Counter-Currents
The Littlest Red Pill
Archibald Ramsay’s The Nameless War
Spencer J. Quinn
Archibald Ramsay in 1937. (Image source: Wikipedia)
2,896 words
Everyone loves a good conspiracy theory.
If it is plausible and helps explains something a person knows to be true but cannot prove, then it provides comfort. It makes the truth seem less daunting. It also helps if the theory is entertaining. Sometimes conspiracy theories are correct, sometimes only partially so, and sometimes — maybe most of the time — not at all. The centuries-old conspiracy theory positing that the Jews are behind the destruction of Christian Europe is a combination of all three as packaged in an essential little volume entitled The Nameless War by Archibald Ramsay. Aside from its explosive content, what’s most interesting about this book is that it dispenses red pills of the highest dosage, but in such tiny capsules. The work’s brevity gives it the impression of being a beginner course on the Jewish Question, when in truth it is anything but.
Ramsay was a staunch Right-wing member of the British Parliament from 1931 until his arrest and imprisonment on trumped-up charges in May 1940 under Defence Regulation 18B, which allowed the British government to detain and imprison without trial anyone suspected of harboring pro-German sentiments (Sir Oswald Mosley and other members of the British Union of Fascists were likewise detained under this legislation). During the buildup to the Second World War, Ramsay became more and more convinced that not only were the Jews behind the belligerence toward Nazi Germany, they were also behind all of the most destructive European revolutions for the previous 300 years. In The Nameless War, written in 1952 — eight years after his release from prison — Ramsay endeavored to reveal the truth behind this vast conspiracy theory. Just as importantly, he argued for Nazi Germany’s innocence — as well as his own — in the face of all the accusations leveled against them.
Ramsay is a clear and engaging writer, but hardly a historian. His chapters on the twentieth century, especially those dealing with events of the late 1930s, are his strongest and mark a valuable contribution to dissident literature. More on these later. The early chapters dealing with the Jewish hand behind Oliver Cromwell’s interregnum, the Glorious Revolution, and the French Revolution, however, are brief and less convincing. Like any good conspiracy theorist, Ramsay reports rumors, hearsay, and difficult-to-verify facts and then encourages the reader to connect the dots. He may be right or wrong — and probably closer to right than wrong in many cases — but it is difficult to put faith an author who produces scanty evidence to support a bold claim while not protecting himself against counter-argument. That is one of the main differences between a historian and a polemicist, and sadly, the further back in time he goes, the more Archibald Ramsay seems like a polemicist.
You can buy Spencer Quinn’s novel White Like You here.
In the first ten paragraphs of The Nameless War, Ramsay outlines the Jews’ nefarious plans after being banished from England in 1290. He adduces a letter written to the Rabbi of Arles in Provence, France in 1489 from Constantinople by someone named V.S.S.V.F.F., Prince of the Jews. According to Ramsay, this princely person “advised the Jews of Europe to adopt the tactics of the Trojan Horse; to make their sons Christian priests, lawyers, doctors, etc., and work to destroy the Christian structure from within.”
That’s it. This is all that Ramsay offers to explain why the Jews prompted the Spanish Inquisition and later subverted England through “their creature and hireling,” Oliver Cromwell. The source for this? The letter was apparently published in 1889 in James de Rothschild’s newspaper Revue des estudes Juives. While I could find a handful of sources online reprinting the letter, I could not find any references to the actual, physical letter itself — at least not in English. Did it ever even exist? Another wrinkle not mentioned by Ramsay is that this letter suggests that Jews retaliate to similar gentile threats. For example:
2. As for what you say about their making attempts on your lives: make your sons doctors and apothecaries, that they may take away Christians’ lives.
3. As for what you say of their destroying your synagogues: make your sons canons and clerics in order that they may destroy their churches.
So, leaving aside the innumerable verities and falsities of history, Ramsay’s own source could be used against him. It would have been nice had Ramsay included this nugget of information as a sign of his good faith. That he didn’t is a strike against him, unfortunately.
As for Cromwell, Ramsay is on much firmer ground since he cites several sources and names names. He forwards the claims made in the Jewish Encyclopedia and other sources that the Jews Manassa Ben Israel and Fernandez Carvajal funded Cromwell and his New Model Army, respectively. That Jews were officially admitted into England under Cromwell after over 350 years of exile is well known. Ramsay also mentions the fact that in 1921, two letters were unearthed that confirmed beyond any doubt Cromwell’s paid service to the Jews, and how this resulted directly in the assassination of King Charles I, and later, the admission of Jews into England. A conspiracy, if you will. But here at least Ramsay offers a real source: the September 3, 1921 issue of a newspaper called Plain English, edited by onetime Oscar Wilde lover Lord Alfred Douglas. These letters may or may not be hoaxes, but at least Ramsay does his due diligence as a reporter.
Ramsay also implies that Jewish intrigue was the primary reason for Cromwell’s belated Jewish welcome into England. Maybe not. Paul Johnson in his A History of the Jews writes about how many of the Puritan opponents of the Crown at the time believed that the End Times would not happen unless the Biblical prophecy of the Jews being scattered across the Earth was first fulfilled. This apparently gave many Englishmen a reason for accepting Jews back into their country. Thus, maybe it wasn’t just about blood money. Maybe it wasn’t only because of Cromwell and the Jews. Who knows? This is the kind of historical messiness that conspiracy theorists tend to eschew, and Ramsay is no exception. And yes, Johnson was a philo-Semite, but that doesn’t mean he is wrong in this instance.
Ramsay’s French Revolution chapter is in equal parts compelling and iffy. Firstly, he uncritically cites The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to demonstrate the way in which the disastrous results of the Revolution coincided neatly with the insidious aims expressed by the purported Hebraic authors of that mysterious document. Well, okay. But I know that even as far back as 1952, the origin of The Protocols was hotly disputed, with many claiming it was an elaborate forgery. This was well known in Ramsay’s day. The very least he should have done was alert his readers to this controversy rather than rely on their general ignorance to get his points across. Even better would have been an effort to show how the Protocols were not a cribbed version Maurice Joly’s 1864 pamphlet describing Napoleon III’s ambitions to control the world after all.
We don’t get that. So another strike against Ramsay.
