The Joos

Your humble blogger has come under a bit of fire for believing that the Puritans are the problem instead of the Joos.

The whole argument is rather silly, since it misunderstands the Puritan hypothesis – see here.

(If there’s any distinction between the beliefs of reformed Jews and unitarians, I certainly am not perceptive enough to detect them).

If I had to summarize the neoreactionary position on American history in one sentence, I’d go with: American history is the slow process of Massachusetts taking over its region, the nation, and the world.

This process is evident from at least the early 1800s (if not much sooner). So, the biggest problem with the Joo argument is that the timeline doesn’t work.

It’s also strange how many people are able to believe that under-performance by one group with an IQ that’s one standard deviation below the mean is entirely explained by genetics while simultaneously believing that over-performance by another group with an IQ that’s one standard deviation above the mean must be explained by some nefarious process.

Advertisements

95 Responses to The Joos

  1. Steve Johnson says:

    Without disagreeing with your thesis three items:

    1) Progressivism didn’t start with Jews it started with the puritans but that doesn’t mean that Jews aren’t particularly bad at administering a progressive regime. Generally speaking they view non-Jews as the enemy and want to see them destroyed. Progressives who share an ethnicity with the ruled are far more constrained.

    2) Jews are a middle man minority and therefore make a spectacularly bad ruling class even apart from the animus they clearly have towards whites. As a group they’ve been under no selective pressure to develop traits that allow them to rule other groups in the long term because historically they just move on to the next host if they are expelled. Basically all whites are descended from the ruling class and have ruling class values such as long time frames and preserving things for the next generation. Jews in the same position will tend towards grabbing all they can in the short term because they don’t expect to be in that position for the long term. Doesn’t this sound exactly like American corporate and government culture?

    3) Jews are both above the white average in IQ and ethnocentrically nepotistic. Ron Unz documented how Jews skew Ivy League admissions to favor other Jews and even without reading his contribution you can see that the numbers don’t work out for Jews to be 50% of Ivy League students unless there is ethnic favoritism.

    • Foseti says:

      Paul Johnson wrote a book about the Jews and made some interesting observations in line with your point 2). It was put very differently, but the conclusion wasn’t fundamentally different.

  2. Doug says:

    “Jews in the same position will tend towards grabbing all they can in the short term because they don’t expect to be in that position for the long term. Doesn’t this sound exactly like American corporate and government culture?”

    The evidence doesn’t support your unsubstantiated populist rhetoric. American corporations have some of the highest re-investment rates in the entire world. Continental European corporates have historically much higher payout ratios (the percentage of earnings immediately returned to investors in the form of dividends) (link below). It would appear that having a lot of Jewish executives, as most American corporates do, is correlated with heavy re-investment and long-term development of the business.

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/1082181-comparing-dividend-payout-ratios-across-regions

    As for government culture, I can’t possibly see how you’d think continental Europe’s policy is a model of long-term stewardship. US governance policy certainly leaves a lot to be desired. But if you’re asserting the operative difference between American and continental Europe is the presence or ruling caste Jews, then I’d hurrah for the Hebrews. Certainly beats the blanket asylum that the “long-term focused” protestant rulers in Sweden are giving to every Syrian (link below).

    http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/09/06/sweden-grants-blanket-asylum-syrian-refugees

    • Steve Johnson says:

      “Jews in the same position will tend towards grabbing all they can in the short term because they don’t expect to be in that position for the long term. Doesn’t this sound exactly like American corporate and government culture?”

      The evidence doesn’t support your unsubstantiated populist rhetoric. American corporations have some of the highest re-investment rates in the entire world.

      I’m clearly not talking about narrow financial measures.

      I’m talking about entire approach that the finance sector has which has taken over the mental attitude that every sector has.

      Backscratching, intertwined boards voting each other immense pay packages with no connection to performance, a finance sector that views its function as making as much as you can and not worrying at all about a collapse* then after the collapse just draining the public treasury to make up for the shortfall.

      QE infinity which will as sure as night follows day destroy the dollar but sure as hell makes a bunch of connected people rich.

      MF Global just straight up robs people of a billion dollars and no one goes to jail because people there are connected – in China someone would get executed – in a country where there was some concern about making the system not look hopelessly corrupt people would go to jail. This country isn’t concerned about that – just about everyone individually trying to make sure they have a chair when the music stops playing.

      An area where I have some interest – food and diet. People have figured out that government food advice is a lie and are trying to eat better (closer to paleo – even if they don’t realize it). Ok, the bad advice was Puritan (there’s a long history of puritans hating a healthy diet – read about John Harvey Kellogg) created and motivated. However, in the 21st century people have started to catch on and are trying to avoid eating unhealthful food and have created a whole bunch of markers like “pasture fed”, “grass fed”, “organic”, etc. How does our government and food corporations react? By undermining the meaning of those words! From wikipedia:

      The United States Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) released a revised proposal for a grass fed meat label claim for its process-verified labeling program in May 2006.[6] The Union of Concerned Scientists, which in general supports the labeling proposal, claims that the current revision, which contains the clause “consumption of … grain in the immature stage is acceptable”, allows for “feed harvesting or stockpiling methods that might include significant amounts of grain” because the term “immature” is not clearly defined.

      In other words now that people have caught on to the fact that they were lied to for years they introduce a new lie to try to catch people. That’s behavior of an institution that doesn’t give a damn about it’s own future – just about keeping the money flowing until the whole thing blows up.

      That’s the short term mentality I’m talking about. Not about the proportion of cash reinvested vs dispersed as dividends.

      • Doug says:

        Save these bullshit anecdotes for ThinkProgress. You made a clear claim: that American business has a short term mentality compared to other countries. Are you going to defend this with hard facts and evidence, as I served to you? Or are you going to use stories exploiting nostalgia and a “grass is greeneer” bias.

        What’s your evidence that America has a special short-term mentality? Quantitative easing? Every goddamn economy in the world is printing money like mad. Even hard money central banks like Switzerland explicitly capped exchange rates. Joo-free Japan’s Abenomics makes QE look like its being run by hard money Ron Paul fanatics.

        You’re actually trying to compare MF Global to China. China has MF Global size scandals nearly every week. You must know next to nothing about how business is done in China. Chinese stocks are notorious for being filled with frauds. Only someone with no knowledge of Chinese markets would them as “honest” or “trustworthy.”

        American corporations re-invest a much higher proportion of their profits into long-term development compared to their international counterparts, which tend to pay off their profits immediately. That’s strong, direct, clear and comparable evidence that American business culture is in fact longer-term focused.

        I’ll give you another piece of evidence meeting this criteria. American managed multinationals experience higher productivity with European workers than domestic management. Even with the drag from cultural and linguistic barriers, American run corporations produce better results with European workers (who are already near the top of world productivity). Extreme multinational efficiency demonstrates that American firms are more optimally tuned than European counterparts.

        http://www.stanford.edu/~nbloom/ADIB.pdf

        Why don’t you actually try presenting something that actually supports your hypothesis. Stay focused on topic instead of wandering off into rants about grass-fed beef. No one gives a shit about your pet causes. Try to follow my lead and say something that doesn’t sound like a high school debater who took too much Adderall.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        You made a clear claim: that American business has a short term mentality compared to other countries. Are you going to defend this with hard facts and evidence, as I served to you?

        Reading comprehension not a strong suit is it?

        What I said was that American institutions are being gripped by a shorter term mentality now than in the past – they’ve got more of a short term outlook now than in the past.

        Not from a financial perspective – but from an institutional preservation perspective.

        But don’t worry, profits are at record highs and cash is being reinvested at very high rates. By all quantitative measures everything is great!

        Here’s something I recommend that you read:

        http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/04/america-zombie-nation.html

        Seems that the one out of step with the reacto-sphere is you:

        America is a much more interesting case, because (aside from its endlessly burgeoning political system, including its grant-funded “nongovernmental” periphery), the industries in which we see Dilbert syndrome are private, profitable. Nothing in America today is Brezhnev bad, but it is getting there. Furthermore, we cannot compare the America of 2009 to itself – we must compare it to the America of 2009 that should exist. Where is the iron broom of competitive discipline? How can pointy-haired managers, HR red tape and sensitivity seminars survive it?

        The answer, I think, is our friend zombie finance. We do not have Gosplan, but we have Wall Street. America is Dilbertized to the extent that Wall Street is zombified.

        Don’t worry – I’m sure you can stick to the Ayn Rand-o-sphere and you’ll hear about how heroic you are to be in finance and how profits are the only way to assess the health of a nation.

      • Doug says:

        Steve, Steve, Steve… You trying to change your argument up on me? Don’t be a weasel, either defend your original point or concede the debate. Here is what you said originally:

        ” Jews in the same position will tend towards grabbing all they can in the short term because they don’t expect to be in that position for the long term. Doesn’t this sound exactly like American corporate and government culture?”

        You clearly said singled out American culture. Not present-day American culture, but just plain American culture. That doesn’t have any thing to do with the present vs. the past. If I said “French people are smelly” you wouldn’t assume that I was comparing Francois Hollande to Marie Antoinette.

        In fact you even re-inforced your clearly cross-country comparison by talking about the wonders of financial transparency in present-day China. Now you’re trying to twist the argument into something about the past vs. the present. Just be a man and admit that the you’re wrong about the original point.

        But even if you want to shift the debate to this point, then go ahead. Because it completely invalidates your original argument. Which was “Those dastardly Jews think way too short-term. Just look at America, its filled with Jews [implicitly compared to other countries]. QED”. But if you’re instead going to compare America Present to America Past then your causality is completely reversed.

        America Past had an even higher proportion of Jews than America Present. Primarily due to low birth rates and immigration to Israel. If America Past was truly a shining beacon compared to America Present, then that would indicate a *lack of Jews* is the problem not a surfeit.

  3. SOBL1 says:

    I agree with the Massachusetts triumphs concept, but the 20th century Jewish influence on US progress is like fitting afterburners to a turbofan jet engine. What did not help was that so many of the post-1880 Jewish immigrants were locked out of traditional means for economic and political power that they ran full force into the many splinter groups of communist, sorry, progressive thought in NYC.Take a look at the families of plenty of Jewish-Americna pundits and look for the references to being a red or pink diaper baby.

  4. asdf says:

    The problem of the Jews is a universal problem that applies to far more then Jews, it simply goes into overdrive with them. The fundamental issue is that man is fallen and sinful, virtuous living is a difficult and often rare thing. Man needs all sorts of support to help live the good life. This is especially true when he’s in a position of power, the old “power corrupts” line. Anytime the ruling minority loses its ties to the ruled majority all the same criticisms leveled at the Jews could be leveled at anyone. Did the Japanese fascists treat the Chinese they were ruling over justly?

    In order for people to rule well they tend to need connections to those they rule. Yes, there will always be differences and its the rulers job to rule not follow the mob, but we try to maintain what social and cultural connections we can. When people share really important things like ethnicity, culture, religion, history, etc its no guarantee of good rule, but it helps.

    Due to their high IQ and historical legacy of being heavily involved in our most powerful economic rent sectors (banking) Jews are partially a ruling caste. Yet they feel no connection to the people they rule. The effects of this should be obvious, they are the same with all groups they are just especially highlighted with Jews.

