combined economic might of the nations involved was greater than the American economy, especially if Britain got involved. If there was ever going to be any pan-african union with a large degree of success, it wouldn't have been lead by Libya anyway, it would have to be lead by South Africa.

Though at the current rate, the biggest threat will end up being the Renminbi.

[Kralizec]

Silly Beskar. The biggest threat to the dollar is, and always has been, the dong.

[truth1337]

You don't know that. Everybody and their mother can set up a blog to broadcast misinformation that suits their purpose. And even if a blogger believes what he writes, the content could be the result of confirming his pre-existing biases. If a journalist does that, it's called faulty journalism and a cause for a scandal. If a blogger does it and is called out, people shrug.

Yes, thanks good mainsteam media is owned by Jews, and Jews as we all know never lie!
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/jews-do-control-the-media/

[Lemur]

truth1337, this ain't Stormfront, friend. The Org rules aren't all that strict, but straight-up racism/nation-bashing/group-bashing is frowned upon. Might want to leave your white sheet at the door if you want to last.

[truth1337]

truth1337, this ain't Stormfront, friend. The Org rules aren't all that strict, but straight-up racism/nation-bashing/group-bashing is frowned upon. Might want to leave your white sheet at the door if you want to last.

Sure, I don't want to break any rules, either semantically or in spirit! What part of the post is offensive? What I wanted to point out, was that since in the discussion above it was claimed that "blogs are biased" and "mainstream media always speaks the truth and is objective", I wanted to point out, that mainstream media is owned by Jews, therefore it is advisable to be sceptical and also scrutinize such sources for they will likely as all sources be biased in the direction of their owners.

I'm very happy that alternative media is rising so that we can get different views on subjects such as the Middle east, and immigration. Especially the Kaufman plan and the Noel Ignatiev document, came to my attention thanks to alternative media. Above all, we realize through alternative media, how much mainstream media is lying, but also that different alternative media take slightly different angles. Reading all versions gives a richer experience, and greater tolerance for all people on earth!

[Lemur]

in the discussion above it was claimed that "blogs are biased" and "mainstream media always speaks the truth and is objective"
If you read what people actually write, I think you'll find you're knocking down a straw man.


I wanted to point out, that mainstream media is owned by Jews
I think Scientologists, the Reverend Moon and homosexuals will feel very hurt by your oversimplification.

[truth1337]

If you read what people actually write, I think you'll find you're knocking down a straw man.

In that case, I'm more than happy! Mainstream media and the lies they promote, are disgusting, communistic, and satanic.

[Lemur]

In that case, I'm more than happy! Mainstream media and the lies they promote, are disgusting, communistic, and satanic.
Um, so in your mind, one must either argue that mainstream media is perfect and infallible, or communistic and satanic? That does not seem a little bit ... constraining?

[truth1337]

Um, so in your mind, one must either argue that mainstream media is perfect and infallible, or communistic and satanic? That does not seem a little bit ... constraining?

I believe this thread has turned into a strawman party!
(if I had a picture of strawmen dancing and drinking beer together, I would paste it here)

[Lemur]

No, your exact quote was:


Mainstream media and the lies they promote, are disgusting, communistic, and satanic.
That's plenty exaggerated and nonsensical without me gilding the lily.

Moreover, when I suggested that the people you were responding to were not declaring the mainstream media infallible, this was your response. So ... over to you, Bob.

[Ironside]

Yes, thanks good mainsteam media is owned by Jews, and Jews as we all know never lie!
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/jews-do-control-the-media/

You know, last time someone did the "Jews are controlling the media", he had at least the names of the leading media roles. He was still mostly wrong (one family had Jewish roots, but got intermarried on the mother's side a few times after that, so no "pure Jews" there). Sources, sources, sources. Now if you can point out with sources backing it, then you got a point.

See, the big thing the traditional media can't do is lying. Or speculate without anything concrete and call it the truth. Not without risking getting sued. Blogs can and does that. A lot. They are the return of the rumour mill, for better and worse (they can be more reliable, contain better info or be pointing out things more clearly than the mainstream media does, but mostly they do not, and are instead creating echo-chambers).

I have to say that the calls for revolution of the oppressed masses are a bit low in the mainstream media, ergo it's not communist. Calls for satanic worship is also bit lacking, so you're going to have to expand on that for it to be making any more sence than "I don't like it, so I throw a lot of words together to make it sound nasty".

[truth1337]

You don't know that. Everybody and their mother can set up a blog to broadcast misinformation that suits their purpose. And even if a blogger believes what he writes, the content could be the result of confirming his pre-existing biases. If a journalist does that, it's called faulty journalism and a cause for a scandal. If a blogger does it and is called out, people shrug.

Example of statement I responded to. The thing is, if a journalist makes a mistake there is no scandal, if all people only read newspapers controlled by the same people. In fact, I can give an example from Sweden recently:
1. worst wave of racist motivated hate rapes towards ethnically Swedish women happens a week before the anniversary of the false flag attack Breivik did. I suppose the immigrants knew this was a good time to rape, because media would be making horror reports of "ze evil nationalist", who in fact is part of the Gates of Vienna anti-muslim pro-Israeli branch of "nationalism" which actually has no connection to nationalism whatsoever
2. the day after one of the most brutal of those rapes, which included not only rape but also beating after the completion of the act, as well as robbery of the victim's belongings, a woman (who is not ethnically Swedish, but rather member of a certain race that promotes immigration) calls for a "demonstration against racism towards immigrants".
3. nationalists, and the victim, and the parents of the victim, now beg these emotionally deranged individuals to call off this provocative demonstration, and succeed
4. nationalists identify the race of the woman who tried to create the provocative demonstration, because the fact she's of the same race as the massmedia owners, makes quite a difference, because the nationalists have seen the exact same thing happen before

So what does mainstream media report of the chain of events? They report:
1. Swedish rapists rape unusually many women (yes, they often put white pixels over the heads of immigrant criminals and call them Swedish to put blame on innocent white people, which is quite horrible racism IMO)
2. evil nationalists "threatened" an innocent poor girl who wanted to demonstrate against racism. The threat was claimed to be posted on a certain alternative media e-zine, which I was reading at the time, and I can confirm no such threat was uttered.
3. mainstream massmedia launches a campaign called "we're more than them" where they protest against "ze evil nationalists"
4. mainstram massmedia calls nationalists racists for identifying the race of the woman, because that race was the same as that of newspaper owners, but they're apparently fine with naming the race of Arabs who commit crimes. They launch a secondary twitter campaign called "identify my race too"
5. two weeks later, they launch a campaign where they say "the problem isn't rape, but the fact that newspapers report that rapes exist. It may scare women". This is after it has been repeatedly revealed that immigrants commit the majority of rapes, and that they're racist motivated and almost exclusively targeting ethnically Swedish women.

So, this is basically why I think mainstream media moguls should be rounded up and hung drawn and quartered.

[truth1337]

You know, last time someone did the "Jews are controlling the media", he had at least the names of the leading media roles. He was still mostly wrong (one family had Jewish roots, but got intermarried on the mother's side a few times after that, so no "pure Jews" there). Sources, sources, sources. Now if you can point out with sources backing it, then you got a point.

See, the big thing the traditional media can't do is lying. Or speculate without anything concrete and call it the truth. Not without risking getting sued. Blogs can and does that. A lot. They are the return of the rumour mill, for better and worse (they can be more reliable, contain better info or be pointing out things more clearly than the mainstream media does, but mostly they do not, and are instead creating echo-chambers).

I have to say that the calls for revolution of the oppressed masses are a bit low in the mainstream media, ergo it's not communist. Calls for satanic worship is also bit lacking, so you're going to have to expand on that for it to be making any more sence than "I don't like it, so I throw a lot of words together to make it sound nasty".

Since you live in Sweden, here you go:
Bonnier
Schibstedt

[Papewaio]

Didn't we just deconstruct the Swedish media ownership a couple of weeks ago?

Mainstream media. Hollywood, TV, Cable etc are all businesses that cater for their audience. Generally here we recommend quoting media resources that we use. Also we recommend to get balanced reporting you look for media with different points of view ie here in Aus you would look at our ABC (equivalent of BBC), Sydney Mornin Herald (Fairfax) and then anything else as Murdoch owns 70% of the media. It's a meat and 2 veg approach, just like eating you as the digestif of information have the responsibility to watch your sauces er sources.

Bloggers can get sued for slander here in Australia. So whilst they might not have the professional training of a journo they can get sued like any member of the public can. People working for a news org have to be very careful in checking facts as it is not only a hobby but their career. Mind you we have several journalists who regularly go to court and jail due to not bothering with staying within the boundaries of the law.

[Ironside]

Since you live in Sweden, here you go:
Bonnier
Schibstedt

Like Pape said, that I've already noted is wrong. Schibstedt has never been Jews (the family is older than it was legal for Jews to enter Norway). Has been on the stockmarket for the last 20 years. And despite some rumours, current CEO isn't Jewish either. The part of Bonnier owning the media empire has a Swedish, Christian mother (American Jewish grandmother and Swedish great-grandmother) and a one of the brothers are a priest in the Swedish church.

Ugh, about the rest. I haven't red everything about it, but some. You're missing that there was a nationalist demonstration. That will cause a counter demonstration by default. That's how the nationalists and extreme left (who admittably got more leeway than they should. That's pointed out in mainstream media btw) is dancing in Sweden.
Hinting that the start and lack reports of it massmedia (aka aftonbladet, that's owned by Schibstedt) is because starter is Jewish is entering some quite dubvious territory. Is it the 17 years old with Nadja Olofsson as the main one that's refered?

Point on that Swedish citizenship counts enough to be said to be Swede in the media.
2. Haven't been digging counts as an attack in what you've already written. Starting to count back on etnicity that's probably several generations old are dubvious tactics.
5. Points on that immgrants are vastly overrepresented in rape statistics and that rape has increased a lot recently. They do not target Swdish girl exclusivly, some maybe, but immigrant women are a more common victim compared to their part of the population. Rape is still not a common crime though.

In general immigration is complex, with benefits and problems mixed together. I'm gonna summarize with that I've had a discussion milder, but simular to yours with an Assyrian (you know, your Christian brothers in the Middle East) that wouldn't be in Sweden if his own solution would've been made. With your solution of "one nation, one people", minorities as him cannot exist within a country and cannot emigrate either.

[truth1337]

Didn't we just deconstruct the Swedish media ownership a couple of weeks ago?

Link please?



Murdoch owns 70% of the media

Exactly the main point - mainstream media is owned by a small number of people and that is the main reason why you shouldn't trust mainstream media.



Bloggers can get sued for slander here in Australia. So whilst they might not have the professional training of a journo they can get sued like any member of the public can. People working for a news org have to be very careful in checking facts as it is not only a hobby but their career. Mind you we have several journalists who regularly go to court and jail due to not bothering with staying within the boundaries of the law.
This is not the case in Sweden. As you probably saw in the example above. Another example happened today, with the pride festival. A group of people held a public, tax-financed meeting where they stated "white people are not allowed". Two guys from an immigration-critical party wanted to see if the meeting arrangers would actually go through with this thoroughly illegal and racist act, and went there. They made a video recording showing how racist the arrangers acted, and were eventually thrown out. Their video was published in alternative media. Next day, mainstream media accuses the two white guys of having "threatened" the arrangers of the meeting. The video proved that this was wrong, and so a member of the same party called the reporter who made this accusation. The reporter reluctantly admitted that it was false, and was then asked:
"Isn't it your job to represent the truth of what is happening in society?"
"No", was the answer.

So clearly, massmedia in Sweden, in spite of all the laws, doesn't give a rats rear nether regions about those laws.

[truth1337]

Like Pape said, that I've already noted is wrong. Schibstedt has never been Jews (the family is older than it was legal for Jews to enter Norway). Has been on the stockmarket for the last 20 years. And despite some rumours, current CEO isn't Jewish either. The part of Bonnier owning the media empire has a Swedish, Christian mother (American Jewish grandmother and Swedish great-grandmother) and a one of the sons are a priest in the Swedish church.

Ugh, about the rest. I haven't red everything about it, but some. You're missing that there was a nationalist demonstration. That will cause a counter demonstration by default. That's how the nationalists and extreme left (who admittably got more leeway than they should. That's pointed out in mainstream media btw) is dancing in Sweden.
Hinting that the start and lack reports of it massmedia (aka aftonbladet, that's owned by Schibstedt) is because starter is Jewish is entering some quite dubvious territory. Is it the 17 years old with Nadja Olofsson as the main one that's refered?

Point on that Swedish citizenship counts enough to be said to be Swede in the media.
2. Haven't been digging counts as an attack in what you've already written. Starting to count back on etnicity that's probably several generations old are dubvious tactics.
5. Points on that immgrants are vastly overrepresented in rape statistics and that rape has increased a lot recently. They do not target Swdish girl exclusivly, some maybe, but immigrant women are a more common victim compared to their part of the population. Rape is still not a common crime though.

In general immigration is complex, with benefits and problems mixed together. I'm gonna summarize with that I've had a discussion milder, but simular to yours with an Assyrian (you know, your Christian brothers in the Middle East) that wouldn't be in Sweden if his own solution would've been made. With your solution of "one nation, one people", minorities as him cannot exist within a country and cannot emigrate either.
I grew up among Jews so I know what I'm talking about. Before going further, I'd like to explain why I'm saying the things I'm saying.

First of all, I'm both Aryan and Jewish. It feels pretty horrible to hear people that could be my cousins, talk about "what's the best way to abolish the white race" and keep introducing apartheid. It makes me sad to be treated that way, by people who should truly be my brothers. Second point is, that I am proud of both components of my racial ancestry, and I therefore feel loyalty towards both groups. If either group gets hated or becomes victim of racism, I'm in danger personally. That is why I want to fight racism and hatred towards both of these groups. My attack on unrighteous Jews, is due to the fact that it is the unrighteous Jews that are the sole cause of anti-semitism, which usually strikes the innocent Jews, rather than the bankers and massmedia moguls that are committing the foul, hateful and ruthless acts that often become associated with the race as a whole. Israel is a Rothschild toy to please his ego, not a Jewish safe haven. No man who had love for the Jewish people, as I do, would put them in such a death trap. Especially, when there are THOUSANDS of ideas for how Israel could have been created without the ruthlessness that Rothschild used, and such plans still exist for getting out of the current mess. Unlike what many people with prejudice think, many of these solutions even involve an Israel in the exact same spot as the current one, but diplomatically accepted. The current Israel needs trillions of dollars to at all continue existing, but there exist THOUSANDS of ways to create an Israel, that wouldn't need a single dime to defend - a nation which would be loved by all nations, rather than being the least appreciated of all nations. Of course, it is not Jews in general that oppose such better solutions, but only the guys at the top, who want most Jews in a death trap so they will be dependent on people like Rothschild, Warburg and Rockefeller keeping a dominance over world economy, which is needed to secure the huge sums of money needed to secure the safety of Israel.

Apart from my endless love for the Jewish people, I have great love towards all Aryans. Therefore it makes me sad, when Jews such as Spielberg makes hate propaganda movies such as "Amistad", where he puts the full blame on the transatlantic slave trade on white people just because their skin is white, and omits all mention of the central Jewish role in it (again mainly from the unrighteous upper echelons of Jews, not the majority of Jews). That is a racist accusation from Spielberg, and with all such racist accusations made towards white people put together, undeserved bad sentiments towards white people are created, and they result in much suffering for innocent white people, just because their skin is white. Statistics show, for example, that white people are nowadays 39 times more likely to be victims of violence from black people, than vice versa. The anti-white sentiments in Hollywood movies, are in great part responsible for this.

[Strike For The South]

Part jewish and Part aryan?

That makes you full jewish in Aryan eyes.

Also, define Aryan.

[truth1337]

Part jewish and Part aryan?

That makes you full jewish in Aryan eyes.

Also, define Aryan.
Nope it doesn't. The SS had a restriction of pure Aryan for 6 generations, which is the strictest definition of Aryan I've ever heard of. I won't live up to that, but many half-Jews fought alonside Hitler, so being 10% I would still have counted as Aryan, I suppose. If you are white yourself, you can check the validity of your own statement "Part jewish and Part aryan? That makes you full jewish in Aryan eyes." on yourself. Would you consider a 10% Jew a Jew in your eyes? I think you have misconceptions about certain groups.

As for being Jewish, it is defined by having a Jewish mother by the strictest of the common definitions, but some people who don't live up to that, still choose to call themselves Jews. There is also the definition of Kohenim, which require 1000 generations of pure Jewish blood.

So I guess I can't be either, therefore I don't give a **** what either group think and claim the right to call myself either, as I please.

[Strike For The South]

therefore I don't give a **** what either group think and claim the right to call myself either, as I please.

Ya, those bastards trying to fit people in neat little boxes really need to take a step back and think about what they are doing.

[truth1337]

Ya, those bastards trying to fit people in neat little boxes really need to take a step back and think about what they are doing.

You're a witty man, and the force of the wittiness certainly gave that strawman great pains, maybe he will never again live to scare another crow

[Strike For The South]

How it is a strawman?

Your whole schtick is one nation one race

Yet you're a bastard

What's the term I am looking for here?

Oh yeah

CHECKMATE

[truth1337]

How it is a strawman?

Your whole schtick is one nation one race

Yet you're a bastard

What's the term I am looking for here?

Oh yeah

CHECKMATE

I never said people should be fit into neat little boxes.

[Ironside]

Link please?

I've to check this more clearly in the other thread but here's the links, in Swedish.

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnier_(sl%C3%A4kt) It's the 3. Åke Bonnier line that's the big owners.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Schibsted. Jews weren't allowed in Norway until 1851.


This is not the case in Sweden. As you probably saw in the example above. Another example happened today, with the pride festival. A group of people held a public, tax-financed meeting where they stated "white people are not allowed". Two guys from an immigration-critical party wanted to see if the meeting arrangers would actually go through with this thoroughly illegal and racist act, and went there. They made a video recording showing how racist the arrangers acted, and were eventually thrown out. Their video was published in alternative media. Next day, mainstream media accuses the two white guys of having "threatened" the arrangers of the meeting. The video proved that this was wrong, and so a member of the same party called the reporter who made this accusation. The reporter reluctantly admitted that it was false, and was then asked:
"Isn't it your job to represent the truth of what is happening in society?"
"No", was the answer.

So clearly, massmedia in Sweden, in spite of all the laws, doesn't give a rats rear nether regions about those laws.

And the full story is that they didn't allow white people there because it was a meeting about how hbqt among coloured people are felt (with the rascism aspect and quite possibly about such matter from their own community and family). Some people feel threatened with white people there during such a conversation.
A more extreme, but simular matter would be female rape victims discussing rape in an all female. Two gentlemen (who also are members in a group that has a reputation of being very demeaning to women) are feeling that such matter is very excluding to them and decides to join, simply to point out that they are excluded. None is going to feel threatened by that are they?

They did have a point that people feeling threatened aren't the same as threaten, and that's probably why they changed the headline and a few lines. Notice that the SR report is correct in it's current form and does point out the opinion of both sides (unlike nationell.nu). For the interview. Welcome to journalism. It's a prime example on an "assult interview", where one part is clearly so unprepared that they're unable to respond properly. Yes those are used and one big reason why journalists got worse reputation than politicians.

[truth1337]

I've to check this more clearly in the other thread but here's the links, in Swedish.

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnier_(sl%C3%A4kt) It's the 3. Åke Bonnier line that's the big owners.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Schibsted. Jews weren't allowed in Norway until 1851.

<Sarcasm>Ah, the highly reputable wikipedia!</Sarcasm>



And the full story is that they didn't allow white people there because it was a meeting about how hbqt among coloured people are felt

I think we both know that the policy of shutting out white people was a deliberate way of teasing and testing limits, and nothing else.

What is your comment to the rape scandal in Bollnäs that I described before? Or the white-pixeling faces of rapists, thus blaiming innocent white people and falsely giving the impression that white people commit all the rapes and that women should fear the "oh so dangerous white assault rapist stalkers" rather than the people who actually commit the majority of assault rapes, namely immigrants? In your world, is it all "tolerance"?

Here's a video from Norway, because marxist Sweden won't let such videos be made:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOJubxHYt4Q

[Fragony]

<Sarcasm>Ah, the highly reputable wikipedia!</Sarcasm>


I think we both know that the policy of shutting out white people was a deliberate way of teasing and testing limits, and nothing else.

What is your comment to the rape scandal in Bollnäs that I described before? Or the white-pixeling faces of rapists, thus blaiming innocent white people and falsely giving the impression that white people commit all the rapes and that women should fear the "oh so dangerous white assault rapist stalkers" rather than the people who actually commit the majority of assault rapes, namely immigrants? In your world, is it all "tolerance"?

Here's a video from Norway, because marxist Sweden won't let such videos be made:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOJubxHYt4Q

You are not completily wrong, but there is a very delicate line between seeing a problem and becomming a problem youselve. You have strayed too far

[Centurion1]

Hey dumb ass hitlers aryans do not equal white.

My slavic blood would preclude me as would the jew i harbor inside. I'm not even sure if my potato eating irish and baguette dipping french blood would allow it. I'm more certain about the english and welsh but not sure. Regardless the KKK would probably be happy to initiate me.

basically I think your an imbecile. i think your platform is predicated upon being an imbecile and I believe if you are a troll its just annoying and if your aren't there are plenty of adult learning centers where you can pick up valuable life skills to become a valuable member of society despite your handicaps.

[rvg]

Hey dumb ass hitlers aryans do not equal white...

Tsk-tsk-tsk.... you fed it again. Bad Centurion1, bad.

[Centurion1]

Tsk-tsk-tsk.... you fed it again. Bad Centurion1, bad.

I did it with flair though you can't deny that

[truth1337]

You are not completily wrong, but there is a very delicate line between seeing a problem and becomming a problem youselve. You have strayed too far
What in particular, do you think strayed too far?

In the cases where I say non-white race X did this or that, it is only to put it in contrast, to the massmedia lies that whites did it when they didn't. It is not intended as racism, but in defense of our right to exist and our right to not have immigration of people who hate us, rape us, beat us and even kill us to our homelands. If they weren't treating us like that, maybe it would work. But the way it happens now, and with especially Swedish media feeding us with hate propaganda towards whites - based on racist extremist anti-white lies about what whites supposedly did (but actually didn't!) - that hatred towards white people is fuled and it is no coincidence that black men commit violence towards white men 39 times more often than vice versa. At the same time, comedians joke about how whites oppress others as if it were a self-evident truth, when it is certainly a lie.

I love all races and their diversity, but I don't think we can live together in the same countries. And I'd say everything proves, that it is not the white people who are the big racists that prevent that harmony from happening, but the masses of racists who hate whites. Whites turn the other cheek, as thought by their religion, while their daughters get raped, beaten and robbed en masse.

100% of assault rapes in Oslo are racist motivated hate crimes done by an immigrant towards ethnically Norwegian women.
39 times more likely for a white man to be victim of violence from a black man, as vice versa. Who is really the racist? Yet, EVERY time racism is talked about, a white person is always chosen to illustrate racism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htEtTra7rdw

[Fragony]

What in particular, do you think strayed too far?

In the cases where I say non-white race X did this or that, it is only to put it in contrast, to the massmedia lies that whites did it when they didn't. It is not intended as racism, but in defense of our right to exist and our right to not have immigration of people who hate us, rape us, beat us and even kill us to our homelands. If they weren't treating us like that, maybe it would work. But the way it happens now, and with especially Swedish media feeding us with hate propaganda towards whites - based on racist extremist anti-white lies about what whites supposedly did (but actually didn't!) - that hatred towards white people is fuled and it is no coincidence that black men commit violence towards white men 39 times more often than vice versa. At the same time, comedians joke about how whites oppress others as if it were a self-evident truth, when it is certainly a lie.

I love all races and their diversity, but I don't think we can live together in the same countries. And I'd say everything proves, that it is not the white people who are the big racists that prevent that harmony from happening, but the masses of racists who hate whites. Whites turn the other cheek, as thought by their religion, while their daughters get raped, beaten and robbed en masse.

100% of assault rapes in Oslo are racist motivated hate crimes done by an immigrant towards ethnically Norwegian women.
39 times more likely for a white man to be victim of violence from a black man, as vice versa. Who is really the racist? Yet, EVERY time racism is talked about, a white person is always chosen to illustrate racism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htEtTra7rdw

I know all that, but I put the blame on the left because they will claw out your eyeballs if you bring it up. You are going too far because you don't feel quite right to my inner instincts

[truth1337]

I know all that, but I put the blame on the left because they will claw out your eyeballs if you bring it up. You are going too far because you don't feel quite right to my inner instincts

Fair enough, I agree the left is the menace.

[Ironside]

<Sarcasm>Ah, the highly reputable wikipedia!</Sarcasm>


Didn't need anything more for the family trees. Wiki is also quite quick to pick up that someone is Jewish.


I think we both know that the policy of shutting out white people was a deliberate way of teasing and testing limits, and nothing else.

Since they've been doing that for several years, it's easy to detect. If they're expanding the attitude, then it's testing limits. If they keep it the same way, then it's an honest idea.


What is your comment to the rape scandal in Bollnäs that I described before? Or the white-pixeling faces of rapists, thus blaiming innocent white people and falsely giving the impression that white people commit all the rapes and that women should fear the "oh so dangerous white assault rapist stalkers" rather than the people who actually commit the majority of assault rapes, namely immigrants? In your world, is it all "tolerance"?

Here's a video from Norway, because marxist Sweden won't let such videos be made:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOJubxHYt4Q

I would certainly prefer the more nuanced view of that vast majority of males are fine, but be on guard on the creeps (it can also be suspected that more immigrants than Swedes are going to give of those warning signs). Problem with nuanced views are that they will end up lost.

I do feel that it's part of media's job to reduce friction rather than fuelling a fire (it's teh immigrants fault!), but when overdoing it, it loses it's purpose. Fueling it, and you'll have those nice historical incidents that always ends up bloody. I also accept that immigrants will in general commit more crime than Swedes, as long as it's diappearing with times (it does), since I feel that the good outweights the bad in this case. A lot of the immigration got the life boat situation. Leave them and they'll die, take too many and will get a lot worse.

The incident in Bollnäs is very unfortunate, and a sign where both sides are dancing with eachother rather than resolving the issue. Seriously, you don't not join a nationalistic organisation and act opportunistic if you want a complex solution, instead of a kneejerk reaction, since every move you make will look suspect.

[truth1337]

I do feel that it's part of media's job to reduce friction rather than fuelling a fire (it's teh immigrants fault!), but when overdoing it, it loses it's purpose. Fueling it, and you'll have those nice historical incidents that always ends up bloody.

Now, who are those people who will become instant racists if they find out that immigrants committed 100% of the assault rapes in Oslo? Are you one of them? If not, then don't be so quick to judge others. And if people indeed get angry at someone if they find out the truth, then maybe that anger is justified, unlike anger from a few delusional individuals among the black communities who hate whites over the slave trade which was in fact dominated by Jews. Such lies - that whites exclusively did the slave trade - are not intended to "reduce friction" but intended to blame whites and depict the other group as saints. To quote Ignatiev, author of the racist instruction article for how to genocide white people without use of explicit violence - "Abolish the white race":
"Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed—not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed."

Note:
"destroyed - not deconstructed but destroyed"

Again I ask you to consider, if your reaction had been different, if the word "white" had been replaced by "Jew", since you for some reason think they deserve more protection than others, and that immigrants do too.



I feel that the good outweights the bad in this case

The rape victims disagree. Did you know, that in many parts of Sweden every 5th woman gets assault raped by immigrants? The assault rapes are also often combined with brutal beatings and theft of the victim's belongings. In some cases, like Elin Krantz, also death - caused by slow, meticulous beating with blunt instruments. What hurts so much more, is that many of these immigrants who do such things have wives of their own, and even kids. These brutal psychopaths put offspring to the world while they murder innocent white women, by racist motives.

What are the advantages that you think outweigh the massive rape epidemic that puts fear in the heart of every ethnic Swedish woman, so that she dares not live the same way she would have, if this hadn't happened?



Leave them and they'll die, take too many and will get a lot worse.

Yeah the obese Somalian upper class women that come here really would die if we left them in Somalia, now wouldn't they? Only about 1% are refugees, the rest come because Sweden offer free living, free food, free everything and even let the immigrants walk all over local institutions if they're not adapted to the whims of these immigrants. Bath houses must suddenly allow swimming burkhas and even force gender separated visiting times in many places. Kindergartens must offer (more expensive) non-pig meat meals for the immigrants. White people are kicked out of various organizations because "they're not allowed to a 'separatist' meeting".



The incident in Bollnäs is very unfortunate, and a sign where both sides are dancing with eachother rather than resolving the issue. Seriously, you don't not join a nationalistic organisation and act opportunistic if you want a complex solution, instead of a kneejerk reaction, since every move you make will look suspect.
The father of the raped girl thanked the nationalists, because they were the only ones standing up for them. The media was putting the blame on the girl. A Jewish girl named Ester Rogalski (the reason for mentioning her race, is to show she was non-Swedish which explains her not caring about the pain she would inflict on all ethnical Swedish rape victims) called for a demonstration against "racism towards immigrants" the days after. The police refused to help her photograph the damages - which is absolutely unforgivable. You know what a horrible suffering it is to be raped? The woman instinctively wants to take a shower afterwards, but she had to resist this instinct to take the photos needed for evidence. But when she does so, the police refuse to help her. She has to spend yet more hours without showing, crying, and having her family help her take the photos themselves. Later, when the family tries to get their voice heard and protest about the false media coverage and how it made the police unwilling to help them, they are called racists, and no less than 3 campaigns of "anti-racist" (which is code word for racist anti-white extremist) propaganda are sent to put the people back to sleep from their anger. And you call this that the media is "reducing friction"?! The good news is, nationalist alternative media visits increased by about 300% after the incident, and has remained at this level. Next time, yet more will awaken, until only the debile ***-lickers of the marxist establishment will remain faithful to the idea of "multi-culti".

[Fragony]

Sweden needs to have someone like our Wilders, Sweden is a bit broken as it is right now, it's a feminine society gone very wrong here and there, it has become a thought-police state just like the UK. But it's just not true that slavetrade was a jewish thing they had no acces to it.

[truth1337]

Sweden needs to have someone like our Wilders, Sweden is a bit broken as it is right now, it's a feminine society gone very wrong here and there, it has become a thought-police state just like the UK. But it's just not true that slavetrade was a jewish thing they had no acces to it.

Actually, I can PM you two videos about it. It was not a purely Jewish thing - I never said that and if I did (which I'm sure I didn't) - what I meant is that Jews were overrepresented compared to whites, e.g. out of 10 Jews, more Jews would be slave traders and owners, than you would find white slave traders and owners out of 10 whites. Here are three questions before you start looking at the Transatlantic slave trade:
- who had slave trade Monopoly from the Roman era up to close before the Transatlantic slave trade?
- who were known for being world-traveling merchants, and owned the monetary resources to equip ships for trade missions?
- why were slave auctions in America often cancelled during Jewish holidays?