Regardless, he covers the French Revolution well enough. He describes how France had fallen into debt to Jews and how issuing money on the security of precious metals rather than land worked against the interests of France. He cites various sources, including Sir Walter Scott’s Life of Napoleon, describing how Jews financed the Revolution behind the scenes. Jews also pulled strings behind the Illuminati and the Freemasons, which sowed the seeds for revolution among the French public throughout the 1780s. Then, of course, there was Jewish control of the press, which issued calumny and propaganda to discredit the French Crown — most famously in the instance of Marie Antoinette, when she was falsely reported as having ordered an extremely expensive diamond necklace while the populace was starving. All this, along with a few convenient deaths — or well-timed murders — of key players in the French government led to the Revolution and all the horrors which followed.
Toward the end of the chapter, Ramsay quotes G. J. Renier, the seemingly philo-Semitic author of a Robespierre biography, who quotes his subject in one of his final speeches:
“I dare not name them at this moment and in this place. I cannot bring myself entirely to tear asunder the veil that covers this profound mystery of iniquity. But I can affirm most positively that among the authors of this plot are the agents of that system of corruption and extravagance, the most powerful of all the means invented by foreigners for the undoing of the Republic; I mean the impure apostles of atheism, and the immorality that is at is base.”
Mr. Renier continues with all a Jew’s satisfaction: “Had he not spoken these words he might still have triumphed!”
In this smug sentence Mr. Renier unwittingly dots the i’s and crosses the t’s, which Robespierre had left uncompleted. Robespierre’s allusion to the “corrupting and secret foreigners” was getting altogether too near the mark; a little more and the full truth would be out.
At 2 a.m., that night Robespierre was shot in the jaw and early on the following day dragged to the guillotine.
Again let us recall Protocol 15 . . .
This could all be speculation or fantasy; then again, perhaps not. Simon Schama suggests the gunshot to Robespierre’s jaw may have been a botched suicide. (Yes, Schama is Jewish, but again, that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s wrong in this instance.) Regardless, even if Ramsay’s information is not always reliable and his methods not always rigorous, a pattern of Jews seeking gain through the violent usurpation of established gentile hierarchies is beginning to emerge. Could there be something to it?
You can buy Spencer J. Quinn’s Solzhenitsyn and the Right here.
Once we get into the twentieth century, The Nameless War gains its footing. They say “write what you know,” and Archibald Ramsay certainly knew the twentieth century. In his brief treatise one can find hints of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, David Hoggan, Elmer Barnes, Francis Parker Yockey, and a number of other leading lights of the Right. As with his previous chapters, he’s light on sources and evidence, but in this case it’s all right. I’ve read enough dissident material about the Russian Revolution and the Second World War to vouch for much of what comes next.
In his chapter on the Russian Revolution of 1917, he’s right when he claims that the Jew Jacob Schiff financed the Bolsheviks as well as the Japanese in their 1905 war against Russia. He’s right about the high proportion of Bolsheviks being Jews. He quotes several sources, including the April 1919 British White Paper on Bolshevism as well as a few Jewish sources, all effectively saying the same thing: that the most destructive force the civilized world had ever seen since the days of Genghis Kahn was disproportionately the handiwork of Jews. As is his wont, Ramsay continues to ignore possible counter-argument and skepticism. The conspiratorial thinking is still there. But with the sins of Soviets so grotesque and enormous, the reader begins to realize that even if Ramsay’s assertions were only half-right, he’d still have a powerful point.
Next comes Ramsay’s ardent defense of Adolf Hitler and Germany — although oddly, not of Nazism or fascism. As expected, he quotes Mein Kampf at length. His effusive praise of Hitler might be a little on the shameless side, but it’s not wrong. As a world leader, Hitler understood the Jewish Question better than anyone. He also cared for the German people and did his best to peacefully undo the wrongs of the Treaty of Versailles, all the while encouraging Jewish ethnocentrism in their own homeland. It was Bolshevik-aligned international Jewry which brought the war to him.
Never before in history had any country not only repulsed organized revolution, but discerned Jewry behind it, and faced up to that fact. We need not wonder that the sewers of Jewish vituperation were flooded over these men and their leader; nor should we make the mistake of supposing that Jewry would stick at any lie to deter honest men everywhere from making a thorough investigation of the facts for themselves.
Ramsay then discusses events that are common knowledge among many dissidents today about Germany, England, the United States, and the build-up to the Second World War:
- That Hitler had always proposed peace and friendship with the British Empire.
- That Hitler deliberately spared the British forces at Dunkirk.
- That powerful Jews such as Samuel Untermyer waged economic warfare against Germany throughout the Great Depression.
- That the anti-German language of warmongering Jews during this time was apocalyptic and unrelenting.
- That Jews had found their way to positions of great influence in the major nations of the world at that time.
- That the British offered a secret guarantee — known then as the “blank check” — to Poland months before the war, promising that they would support Poland in the event of German aggression.
- That Poland provoked Germany’s invasion by abusing its German minority, economically threatening the Free City of Danzig, and making numerous incursions into German territory.
- That England and France would not have adopted a belligerent attitude towards Germany if not for “constant needling from Washington.”
- That Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 1940 campaign promises of neutrality were lies, given the American convoys of supplies and ammunition being sent to the Allied nations and the Lend-Lease Act.
- That Roosevelt deliberately goaded Japan into war.
The Nameless War wouldn’t be The Nameless War without conspiratorial thinking, even in its best chapters. Ramsay claims with little evidence that the Jews were behind Neville Chamberlain’s fall from power after the Munich conference in 1938. He also blames the Treaty of Versailles on the Jews since, presumably, the secretaries of all the world leaders in attendance were Jews, and their bosses didn’t know how to read maps:
It is known the Mr. Lloyd George and others were hazy about geography. Their Jewish secretaries, however, were on the contrary very much on the spot on such matters. These Jews met at 6 p.m. in the evenings; and mapped out the decision for the following day’s conference of the “Big Four.”
At one point, he includes a personal anecdote in which he approached a “very wealthy and patriotic peer, the head of a great business” to ask for funding to publish The Nameless War. The man, who remains nameless, refused, citing his certainty that the Jews would ruin him if he were to try. A compelling story, no doubt, but impossible to verify.