    I’ll give you a story that shows this. I grew up in a largely Jewish town, about 90%. There was a Jewish kid I’ve been friends with from middle school up through my IB days. He also went into IB (surprise, right). A little before I left I went to meet him for a meal to catch up. He outlined his plan to stay in IB a little more to build up a for more clients, then start a hedge fund. The fund would be a scam where all he would really do is take a punt though that would be obscured by some complicated derivatives. If it worked he’d get his 2&20. If it fails it was someone else’s money. When I raised some objections to this his answer basically boiled down to the effect of, “those people I’ll be ripping off aren’t my people.” You don’t need to be a Jew to have that attitude. I met plenty of non-Jews like that, its a human condition. However, it doesn’t help. It’s just one more thing that makes that kind of dehumanization possible.

    I’m wary of any minority ruling group with few connections to those it rules.

    • Doug says:

      “Did the Japanese fascists treat the Chinese they were ruling over justly?”

      Actually, yes. Japanese ruled Manchuria had by far the highest level of development of any part of China:

      “Manchukuo experienced rapid economic growth and progress in its social systems. Its industrial system was among the most advanced making it one of the industrial powerhouses in the region.[14] Manchukuo’s steel production exceeded Japan’s in the late 1930s. Many Manchurian cities were modernised during Manchukuo era.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchukuo#Economy

      The wartime crimes in Nanjing were just that: wartime crimes. The Japanese as a military adversary showed harsh brutality and needlessly cruelty to to their enemies. (However if you read accounts of the Japanese feudal wars, they showed enormous cruelty to their co-ethnics as well). The Japanese as peacetime administrations and ruling minorities proved to be extremely competent and benevolent. The Chinese under Japanese administration certainly fared much better than the Chinese under Chinese rule.

      The rest of your thesis follows from a similarly flawed premise: minority ruling class are worst than a ruling class that looks like the people. History has proved this point wrong time and time again. The most advanced civilizations in history were prime examples of this, all the way from Alexander civilizing Persia and Egypt to modern-day Singapore and Hong Kong (respectively Chinese ruling Indians and Malays, and British governors ruling Chinese). Even in modern-day Africa, Rwanda under Tutsi minority ruler Paul Kagame is prospering while its neighbor the DRC is a smoldering shithole. In fact you’d be hard-pressed to find one peacetime example of a minority ruling class truly running things worse than neighboring examples of homogenous rulers.

      Frankly this comes as little surprise to someone who’s mind isn’t rotted by progressive drivel about the “will of the people”. We want rulers to be divorced from the masses. The role of ruler is first and foremost to serve as arbiter to the conflicts among the people. A ruler drawn from the people he rules is going to be entwined with their petty allegiances and feuds. A competent and unbiased third-party is much more able to make wise and impartial decisions.

      If your county is a clusterfuck because the Hatfields and McCoys keep burning down each others property, then your best bet is to find a tough sheriff from far away who isn’t related to either clan.

      • asdf says:

        The Rape of Nanking and using them as germ warfare test subjects is OK, Manchurias GDP went up!

        “all the way from Alexander civilizing Persia”

        What? Alexander was a butchering drunk that broke up a stable and decent regime because a body count made him more like Achilles. Then they had a bloody civil war.

        As to Whites and Asians ruling blacks, even there we can admit that it leads to problems. Do we not remember that various abuses often led to decolonialization? It’s true blacks can’t rule themselves too well, but that doesn’t mean the problems of minority ruling majority aren’t present. Nor does it means Jews should be ruling Whites.

        “A competent and unbiased third-party is much more able to make wise and impartial decisions.”

        How can one be a competent and wise if they know nothing about the people they are ruling because they have no connection to them?

        I’m going to take a different line. Diversity isn’t strength, and trying to run any society with vastly different people in it is extremely (impossibly) hard. How would I know what is good for someone with 80 IQ? Such an experience is so alien to me. All I can really know is that what works for him doesn’t work for me, which means its going to be awfully hard to form a society together.

      • Doug says:

        “The Rape of Nanking and using them as germ warfare test subjects is OK, Manchurias GDP went up!”

        You’re failing at basic reading comprehension here. Manchuria’s development occurred before the Second Sino-Japanese war. This refutes your central statement, that the Japanese were incapable of treating the Chinese fairly. The Japanese treated their peacetime subjects *far* better than their Chinese co-ethnics.

        The behavior of a wartime occupying army is completely orthogonal to the behavior of a peacetime ruling class. If you doubt that look to Victorian Britain, who were vicious military conquerors (see: Boers), but excellent and benevolent administrators. You might have a point that non-coethnic occupying militaries are crueler (or you might not, the Germans were certainly atrocious to each other in the Thirty Years War). But its fundamentally a moot point. Jews in America may be taking over or potentially taking over through many means. But direct military conquest seems pretty far down on the list.

        “Alexander was a butchering drunk that broke up a stable and decent regime because a body count made him more like Achilles.”

        I’m not even going to bother debating this point, because it’s so stupid. If you think Western civilization is pretty neat-o, which to me seems self-evidence, then Alexander is pretty damn important. Without him it’s very likely that Western civilization dies a premature death. Again anyone with a basic knowledge of history should intuitively understand this point.

        “Do we not remember that various abuses often led to decolonialization?”

        You’ve fallen into the trap of progressive history. During the period of the 1950s and 1960s colonial administration was the most humane, liberal and tolerant to native populations that it had ever been. The worst colonial abuses overwhelmingly occurred much prior to decolonization. The Congo remained firmly under Leopold’s iron fist, and didn’t leave until Belgium had already invested significant amounts to drastically raise livings standards for the natives. The same can be said for almost all the other prominent cases: Rhodesia, Cuba, Indochina, Mozambique, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Morocco, Indonesia, Jamaica.

        These countries didn’t de-colonize because the plucky natives got “fed up” with the dastardly exploits of the heterogenous colonizers. They decolonized because their Western patron states for various reasons chose to let them decolonize. None of these pathetic native rebellions would have been strong enough to defeat an uninhibited Western military response.

        “How can one be a competent and wise if they know nothing about the people they are ruling because they have no connection to them?”

        James Cowperthwaite didn’t even speak Chinese, but turned Hong Kong from a desolate third world rock into the most dynamic economy in the world. All this at the same time Mao Zedong was murdering millions of his coethnics (it’s okay though since they had a lot in common).

        In fact the basis of any sane legal system is that arbitrator should have no connection to the parties in the conflict. Would you trust a judge who’s related to the plaintiff? No? Then why should you trust a ruler who has deep connections to the people.

        ” Diversity isn’t strength, and trying to run any society with vastly different people in it is extremely (impossibly) hard.”

        No it isn’t hard at all. History abounds of empires with more diversity than a Papua New Guinean archipelago. Homogeneity is only a prerequisite to running a progressive democracy. Throw out the pretension of democracy and it becomes extremely easy. There’s a reason that nationalism and democracy go hand in hand. Caesar easily ruled peoples with nothing in common. Victorian Britain calmly presided over an empire that spanned every major cultural group on the globe. Louis XIV had more in common with the Russia czar than he did with the peasants 20 miles outside of Versailles.

      • asdf says:

        I think you really need to re-read what things were like in occupied China.

        “If you think Western civilization is pretty neat-o, which to me seems self-evidence, then Alexander is pretty damn important. Without him it’s very likely that Western civilization dies a premature death. ”

        Explain.

        Alexander was just another figure in the ongoing mafia soap opera and the Macedonians. He was a butcher who committed genocide for his own glory. He invaded a relatively peaceful and harmonious empire, drank himself to death after it was conquered, and then it descended into civil war. The Greeks that you credit with western civilization and Hellenism hated the guy. His reputation was revived by the Romans as propaganda for why they should control Greece and everyplace else.

        There are a lot of abuses in the colonial areas well into the 50s and 60s. White rule was superior in spite of these things, but it was there and proves the point about having minority rulers. In a white society its clear that the majority can rule itself, so of what value is minority ruler ship.

        China hit a bump, but its been hitting bumps its whole history. Every once in awhile it divided into warring states or had a hunch of horse archers role through and take over. However, they always rebounded. Even after the breakup and Moa they are back on the right track. So long as China remains for the Chinese they will eventually reclaim their place.

        The west, by contrast, is permanently destroying is genetic base. And this is in large part because its rulers feel noting in common with its people.

        “Caesar easily ruled peoples with nothing in common.”

        Until the stabbings of course.

        Ancient dictatorship cultures can keep together feudal states they have little control over outside taxes and providing trips. I don’t see how that applies to today.

      • asdf says:

        BTW, here are your glorious Japanese administrators that did a bang up job in Manchuria.

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

        But hey, steel production was up. The 10 million Chinese that got put into slavery to make it and send it back to Japan were just being led well be benevolent administrators.

        Of course the slaves are the lucky ones. At least they didn’t get vivisected alive

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

        “Vivisection

        Prisoners of war were subjected to vivisection without anesthesia.[15] Vivisections were performed on prisoners after infecting them with various diseases. Scientists performed invasive surgery on prisoners, removing organs to study the effects of disease on the human body. These were conducted while the patients were alive because it was feared that the decomposition process would affect the results.[16] The infected and vivisected prisoners included men, women, children, and infants.[17]

        Prisoners had limbs amputated in order to study blood loss. Those limbs that were removed were sometimes re-attached to the opposite sides of the body. Some prisoners’ limbs were frozen and amputated, while others had limbs frozen then thawed to study the effects of the resultant untreated gangrene and rotting.

        Some prisoners had their stomachs surgically removed and the esophagus reattached to the intestines. Parts of the brain, lungs, liver, etc. were removed from some prisoners.[15][18]

        In 2007, the Japanese army surgeon Ken Yuasa testified to the Japan Times that, “I was afraid during my first vivisection, but the second time around, it was much easier. By the third time, I was willing to do it.” He believes at least 1,000 people, including surgeons, were involved in vivisections over mainland China.[19]”

        Apparently your such a “manly and robust noble” that despite what should be millions in the bank based on your bio you’ve decided to spend your days arguing that this kind of barbarity is just the price of higher steel production and the parasites had it coming.

      • VXXC says:

        1. It’s the Puritans. If it were otherwise personal ties notwithstanding I’d say so.
        2. Yes, certain names are overrepresented on the Lists of Evil in society’s current demarche.
        3. The Progs nee Puritans make for a clear, guilty, main enemy.
        4. Reforms don’t. Hopelessly clouds situation.
        5. Puritans make all the racial conflict what it actually is, white on white. Has been for 4 centuries.
        6. Always simplify problems you mean to act on, as oppose to study. 1-5 simplify things. Accurately.
        7. Our reward [like grant money] lies in Victory, which requires simplicity in naming the enemy. Not in studying endless subdivisions. There’s never going to be Cathedral Grants for Dark Enlightenment Endowments to study the Catherdral.

    • Doug says:

      “powerful economic rent sectors (banking)”

      The right-wing of Occupy Wall Street needs to purged out of the reaction-sphere immediately. Banking is not a “rent-seeking” sector. Banking is a critically important function in any advanced capitalist economy. Do you really think you can run a post-industrial civilization without banks? Let’s see how that works out for you, my guess is that you’ll sorely miss all that “rent” you’re paying to the evil “banksters.”

      Fact: developed economies have larger financial sectors than undeveloped economies. This is true both across time (as countries develop their financial sectors grows as a percent of GDP) and space (first world countries devote a larger share of GDP to finance than less developed countries). Fact: corruption as measured by CPI is negatively correlated with the share of GDP devoted to finance. This is true even when controlling for income. If banking was rent-seeking then corrupt places should have more of it. Instead we find just the opposite.

      Banking is not rent-seeking, its the allocation of capital to prudent investment. Its literally makes the most important decisions in the economy. Only someone profoundly ignorant of even basic economics could not realize this.

      Let’s get this straight: the reactionary restoration will be intensely capitalistic. The Cathedral devotes a huge portion of their energy to fighting, regulating, limiting and redistributing from business and corporations. Once the Cathedral is gone without the anti-trust regulatory welfare state the mega-corporations will grow powerful. Far more profitable, powerful and larger than they are today. Banking more so than any other sector. Hint: look at the size power, size and profitability of the banks in the 19th century.

      To be a reactionary means to be a pro-capitalist. To be a pro-capitalist means to be a pro-financialist. If you’re not fully committed to defending the bankers and traders, some of the most manly and robust nobles alive today, against the parasitic bureaucratic sycophants in the welfare state, then this is not the place for you.

      • asdf says:

        Dude, grow up. I worked in IB and its largely scam rent seeking. The “important function” was fulfilled better when banking was a much smaller part of the economy. Nothing I did while working in IB could be considered an important function, I was fucking with people for profit.

        Fact: When finance as a percentage of GDP was half what it is today we had a way higher growth rate and a more stable society.

        “Banking is not rent-seeking, its the allocation of capital to prudent investment. ”

        Banking is figuring out how to convince people to commit monkey brain errors because they aren’t all knowing rational economic man. Its a subset of psychology, and nobody gives a fuck about whether something is a good investment.

        “the reactionary restoration will be intensely capitalistic.”

        If you think what modern banking is doing is capitalistic (in your heroic producer Ayn Rand mindset) then you are incredibly naïve about the real world.

        “To be a reactionary means to be a pro-capitalist. To be a pro-capitalist means to be a pro-financialist. If you’re not fully committed to defending the bankers and traders, some of the most manly and robust nobles alive today, against the parasitic bureaucratic sycophants in the welfare state, then this is not the place for you.”

        Are you 18?

      • Foseti says:

        This all depends on what you mean by “banking.”

        Obviously, growth will be higher if credit is attainable and bankruptcy is possible. Lots of modern day “banking” goes way beyond this.

        I agree that some of the anti-bank rhetoric is over the top, but the big banks are incredibly well-subsidized, intimately connected to the government, unstably large, and lots of their activities bear little or no relationship to extending credit.

      • K(yle) says:

        “Banking” is such an outsized part of the economy that no other part of the economy even matters.

      • Doug says:

        Oh, wow you worked in investment banking for a few years. You must be a genius when it comes to financial markets, tell me more. That shit may impress Joe Sixpack, but your history of being a low-level sell-side drone trying to beg mid-market industrials to subscribe to syndicated loans isn’t impressive. You trying to claim that your “experience” offers you some sort of special insight into how the financial system works, is like the tech support guy at the Apple store claiming deep insight into kernel design.

        Since you want to attack my background and knowledge on the issue, let me assure you that it is far more extensive and in-depth than yours. I’m a quantitative portfolio manager for a high-frequency trading firm. I’ve worked for one ofthe largest and most sophisticated hedge funds in the world. I have experience in structured credit modelling, portfolio construction, fixed-income arbitrage, energy trading, ETF market making, dark pools and stat-arb. I’ve traded equities, futures, bonds and options in the US, Europe and Asia.

        Frankly you’re thinking is quite common in sophomore level financial workers, and is a big reason why so many wash out. After what feels like good exposure to the market, you get arrogant and assume that you know a lot more than you do. You lose sight of the fact that you’ve only seen a small corner of a small niche. You’re smarter than all the other dummies who are just fooling themselves. You can explain the reason behind all financial decisions, most of which you’re too smart for. You start to read pseudo-intellectual drivel like Nassim Taleb and ZeroHedge and prattle on about all the “sheeple” who are “fooled by randomness” and getting ripped off.

        If you don’t let your head get so big you’d realize just how arrogantly overconfident this is. Hayek demonstrated that markets are a product of human action, but not human design. Financial markets, by far the most complex markets known to man, more so than any others. No one is smart enough to fully understand the intricacies and motivations underlying modern financial markets, not by a long shot. The system is enormously deep, irreducibly complex, and supremely adapted for efficiency in thousands of different baffling ways. Markets are the only known system to run an efficient post-industrial economy. If you want to go full-retard populist socialist that’s fine, but the reaction-sphere is not the place for you. I suggest you go hang out with the dredges at Sailer’s or Mangan’s site.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        I’m a quantitative portfolio manager for a high-frequency trading firm. I’ve worked for one ofthe largest and most sophisticated hedge funds in the world. I have experience in structured credit modelling, portfolio construction, fixed-income arbitrage, energy trading, ETF market making, dark pools and stat-arb. I’ve traded equities, futures, bonds and options in the US, Europe and Asia.

        Yet you’re still an idiot (or just a motivated liar).

        What other explanation could there be for a statement this stupid?

        In fact the basis of any sane legal system is that arbitrator should have no connection to the parties in the conflict. Would you trust a judge who’s related to the plaintiff? No? Then why should you trust a ruler who has deep connections to the people.

        Yep, never in history has a good ruler shared an ethnicity with the ruled and the only examples of good government are those where a middleman minority dominates the state. Brilliant observation.

        Probably should break up all families too – can’t trust a father to head a household – he’s got too much of a connection to his children.

      • asdf says:

        Doug,

        “let me assure you that it is far more extensive and in-depth than yours. I’m a quantitative portfolio manager for a high-frequency trading firm.”

        Translation: Since I steal for a living I know a lot more about stealing.

        People who want things find ways to justify them. You want to earn a lot of money in finance, you latch on to whatever ideology tells you it wasn’t because you were just ripping people off so you can sleep at night. Hey, ancient soldiers needed the Gods to tell them it was OK to loot some city too.

        I’ve seen enough silver spoon Rand fanatics in my day that think trading something a fraction of a second faster makes them John Galt. I cut some guy off from a trade, its totally the equivalent of when John Galt invented unlimited free energy. I’m a heroic producer!

        “No one is smart enough to fully understand the intricacies and motivations underlying modern financial markets, not by a long shot.”

        Except *insert free market dude I like* that totally figured it out. Luckily what they figure out shows I’m suppose to be rich!

      • Red says:

        A good chunk of the most advanced civilizations in history outright banned usury. They’res little doubt that usury impoverishes people who are not smart enough to understand that it’s a scam and rewards people for unproductive work. It’s great benefit is the ability to raise large sums of money for the state in a short amount of time.

      • asdf says:

        Doug,

        What you do for a living.

      • Doug says:

        *Yawn*

        “You’re a rich fat cat.”
        “Quit trying to justify plundering the masses.”
        “I’m edgy because I stand up to big business”
        “Usury is just exploiting people who do productive work [Okay, Mohammad…]”
        “Colonialism is evil”
        “The government needs to represent the common people better”

        Jesus, if I didn’t look at my URL bar I would have thought I wondered into a Reddit politics thread. I’m sure you sound oh-so-badass to most people, especially when you mix it in with some good old fashioned white nationalism.

        But this is a neorecationary site. We’ve heard all this bullshit before. And we’re not impressed. If you want to debate, then debate. But try spinning some arguments that Moldbug, et al. hasn’t crushed a million times before.

      • Doug says:

        “I agree that some of the anti-bank rhetoric is over the top, but the big banks are incredibly well-subsidized, intimately connected to the government, unstably large, and lots of their activities bear little or no relationship to extending credit.”

        I don’t deny that banks don’t receive benefits from certain arrangements that they have with the government. But generally the magnitude of these benefits tends to be oversold. Don’t forget all the onerous regulations that progressives have hoisted on banks and financiers: Basel capital limits, Volcker rule, Dodd-Frank, central clearing of OTC derivatives, CFTC position limits, prohibitions on physical commodity trading, Regulation FD, insanely restrictive insider trading laws, accredited investor restrictions, bans on naked short-selling, and on and on.

        These regulations have deep impacts on financial sector profitability. So you can’t just cite a too-big-too-fail subsidy without trying to quantify it against all of the restrictions banks face.

        Well we could go back and forth on specifics adding up the net pluses and minuses for the banks. Or we could just directly compare to a period before the modern progressive state. Like I said before 19th century banks were bigger, more concentrated, more powerful and more profitable than they are today. You’d pretty much have to assume that any “reactionary reset” takes us in the economic direction of a century ago. All things considered the environment seemed much better for JP Morgan in 1913 than it is today.

      • asdf says:

        Who is “we”?

        Foseti is pretty clear about his feelings that free market and Ayn Rand fetishism is a dumb. Not to mention refuting you above. Moldbug too doesn’t believe in some amorphous “market” as the solution. Going through the whole reactionary pantheon I’m not seeing a whole bunch of people that share your viewpoint.

        Your right though, we have all heard your perspective before. Everyone here encountered Hayek and such before, learned something from them, but probably kept going. Being a reactionary is often the result of realizing that libertarianism is wrong.

        As for you I’ve directly encountered people like you many times before. Your the Rand quoting IB douchbag that cut in line for lunch at the homeless shelter and called the homeless parasites when we were doing corporate charity. “Some of the most manly and robust nobles alive today” is the kind of bullshit that effeminate trust funder said too. I’m sure your biographies differ, but its the same anger, avarice, pride, and hate that is at the core of your soul.

      • asdf says:

        Doug,

        “Like I said before 19th century banks were bigger, more concentrated, more powerful and more profitable than they are today.”

        Obviously disprovable falsehood. We have never had a bigger financial sector then we have now. It’s also never been this profitable. In fact the increase compared to your golden age is dramatic.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization#Financial_turnover_compared_to_gross_domestic_product

        The economic heroes of the past made things, they didn’t chop up derivatives on sub prime loans.

      • VXXC says:

        “The right-wing of Occupy Wall Street needs to purged out of the reaction-sphere immediately.” Then do it yourself Comrade.

        “If you’re not fully committed to defending the bankers and traders, some of the most manly and robust nobles alive today, against the parasitic bureaucratic sycophants in the welfare state, ” – Doug, these people are identical. Doug, these are the same incarnation. If fact they’re the Super-Parasites who broke the Bank.

        We’re going to have a post-crash finanical sector. Of course we are, but it certainly can’t be the same people. They’ll simply do it again. Really the History of the last 25 years in Finance [and hence government and politics] is the same people doing the same crimes over and over again.

        You’re right we can’t conflate actual business with Finance. However we can’t conflate solvent and non-criminal finance with what’s been happening since Clinton bought Goldman et al into governance. For this is the secret of Clinton’s governance, he privatized and criminalized government in the 90s. Privatizing government created a second and in day to day delivery real government contracted out. This is Governance Farming in terms of the Democratic Party’s actual core product: The Government Check.

        This created a coalition that persists to this day. Their Voters are simply important symbolic ritualistic participants. Government completed it’s journey to becoming pure commerce.

        And that commerce is looting the country, Crime. Neo-Liberal policies having been tested in Latin America successfully [from a business standpoint] were then perfected in America. Tens of Trillions have been taken, Trillions more are being taken each year. This is the core of Clinton’s second pillar of government – criminalizing the State into a Control Fraud directed against America itself.

        If you actually knew anything about how our government has been operating the last 20 years, you’d know it was rife with fraud and corruption from top to bottom. The reason we’re not a 3d world country yet although we’re well on our way there ..is that there’s so much to steal. Indeed there is much ruin in a nation, and there’s never been as much to ruin as there is in America.

        The actual story of Impeachment you know is sane old fashioned Mafia types [make money but don’t burn down the entire society] chasing after Bill Clinton, Agent of Chaos and his Control Fraud INC cronies who wanted to see the world burn and are succeeding .

      • Nick Land says:

        “Banking is not a ‘rent-seeking’ sector.” — Crony capitalism changes all the equations relevant to this statement. In the age of Too Big Too Fail, bail-outs, and financial central planning, is it really reasonable to treat banking as a market-based service industry?

      • Doug says:

        @asdf

        You’ve now mentioned Ayn Rand six times, and I’ve mentioned her none. I’m pretty sure that if one of us is obsessed with Objectivism, it ain’t me.

        As for actual neoreactionary thought, first neoreactionaries adore Hayek as they do all Austrian economists. Nearly half of Unqualified Reservation posts are on Austrian economics. Second here’s Moldbug himself on what a post reactionary restoration economy would look like:

        “For a little libertarian “red meat,” here are some freedoms I think citizens of Fnargland would enjoy:… One, freedom of computation and communication… Two, freedom of contract and arbitration… Four, freedom of industry… Six, freedom of finance.”
        http://unqualifiedreservations.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized/page/19/

        In other words reactionaries essentially support a libertarian economy. Anyone who’s read Moldbug could tell you that the core of his disagreements with libertarians is on political structure (SovCorps vs NAP), not economic theory. Moldbug, and any other neoreactionary, fully supports hardcore hard-money unregulated no-holds-barred laissez-faire capitalism. I.e. essentially a return to the economy of the late 19th century United States. Which brings me too…:

        ” We have never had a bigger financial sector then we have now. It’s also never been this profitable…The economic heroes of the past made things, they didn’t chop up derivatives on sub prime loans.”

        You argue with the sophistication of a six year old. Here’s another fact about 1900. 41% of the population (and close to the same amount of GDP) worked in agriculture, today less than 2% does. Does that mean that if we return to a 19th century style economic system that nearly half of all workers and economic activity will go back to farming?

        How about another one, software constituted exactly 0% of GDP in 1900, does that post-restoration that Larry Ellison is going to be a pauper? Don’t be so pedantic, the distribution of GDP in 1900 has far more to do with the technological development of the time than the economic system. Namely because the people of the past were poorer than the people of the present, and when you’re poor you spend a higher proportion of your money on feeding, clothing and sheltering yourself.

        Notwithstanding your completely pointless statistics, let me add some relevant statistics to the direct question. Will bankers increase or decrease in wealth with the 19th century style economic system that would accompany Moldbug’s Reign of Fnargl? Well, a simple way is to look at whether the richest bankers (relative to society’s wealth) lived now or then.

        Here’s a list of the richest Americans of all time:
        http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2006/07/29/the-wealthy-100-a-ranking-of-the-richest-americans-past-and-present/

        And here’s the Forbes 400:
        http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/

        Several stylized facts stick out. First the richest men of 1900 were much richer relative to the rest of society than they are today. The restoration will be quite good to the plutocrats. Second a higher proportion of the richest men from the 19th century are bankers or financiers than today. The restoration will be extra good to the banker plutocrats.

        Looking at the top 25 richest men of today, there’s only three clear-cut financiers (Warren Buffet, Georgi Soros, Carl Icahn), and count Bloomberg if you want (even though he’s not directly involved in financing anything). No straight-line bankers. Of the top 25 richest men in the 19th century there are eight indisputable financiers (Stephen Girard, Andrew and Richard Mellon, Moses Taylor, Russell Sage, Henry Rogers, J.P. Morgan, Henry Frick). More than half of whom are straight-line bankers.

        So like many other of your clearly unsubstantiated facts you are wrong about this. The economic heroes of the past were even more involved in moving money around, rather than “making things” than they are today.

      • Doug says:

        ““Banking is not a ‘rent-seeking’ sector.” — Crony capitalism changes all the equations relevant to this statement. In the age of Too Big Too Fail, bail-outs, and financial central planning, is it really reasonable to treat banking as a market-based service industry?”

        This is an good question, and cuts to the core of the debate. In a true free market how much similar would banking look to today’s crony capitalism. The structure of the companies would most likely change, and some firms would do better and some would do worse. But the day-to-day activity of bankers would be almost completely the same (they’d just make more money as my comparison to the free market 19th century show).

        Here’s some simple facts that we know. Banks would definitely still be needed. That’s indisputable. Second the core activity of banking and finance would be the same: raising capital, investing funds, making markets, hedging risks, assessing loss potentials, managing portfolios of loans, and so on. The people who are good at those things now, will still be good at those things in the World of Tomorrow. Meet the new bankers, same as the old bankers.

        Too Big Too Fail probably lowers the largest banks’ borrowing costs by less than 0.1% (http://dealbreaker.com/2013/05/the-too-big-to-fail-subsidy-is-negative-ten-billion-dollars-says-goldman-sachs/). Its removal would marginally impact bank profitability. But that’s set against the removal of restrictions on prop trading, capital charges, physical commodity trading, futures position limits, etc. that currently exist but would not in a free market.

        In fact all of this doesn’t even need to be a hypothetical exercise. We already have a subsection of the financial sector that works as a natural comparison. One that isn’t subjected to bail-outs or TBTF, but in turns has very low regulation and central planning. Specially hedge funds, private equity and proprietary trading shops. This sub-sector shows us two things:

        1) They tend to be make a lot more money than their regulated/subsidized/centrally planned banking counterparts. This is a strong indicator that crony capitalism is an overall bad thing for bankers. Going to free market capitalism would almost assuredly mean they make more money.

        2) Hedge funds and private equity have high overlap with the employees of banks. That is a lot of people go back and forth between the regulated/subsidized/centrally planned sub-sector and the unregulated sub-sector. That indicates that most bankers pretty much have the same skill set they’d need in free-makret banker. Contrary to what VXXC suggested, post-reactionary finance would pretty much contain the same bankers we have today.

      • asdf says:

        “some of the most manly and robust nobles alive today”

        Is straight up Ayn Rand style fetishism, so I call it like I see it. More generally it applies to a certain kind of human attitude and the idea that “free markets” are the best way to organize society.

        Re: Moldbug

        Economics and politics are the same. If your economic theory is not politically stable then its a worthless economic theory. Its why there is a giant whole in his philosophy that has to be solved by a king being given power spontaneously and then that power being absolute and unchallenged. After that he institutes libertarianism which everyone just lives with whether its good for them or not because there is nothing they can do. Its all a little silly.

        It’s interesting BTW that you’ve had to go all the way back to 2007, Moldbug has evolved. And he would certainly consider what you do for a living:
        “In particular, it does not subsidize debt, promote “cheap money,” run Ponzi schemes, etc.”

        “You argue with the sophistication of a six year old. Here’s another fact about 1900. 41% of the population (and close to the same amount of GDP) worked in agriculture, today less than 2% does. Does that mean that if we return to a 19th century style economic system that nearly half of all workers and economic activity will go back to farming?

        How about another one, software constituted exactly 0% of GDP in 1900, does that post-restoration that Larry Ellison is going to be a pauper? Don’t be so pedantic, the distribution of GDP in 1900 has far more to do with the technological development of the time than the economic system. Namely because the people of the past were poorer than the people of the present, and when you’re poor you spend a higher proportion of your money on feeding, clothing and sheltering yourself.”

        None of this has anything to do with what I cited.

        “let me add some relevant statistics to the direct question”

        The Forbes 400 is your relevant statistic? Am I supposed to dignify this with a response?

        You have zero answer to the fact that the size of the finance sector exploded as things went to shit, and that it was infinitely smaller back in the golden age you claim it was larger in.

        “Going to free market capitalism would almost assuredly mean they make more money.”

        Going with a “free market” would mean the vast majority of the finance sector wouldn’t have survived the market crash when it didn’t get massively bailed out by QE and public backstop.

      • Doug says:

        “You have zero answer to the fact that the size of the finance sector exploded as things went to shit, and that it was infinitely smaller back in the golden age you claim it was larger in.”

        Clearly you missed the basic point. Per capita GDP of the US in 1900 was at about the same level as Nicaragua is today. Would you really expect Nicaraguans to spend a lot of money on financial products like mutual funds or homeowners insurance. Probably not, priority one for Nicaraguans is getting food on the table and clothes on their back.

        Financial sector share increased, because the entire service sector increased dramatically. This isn’t rocket science, rich people spend money on services than poor people. This isn’t some evil conspiracy or economic ponzi scheme, it’s just a basic fact of life. Rich economies become service economies. Period.

        All sufficiently advanced economies become financialized. It has nothing to do with “things going to shit”, but is a direct consequence of increasing wealth and economic sophistication. On a percentage basis financial sector share of GDP increased more between 1800 and 1900 than it did between 1900 and 2000.

        But an easy way to look at the impact of progressive government, without confounding the long-term trend of economic development, is by looking at historical periods immediately following progressive consolidation of power. As the chart you linked shows the progressive presidency of FDR is associated with a 66% reduction in financial sector share of GDP.

        Furthermore we can see that neoreactionary economies would be even more deeply financialized than current progressive economies. In the US financial services made up about 8.3% of GDP. In progressive European spearheads like France financial services make up only 4% of GDP. In Singapore, the closest thing to a neoreactionary state around today, finance makes up 22% of GDP.

        http://selectusa.commerce.gov/industry-snapshots/financial-services-industry-united-states
        http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/qb110304.pdf
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Singapore

        Your basic thesis is dead wrong. Even a basic examination of the evidence reveals that progressive government retards, not promotes, financialization. Overall the financial sector is clearly a victim of progressive policy.

      • Bill says:

        Doug,

        You should try to make an argument. I, for one, would be interested in hearing it. I find it easy to defend stock lefty bad guys like Carnegie Steel, Standard Oil, Microsoft, and Google. It’s simple to explain the value they created while making absurd amounts of money.

        This is not true of the contemporary finance sector in the US. It is very difficult to explain what it is they do which makes them so valuable. In what way are the lives of non-financial workers better for the efforts of financial workers? You can’t fall back on things like mortgage lending or mutual funds or bank lending to businesses or commodities & futures or anything else which was around and working in, say, 1980. So, what is it that banks do now which they didn’t do then which justifies the gigantic growth in their costliness to the rest of us? I see nothing. Or, nothing but scams, more accurately.

        Banking is not rent-seeking, its the allocation of capital to prudent investment. Its literally makes the most important decisions in the economy. Only someone profoundly ignorant of even basic economics could not realize this.

        Do you grasp how bad an argument this is? It’s just airy-fairy handwaving and ideological ranting. Standard Oil made the Rockefellers ridiculously rich by driving down the cost of refining oil enormously, to the obvious and huge benefit of almost everyone. Goldman Sachs made Lloyd Blankfein ridiculously rich by __________________, to the obvious and huge benefit of almost everyone. Fill in the blank.

        The juice which made the Reformation go was expropriating the Catholic Church. All the aristos wanted in on the booty, and, hey, all you had to do to get some was to say you were a Protestant. I think the juice to make the next revolution go should come from expropriating the banking sector. Why am I wrong?

      • asdf says:

        “Financial sector share increased, because the entire service sector increased dramatically. ”

        Why should we assume that the financial sector will increase in this manner? Are there not services that are done more efficiently by an even smaller group today? You go from needing clerks to do passbooks by hand to having it all automated by computers, etc. You’re not making your case. You would have to prove that the need for financial management of investment is increasing faster then economic growth? Can you do that?

        It seems to me that your goal would be to prove that either:
        1) Increased financialization caused increased economic growth
        2) That most of the increase in financialization was related to capital allocation.

        “As the chart you linked shows the progressive presidency of FDR is associated with a 66% reduction in financial sector share of GDP.”

        Which proves my point. We had a giant spike in the finance sector at it caused the Great Depression. There is a direct correlation between financialization increase and malinvestment, totally blowing up the idea that the financial sector increased in size because it was providing the service of allocating capital well.

        We also see that the golden age of post WWII America, which saw higher growth then the post 80s financialized America, was a period of lower and stagnant finance % of the economy as GDP. So it seems #1 is obviously false.

        For #2 I would look at what the finance sector does today that has caused its growth. Its not capital allocation. It’s trading, most of it a million miles away from actually investing in a business. The big ideas of finance the last 10 years were loaning hundreds of thousands of dollars to wetbacks to buy houses in the desert and throwing money at anyone with a website. There was also a marked increase in things like HFT which blatantly have nothing to do with investing. If the idea is that we need a bigger finance sector to allocate capital we might as why most of the new functions aren’t involved in capital allocation and why its allocation of capital has been a complete failure for a long time now.

        Lastly, I simply don’t get the libertarian love affair with Singapore. Singapore has a high financial % because its a tax haven sucking wealth away from its neighbors. Ireland has a high % as well, are we calling it a libertarian paradise?

        Singapore has strictly controlled real estate, health care, and retirement sectors. Huge swathes of its economy are highly controlled by the government to a degree libertarians would consider communism. And lets not even get into the extremely draconian “sin” laws.

        Truth is, while I’m sure he likes freedom in a lot of ways, Lee Kuan Yew would consider libertarians raving mad lunatics. He does what works, not what some ideology says.

      • Doug says:

        @Bill,

        ” So, what is it that banks do now which they didn’t do then which justifies the gigantic growth in their costliness to the rest of us? I see nothing.”

        Okay, let’s first talk about a specific example. Even if you don’t trade stocks, I’m sure you’re quite familiar with the concept. You buy a stock to invest in, then later you sell it later to cash out. The cost you pay to buy a stock is slightly higher than the cost you pay to sell a stock. In basic econ terms these are called transaction costs.

        25 years ago consider the round-trip transaction costs you’d pay to buy and sell, say a 1000 shares of $10 stock. First commissions probably ran you about $150 at a standard broker for both the buy and sell. Second you had to pay the bid-ask spread, i.e. market makers charge you more to buy than they pay you to sell. Before decimilization (when stocks stopped trading in fractions) and electronic trading, that was easily $1/4. Round trip the total cost to invest $10,000 was $250. Today that same trade would cost you $8 in commission at E-Trade and the bid ask spread is almost certainly $0.01. That’s a round trip cost of $26.

        Think of that difference, your trading costs have decreased by more than 90%. (And the trading costs your mutual funds pays on your money is even lower). That’s multiplied against a total value of $20 trillion in stocks traded a year. A reduction from average transaction costs of 0.5% to 0.05% saves end users $90 billion a year. The value of this is astronomical, and easily surpasses the savings created by Rockefeller in energy costs (and Lloyd Blankfein makes a hell of a lot less than Rockefeller).

        That’s only one of many many examples of how modern day financial systems have made life much better in the past 30 years. I can go on and on. I could tell you about how the widespread adoption of stock indexing has drastically reduced the cost and risk of stock market investment. I could explain how private equity venture capital financed the almost all of the most innovative and dynamic companies around today. We could go into how interest rate swaps reduced the cost of financing for companies allowing more investment and expansion. Or about how junk bond financing jump-started intense competition in the telecom industry and other industries. We could talk about how credit derivatives allow insurance companies to offer much cheaper premiums to end users. I could go on about how quant trading drastically reduces the noise in price formation leading to better capital allocation signals. This only scratches the surface.

        The point is you shouldn’t just assume that just because you can’t immediately see the purpose of some business that it is “pointless”. I bet dollars to donuts that without looking it up you couldn’t explain to me what it is that SAP AG does. Does that mean that it doesn’t do anything?

      • asdf says:

        Trading spreads went down (because of technology, not anything your assholes did) but volume went up so you’ve got the same rake you’ve always had. It’s like when I played poker and live rakes were 10% but internet rakes were 5%. Less per hand, but people played a lot more hands online. In the end they ended up losing their money in far greater fashion.

        “I could tell you about how the widespread adoption of stock indexing has drastically reduced the cost and risk of stock market investment.”

        Stock indexing is massively easy and nobody got rich running an index fund. That isn’t why the financial sector is larger.

        “I could explain how private equity venture capital financed the almost all of the most innovative and dynamic companies around today.”

        Private equity liquidates companies by reneging on implied promises to long run employees and loading the companies up with debt. I worked for a company that got bought out by PE. They stripped the company bare, laid off a bunch of people. Issued a lot of debt. Used the savings to pay themselves a huge dividend and then flipped it to the public. The stock price went from $15 to $1 within a year of their finding enough suckers to buy it.

        “We could go into how interest rate swaps reduced the cost of financing for companies allowing more investment and expansion.”

        Please, go on.

        “Or about how junk bond financing jump-started intense competition in the telecom industry and other industries.”

        Yes, there have never been abuses in junk bonds.

        Though I’ll give you a break because they do fund real investment (when they aren’t funding LBO looting fests). This isn’t why finance is so big anyway.

        “We could talk about how credit derivatives allow insurance companies to offer much cheaper premiums to end users.”

        Yeah, VA’s with 15% commissions up front that offer basically the same payout as a stock/bond portfolio mix are a boon to consumers. What people really need is contracts that don’t understand that is worth 85 cents on the dollar the second they sign.

        “I could go on about how quant trading drastically reduces the noise in price formation leading to better capital allocation signals. This only scratches the surface.”

        Yes, that lack of noise was key when you decided bogus internet stocks and McMansions in the desert were good capital allocation.

      • Doug says:

        “Trading spreads went down (because of technology, not anything your assholes did) but volume went up so you’ve got the same rake you’ve always had. ”

        So the cost of X went down dramatically and customers responded by buying a lot more of X because of how cheap it is. Yet somehow that shows how evil the producers of X are.

        Wait till you hear this doozy. The cost of semiconductor processing power fell by orders of magnitude in the past decade, but the semiconductor companies are selling way more volume. So they’re making more money than they ever did before. Goddamn that scam, Moore’s Law has been nothing but a lie!

        “Private equity liquidates companies by reneging on implied promises to long run employees and loading the companies up with debt.”

        You don’t understand how capitalism works. Private equity breaks up vociferous unions and employee cartels that impede productivity. Shifting the capital structure from equity to debt sets concrete targets that management has to hit and enforces firm discipline.

        Tons of studies have shown time and time again that productivity rises at firms after private equity buyouts. You sound like yet another whiny ass liberal socialist, with your sob stories about “long-term employees”. Economic development requires companies to evolve and labor to shift, otherwise we’d all still be potato-raising peasants.

        “Yes, that lack of noise was key when you decided bogus internet stocks and McMansions in the desert were good capital allocation.”

        If I play Lady Gaga on a high-fidelity sound system the music is going to sound worse than if I play Led Zeppelin on crappy speakers. Of course not, does that mean the the high-fidelity system is crappy because the user is choosing to play crappy music on it.

        Quant trading removes noise in the price formation process, its a sophisticated signal processing system to convert investor views into indicative prices that can be used as signals to allocate capital. It can no more correct erroneous or exuberant investor views, than your speaker amplifier can turn Lady Gaga into Led Zeppelin.

        But that is completely orthogonal to the point. Asset bubbles are like picking bad music selection, but trading frictions are like static in the speaker system. Both contribute to the sound being bad, and correcting one doesn’t have anything to do with the other. Your false equivocation is betraying your fundamental ignorance about how financial markets work.

      • asdf says:

        “So the cost of X went down dramatically and customers responded by buying a lot more of X because of how cheap it is. Yet somehow that shows how evil the producers of X are.”

        If your product is fundamentally useless (zero sum trading that has nothing to do with investment) then people buying more of it isn’t good. It would be like if the price of crystal meth went down so more people started getting high. Not good for society.

        “You don’t understand how capitalism works. Private equity breaks up vociferous unions and employee cartels that impede productivity. Shifting the capital structure from equity to debt sets concrete targets that management has to hit and enforces firm discipline.

        Tons of studies have shown time and time again that productivity rises at firms after private equity buyouts. You sound like yet another whiny ass liberal socialist, with your sob stories about “long-term employees”. Economic development requires companies to evolve and labor to shift, otherwise we’d all still be potato-raising peasants.”

        Productivity is output/cost. If you lower the cost productivity is going to go up even if output is unchanged. Private equity sells itself as cost savings, but mostly it just takes people who were paying their dues for many years and reneges on the implied promise their employers made to them when they were providing a lot more value then they were paid when they were younger. This actually destroys business culture and real productivity (real R&D where you actually find better ways to make things) in the long run, but it does make the metrics look good in the short run because output doesn’t collapse as the scared survivors patch things together for awhile at lower cost (usually by working a lot of unpaid overtime that doesn’t show up in the productivity metrics). For decades now productivity and wages have been decoupled and growth has slowed down.

        As for shifting from equity to debt providing “concrete targets” all it does is tell them how many people they need to lay off to make the payments in the near term. The crippling effect that debt has on the long term operations of the firm doesn’t matter to them at all (the PE firm will be long gone by then).

        “Quant trading removes noise in the price formation process, its a sophisticated signal processing system to convert investor views into indicative prices that can be used as signals to allocate capital. It can no more correct erroneous or exuberant investor views, than your speaker amplifier can turn Lady Gaga into Led Zeppelin.

        But that is completely orthogonal to the point. Asset bubbles are like picking bad music selection, but trading frictions are like static in the speaker system. Both contribute to the sound being bad, and correcting one doesn’t have anything to do with the other. Your false equivocation is betraying your fundamental ignorance about how financial markets work.”

        First, if financialization is leading to better pricing signals that should make capital allocation more accurate, why hasn’t capital allocation gotten more accurate? That seems like the most basic test of the claim behind it all doesn’t it. If the expansion of the financial sector hasn’t led to better capital allocation, and if in fact most of the new “innovative” financial products have blown up spectacularly, we ought to question is notion.

        As to quant trading itself they are related. For a quant trader to be profitable money has to be coming into the system, this should be obvious as their earnings can only come from taking a spread out of financial transactions (the trader himself creates nothing). You can’t divorce the money you make trading a product from the effects of the product. In many cases the product wouldn’t exist if you weren’t making a market for it. If your making a spread off trading MBS then your income comes from the MBS scam. If MBS were not sold you could not trade them and thus you could not make any money.

        Imagine if you will the corner drug dealer. He didn’t make the product, but he is making a spread trading it. That money comes from the destruction of the user and those around them. By facilitating the transaction to sell a bad product your responsible for that bad product. It’s where your income comes from. If the product never got sold you would not make any money.

        I will elaborate on this below, as this thread is getting long.

  5. n/a says:

    Foseti,

    “The whole argument is rather silly, since it misunderstands the Puritan hypothesis – see here.”

    I’m aware of Moldbug’s arguments. I’ve just never taken them seriously.

    “If I had to summarize the neoreactionary position on American history in one sentence, I’d go with: American history is the slow process of Massachusetts taking over its region, the nation, and the world.”

    Except this does not usefully describe American history. Nor is the “Puritan hypothesis” something you would have reasoned yourself into any more than you would have come up with eye dialect “Joos” on your own.

    “while simultaneously believing that over-performance by another group with an IQ that’s one standard deviation above the mean must be explained by some nefarious process.”

    We weren’t talking about Jewish “over-performance”. We were talking about Jewish leftism. It’s interesting you felt the reflexive need to rule out any explanation except “merit” for Jewish over-representation. Why so sensitive on behalf of Jews while feeling completely safe in singling out and attributing guilt to Puritans?

    Anyway, Jewish leftism is not up for debate. Your leader does not question it. He just comes up with hilarious rationalizations for it.

    And the point is not that Jews are responsible for all leftism. Human nature is responsible for leftism (and rightism, and inter-group conflict, etc.).

    If you want to take a broad view of history, then realize that history does not start in 1600 and is not restricted to the English-speaking world.

    If you want to apply abstractions to human behavior, then apply meaningful, empirically-grounded abstractions.

    Don’t take your worldview wholly-formed from someone who (assuming you’re of NW Euro ancestry) does not share your interests.

    • Foseti says:

      “Except this does not usefully describe American history.”

      Why not?

      “We weren’t talking about Jewish ‘over-performance.'”

      Strange thing to say after examining who is running various organizations.

      • K(yle) says:

        “Strange thing to say after examining who is running various organizations.”

        It’s even stranger to attribute the >60% Jewish representation of those various organizations to only a +1SD IQ difference, of a very tiny minority, which doesn’t pan out mathematically at all.

      • Foseti says:

        Might want to check two things: 1) no one actually quantified anything (my point was relative) and 2) your math.

      • P says:

        The Ashkenazi IQ advantage compared to Europeans is perhaps 7-10 points. Not 15.

      • josh says:

        You could try looking into the matter instead of looking away from it.

      • n/a says:

        “Why not?”

        It just doesn’t.

        “Strange thing to say after examining who is running various organizations.”

        But I made no arguments about why Jews are overrepresented or even any specific effort to show Jewish overrepresentation (other than mentioning Jewish spouses in a few cases, I guess), though I’d be happy to talk about it some other time. You’re the one who noticed the pattern. The primary purpose was to show who was not dominating these organizations (descendants of New England Puritans).

      • Foseti says:

        You’re so far off point, I don’t know what to say.

        We all speak a particular strain of English. Why this strain? Why not another? Why do older versions of English sound so different?

        Taking your literal approach, we could define each variant and predecessor of modern English as a different language. That’s logically sound – and it loses all the important information.

        This week, the pope said everyone can get to heaven, regardless of their religious beliefs. That belief originated as Protestant heresy. Is the pope no longer catholic? If he still is, how did Catholicism absorb heretical Protestant doctrine? Why does everyone seem to absorb these same Doctrines?

  6. RedOne says:

    Joos and puritans have been closely linked for a long time. Most of the carpet bagging and land stealing that went on after the civil war were done by jews with the full backing federal government.

    Ulysses S Grant at one point kicked all the jewish merchants out of his army camps for ripping his soldiers off. The next day he received a telegram from Lincoln ordering him to let the jews back in. Whatever the true relationship between jews and the puritan power base they certainly had the ear of the elites on even the smallest mater in the 1860s.

    So I would say while they don’t have appeared to have been the ruling class their actual relationship to the ruling class is less than clear.

  7. SMERSH says:

    The ruling class needs to have a sense of noblesse oblige towards those they rule. It can come from relatedness, but that isn’t the only source for it.

    Jews, even secular Jews tend to (on average) lack a strong sense of noblesse oblige towards white goyim. If they have one, it is much weaker than that of the WASPs who used to rule.

    Although Jews didn’t create progressivism, they sped it up and made it much more destructive of existing, functional institutions. WASP progressives had a sense of noblesse oblige towards their subjects but the Jewish progressives do not seem to have that same sense.

    What makes things really unfortunate is that elements of Jewish culture appear to be spreading to the non-Jewish parts of the ruling class and it seems as though the WASP elements of the ruling class are losing their sense of noblesse oblige towards white proles.

    Think harder about the HBD involved. We all know the story of how Ashkenazi Jews got their 115 average IQs. But evolution doesn’t just work on IQ. All human behavioral traits are heritable and subject to evolution.

    The extreme selection pressures that gave Ashkenazi Jews their high IQs must have been working on the other personality traits as well. It is highly unlikely that they’d end up with personalities traits that are just like those of white gentiles.

  8. K(yle) says:

    The “neoreaction” basically sounds like another brand of Ayn Rand-derived edgy libertarian nonsense, which runs for the benefit of Jews for no apparent reason except that it sounds appealing to Jews (because it was dreamed up by them).

    The ancient Greeks considered Levantine people in general to be a natural slave race, and their arguments seem pretty sound to me still today. I can’t imagine it would be very hard to subjugate Jews as a people once you’ve eradicated all of the false piety of modernity.

    Removing “fault” for the current state of affairs out of the equation, and knowing that at the very least Jews take to “Puritanism” like fish to water (more so than even the racial stock that created the Puritans themselves), is there actually an argument for not enslaving them?

    One that isn’t self-serving and laced with tons of wish-fulfillment on how hard the Jews would be to control anyway. The men are practically born eunuchs, and come self-emasculating. The women are practically signing up to be part of a Joy Division already, and the game isn’t even really a foot yet.

    They’ve got an inborn terror of the physically imposing nature of even the average nordic gentile, who are themselves often natural born slave masters been out of work these last handful of centuries.

    They respond to aggression from gentiles that aren’t their own inbred and incompetent distant cousins with the utmost passivity and agree to anything, including signing up to be perfectly capable slave drivers of other Jews themselves. They generally work eagerly, even mental work, under conditions in which it is clearly communicated that works makes you free (not literally of course).

    Rather anything is the Jews “fault” or not doesn’t seem relevant. It’s not as if if there were some reversal of fortune for progressives that you would be able to hold practically anyone responsible for the current state of affairs.

    It seems to me that in a neoreactionary configuration you’d need an argument for the equality and freedom of a hostile, naturally progressive ethnic minority in a society that doesn’t believe in equality, freedom, citizenship and theoretically doesn’t give a damn about any kind of identitarianism (the last being true exclusively because that is appealing to Jews, and not for any qualitative reason that I can see, since no one has ever made an actual argument for this that wasn’t based on ‘taste’) and does believe in slavery.

  9. PA says:

    A general point, only tangential to this post: at some point you will have to stop being a Mencius Moldbug acolyte. Try to challenge something he wrote.

  10. jamesd127 says:

    The proposition that Jews have special ethnic cohesion is contradicted by readily observable politics:

    Reform Jews hate Israel.

    Bolshevik Jews hated Bolshevik Jews, and proceeded to purge each other.

    Israeli Jews are terribly worried that they might possibly be mistreating Palestinian terrorists, while in the recent Australian election efforts to guilt the Australian public that they were allowing illegal immigrants to drown met a blank wall of indifference. Armenia does all the bad things to Muslims that Israel does to Muslims, with knobs on, and no one cares.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      The proposition that Jews have special ethnic cohesion is contradicted by readily observable politics:

      The proposition that Jews have special ethnic cohesion is demonstrated by several readily observable points:

      1) The makeup of the student body of the Ivy League (quantifiable)
      2) Actually knowing Jews and seeing their behavior (personal observation)
      3) Exactly how the Madoff scam worked – Jews believed that Madoff was a criminal who was engaged in illegally front running the clients of his market making business – that’s the only way he could have made such regular returns. He then marketed his fund specifically to Jews because he knew they would assume that he was practicing in group / out group morality and that someone who was a criminal was still trustworthy as long as he only stole from non-Jews. (public anecdotal evidence) The damning part is the assessment of Jewish behavior by all the Jews involved.

      • jamesd127 says:

        > 1) The makeup of the student body of the Ivy League (quantifiable)

        This reflects selection for political belief, not selection for ethnicity.

        If they were selecting the smartest Jews and the smartest non Jewish whites, and favoring Jews, the non Jewish whites would be smarter and less left. They are all about equally left, and equally stupid. Selecting for leftness gets you a more Jewish student body than selecting for smarts, for Jews skew both left and smart, but they skew disproportionately left.

      • jamesd127 says:

        Valid point about Madoff

    • Red says:

      “Israeli Jews are terribly worried that they might possibly be mistreating Palestinian terrorists, while in the recent Australian election efforts to guilt the Australian public that they were allowing illegal immigrants to drown met a blank wall of indifference. Armenia does all the bad things to Muslims that Israel does to Muslims, with knobs on, and no one cares.”

      And yet for all worrying terrorists attacks are non existent in Israel these days. Israeli progressive jews use the religious Jews as the cattle prod to keep the wolf out while pretending to care about the wolf like the Irish were used by the New England elites to keep blacks at bay. Words != Actions.

      • jamesd127 says:

        Actions are that the settlers got hauled out of Gaza.

        If any of the Jewish reactionaries, for example Modlbug, were running Israel, he would immediately annex the West Bank and Gaza, and announce that any neighborhood where a Jewish virgin could not walk around after dark carrying a bag of gold would shortly become a smoking ruin.

    • fnn says:

      Reform Jews hate Israel

      They have a strange way of showing it:

      http://mondoweiss.net/2011/10/reform-jews-biennial-will-feature-ultra-right-sharansky-and-kristol.html

      The Union for Reform Judaism, representing the more liberal wing of organized Judaism, has an interesting speakers’ lineup at its Washington biennial in December. Barack Obama, I get that. And a big Zionist rabbi named Richard Hirsch. OK, they’re sold on Zionism– all major American Jewish orgs have the Zionist religion.

      But Natan Sharansky? Sharansky is a rightwing Israeli leader who chairs One Jerusalem, which has worked to kill the two-state solution, supposedly precious to liberal Jews. And Bill Kristol– WTF! Kristol is the neoconservative leader who pushed the Iraq war, writing that “Israel’s fight against terrorism is our fight.” Kristol has backed Israeli colonies through the West Bank.

      This demonstrates the conservatism of even Reform Jews when it comes to Israel. Reform Jewish leader Eric Yoffie attacked Richard Goldstone months after the Gaza horror. Reform Jewish leader Rabbi David Saperstein criticized J Street for taking a fairly mild stand against settlements. And J Street has pulled back its criticisms of Israel because it has pitched its tent inside the Jewish community and the Jewish community is reactionary on the Israel question. So it follows that at a time when Israel is losing credibility around the world, Reform circles the wagons, and welcomes rightwingers.

  11. Handle says:

    1. I grew up around a lot of high-IQ non-Jews, who are all now just as progressive as any of the Jews I’ve known. If deranged, hysterical Palin-hatred circa 2008 is any indicator of progressiveness, the elite Anglos I knew then were the absolute worst. I’ve also known a lot of Jews, and the accusations here of their non-Jew contempt or dismissiveness are incredibly exaggerated. Something like half intermarry and most Jews I know have mostly non-Jewish friends.

    2. I’m not convinced that an IQ-cohort adjusted analysis of political preferences would show that much difference between Americans of Jewish or Northern European extraction these days. Smart Communitarian Germanics and Scandinavians are just as Socialist and fanatically egalitarian. Has anyone done the GSS dive? It shouldn’t be too hard to check correlations between Wordsum, espoused Religion, and indicators of progressivism. I notice that a lot of people are making assertions as if they’ve seen these kinds of results, but I doubt they have.

    3. It seems to me that IQ of high and low groups has higher variance and definite skew to the right in their distributions. I can’t find it now, but there was a chart from some Florida principal showing black vs. white test scores, and the lower black ‘bell curve’ looked prematurely truncated at the left. Of course, those with the capability of seriously mentally disabled people wouldn’t be in school taking those tests – it doesn’t mean they don’t exist, but I’d guess that the males at that cutoff level (70?) fail to procreate as much.

    I think the Jew Skew looks similar. The Jewish average may be 7-10 points higher, but I think they bunch up just slightly above 100, but with a ‘fat-tail’ to the right. With respect to the great La Griffe du Lion [the claw of the lion] the ‘extremely high performer’ ratio seems higher than the pure normal distribution would suggest. At any rate, every single Jew I’ve met that is in a high-level position was extremely talented, capable, and competent. Whatever corruption, favoritism, nepotism, conspiracism, etc. there may have been in their achieving their position – it was supplemental to a meritocracism, not opposed or antagonistic to it. Same goes double for Asians – who have to be twice as awesome as anyone else to be selected for elite slots.

    4. Finally, keep in mind that modern life selects for the success of other genetically-influenced personality characteristics besides just intelligence, which act as ‘intelligence’ multipliers in a way, and Jews tend to display these traits disproportionately as well (in a way distinct from equally smart Asians, I judge). This is a combination of the selective pressures during their long History and also probably some happy (for them) random coincidence. Extroversion is one of these traits, and aggressive, stubborn dark-triad ‘anti-social’ traits that are associated with leadership (as opposed to shyness and desire for consensus and compromise) are others. Having two or more +0.5 SD ‘modern-world adaptive’ traits correlated in your ethnic group makes your group have +1 or more SD in terms of elite successes.

    • Thumotic says:

      Excellent comment and matches with my observations. Whatever nepotism Jews practice, it’s not leading to a plethora of “empty yarmulkes” walking the aisles of any elite organization I’ve ever heard of.

      A nitpick, but:

      “If deranged, hysterical Palin-hatred circa 2008 is any indicator of progressiveness, the elite Anglos I knew then were the absolute worst.”

      Anglos need to demonstrate via their hatred that they aren’t like the Palins. Jews are not similarly motivated.

      • SMERSH says:

        “Whatever nepotism Jews practice, it’s not leading to a plethora of “empty yarmulkes” walking the aisles of any elite organization I’ve ever heard of.”

        You’re right. They’re not stupid. And yet the institutions that have been placed in their charge have been run in ways that have been disastrous… for the masses. But the elites have benefited from most of these “disasters.”

        Those elites are not all Jewish, not by any means. But they’re disproportionately Jewish, even factoring in the distribution of really high IQs among the various ethnic groups.

        Not a coincidence.

  12. VXXC says:

    Also if you keep criticizing the Heroes of Finance, you’ll find that Top Secret Navy Seals with over 300 confirmed kills and a secret Army of the Internet will be deployed against you.

  13. VXXC says:

    It’s not the Joos. It’s Chad and Buffy.

    Mind you Pinch is extra obnoxious. “Pinch”?? You go by Pinch Joozeberger? I’d piss myself laughing.

    I find it very encouraging that DEC has Quants however.

  14. jg says:

    Two things.

    i) progressivism isn’t Jewish, though Jews do determine the goalposts of acceptable progressivism. They also own virtually the entire Cathedral/Hive propaganda infrastructure.

    ii) Judaic ethnic aggression against whites is real and has major implications. They (meaning the Organized group) completely despise us.

    Both exist and interact.

  15. SMERSH says:

    All of the core principles of the Dark Enlightenment should make you skeptical of the idea that a country will keep running in just the same fashion when control is transferred from elites who are representative of the population to elites who are members of a middle man minority. Different people do things differently and relate to members of other groups differently.

    And we did, in fact, see some significant changes in the progressive movement when control was handed over. Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

    But I guess some things are too dark even for the Dark Enlightenment… at least the techno-commercialist wing of it.

  16. asdf says:

    I think I should clarify my thoughts on colonialism, which actually wasn’t where I was going above but it got there.

    What exactly are reactionaries trying to prove when it comes to colonialism. As best I can tell its two things:

    1) That white people aren’t the reason NAM countries are third world, NAM genes are.

    2) Therefore, in countries that whites rule its probably best for them to keep on ruling.

    2b) Though I personally would stop short of saying whites should try to go into places they never were or left some time ago in order to civilize the savage (white man’s burden).

    These are very different from the following:

    3) That the abuses of colonialism never happened and that white people never treated colonials in a way we would consider unjust or even cruel.

    4) That having a minority ruling a majority in which it shares no ethnic, historical, and cultural ties in no way tends to creates tension and can lead to any number of issues.

    Claiming #3 and #4 aren’t true is just silly, its a matter of clear historical record and common sense. They don’t necessarily imply that #1 is isn’t true or that #2 shouldn’t be the case.

    Moreover, getting back to my original point the converse of #4 is always true. It’s true even if we talk about ethnics with IQ 100+. That’s why I gave the example of the Japanese and the Chinese. We all know the Chinese can form their own civilization and don’t need to be ruled like NAMs do. Or we could apply it to New Yorker readers determining what laws flyover whites need to start living by now. There are plenty of examples. And #4 can lead to #3 pretty easily, even when #3 takes the form of “good intentions”.

    This could apply to any group, including an increasingly isolated group of elite whites. And it may be ratcheting up because of reasons completely unrelated to any particular group or ethny (technology, scale, etc). Nonetheless, it doesn’t help to have just one more thing that distances you from the people you rule over.

  17. asdf says:

    “Claiming #3 and #4 aren’t true is just silly”

    should be

    “Claiming #3 and #4 are true is just silly”

    Getting my double negatives all mixed up.

  18. Matt says:

    Your last paragraph: exactly. Fact is that if the Jews were responsible for half of the things the Right attributes to them, they would indeed be a master race and we would have little choice but to submit.

    • Atoz says:

      Christianity is a Jewish creation and the root of modern progressivism, so we have submitted.

      Christianity was in essence a time bomb and when it went off its creators swooped in and took over.

  19. Thumotic says:

    “To learn who rules over you, find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

    A proposition is not necessarily true, just because someone said it and people repeat it. But the combination of 1) the extraordinary and obvious reality of Jewish power, and 2) How fierce is the taboo against talking about Jewish power, is….interesting.

    One can certainly go overboard in blaming the modern structure on the Jews. After all, they could not have conquered the west without a fight, unless there was widespread collaboration, surrender, incompetence, or some combination thereof on the part of non-Jews. But there is certainly a ‘Jew thing’ to talk about, as Derbyshire once alluded, and it is the most strictly enforced thought crime in our society.

    My research on the matter is not exhaustive (a few KM books and some quiet evenings in the seedy underbelly of the blogosphere), but my observation is that Jews are a major component of our ruling elite, if not the senior partner. This wouldn’t be so bad, except that they’re doing such an awful job of it – both from the Gentile and Jewish perspective, as VD writes here:

    http://voxday.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/again.html

  20. Handle says:

    It’s interesting to note how many people on the right just want White people in general to think and act as they imagine the Jews / Israelis do. Sailer’s a good example (as I think he’d concede – ‘if only Whites would act like Jews and Asians’; ‘If only Americans would acts like Israelis’). Sometimes I think that their own frustrated ethno-aspirations are responsible for a good deal of psychological projection and motivated beliefs regarding the sinister ‘other’.

    • spandrell says:

      Even if Jews are not in a constant conspiracy against Europeans, the fact is Jews have superior cohesion, which only strengthens their natural superiority in a modern society.

      You don’t get to dominate NYC, Wall Street and political commentary and not be hated as evil schemer. You just don’t. That’s how societies work.

      • Handle says:

        Hatred of some small demographic resulting from jealousy over some edge leading to disproportionate representation among elite success is indeed normal and natural and clearly I’m not saying otherwise. I’m also not saying that any such group should be immune from legitimate criticism or even some mild emotional venting.

        This is Chua’s whole ‘market-dominant minority’ meme from her “World On Fire” (Chinese Filipinos are 1% of the population but control 60% of the economy, etc.)

        Also, group cohesion is a feed-back loop – a minority cohere, the majority bristles and reacts, the minority coheres tighter out of a perception of a combination of offense and necessity, and so on. Jews in contemporary America actually cohere less, and are less insular, than any other group of Jews, anywhere else, at any other time in History, because this effect has largely been diminished in magnitude.

        But, look, we all well know that there is a strong tendency for reasonable, valid criticisms and mild resentments to easily spill over into hysterical derangement and vile, largely imaginary group accusations and derogation.

        I’m certainly not going to advocating banning anyone, or stifling whatever people want to write, or start calling people names. That’s not my bad. But, frankly, the commentary of a lot of people in these threads seems utterly unhinged to my ears.

        People who write ridiculous conspiratorial nonsense and absurd group insults without basis in reality are going to get challenged and should also expect to get as much pushback for spouting their nonsense as the Jews and Chinese get for the successes and hypocrisies.

      • asdf says:

        Handle,

        When the middle ground of any debate is taken away people go to extremes. Above I proposed that while I don’t blame colonialists for colonial dysfunction, certainly they did some bad things themselves. In reply I’ve got someone trying to defend Japanese war crimes on the basis that Manchurian steel production went up.

        In the modern environment the middle ground is taken away, and in large part its taken away by Jews. I get it, the holocaust and all. But I’m not out there trying to get British people who call Irish people drunks arrested for hate crimes and they killed millions of my people.

        It seems to me pretty mild to suggest that being of a different ethnicity, religion, and culture that it might be easier for Jews to dehumanize the general population and take advantage of them, especially in industries like finance where there is already a huge temptation to do so no matter who you are. I doubt current financial and other shenanigans are solely because of Jews and they probably would have occurred even without Jews, but certainly they played their part.

        All in all I find the objections a little silly. Get to be good enough friends with any ethnicity and they will eventually tell you in confidence that most every ugly stereotype about them has some truth. It’s true for my Jewish friends too. I guess we just can’t talk about it in public, its all got to be hush hush.

      • Scharlach says:

        Don’t forget to add academia. I believe that every single Ivy League president is a Jew.

    • asdf says:

      Hypocrisy pisses people off. If you have ethnic solidarity but then use everything in your power to crush it in others its rank hypocrisy.

      Take my friend I spoke of earlier, we’ll call him A. The first time we ever met was in grade school. I was really good friends with one of his friends B and we hung out together at his place all the time. One day B invited over A and a bunch of other Jewish kids. When A got there he saw that I was there and said that he wouldn’t be hanging out with a gentile. B told him to leave if that was his attitude, so A and all of the kids except B and I left. I didn’t see any of them again until middle school when I got to be friends with As brother.

      Imagine if the scenario were reverse. If I had done that to A it’d be on the front page, “littlest Hitler found in small town, new holocaust sure to come.” Jews are allowed to be racist to others, but others aren’t allowed to be racist to Jews. Who wouldn’t get pissed off at that?

      There is a lot to see in that story. It shows that not all Jews are like that, as evidence by my friend B standing up to them. It also shows the ethnic solidarity and racism of many Jews. It’s that same attitude that allowed him to later run finance scams because the victims “weren’t his people.”

      • Handle says:

        Isn’t this exactly my point? It’s unfair! I want my group to do what that other group does, but … yadda yadda … white cold civil war … yadda yadda … leapfrogging loyalties, and it’s very frustrating.

      • Doug says:

        “It’s that same attitude that allowed him to later run finance scams because the victims “weren’t his people.”

        Personal anecdotes notwithstanding, there’s been no shortage of business scandals from the past 15 years. And luckily for us the miracle of modern-day e-mail means that vast, unmodified, archives of corporate malfeasance are perfectly preserved.

        Your story sounds like BS, so I’ll challenge you to substantiate with something real. Take these endless dumps of email exchanges, involving an uncountable number of executives, a large fraction of whom are of Jewish descent.

        Find just one single example, one message from one fraud, that indicates anything remotely resembles your example of a Jewish person specifically targeting gentiles for fraud.

      • asdf says:

        This was already done by someone else earlier in the thread.

      • asdf says:

        BTW, your getting a little to extreme to be anything but a troll. I think I’ve got to disengage.

      • asdf says:

        Handle,

        Let me give you another story. When I was young I got my first bully. I didn’t like fighting and didn’t see the point (I didn’t even have brothers or sisters to fight with). I came home, told my mom, and she threw me to the ground. I got up and she threw me down again. She told me that there are people in this world that are just going to hurt you for no good reason and you have to fight back. She wasn’t going to let me back up until I hit her hard. Eventually I hit her. After that, I didn’t have a hard time fighting.

        Imagine if, instead, I just laid there crying. Pathetic no. That’s how I feel about the white race right now. It’s just laying there crying. It doesn’t stand up for itself. It’s pathetic, and a comparison to a race that does stand up for itself leaves one very frustrated.

        At the same time, I eventually got really good at fighting. My grandfather taught me some martial arts and was generally a hard ass. This was all before my surgery when I was pretty athletic. What I didn’t do once I could take most guys on the playground was become a bully myself. There is a difference between self defense and aggression.

        The kind of racism I believe in is a positive racism. One that believes your race is something worth defending, celebrating, building upon together. This is different from a negative racism based on hate, aggression, and arrogance.

      • Sam says:

        asdf says:
        September 10, 2013 at 5:11 pm
        …When I was young I got my first bully… I came home, told my mom, and she threw me to the ground. I got up and she threw me down again. She told me that there are people in this world that are just going to hurt you for no good reason and you have to fight back…

        Great advice! So your saying Whites should practice guerrilla warfare against the Joos and kill them all?

        1. Notice as the US is slowly destroyed the Jews are now claiming “The Puritans Did It?”. Never mind the Puritans don’t own the newspapers, the corporations, the banks, the major print publishers, the congress, etc…
        2. They, with their great verbal flourishing command of exotica( far beyond anything my gerbalized brain can emit), tell us the wonders of their administration compared to Germany and all other sorts of exotic places. Forgetting to mention that if they weren’t here at all we would be ten times better off. Hiding that which is not seen. Like telling the American Indians how much better off they are with the pale faces running things; Look you have TV!
        3. An of course the Masters of the Universe tell us how we should be rapturous in the almighty embrace of “FIANCE”! The problem being the bankers through fractional reserve banking can PRINT MONEY FROM NOTHING and they still went broke. The go go go finance talk is all magician hand waving gestures while they pull cards out of their sleeves or in this case put the money in their pockets.
        4. All you need to know about the vaulted, light of the world Joos caring compassion for the Eloi Americans is on 911, building #7, which was not hit by a plane, fell at the speed a rock drops.

        http://www.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/344-building-7-implosion-the-smoking-gun-of-911.html

        Why is this important? They own the networks. Such a strange event not a story?

        Powell told Bush, “You break it, you own it.” The Joos own it and they broke it.

  21. asdf says:

    Doug,

    Piggybacking on my last post I’m going to go back to one of your earlier claims:

    “We could talk about how credit derivatives allow insurance companies to offer much cheaper premiums to end users.”

    I worked for a company that sold equity indexed annuities that were enabled by the expansion of credit derivatives. I priced billions in product myself and our counter parties were the big investment banks (those robust and manly nobles).

    The products were a scam. The expected return, even given the risk profile, was far worse then they could have gotten just buying a mix of stock and bond index funds. To sell them we had to pay an absurd 15% up front commission, and the salesmen mostly used high pressure sales tactics to get confused old ladies to put their retirement savings in them. To actually watch the process if pretty embarrassing.

    Of course to make any money on a product that offers nothing and involves a huge sales cost we need to lie to the investor (that’s what the 15% commission is for). We told them they would get a cap of 8%, but in fine print that the salesmen doesn’t talk about we retain the right to reduce that cap starting in the second year (they are locked in for many years) to whatever we want. So after selling people on 8% we would lower it to say 4% the next year. At the time we sold it we knew we’d be doing this, but we deceived the customers. In fact my job was figuring out just how bad to screw them (resetting the caps) and figuring how much money that would make us.

    We would hedge all this out with a counter party at one of the major investment banks. No doubt they also went and sold some of that risk to hedge funds and quants made money trading it all. We could not have sold the product without all of you on the other side providing the hedge and making the market.

    I’m sure when the bits and bytes flow by on your computer and you make a little spread on some trade you don’t think of it as ripping off some little old lady. Yet, that’s where the money comes from. You don’t create anything. There is no product you make. No service you provide. If you make money it has to come from somewhere, and at least some of it comes from the fact that we sell you a piece of our scam money from those old ladies in exchange for making the hedge possible. Just because you aren’t face to face with the old lady ripping them of yourself doesn’t mean that isn’t where your daily bread comes from.

  22. VXXC says:

    “You don’t understand how capitalism works. Private equity breaks up vociferous unions and employee cartels that impede productivity. Shifting the capital structure from equity to debt sets concrete targets that management has to hit and enforces firm discipline.”

    Well yes, textbook Adam Smith. NOT.

    Hell that’s not even Rand.

    What actually happens is the semi-criminal and semi-moronic types just fire people willy nilly to get their bonuses. We’re talking about people who can barely operate email. They don’t know how to make a business more productive. They probably didn’t get electricity or understand the telephone until the 1950s. The Criminals running the bust out at G_X for instance hired semi-human white trash from the Everglades when they were busting us out. I think the one guy was a wife beater and I only saw him once, but it’s a good guess. He looked like the guy in the redneck bar who wants to fight anyone just to beat them to a pulp. Walking around NYC dressed in a string tie and cowboy boots. So unpleasant no one wants to deal with him twice, that’s the plan. And it’s why the Doug’s of the world hired him.

    It’s a toss up whose worse, String Tie or his relatives cooking up meth. But as Doug notes they increase productivity. They’d be hard pressed to spell, never mind define productivity. But when they fire people they get bonuses, and the Street sees the stock price jump. Even if it’s just a few milliseconds the Quants have made their money, or rather the algos have.

    You’re a criminal who doesn’t know it, or admit it. This is a marked characteristic of our elites. You’re entire business plan is Control Fraud with the Fed as the crooked accountant, using the United States as the Teamsters Central States Pension Fund. This means you’re in a Union, BTW….

    “We’ll still need the same bankers”. No, their services will no longer be required in the Community. Ala Bill – HALAL.

    Of course we’ll have banking, but of course not the same bankers.

  23. ckorzeniowski says:

    From austere Cromwell
    To Bolshevik Bronstein
    There is but one step!

  24. Josh says:

    Try googling Calvinism, Netherlands, and Marranos. The quintessence of leftism, was a germ carried by the puritans, but is not of the Christian or even Old Testament Hebrew tradition. The puritans were the revolutionaries par excellence in the new world, but there was a parallel tradition that was never entirely separate across the pond. This isn’t that complicated. The wasp/Jewish alliance which dominated the 20th century was not a 20th century phenomena but an Elizabethan one.

    • ckorzeniowski says:

      Who financed William III? Did the Royal Protector receive any benefit from allowing the goldsmiths of London practice their religion openly? There’s progressivism, and then there’s the mending of the world.

  25. Irwin of Drum says:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=ixJNN7EjW_oC&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=%22financing+the+new+model+army%22&source=bl&ots=eLlfD6w2B-&sig=y9nVyVZ6DhTOn6tpTVJlx6Fj9vg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zW8-Ur_kBKit2QXxyICQAw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22financing%20the%20new%20model%20army%22&f=false

    It would seem that the Roundheads were largely self-financing. It would seem more likely that Cromwell brought the Jews back in order to gain leverage on the existing financial markets, in the classical Hofjuden, court Jew, model of central Europe. I would posit that the Jews were to serve as Cromwell’s pet moneylenders, to keep the others from reaching too far.

  26. Eliezer Ben-Yehuda says:

    >> Generally speaking they view non-Jews as the enemy and want to see them destroyed.

    then why are half of all “liberal progressive Jews” marrying gentiles?

    >> allows for “feed harvesting or stockpiling methods that might include significant amounts of grain” because the term “immature”

    Everywhere in the world, there’s only two flavors of people who pay attention to an Agriculture ministry: Leftist kooks; and farmers/farm-area biz/politics people.

    The USDA is under the de-facto supervision of ag-state congress critters. That being the case, USDA is run to BENEFIT FARMERS and others who are directly in the biz.

    The USDA just made it easier for a regular old struggling ranchers & feed-lot operators, to attach a value-laden hipster-phrased (“grass fed”) onto their livestock.

    My god in heaven, how shocking and un-expected!!

    You know why the likes of Diane Feinstein or Bernie Sanders, never shoots for a seat on the Agriculture Committee?

    Because they are intensely aware that THEIR OWN constituents, will rhetoric up a storm about PureFood/socialJustice/etc…. and then, in real life – vote them out of office if their local supermarkets stop being FULL of inexpensive meat.

    >> Judaic ethnic aggression against whites is real and has major implications. They (meaning the Organized group) completely despise us.

    if it was real, then gentiles would find it profitable and worthwhile to study Hebrew and Yiddish. So they could point to some “smoking guns”

    But if you become quite good at reading Modern Israeli Hebrew, you will mostly find the newspapers filled up with sports news and which is the cheapest country to travel to after you finish 3 years of conscript infantry service.

  27. Waylon Lepe says:

    Barcelona City and Beach appartments are available on our website:

  28. Techno! says:

    This blog is awesome. I really like what you have published. I would like to talk about a playlist that I think really embodies this all of us. http://spoti.fi/2v7a0MA Give it a look and let us know what you think.

  29. great eastern cutlery distributors

    The Joos | Foseti

  30. must visit place in singapore

    The Joos | Foseti

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: