#Arkhaven INFOGALACTIC #Castalia House
I don’t know about you, but I cannot WAIT to read historian Mary Beard’s latest historical discovery! She is truly amazing! I expect the BBC will be announcing a new documentary based on it any day now.
To receive effective memes like this every weekday in your email, sign up for the Daily Meme Wars!
Then keep the SJWs out of them. Stop trying to play nice. Stop trying to hide what you think. Stop trying to work within their system. If you’re creative and you’re talented, then stand up to them and fight them openly. Build your own platform, foxnews them, take half their collective audience away from them, and hit them where they aren’t expecting it. This chronicle of the ideological corruption of Hollywood explains why moderation and accommodation will never work.
“The blacklist of people on the left grew out of a defacto blacklist of people on the right within the industry,” recalls Orson. “There was communist directors, members of The Party, who only would cast you if you were also a member of The Party, or they were trying to woo you as a member of The Party. A lot of rightwing actors…were really furious at them. So when the Cold War happened…these rightwing actors, who had been seething for years about the way the communists were infiltrating the Hollywood business and were infiltrating the unions too, took their revenge. I don’t think that story’s ever been written because it’s not attractive for the Left.”
Orson isn’t alone in remembering this lost history.
“Morrie Ryskind, who was a Pulitzer Prize winner, couldn’t get a job because he didn’t think exactly like these fellows,” recalled John Wayne.
After testifying before the House Un-American Activities Committee as a “friendly witness”, the extraordinarily talented Morrie never received another offer from a studio again – and neither did other screenwriters that testified against communism in Hollywood. When the “official” blacklist era ended, liberals continued where they left off – freezing out conservatives…to far better effect.
“I think there’s a reverse blacklist, even today,” said director and Hollywood Ten member Edward Dmytryk in Hollywood on Trial, a 1976 documentary about the blacklist. “I think that the liberals who are riding high, are going in the opposite direction. I think some of the fellas back then, who were on the reactionary side, are having a tough time getting jobs now.”
This greylist has been fully institutionalized. “The Writers Guild of America, my union, is at a minimum 99 percent leftist liberal and, like me, socialist,” said screenwriter and MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell in 2003. In the wake of the blacklist era, the left gained complete control of La La Land using a tactic they now vilify on the big screen. In a sense, it’s a weird tribute to Morrie Ryskind, John Wayne, Cecile B. DeMille and the others concerned about how the far-left storytellers could use movies to rewrite history.
“Being not a communist is grounds for dismissal now,” says Gavin McInnes about being a right-winger in showbiz. The co-founder of Vice Magazine, Gavin is unquestionably one of the funniest people on the planet. From the founding of Vice in 1994 until he left in 2008, its comedic voice was his voice – and it was one that comedians wished to emulate. “Their brand of humor is what I would do if there were no ‘standards and practices’ on TV,” said Jimmy Kimmel about Vice during Gavin’s helm.
After leaving the magazine due to creative differences with his partners – he came up against Hollywood’s liberal enforcers. “Jimmy Miller is Dennis Miller’s brother. He’s one of the biggest managers in comedy. He managed Will Ferrell, Jim Carey. He took a real shining to me after I left Vice,” says Gavin. “Things were going great. And then he found out I was right wing. He didn’t ‘X’ me per se, but it’s exactly like being known as a pedophile…no one likes a pedophile.” (Jimmy Miller did not respond to a request for comment.) Since the election of Trump, even with his star on the rise among the right and a new show on CRTV, his entertainment peers have become even more intolerant. “I’ve lost 100{7a570d310fd04ee61246b4469264ca1004967a98be813fe63aaa5d2057987204} of my friends that are in comedy. I’ve lost 100{7a570d310fd04ee61246b4469264ca1004967a98be813fe63aaa5d2057987204} of my celebrity friends.”
This ploy keeping Hollywood a liberal bastion is subtle, but extraordinarily effective – smoke out right-wingers and their sympathizers, spread the word of their apostasy, freeze them out, repeat. This process is seen in every crevice of Tinseltown, and it quietly teaches a lesson to all watching.
Chris Roberts didn’t need the game companies to finance Star Citizen. Neither do we. PewDiePie doesn’t need YouTube or Disney. Pretty soon, we won’t need Hollywood to make our movies either. There is no place for us in their sandbox. Fine. Who wants to play in that disease-infested filth anyhow? Let us build our own instead.
After two generations of being pummeled by La La Land, the newly constituted right is punching back with a force that has Tinseltown scrambling.
Damn right we are.
But where the old right was content with closing their wallets to Hollywood, the new right thinks stopping there is the stuff of cucks. This politically incorrect movement has galvanized in a way that was unheard of just a few years ago. Instead of the Kum Ba Yah rallies of yesterday’s Tea Party, this new right prefers a more active approach. They bombard film reviews with negative grades, inundate show sponsors with calls to drop their advertising, and hit the most hate-filled celebrities with a flurry of boycott campaigns usually only seen coming from the left.
No longer afraid to be called racists, sexists, homophobes, Islamophobes, or xenophobes – because they know they’ll be branded these no matter what – the new right is going directly after their perceived enemy, rejecting traditional content, creating their own entertainment, and organizing on a scale that should make Hollywood take pause in their daily putdowns. Social norms are no longer barriers, and some are even willing to flout the law…all to even the playing field.
This is one of the main reasons I have an amount of intellectual contempt for conservatives: they always, always, ALWAYS retreat to deceit, despite their professed devotion to virtue and morality, whenever the subject is race. Every single time. And usually, the first person they attempt to deceive is themselves. Consider the following debate between commenters at John C. Wright’s blog. I’m not linking to it because John has nothing to do with this and it was merely a tangent from a different discussion, it merely happens to be where I caught a conservative blatantly lying – again – about my clearly expressed opinions.
Overgrown Hobbit
Vox Day has stated that homogeneous nation states are good, and forced conglomeration of disparate groups to serve lawless powerful governments are bad. The larger the state, the more likely the tyranny, the smaller, the more likely the people have of self-determination. Even if what they want for themselves is a short fast path to self-destruction. What is the wisest end for the Spaniards? I don’t know. But on this Vox Day’s foundational errors, that race trumps culture and intelligence determines virtue, do not appear to be in play.Bellomy
Does Vox Day think intelligence determines virtue? Ability to sustain a functioning culture, yes. Ability to understand the consequences of decisions, yes. But virtue? I am not so sure about that.Overgrown Hobbit
What makes a people capable of sustaining a functioning culture? Back to you, sir.Zaklog the Deplorable
I would say that a people’s average IQ is a significant factor there. Not the only one, but significant. Another important factor would be a high degree of societal trust, which is much easier to attain in homogenous societies.Bellomy
But I’ve never seen him say intelligence=virtue. Intelligence=more elaborate rationalizing.Scholar-at-Arms
Considering some of the criticisms he’s made on the limitations of intelligence on a personal level, I think you are right.Zaklog the Deplorable
Yes, it is never a good sign for someone’s argument to me that they appear incapable of accurately representing their opponent’s beliefs, and on the subjects of race & IQ, most people who disagree with Vox Day appear to badly misrepresent what he says.
They reliably do, because they have to do so in order to avoid admitting the fatal weaknesses of their own positions. First, Overgrown Hobbit is demonstrably lying. I have not only never said, suggested, or implied that intelligence determines virtue, or even that it is a virtue, I have specifically stated the precise opposite.
“The fact that intelligence is not a virtue does not make it therefore fictional.”
– Vox Day, 14 September 2006
And in order to avoid giving her any wiggle room whatsoever, I will address her particular formulation. You can quote me on this: intelligence does not determine virtue. There are virtuous retards. There are profoundly evil geniuses. These things are entirely obvious to anyone who has paid even a modicum of attention to human history and human behavior. That “foundational error” simply does not exist.
Second, there are many things required to sustain a culture, and those things vary depending upon the nature of the culture. Virtue was not required to sustain the empire of the Aztecs, the conquering hordes of the Mongols, or the predatory roaming of the Arab tribes. But intelligence beyond a certain level is absolutely required to sustain a functioning culture that contains interior plumbing and electricity, among other desirable things.
Third, race does trump culture. It does not always do so on an individual basis, but it is more reliable than the Law of Supply and Demand on the macro level. This particular conservative failure is based on their stubborn determination to rely on micro-level examples to determine the truth or falsehood of macro-societal concepts. Their opinions are not merely wrong, they are irrelevant, based as they are on inapplicable metrics, and from the scientific perspective, they are nonsensical.
Fourth, as Zaklog notes, and as I have previously observed, the argument for the Alt-Right is only strengthened by comparison with the feeble and dishonest nature of the arguments being made against it. The more they refuse to understand our case, or correctly characterize it, the more appeal it will hold for those who consider it honestly.
Fifth, note the tortuous way that Overgrown Hobbit reaches a conclusion that allows her to make a provably false statement. And finally, note that no matter how conservatives squawk, preen, posture, pose, and virtue-signal, they are still absolutely and utterly wrong about both race and immigration. Conservatism conserves nothing because it simply refuses to accept some of the less pleasant truths about the world.
Formerly “the most Republican county in America,” Orange County, California voted Democrat in 2016, after decades of immigration.
ESR, an avowed Yankee, explains why it is a terrible idea to permit SJWs to demolish the symbols of Southern history and pride in the name of diversity and equality:
The statues now at issue were mostly erected between 1865 and 1914 by organizations like the Daughters of the Confederacy who were fully invested in the soft version of Lost Cause romanticism. In view of current revisionism, it should be remembered that, in the time before the early 1960s when one could express white-supremacist and segregationist beliefs in the South and expect a lot of applause, the statue builders generally didn’t play that song.
We know this because we can read the dedications they chiseled on their monuments. Whatever the statue-builders may have privately believed, the face – the myth – about that they presented was not one of white supremacy justified but of virtue and heroism in a lost cause.
My cultural and political ancestors, the Yankees who had won the war, got out of the statue-builders’ way because we understood that the statue-builders were, in fact, cooperating in the great settlement between South and North. Making heroes of the rebels was not a large price to pay if it meant that Southern pride became American pride.
In fact, the deception was quite mutual. Southerners, by and large, tried to pretend their revolt had not been a defense of the indefensible. Northerners by and large, decided that agreeing with that pretense (or at least not disputing it in public) was a polite fiction useful to everybody.
The statue-smashers either fail to understand that great settlement (likely), or intend to undo it (not likely), or are pursuing a broader aim which I’ll address near the end of this essay.
It is 2017 and the wounds of the Civil War have not entirely healed. “Damnyankee” is still a single word in much of the South. Failing to understand the great settlement creates the risk that those wounds could re-open into divisive regionalism and eventual conflict.
This is especially so since Southerners already feel like victims in the red/blue conflict that now divides coastal urban elites from Middle America. Many Blue tribesmen talk as though they think everybody living more than 60 miles inland and outside a university town is a closet neo-Confederate. This is fantasy, but there is a possible future in which Southern resentment becomes the dominant symbology of the Red tribe in a way it is not today.
Some people are going to want to interject at this point “What about the insult to black people? Aren’t those statues symbols of white supremacy that should be smashed on that account alone?”
Brother, if I believed that I would be swinging a hammer myself. But the mission of the statue builders was to redeem the honor of the South in part by editing white supremacism and slavery out of our cultural memory of the war. They largely deceived themselves with Lost Cause romanticism. Making those statues into symbols of black subjugation would have undercut their whole project.
I do not want to see the post-Civil-War settlement undone. Thus, I’m in favor of letting Southerners keep their statues and their myths. We should let Southern heroes remain American heroes because that is what worked to pull the country back together – and because after the war so many of them really did argue for reconciliation.
The USA isn’t going to collapse because the South rises again, rather, the South will rise again when the USA collapses under the weight of all of its competing identities.
As I’ve observed, pointed out, and argued repeatedly, the trends are much, much bigger than individual men or even individual movements:
He must have known what was coming. Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, a pillar of the cowardly GOP Establishment, announced he would not be running for re-election on Tuesday [Republican Sen. Corker announces he won’t seek re-election, by Richard Lardner and Erik Schelzig, Associated Press, September 26, 2017]. Corker’s departure is widely being interpreted as a sign of the Establishment’s inability to control the GOP base, as the election of President Trump, the rise of nationalism and the emergence of alternative media outlets (such as Breitbart and VDARE.com) make it harder for cuckservatives to Republican primary voters in line [Sen. Bob Corker’s retirement is notable for when it’s happening, by Amber Phillips, Washington Post, September 26, 2017]
And now, we have the ultimate proof in Alabama. Judge Roy Moore, one of the most persistent targets of the Southern Poverty Law Center, is now the Republican nominee for the Senate. And he defeated incumbent Senator Luther Strange despite Strange being endorsed by President Donald J. Trump himself…. Even before Trump’s inauguration, when there were troubling signs the new President was surrounding himself with the Republican Establishment, it was clear that the President’s supporters would need to rise against Trump in his own name. The victory of Roy Moore is the best example so far of how this insurgency will play out.
And most importantly, it shows how the populist and nationalist movement is larger than Trump himself.
Trump’s advisors seem to know this. In the Fox News interview referenced above, Dr. Gorka claimed “no one voted for Trump, we voted for his agenda.” And during his speech in support of Moore, Bannon referenced Jeff Sessions, not Trump, as the “spiritual father of the populist and nationalist movement.”
But does Trump himself know this? Already, the Main Stream Media is trying to present this as a devastating defeat for the president personally. The New York Times kvetched about Moore’s social views and sneered that his victory “demonstrated in stark terms the limits of Mr. Trump’s clout” [Roy Moore Wins Senate G.O.P. Runoff in Alabama, by Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns, September 26, 2017]. Jason Le Miere at Newsweek suggested Trump had suffered his first major political defeat at the ballot box and hinted his political weakness could trigger his impeachment. [How Alabama Senate Election Results Could Trigger Trump’s Impeachment, September 26, 2017]
This wildly overstates the case. Trump had hedged his bets, suggesting at one point he made a “mistake” in endorsing Strange [Trump supports Strange, but says it may be “mistake,” Washington Post, September 25, 2017]. He also said he would “campaign like hell” for Moore if Moore won [Roy Moore: ‘I can’t wait’ for Trump to ‘campaign like hell’ for me, by Sean Langille, Washington Examiner, September 25, 2017].
It’s hardly a devastating defeat for President Trump when his supposed enemies are fanatically loyal to him and his “allies” can’t wait to stab him in the back.
People get caught up in the heat of the moment. It’s easy to forget that the battles of last week, last year, and last month were, at the time, seemingly every big as important as whatever the battle du jour happens to be.
You can only ride the trends, you can’t reasonable hope to control them. This is why it is foolish and futile to attempt to brand and spin and otherwise attempt to control a trend as narrative, because that is a category error. The main reason Alt⭐️Hero is going to be successful is not due to the quality of the storylines, the artwork, or the characters, but because it is in line with the winds of the zeitgeist at a time when Marvel and DC Comics are trying to fly directly against them.
If Trump is wise, he will not only recognize that he is not bigger than the movement, but that the movement is not bigger than the trend.
One of the great ironies of the Alt-Reich is that they claim to be National Socialists, some “ironically”, some not so much, while also claiming that “saving the white race” is their primary goal. However, this is akin to ants claiming that dressing up as anteaters and eating other ants is the way to save the ant species.
First, Hitler thought more highly of both the Asians and the Arabs than he did of most non-German whites. Second, the National Socialists actually planned to murder a statistically significant percentage of the white race, around 20 percent of it.
Generalplan Ost was the name of the project, which was intended to slaughter white people. Specifically, about 60 percent of all the Russians, Estonians, Latvians, Czechs, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Poles, and Lithuanians were to be killed or “deported” to Western Siberia. The Nazis literally planned to murder tens of millions of white people, but were prevented from doing so by losing the war to the untermensch Russians and the mischling Americans.
From Infogalactic:
The Generalplan Ost, abbreviated GPO, was the Nazi German government’s plan for the genocide and ethnic cleansing on a vast scale, and colonization of Central and Eastern Europe by Germans. It was to be undertaken in territories occupied by Germany during World War II. The plan was partially realized during the war, resulting indirectly and directly in a very large number of deaths, but its full implementation was not considered practicable during the major military operations, and was prevented by Germany’s defeat.
The plan entailed the enslavement, expulsion, and mass murder of most Slavic peoples in Europe along with planned destruction of their nations, whom the ‘Aryan’ Nazis viewed as racially inferior.The programme operational guidelines were based on the policy of Lebensraum designed by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party in fulfilment of the Drang nach Osten ideology of German expansionism. As such, it was intended to be a part of the New Order in Europe.
The Generalplan Ost proposal offered various percentages of the conquered or colonized people who were targeted for removal and physical destruction; the net effect of which would be to ensure that the conquered territories would become German. In ten years’ time, the plan effectively called for the extermination, expulsion, Germanization or enslavement of most or all East and West Slavs living behind the front lines of East-Central Europe. The “Small Plan” was to be put into practice as the Germans conquered the areas to the east of their pre-war borders. In this way the plan for Poland was drawn up at the end of November 1939 and is probably responsible for much of the World War II expulsion of Poles by Germany (first to colonial district of the General Government and, from 1942 also to Polenlager).
There is nothing “pro-white” about National Socialism of any kind. Indeed, in light of the results of the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, it is clear that Communism, for all its tremendous flaws, is in practice more objectively pro-white than National Socialism.
Which is why anyone who claims to be a Nazi is intrinsically and always anti-white. The German National Socialist Worker’s Party was German supremacist imperialism, and as such, should be opposed by anyone who agrees with the ideas laid out in the 16 Points of the Alternative Right. I know there are a number of young men who don’t know much about history, who are rightly concerned about the future of their people, but they need to learn their history, learn their culture, and realize that running around playing Fake Right Clown Nazi bantzing for the lulz will accomplish less than nothing in that regard.
Work out. Dress better. Get a job. Talk to a pretty girl. Read the Bible. Get married. Have children. Any one of those acts would be more genuinely revolutionary, and accomplish more towards saving the white race, than spending the next ten years Swastika Panty-larping.
It’s about time humanity stopped honoring that horrific racist, Gandhi:
Ghana has said it will remove a statue of Mahatma Gandhi from a university campus in the nation’s capital where it had sparked protests over the leader’s allegedly racist attitudes.
The statue, which was unveiled by Indian President Pranab Mukherjee during his visit to Ghana in June, was meant to symbolize friendship between the two countries, according to Ghana’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. But professors and students at the University of Ghana called the statue “a slap in the face” because of Gandhi’s “racist identity.” They started an online petition calling for the statue’s removal.
The petition, which had more than 1,700 supporters on Thursday, cited letters Gandhi wrote during his time in South Africa as evidence that he advocated for the superiority of Indians over black Africans. It also took issue with his use of the derogatory term kaffir to refer to native Africans and criticized the lack of statues of African heroes and heroines on campus.
Any criticism of the Ghanaian action would, of course, be racist. Also, colonialism. Needless to say, all statues of Martin Luther King need to come down at once, since he was a communist and an adulterer.
Hey, wrecking history is fun!
These observations – they can really only be considered “arguments” by the ignorant – are not new, but date back to the 1940 publication of Human Action, when Ludwig von Mises not only acknowledged the differences between Russian socialism and German socialism, both of which predated Hitler and the Nazi Party, but explicates them with his customary attention to relevant detail.
It’s particularly informative in light of the fact that Mises identified German socialism with Hindenberg, not Hitler. And it’s somewhat remarkable that the defenders of the false and ahistorical notion that the National Socialists were of the Right attempt to dismiss the whole subject as mere “economics”, when economics is merely the more scientific-sounding title for “political economy”, and the entire foundation for all socialisms is, and has always been, economic in nature.
There are two patterns for the realization of socialism.
The first pattern (we may call it the Lenin or the Russian pattern) is purely bureaucratic. All plants, shops, and farms are formally nationalized (verstaatlicht); they are departments of the government operated by civil servants. Every unit of the apparatus of production stands in the same relation to the superior central organization as does a local post office to the office of the postmaster general.
The second pattern (we may call it the Hindenburg or German pattern) nominally and seemingly preserves private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary markets, prices, wages, and interest rates. There are, however, no longer entrepreneurs, but only shop managers (Betriebsführer in the terminology of the Nazi legislation). These shop managers are seemingly instrumental in the conduct of the enterprises entrusted to them; they buy and sell, hire and discharge workers and remunerate their services, contract debts and pay interest and amortization. But in all their activities they are bound to obey unconditionally the orders issued by the government’s supreme office of production management.
This office (The Reichswirtschaftsministerium in Nazi Germany) tells the shop managers what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. It assigns every worker to his job and fixes his wages. It decrees to whom and on what terms the capitalists must entrust their funds. Market exchange is merely a sham. All the wages, prices, and interest rates are fixed by the government; they are wages, prices, and interest rates in appearance only; in fact they are merely quantitative terms in the government’s orders determining each citizen’s job, income, consumption, and standard of living. The government directs all production activities. The shop managers are subject to the government, not the consumers’ demand and the market’s price structure. This is socialism under the outward guise of the terminology of capitalism. Some labels of the capitalistic market economy are retained, but they signify something entirely different from what they mean in the market economy.
Note that the Reichswirtschaftsministerium, originally Reichswirtschaftsamt, was the German Government’s Ministry of National Economy, and was established in 1917, two years prior to the creation of the German Worker’s Party, the predecessor of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party. The ministry was abolished in 1945.
What will likely strike the reader as ominous about this is the fact that the digitalization and bureaucratization of American corporatism is increasingly reminiscent of this German pattern of socialism that was adopted by the National Socialists in lieu of the Russian model. It’s also worth noting that just as the German political battle of the 1930s was fought between the Russian and German socialisms, the Chinese civil war of the 1940s was fought between Chinese and German socialisms. National socialism was a different socialism than the international socialism of the Marxists, but it was a competing socialism that was neither conceived nor defined by Adolf Hitler.
But since Mises is seldom read by anyone today, being much too difficult for the average individual, his observations are often forgotten. Which, no doubt, is why George Reisman attempted to spell the concept out more slowly for the benefit of those incapable of deciphering Mises’s words 12 years ago.
My purpose today is to make just two main points: (1) To show why Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And (2) to show why socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.
The identification of Nazi Germany as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises.
When one remembers that the word “Nazi” was an abbreviation for “der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers’ Party — Mises’s identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with “socialist” in its name to be but socialism?
Nevertheless, apart from Mises and his readers, practically no one thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed….
De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.
But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation.
The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls is shortages, that is, a situation in which the quantities of goods people attempt to buy exceed the quantities available for sale.
Shortages, in turn, result in economic chaos. It’s not only that consumers who show up in stores early in the day are in a position to buy up all the stocks of goods and leave customers who arrive later, with nothing — a situation to which governments typically respond by imposing rationing. Shortages result in chaos throughout the economic system. They introduce randomness in the distribution of supplies between geographical areas, in the allocation of a factor of production among its different products, in the allocation of labor and capital among the different branches of the economic system.
In the face of the combination of price controls and shortages, the effect of a decrease in the supply of an item is not, as it would be in a free market, to raise its price and increase its profitability, thereby operating to stop the decrease in supply, or reverse it if it has gone too far. Price control prohibits the rise in price and thus the increase in profitability. At the same time, the shortages caused by price controls prevent increases in supply from reducing price and profitability. When there is a shortage, the effect of an increase in supply is merely a reduction in the severity of the shortage. Only when the shortage is totally eliminated does an increase in supply necessitate a decrease in price and bring about a decrease in profitability.
As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good. Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased.
As Mises showed, to cope with such unintended effects of its price controls, the government must either abolish the price controls or add further measures, namely, precisely the control over what is produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it is distributed, which I referred to earlier. The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership.
This was the socialism instituted by the Nazis. And Mises calls it socialism on the German or Nazi pattern, in contrast to the more obvious socialism of the Soviets, which he calls socialism on the Russian or Bolshevik pattern.
Of course, socialism does not end the chaos caused by the destruction of the price system. It perpetuates it. And if it is introduced without the prior existence of price controls, its effect is to inaugurate that very chaos. This is because socialism is not actually a positive economic system. It is merely the negation of capitalism and its price system. As such, the essential nature of socialism is one and the same as the economic chaos resulting from the destruction of the price system by price and wage controls. (I want to point out that Bolshevik-style socialism’s imposition of a system of production quotas, with incentives everywhere to exceed the quotas, is a sure formula for universal shortages, just as exist under all around price and wage controls.)
At most, socialism merely changes the direction of the chaos. The government’s control over production may make possible a greater production of some goods of special importance to itself, but it does so only at the expense of wreaking havoc throughout the rest of the economic system. This is because the government has no way of knowing the effects on the rest of the economic system of its securing the production of the goods to which it attaches special importance.
The requirements of enforcing a system of price and wage controls shed major light on the totalitarian nature of socialism — most obviously, of course, on that of the German or Nazi variant of socialism, but also on that of Soviet-style socialism as well.
Whose side are you on, asks Pat Buchanan:
First in his class at West Point, hero of the Mexican War, Lee was the man to whom President Lincoln turned to lead his army. But when Virginia seceded, Lee would not lift up his sword against his own people and chose to defend his home state rather than wage war upon her.
This veneration of Lee, wrote Richard Weaver, “appears in the saying attributed to a Confederate soldier, ‘The rest of us may have … descended from monkeys, but it took a God to make Marse Robert.’”
Growing up after World War II, this was accepted history.
Yet, on the militant left today, the name Lee evokes raw hatred and howls of “racist and traitor.” A clamor has arisen to have all statues of him and all Confederate soldiers and statesmen pulled down from their pedestals and put in museums or tossed onto trash piles.
What has changed since 1965?
It is not history. There have been no great new discoveries about Lee.
What has changed is America herself. She is not the same country. We have passed through a great social, cultural and moral revolution that has left us irretrievably divided on separate shores.
And the politicians are in panic….
While easy for Republicans to wash their hands of such odious elements as Nazis in Charlottesville, will they take up the defense of the monuments and statues that have defined our history, or capitulate to the icon-smashers?
In this Second American Civil War, whose side are you on?
This is why the Fake News is so desperate to draw a mythical line between Nazi vs Not-Nazi, rather than Nationalist Right vs Globalist Left, as the situation actually requires, because they know they fall on the weaker side that is actively opposed to American heritage and history and tradition.
And it is also why they are desperate to hide the obvious link between the coming civil war and post-1965 immigration. History clearly shows that there are only two ways to stop this war. One is to proactively break up the United States and implement population transfers, the other is to restore the pre-1965 population demographics through mass repatriations.
Neither solution is likely. Man seldom takes the opportunity to avoid war. That’s why he is doomed to fight them. The citizens of the USA are not exceptional in this regard.
A number of historically ignorant defenders of national socialism have tried to claim that it is not a left-wing socialist ideology. This is utterly and absolutely false, and can be easily and conclusively proven to be false in a number of ways, including by reading a number of direct quotes from Mr. Hitler himself. Note, in particular, that the ultimate goal is “international socialism”.