Ramsay also gets a few things wrong. Aside from obvious mistakes such as claiming that Abraham Lincoln’s assassin, John Wilkes Booth, was Jewish and uncritically reprinting the Franklin Prophecy — the hoax which purported that Benjamin Franklin wanted to keep Jews out of the nascent United States — Ramsay claims that Neville Chamberlain was sincerely opposed to civilian bombing during the war. Thanks to Jewish political pressure, he was replaced by Winston Churchill, who wasn’t. David Hoggan in The Forced War demonstrates, however, that Chamberlain and Lord Halifax had been planning the bombing of German cities for at least a year prior to the outbreak of war, and only appeared to appease Hitler at Munich because they felt that Britain was not yet ready for a fight with Germany.
Ramsay also never has anything positive to say about Jews. Their skill in business, medicine, science, music, chess — none of that seems to matter to him. This was one of the more charming aspects of Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together: He presented the truth about Jews, both good and bad. Ramsay almost never offers cover for innocent Jews, which is something that Kevin MacDonald does in the Introduction to The Culture of Critique. With Ramsay, it’s all Jews, all the time, and aside from one sentence in The Nameless War, it’s all bad.
This is too bad. The Nameless War contains a lot of crucial information. That this information often appears alongside a nearly equal amount of fanciful or unverifiable information makes the work easier for the skeptic or the uninformed to dismiss. Ramsay should have understood this and done the legwork ahead of time to prevent this from happening. Regardless, Ramsay has one thing going for him as an author: a seemingly instinctual loathing of Bolshevism and a crystal-clear recognition of its grave dangers. He’s also fearless when it comes to pursuing the truth behind it all. This should endear him to anyone on the Right and makes the chapter in which he exonerates himself from the bogus charges leveled against him especially compelling.
So what if he fudges things a little bit? What’s a little untethered propaganda between friends, am I right? What difference does it make if he can’t tell good evidence from bad? Who cares if he has a weakness for conspiracy theories? I mean, we all wanna believe, don’t we? Let’s be honest. Plus, Archibald Ramsay, unfairly persecuted historical figure that he was, meant well, and that’s what counts.
Then again, when you look at all the untethered propaganda Jews have been leveling at whites for the past 150 years, perhaps Archibald Ramsay and The Nameless War deserve a second look.
Now that I think about it, forget about everything critical I wrote in this review. The Nameless War is a great book. Perfect, even. Buy it now. Read it. Memorize it. The conspiracy is real. Ignore it at your peril. Don’t listen to anyone who tells you different. Every word in this fantastic little tome is true, I swear to God.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
38 comments
Another author from the UK is Arthur Pillans Laurie. He visited Germany in the 1930s and wrote a book about it called The Case for Germany.
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/caseforgermany/cfg00.html
I just finished reading the book “Blood and Gold” by Eustace Mullins, it is a good source of information, in terms of quotes it could perhaps be the most exhaustive book about the machinations of Jews and communists in the 40s and 50s.
Mr. Quinn,
Thank you for a most engrossing article. It has led me to devour The Nameless War in a single sitting.
I was especially grateful for your mentions of the Jewish tactic of “. . . issuing money on the security of precious metals rather than land . . .” Indeed, symbols for value can be manipulated in ways that the tangible elements of value cannot; and Ramsay continuously recurs to fraught instances of manipulating monetary symbols throughout his essay.
Permit me to offer that Ramsay’s historical précis illuminates a critical schism in the radical right: 1) many of our number did their intellectual apprenticeships among libertarians, and absorbed their Austrian economic creed; versus 2) those of us who favour the ‘corporatist economic command’ through which the Axis Powers rescued their populations from the degenerate, international economic regime of the 1930’s.
The issues here are far from trivial. To the extent that a self-interested disposition of private property might be sanctioned, it is well and truly demonstrated that optimal, stable economic conditions will follow. On the economist’s famous other hand, the authority to create fiat, ‘Greenback’ currencies can and has been frightfully abused. And successful command economics must, at minimum, be based on an ethnically coherent polity.
Thus the cause of a new White ethnostate might be advanced if our convenient, liquid symbols for value could be inextricably bound to an expression of the actual land, installations of manufacture, and human resources that constitute economic value. But the Austrian view has informed many of us that such expressions are “beyond the possibilities of human intellect”.
In closing, I hope I might usefully call attention to a movement on the rightist fringe that is based on a product of human intellect through which a currency might be created that (to quote a TakiMag article) . . .
. . . ‘cannot be counterfeited, hidden, confiscated, hoarded, lost, misrepresented, or cornered because it is an abstraction that anyone can compute, on the basis of (1) a self-evident scientific premise, and (2) information of a sort that is publicly available now’.
My interview of the central figure in this initiative is here.
In what, precisely, would this “corporatist economic command” consist? How would prices be formed, production coordinated, etc?
As an ethnonationalist who very much absorbed the Austrian economic “creed” in his youth – and still retains it! – I’m trying to decipher your objections to it.
Thank you for engaging on behalf of the (no doubt) many Austrians in our midst.
If you are seriously “trying to decipher [my] objections to” your Austrian oeuvre, you might start with the material provided in my Roemer interview. I went to a great deal of trouble to add end notes that particularize my objections.
Note 6 links to a published, refereed, peer-reviewed monograph that is one of many available presentations of formal solutions to Mises’ presumably indissoluble Economic Calculation Problem. I believe it is fair to say that Austrianism begins with Mises’s (entirely correct) assertion that economic command will fail unless and until it was guided by a solution to his calculation problem (note 9).
My concern for the radical right is that so many of you are satisfied with mere a priori reasoning as to why it is pointless to consider the possibility of a solved calculation problem, (e.g. note 7) thence to inquire as to what that might mean for a future ethnostate.
If you avail yourself of one of SFEcon’s free, open-sourced, instructional videogames (note 10) your home computer will become a robot intelligence that continuously forms prices and coordinates production to the end of efficiently create the stable and optimal steady-state proclaimed by Hayek (note 8) as the solution to Mises’ calculation problem.
Equal Time for STEM
Good luck trying to convince His Lordship that economic calculation is a solved problem. I have already been around these same bushes with him on this very comment thread, and would now like to sound off to the effect that the disconnect here IS creedal as well as vital.
For benefit of our moderator, I hereby make this early declaration of my intention to fault the radical right’s leadership for its continuing indulgence of not just Austrian economics in particular, but of libertarianism in general.
While our leadership is to be commended for their academic achievements in history, literature, and philosophy, I wish to observe that such highly verbal people often proceed in the mode of Erasmus Darwin:
“In fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won’t fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feeling.”
Let us note that the a defining aspect of the Western civilization we are here to preserve and develop is its unique scientific outlook. Nullius in verba. Galileo did not argue against Ptolemaic astronomy; he built a telescope. And, as you say, SFEcon does not argue for the possibility of artificial economic calculation; they build devices that enact it.
I once tried to have this debate with the ever-voluble Stefan Molyneux. He rejected my offer of operating counter-examples to Mises’ non-computability premise with his prehensile giant-killer: “that’s not an argument”. My point is that if everything hereabouts has to be in the form of argument, then we enclose ourselves in the endless disputes characteristic of Talmudism.
Objective demonstrata, as currently on-going in racial bio-realism, is the only way out of closed circuits of reasoning leading from unexamined premises to unfounded conclusions and back again.
So let us consider that Mises, Rand, Rothbard, et al were all Jews. Whatever contributions Jews have made to Western civility, their dominance of our economic ‘science’ continues the materialist line through Trotskyism, neoconservatism, and Likudism into the developing foundations of White ethnostates, where it will fester as it now does in all Western institutions.
Unrestrained free market capitalism is what gives Jews their power over us; and their Austrian economics will govern us until we create an economic order that serves us, as opposed to spending our lives in service to an abstract economic ideal.
Power will not be awarded to he who presents the most incisive essay on Heidegger. It will be most likely be taken by those with the most serviceable program for stabilizing material circumstances in the wake of an economic collapse. There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Greg, Richard, Moike, Sven, Stefan, et al, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
The movement is full of people like you, with big projects for other people to do. Why don’t you work out your “program” yourself and send it to CC.
Thoughts:
1.Glen Whaley
June 24, 2024 at 1:29 am
Equal Time for STEM
Good luck trying to convince His Lordship that economic calculation is a solved problem. I have already been around these same bushes with him on this very comment thread, and would now like to sound off to the effect that the disconnect here IS creedal as well as vital.
What do you mean by the bolded line? This is the first comment from “Glen Whaley”! (Or is it?)
2.For benefit of our moderator, I hereby make this early declaration of my intention to fault the radical right’s leadership for its continuing indulgence of not just Austrian economics in particular, but of libertarianism in general.
What are you talking about? The Racial Right is rarely ‘Austrian’, and is not libertarian at all.
3. So let us consider that Mises, Rand, Rothbard, et al were all Jews. Whatever contributions Jews have made to Western civility, their dominance of our economic ‘science’ continues the materialist line through Trotskyism, neoconservatism, and Likudism into the developing foundations of White ethnostates, where it will fester as it now does in all Western institutions.
Who cares if they were Jews? Perhaps that can count as a rebuttable presumption against our taking their analyses seriously. But what finally matters is the objective value of their social science theories. I don’t know what the “materialist line” refers to, nor how it unites libertarianism, Trotsykism, Likudism etc. Actually, I don’t really know what is being objected to here, and thus how to respond.
4.Unrestrained free market capitalism is what gives Jews their power over us; and their Austrian economics will govern us until we create an economic order that serves us, as opposed to spending our lives in service to an abstract economic ideal.
First, if true, what an indictment of the Eurofolk! Under conditions of unrestrained economic liberty, the Jews will kick our ass! I utterly disagree. What gives Jews such disproportionate influence over us is not our [non-existent] laissez-faire capitalism, but Jewish high IQ; Jewish ethnocentrism and nepotism; the general ease of nonwhites in inculcating ridiculous “white guilt”; and the warped and racially self-destructive ethical sense of whites. Austrian economics is irrelevant to this.
Austrian economics does not govern us, not at all. The closest we came was in the superior, laissez-faire pre-20th century, when, be it noted, America’s rate of economic growth utterly dwarfed the subsequent era (continuing today) of Big Government taxation, regulation, size, and communistic monetary policy. We should be so lucky as to return to laissez-faire! The historical record speaks for itself.
5.Power will not be awarded to he who presents the most incisive essay on Heidegger. It will be most likely be taken by those with the most serviceable program for stabilizing material circumstances in the wake of an economic collapse. There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Greg, Richard, Moike, Sven, Stefan, et al, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Why do you foresee an economic collapse? What will bring it about? I worry about this, too, but suspect my reasons are almost opposite to yours (and very much rooted in ‘Austrian’ analysis). And I still argue that endless dispossession and associated continuous decline and racial transmogrification are more likely to be our future than economic collapse.
Mr. Johnson:
Thank you for indulging my post. I feel better now.
As to your suggestion that I formulate further interactions with your audience, I would be pleased to do so. But, unfortunately, I honestly do not comprehend what you mean by “people like you” or “big projects”. Who are these people? What projects do they wish to see accomplished?
Obviously we should not further clutter-up this comment thread with the back and forth required to come to an understanding on these matters. You have my email address. I would welcome further interactions. Your move.
Why would the Editor waste his time exchanging emails with you? If you have observations to make that will advance the site’s purpose (which I understand to be building the intellectual edifice of the Racial Right so as to awaken our people to their engineered collective impotence and eventual extinction) then write them up in an article. If the Editor deems your work valuable and apposite, I’m sure he’ll publish it.
I would like to reinforce Glen Whaley’s point that the White Nationalist movement might usefully engage more with us STEM types (e.g.: making space for us to beat-up on Austrian economics; blood sports anyone?)
I am a post-doc in economics, and a closet partisan of the ‘SFEcon’ movement referenced by KM Vanetti. My concern for “[t]he movement[‘s]” understanding of my profession has led me to compose a long-form article that spells out the ‘what’s what’ of economics for a general, radical right audience:
https://1drv.ms/w/c/ea68d02add8a675d/EXgOx6foJK9JvM1jnVxovG4BK1L9PORaAO7pVOPryLoVCw?e=Cukwny
The above was intended for UNZ Review. Mr. Unz was kind enough to respond with personal reply that complemented my writing, but nonetheless announced that he found the article “too specialized” for his readership.
Perhaps Counter-Currents would like to experiment with this article to see if ITS general audience can make use of a professional economist’s effort to portray her profession’s essence to non-professionals.
What do you mean by “engage with”? Do you expect an engraved invitation? Deference? Flattery?
There’s a guy who pretends to have a STEM degree on Gab (he’s an obvious poseur, because he reasons like a girl) who basically thinks that he should be able to dictate to the movement because he’s allegedly good at sums.
In a world populated largely by anons, credentials can simply be made up, so one’s arguments have to stand on their own merits.
I did graduate work in econometrics (that would be abstruse statistics, applied mathematics). Specialized economics discussion in a forum like this has to remain at a Louis Rukeyeser/Wall Street Week level to appeal to the generalists and remain accessible to all. Otherwise it’s all inside-baseball obscurantism, not seeing the forest for the trees. Besides which, although it works with bits of “STEM” (ghastly acronym!) economics remains first and foremost a social science. If we wanted to write about sociology and showed the audience a bunch of graphs with small print explaining the chi squares, we’d be working at so many levels of abstraction that its relevance would be lost, except maybe to the very few. That may be what Ron Unz was driving at.
Why don’t you rewrite your article at a higher level of generality, and with special attention paid not to ‘Austrianism’, per se, but to the relevance of your economic theories to this site’s purpose, which is, in part, to develop the ideology of white nationalism?
Margot Metroland’s response to you is excellent. If you want to publish a really serious economic critique of the Austrians, you should submit it to the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, not here. But if you write on “Economics for the Ethnostate”, by all means, let’s see it!
Contra Glen Whaley’s and econometrix’s overt or implicit assertions, I’m very interested in economic challenges to the Austrians, especially either from the Racial Right directly, or from sub-fields within economics (eg, ecological economics) which I intuit might be congruent with Racial Right insights and goals.
I’m a non-libertarian ‘Austrian’, though my informal studies in Austrianism largely ended three decades ago. One of my two majors in college was economics (something I regret for the time wasted learning a lot of nonsense – rather like mastering the intricacies of the aforementioned Ptolemaic astronomy). In grad school, I was only “economics-adjacent”, insofar as I was in a political philosophy program, but with my doctoral focus on the “conservative/libertarian” debate. I continued reading the Austrians across the 90s (and still do today, but not often or much), but with my interest even then continuously waning. From well before the fall of the Berlin Wall, I recognized that Third World immigration, in combination with what I and likeminded friends in the mid-80s were already mocking as the “Cult of Diversity” (it was in the mid-80s when diversity-talk started cropping up everywhere in academia, at least in my experience), was the greatest threat to Western Civ and the perpetuity of the white race since at least the Siege of Vienna, if not in all history.
My main intellectual focus now – to the extent that a common white collar worker not in academia or otherwise paid to produce scholarship can actually develop any such focus -lay in CC’s development of what might broadly be called the emerging interdisciplinary field of White Racialist Studies. Someday, once I’ve retired and can really pursue intellectual investigations for the remainder of my life, I intend to focus on “racial ethics” (immersing myself in the history of philosophical ethics, as well as in ecumenical Christian moral theology, so as to demonstrate what I believe to be the compatibility between white preservationism and ethics as understood in the Western and Christian traditions). I strongly believe that ethics, not sociobiology and even less so economics, is the key to preventing white extinction. Far too many whites, including well-meaning conservatives and Christians, have bought into the falsehoods that “racism is evil” and “anything to halt white extinction is racist”. Only by disproving these falsehoods will (some, I hope enough) whites find it acceptable to embrace the various stern, real world measures that alone can prevent extinction.
I mention these particulars only because the responses to or mentioning me violate informal internet discussion protocols. Your initial comment was all over the place, which is why I gave you the opportunity to offer more specificity wrt one of its assertions. How would your favored “corporatist economic command” work? I’m genuinely curious.
Your response was to refer me to a lengthy interview with a figure named Kurt Roemer, whom I’d never heard of, along with references to multiple endnotes to that published interview. Those endnotes, however, merely offer yet more online links, most of which seem to be to economics journal articles (or at least technical papers). Am I expected to plough through all this material, as if I have nothing else to do?
The discussion protocol you violated is the dialectical one requiring discussions to build up gradually to ever higher levels of complexity. That is, you (or what I assume to be another screen persona of yours, “Glen Whaley”; is “econometrix” perhaps a third one? the two latter commenters are almost certainly the same person, as they both deploy the uncommon word “demonstrata”, and improperly so, I think; and they both misuse the word “civility”, and in exactly the same stupid way: “Western civility” when “they” clearly mean “Western civilization”) failed to offer any general, prima facie plausible reason for me to think that engaging with you at the level of depth you seem to expect will actually be worth my effort. There are innumerable “gurus” out there claiming to have solved this or that Major World Problem. Skepticism is always in order. If one of these delicate geniuses wants others to engage with her, she at least should produce an abstract (ever heard of one of those, Ms. Post-Doc?) of her position – an enticement to get us inside the carny tent.
Vanetti/Whaley/econometrix claims the Misesian calculation problem has been solved. If true, this is a stupendous achievement. Why not type up a mere two paragraphs (far less than the length of their comments above) as an abstract? In the first paragraph, explain the calculation problem in your own words (no links or copy/pastes, even to Mises himself); in the second, explain how the “SFEcon” geniuses have solved it using accessible language appropriate for an intelligent readership, but eschewing specialized lingo. Is this too much to ask for?
Beyond this requirement for continuing any comments discussion, I would urge you also to write an extensive article for CC publication tying together your various claims (as you’ve offered many, but all without any semblance of, er, “reasoning”; ie, actually arguing for them) into a coherent nationalist economics paradigm. I myself have in past CC comments called for the development of a nationalist economics appropriate for the Ethnostate (even if I’ve averred that such a new paradigm still must be built on ‘Austrian’ microeconomics), so I would definitely consider your polished work carefully.
Austrianism begins with the Axiom of Action (“humans act”), along with a few additional axioms, like scarcity of resources.
Very few ethnonationalists are, to my knowledge, Austrians – and very few Austrians are ethnonationalists. I hope there will be more overlap between the groups in the future, but I’m not optimistic. I fear that Western Man will require a long period of white preservationist authoritarianism, wherein individual rights will have to be aggressively subordinated to collective survival, before there can be any safe “return to liberty” in some indefinite future age.
Germany has a horror of inflation, a legacy of the Weimar era. Therefore, prices and wages are fixed. Any adjustments must go through careful negotiations involving representatives of labor and industry. (This is unlike here where prices can get jacked up whenever it pleases the manufacturers.) The system was put into place back in the good old days, but the present Regierung is in no hurry to credit its predecessor.
Mr. Johnson,
You have asked me several answerable questions: “What do you mean by ‘engage with’? Do you expect an engraved invitation? Deference? Flattery?” Though I do not think a comment thread is an appropriate venue for my answer, I will answer nonetheless – albeit at the regrettably uncomfortable length I think required.
Summing to this point, your Mr. Quinn has brought the work of Captain Archibald Ramsay to our attention. His summa on Ramsay informs us that the abstract nature of monetary symbols (including gold) has been exploited again and again throughout history by the same alien people to their detriment surrounding host civilizations.
The first three responses on Mr. Quinn’s article cited other related materials. The third of these comments has touched off this more extended commentary. Where Captain Archibald offered no alternative (other than Juden Raus) to the ills he catalogued, KM Vanetti informs us of a scientific initiative that purports to ground abstract monetary symbols in the physical components of economic value – thus making the self-serving falsification of value a great deal more challenging.
Hereupon your Lord Shang (other than yourself, Counter-Currents’ most prolific commentator by far) emerged to inform us that His Lordship is yet to be convinced that the Austrian interdict prohibiting artificial economic calculation has been breached.
Vanetti replied with the requested supporting information, and Lord Shang’s non-response has been to blithely proceed on to his pronouncements upon the comments of still others. He has yet to report back as to what he discovered following up on Vanetti’s response to his inquiry; and, according Whaley, he never will. His performance here apparently reprises earlier exchanges in which he demanded the same information, received it, and ignored it.
This continues SFEcon’s experience in many other prominent radical right venues: the Austrian contingent never responds to presentations of a solved calculation problem except to smother them with arguments from authority, a priori reasoning, and their outworn declarations of Hitlerism – (which occasionally have the intended effect).
(Ron Unz’ unrelated finding that my submission is “too specialized” is, however, not shared by less popular outlets such as National Vanguard, Radio Albion, or TakiMag. Could it be that the editors of the radical right’s more substantial publications are underestimating their readership?)
As an example of Austrians smothering, rather than honorably addressing their opponents, I observe that searching YouTube for “The Economic Calculation Problem” will bring up literally hundreds of videos. All but one features the same covey of professors waving their arms while expounding the “a priori knowledge”, “acquired through the faculty of reason”, together with their “knowledge of universals”, through which they conclude upon the impossibility of emulating the economic calculation that the actual economy is actually performing. SFEcon’s YouTube channel is in there, but try finding it.
So, yes, we would expect the “deference” owed to objective counterexamples to the Austrian premise of non-computably. We are operating in the specifically Western scientific paradigm of objective demonstrata; they are operating in (as Mr. Whaley succinctly puts it) “closed circuits of reasoning leading from unexamined premises to unfounded conclusions and back again”. And, yes, a little “flattery” might be appropriate for those people (White Nationalists all) who have solved “the most complicated problem that actually has a solution” and have been made unemployable by their efforts.
Solution to this problem is indeed vital to one of the most critical discussions now taking place on the radical right: the Austrians envision an ultimate ethnostate upheld by the self-interested disposition of private property; others, arguing that capitalism is what has brought us to the edge of Western civility’s dissolution, favor the corporatist economic command practiced to great effect by the Axis powers. Artificial economic calculation gives economic command the same purchase on stability and efficiency that is claimed for purely abstract, buccaneer capitalism.
You might not like having people in your movement who find merit in the economics of the Axis powers; and you might find comfort in Austria’s absolute faith that unrestrained free markets will eventuate in the best of all possible worlds. But consider: the standard order of culture descending from race, politics descending from culture, and economics descending from politics is not going away. The Austrians might assert that all we need is the market, but this ignores the political, cultural, and racial context required for free markets to operate. The Axis knew better; and they did better.
Mr. Johnson, you are a very articulate man. You are obviously made uncomfortable with the direction this thread has taken. But your responses have not been worthy of you. Joining with Glen Whaley, I too inquire as to what is meant by “people like you” and what are these “big [unrealized] projects”.
I do not know who this “guy who pretends to have a STEM degree on Gab” might be. You gave no link. I am informed only that “he reasons like a girl”. Well, I am a girl, and you are addressing me. My reasoning powers are there to be seen in the above and in my UNZ submission. I have not required that my arguments “stand on [anything other than] their own merits”. As for the significance of credentials, the only credentials mentioned in any of the foregoing are those of Kurt Roemer. If these are in doubt, I am sure the registrars at Carnegie and MIT can help you.
Permit me to suggest that the mistrust between highly verbal people and STEM types is that those of us who can do the math know that reality is both singular and just barely possible. When we finally pin down some real phenomena we inevitably find that it is rational; but we also realize that there are always an unlimited number perfectly rational conjurings of reality that cannot exist. By “engaging with” STEM types I mean not getting carried away with unalloyed reason’s power to discern that which is real or possible. Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, et al have already told you that. Now please apply it to Austrian ‘theory’ and praxis.
I hope you might take some time (other than at 12:30 am) to collect your thoughts on these matters, and perhaps give us a fully realized article expounding your conclusions. In doing so, please essay Mr. Whaley’s suggestion that keeping our Austrians on side might involve clutching a Kosher asp to our European bosom.
You are certainly welcome to write articles on economics.
Mr. Johnson,
I hope you are saying that I am “welcome to write articles on economics” for submission to Counter-Currents, and that you would not deem this subject too specialized for your readership. If you are seriously inviting my inner Dorothy Parker to come out and play, please consider my prospective UNZ article re-submitted for your uses.
Again (and with apologies for being insistent) it would be most helpful to know what elements of the foregoing exchanges you, personally, found interesting, provocative, or worthy of further development. What has earned us so much of your personal time and attention?
I’ve glanced over that article that econometrix keeps pushing, and I’m skeptical that it contains anything of value. However, you’re smarter and more learned than I, so I’d love to read your take on it, even (especially?) as a philosopher and not someone with any formal economics background.
But I strongly suspect that this dude (and I’m quite certain that Vanetti / Whaley/ econometrix is a dude, and the same one) is a crank, or, OK, if “they” insist, crankette.
Random thoughts:
I was especially grateful for your mentions of the Jewish tactic of “. . . issuing money on the security of precious metals rather than land . . .” Indeed, symbols for value can be manipulated in ways that the tangible elements of value cannot; and Ramsay continuously recurs to fraught instances of manipulating monetary symbols throughout his essay.
What do you mean “Jewish tactic”? Jews didn’t develop the use of precious metals as money. This practice long antedated the arrival of Abraham’s people onto the historical scene, and it developed far wider than merely the geographical areas of Jewish presence.
2. Permit me to offer that Ramsay’s historical précis illuminates a critical schism in the radical right: 1) many of our number did their intellectual apprenticeships among libertarians, and absorbed their Austrian economic creed; versus 2) those of us who favour the ‘corporatist economic command’ through which the Axis Powers rescued their populations from the degenerate, international economic regime of the 1930’s.
Even today, there are many non-libertarian ‘Austrians’, and, historically, from the late 19th century-founding of the Austrian School by Carl Menger, most libertarians have not been Austrians.
Whether the Nazis or Italian Fascists rescued their economies via centralized control over the means of production is problematic at best; whether that type of “command economy” would be optimal or even viable today is more so. But I’m no economic historian of interwar Europe (though Weimar’s Great Inflation certainly confirms the Austrians’ strictures against both inflationism and the role of central banks in creating monetary chaos).
3. The issues here are far from trivial. To the extent that a self-interested disposition of private property might be sanctioned, it is well and truly demonstrated that optimal, stable economic conditions will follow. On the economist’s famous other hand, the authority to create fiat, ‘Greenback’ currencies can and has been frightfully abused. And successful command economics must, at minimum, be based on an ethnically coherent polity.
Yes, a propertarian regime is better. Government central banking is not a feature of such, however.
I agree that for a command economy to have any chance of success, it must rest upon a great many pre-political sources of national unity, one very important one being genetic similarity. Another is shared ethnoculture. The less diversity, the less divisiveness. But these facts still do not lead us to conclude that central economic planning would be superior to the “market order”, only that a planned economy would be less unsuccessful among a homogeneous than heterogeneous population.
4. Thus the cause of a new White ethnostate might be advanced if our convenient, liquid symbols for value could be inextricably bound to an expression of the actual land, installations of manufacture, and human resources that constitute economic value. But the Austrian view has informed many of us that such expressions are “beyond the possibilities of human intellect”.
I don’t think you understand the Austrian theory of real money having originated as, and being, itself a tangible commodity at all. Have you read Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit? Or even the various excellent little “money” pamphlets of Rothbard?
I have no idea what the rest of your comment refers to.
[E]ven if Ramsay’s information is not always reliable and his methods not always rigorous, a pattern of Jews seeking gain through the violent usurpation of established gentile hierarchies is beginning to emerge. Could there be something to it?
—
Yes, certainly, except our struggle is not just beginning to emerge.
—
Ramsay also never has anything positive to say about Jews. Their skill in business, medicine, science, music, chess — none of that seems to matter to him.
—
Good for him.
Jews are group thinkers — theirs vs. ours. Whites must do the same and cease playing “good Jew”/”bad Jew.”
” Good for him. ”
I agree. Enough with this empty rhetoric.
Thank you for examining this pamphlet I’d never heard of.
One thing is clear: the Right needs to be scrupulously accurate in our speaking and writing if we are to be taken seriously by our own people, who exhibit higher (probably innate) ethicality than other peoples – our glory, and perhaps also our downfall.
That’s true but Captain Ramsay’s little book, published in the height of post war paranoia, had a lot of work to do. Checking sources must have been far more difficult than it is today and ‘The Nameless War’ might have been an Englishman’s only exposure to the idea of hidden history and the lies of his own government. Very few would have been in a position to fact check. As Mr Quinn admits at the end the errors are relatively inconsequential,
As Claud Cockburn once said, “The way people talk about facts, you’d think they were lying around in the street, waiting to be picked up.”
Merci pour la reponse Madame M. Why were all these smart, well brought up people like Cockburn such rabid commies?
Claud Cockburn was quite literally a self-professed commie, whether or not he ever was a Party member. He was a rebel and thought of himself as a reformer, and getting starry-eyed over Stalin is what people did in his day. The fever eventually passed and he was left with merely his talent intact. He was a regular contributor to Private Eye in the early days and you can find him in group pictures with R. Ingrams, A. Waugh, C. Booker et al.
And now read the tragic tale of Basil Murray and the ape, apparently the last thing Claud ever wrote.
@MM. Mr Cockburn’s last bow. I was initially amazed at the tale of the ape but then began to wonder at its veracity, given its passing similarity to the 1923 Sherlock Holmes short story The Adventure of the Creeping Man. Then again they do say truth is stranger than fiction. And who are “they” again?
Good to see Capt. Ramsay here. I first discovered his little book in the early 1980s. While it wasn’t exactly red-pilling for me, it was curious to see all those legends and theories gathered into one place. His discussion of Jewish Bolshevism, as I recall, came largely from the writings of Father Fahey in Dublin.
The roundup of the Right Club members in May 1940, and their imprisonment under 18b, remains the murkiest and most interesting part of the tale. Tyler Kent, Anna Wolkoff, and the Right Club had been under scrutiny by Maxwell Knight, the “M” of MI-5, someone with his own fascist connections going back to the 1920s. He was an old friend of William Joyce, and the one who tipped him off that he was due to be arrested in August 1939. After Joyce got to Berlin, MI-5 paid him a £10 monthly retainer. For that, I rather doubt they were expecting him to penetrate the Abwehr. What Knight wanted, clearly, was a tidbit or two about the Soviets. (A deduction that cannot have escaped the Reds, as in 1945 they successfully brought pressure upon the British government to have Joyce hanged for treason, even though this Brooklyn-born “Lord Haw-Haw” was in fact a German citizen.) Through the remainder of 1939, and early 1940, the Right Club wasn’t doing anything illegal, but Knight may have determined that Kent, Wolkoff and others were effectively functioning as Soviet assets.
I never found out where Ramsay got the idea that John Wilkes Booth was Jewish, but I have seen speculation that his father, Junius Brutus Booth, was part Jewish. (I may have read this in the biography of Edwin Booth, Prince of Players.) What is known about the Booths is that the Wilkes side were the family of the radical politician John Wilkes, the person Dr. Johnson was speaking of when he said that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Also that the Booths were distant cousins of Cherie Booth, the QC wife of Tony Whatsisname, the former British PM.
Fascinating comment. You should consider writing an article on the Right Club, though with greater identification of the parties involved.
Thank you for the kind suggestion. I’ve touched on these matters peripherally in the past, talking about Maxwell Knight, William Joyce, Jim Skardon. And, I believe, Anna Wolkoff, whom Louis-Ferdinand Céline was intending to visit in London next April (1940), another holiday that never happened.
My problem is that I don’t have any immediate “hook” on which to hang them, e.g., a new book that gets the facts ALL WRONG. I lack the talent and drive that some people here have to rev up an exciting essay based on STUFF I’VE BEEN THINKING TODAY.
But a couple thousand words on “Tyler Kent and the Right Club Gang” could make for a fun primer, told in the style of 1066 and All That, complete with some comical line drawings.
It would be worthwhile to get all the various personages and their relationships delineated for those of us (including future WN readers) who know nothing about the topic. A movement should know its history, and, anyway, biographical discussions are always of “human interest” and thus easy reading.
Here are your two paragraphs.
The first paragraph you have requested can be lifted directly from Vanetti’s interview:
“The calculation problem challenges us to compute the optimal rates for each economic input to flow into each productive process, throughout a presumably free market economy. The boundary conditions given to the problem are the production and utility trade-offs that define the productive processes. Economic calculation is then constrained by a requirement that outputs from the productive processes must be just sufficient to replace all the inputs being used up in the transformations of inputs into outputs.”
If that is too esoteric for a general audience (which I allow might be the correct editorial judgement) then I will just have to accept that my efforts to popularize a solution to the calculation problem have not succeeded here, and I will subside.
I cannot, however, supply the second of your requested paragraphs. The content for such a paragraph would recapitulate the 66-page EcoMod monograph that Vanetti and I both cite. But that monograph does link to a freely downloadable instructional videogame, written in Excel, that presents every detail of a model economy’s adjustment to its optimal equilibrium.
I hold that the availability of this desktop prototype puts the burden back on you: if the prototype is not performing artificial economic calculation, then how does it make all those numbers fall into alignment with general optimality? If you cannot be convinced by such exercises, and are not impressed by EcoMod’s academic standing, then there is nothing for you to do but plow through their monograph in search of an arithmetic error or an unsound premise.
As for the rest of your allegations, Sherlock, I suggest we give Counter-Currents a rest. I am satisfied that Dr. Johnson has my prospective article and will exercise appropriate editorial judgement. If you like, we can take up this discussion over at SFEcon’s YouTube channel. There actually are points you have made that would give rise to a mutually beneficial exchange – if you can refrain from posting verbal avalanches and snide accusations.
I reiterate an earlier comment, as it was serious:
Lord Shang
June 28, 2024 at 4:04 am
Why don’t you rewrite your article at a higher level of generality, and with special attention paid not to ‘Austrianism’, per se, but to the relevance of your economic theories to this site’s purpose, which is, in part, to develop the ideology of white nationalism?
Margot Metroland’s response to you is excellent. If you want to publish a really serious economic critique of the Austrians, you should submit it to the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, not here. But if you write on “Economics for the Ethnostate”, by all means, let’s see it!
The development of an economic theory supporting ethnonationalism is important. My position is that we need to understand Austrian microeconomics first before deviating from a laissez-faire political economy model so as to promote long-term white preservation. I’m not interested in maximizing GDP or even liberty, but, rather, preventing white extinction. However, I argue that the Austrians have discovered fundamental insights into the nature of the economy that need to be appreciated so that the economic polices of any future ethnostate are maximally effective.
I doubt your group has actually discovered ways to circumvent the Misesian calculation or Hayekian dispersed knowledge problems, but I’d perhaps be intrigued enough to investigate further – but only after a dip into the shallow end of the theory “pool”. IOWs, you haven’t yet convinced me that a dive into the deep end would be ultimately rewarding. Recall what I also wrote above about a dialectical build-up to ever higher levels of specialist discussion.
With respect to Margot Metroland’s response to my article, please note that she does not say she actually read it. No one who reads the article would say that it involves econometrics, or even much in the way of theory. If it was any more general, it wouldn’t be about anything.
Your phrase “Economics for the Ethnostate” expresses my intentions just fine. If my efforts have disappointed you, or you remain unconvinced, I can (believe it or not) live with that.
And I will also reiterate: this is not the forum in which to have a discussion about the nuts and bolts of economic calculation. If you decide to have that discussion, you can make use of the contact page at http://www.sfecon.com. Just introduce yourself and a bright young person will answer your questions at whatever level of generality you wish.
If I happened to be the online tutor who fielded your approach, I would immediately begin with your repeated references to the Axiom of Action. My article’s section on Foundational Microeconomics (parts of pages 8, 9, &10) should surface a make-or-break issue on which to decide whether or not to proceed further.
Hayek’s “dispersed knowledge problem” is addressed in this 8 minute YouTube video. Here you will find another premise that you must at least provisionally accept in order in order to get anywhere with SFEcon.
There is no more shallow area of the theory pool than the instructional video I linked for you. You need only click three buttons in an Excel workbook to initiate a detailed approach to economic optimality. Then ask yourself: ‘what, other than with artificial economic calculation, could be controlling all those numbers?’
If you are sincerely “Interested in challenges to the Austrians” I have given you plenty to work with. Take it or leave it; but don’t harangue me about it.
Your habit of demanding accommodation, refusing to take notice of what you are given, and then demanding further accommodation is exceedingly Hebraic for a White nationalist. It instantiates what I mean by the “smothering a discussion in order to avoid having it” – Austrian economics’ most characteristic tactic.
Austrians’ free market screeds are not winning any arguments in favor of White nationalism. As in the economics profession generally, you might think you have won because no one wants to engage with you, but that is only because no one likes you. No one cares about how intrigued you might or might not be. Is anyone else responding to your posts? or even reading them? If you need to post wall text for people to ignore, try Substack.
I have given you abundant chances simply to explain the calculation problem as you understand it, and the SFEcon alleged solution. You keep directing me to other sources. You have not passed the “prima facie plausibility” test. I question the depth of your understanding of the problem, or of the Austrian School more generally (“post-doc” or not).
CC’s editor has stated that you can submit an economics article for CC publication provided it bears on the general subject matter (white preservation and interests) of the site. Why not do so? Then I will see if your ideas can withstand serious scrutiny, and advance the prowhite cause.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment