Page 2 of 3 <123>
Topic Options
#32953 - 12/15/09 08:41 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: Fist]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Hi Fist,

Ummm… some interesting points here, I guess?

First up, I am not a racist (though you appear to be).

The ‘White Australia Policy’ was also used to exclude Asian’s from Australia, but you don’t address this?

You show that you have almost no understanding of the history of the indigenous people of this country and their politics.

The western belief in private property and freedoms negotiated between elites meant nothing to the aboriginals of this country when the English arrived.

The aboriginals here liked Western law? How could they like Western law, when the Westerners only brought genocide and stole their land?

You mention that the first Australian’s had a lot of penalties that ended in death or ostracism, that would ultimately lead to death in the harsh wilderness. Don’t some Western countries still do the same thing?

You still have the death penalty over there in some states, don’t you?

How do you think they managed to live in a place as harsh as this for 40,000 to 80,000 years?

Oh yes! Let’s give up our ways because they are proven and the English are offering a system, which is so much better, where we as a people, can be murdered and lose our precious land.

Oh, and what do they bring to the table? How about the most powerful form of abstract art ever produced. Only Pollock, Newman and Rothko’s work and the mature work of Mondrian comes close to it in the Western canon. That’s just one thing.

Their art probably does not impress you or count, from your perspective, but for the majority of educated and cultured people I have met (and I have met and worked with many) it does.

Your diagnosis of multi – cultural Australia is a bit strange. We have criminals from all cultural backgrounds.

I will say this, though, that we have a very low crime rate in Australia and we do not have too many nutcases wondering around shooting up schools etc.

A multi – cultural society is working well for us, thanks. This is a relaxed and tolerant society in the vast majority of cases.

Plenty of inter – racial marriages and children here and your racial stereotyping won’t have an effect on our good quality of life.

You have misunderstood the intention behind my post completely. It was not to take a political position in regards to the relative merits of left or right wing thinking, but to rather document the main thread of Australian political thinking since Federation for interested members.

You mention that poor people do not open businesses, hire employees, produce a useful product or pay taxes.

Do you think I was going to argue with you over this definition of the poor, or the usefulness of the poor, or even support for the poor?

Why do you think I was being critical of the Hawke, Keating or Howard governments and their relationship with the big end of town?

Stop making assumptions before you actually understand the intentions and emotions behind discourse.

And another thing: don’t assume that you actually know much about the history of a country you do not actually live in.

And yet another thing: don’t assume that the political and social constructs, you may personally employ, are actually or necessarily useful or absolutely right for Australia and Australians, who are trying to understand and explain their experience, identity and history.

In regard to unions - you are again assuming that I am advocating unionism when I am, in fact, attempting to provide historical information, from what is supposed to be, a politically neutral point of view.

Your position on the specific, and even the general effects of unionism, reflects the position of your community and yourself, and as such may not even be relevant to Australian conditions.

“Unions supported the political left instead of their own membership.”

“Unions got fat off the dues of the membership and gave little back in return?”

“No longer was union labor the best skilled labor at any price?”

Who cares, I am not a member of a union and have never been a member and will never be a member of a union in the future.

The unions are pretty much dead here and that’s just the way it is.

Top
#32956 - 12/15/09 10:50 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: ]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
Ok....

From time to time I have to go though this with new members who fancy themselves travelers of the LHP.

To wit: The Socratic Method.

Have you read "Might Makes Right"? It was written by an Australian don't you know.

If you have not read it - read it. It is a foundational piece of modern LHP thinking. I would also recommend looking at our "Books of the LHP" thread.

If you have read it, what did you think?
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#32957 - 12/15/09 11:32 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: Fist]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Thanks for this opportunity to discuss with you.

Okay, from what I understand 'Might Makes Right' was written by a New Zealander and not an Australian.

I understand that Dr. LaVey used a portion of 'Might Makes Right' in the first part of The Satanic Bible.

To be honest I have read other portions of the book itself, but have not read the whole thing in a long time. From what I recall Redbeard was a racist and also sexist if I remember rightly.

Yes, I will try to get to the core of it and I do not know if this is right, as far as you and other members are concerned.

The contention here is that of course might is right - legitimacy is determined and established through victory, through successful campaigns against the enemy, through the outcome of violence.

In this sense moral or religious convictions are irrelevant as not only do they have no objective validity, but instead impede evolution or the quality and needs of individuals or a race or a state.

So, if there is no moral or religious objectivity or validity than the only basis (after discussion or diplomacy) for interaction and the resolution of disputes and the pursuit of objectives is acts of strength, aggression and violence.

Okay, so I am assuming that we are again talking about the Australian Aboriginals and the issue of race?

First up Dr.LaVey does not refer to Redbeard's racial thinking in The Satanic Bible. This aspect of Redbeard's thought is not included by Dr. LaVey. And in fact Dr. La Vey mentions a number of times that an alien elite will not be determined on racial grounds. If this is the case, then how would you justify Racism Satanically?

Next up, in order for Australian's to pursue their rational self interest, they need to ensure that their society is harmonious, and nothing damages a society like Racism or fundamental religious beliefs.

It is true that the English came here and imposed themselves on the first Australian's and won legitimacy.

That legitimacy has been successfully contested in the High Court.

Sorry Fist, I can't do it, I can't justify racism.

Am interested though how you have justified it.

Top
#32958 - 12/16/09 12:12 AM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: ]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
If I may jump in...

Racism works both ways. You have people that think that a group of people based on an arbitrary standard (race, color, creed, religion) are lesser than they are based on their own arbitrary standard (race, etc.).

Using Indians in America as an example, as I don't know much about Australian aborigines, nor do I care to.

There are white people now, as there have been for over four hundred years, that believe that because we are white we are better than Indians. By the same token, you have Indians now that think they are superior to white people simply because they are Indians. Neither one of them is right.

To paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr. (and I promise not to make a habit of it), you should judge a person by his individual merit, and not the color of his skin. Neither the racist white people nor the racist Indians really do that, and because of that, both groups are weaker.

Multi-culturalism? That's a misnomer. All it really means is that all cultures are equal, and no cultures are greater than others, which is an outright falsehood.

White people didn't take over America because they're white, but because their culture was more advanced and better than the Indians. Whether you see this as might makes right, or something more of a market of ideas where the best idea wins is your prerogative.

Modern Indians, in today's America, have two choices: integrate themselves in modern culture or retreat into their own. When they integrate, they can even bring some of their better ideas with them. Whatever great Indian ideas survive the transition would have the result of improving both the individual that brought such changes and American culture as a whole.

For an Indian to try to impose his (crushed) traditional culture on us is laughable. Were we not all bleeding hearts, we could try to impose our culture on them. However, it's probably more "harmonious" just to let them have their own way on their specks of land until they either decide to join the greater culture or die out.

How to figure out which culture is the greatest? Whichever one wins. Survival of the fittest and all that. American culture as it is now will one day be taken over by a greater culture. That greater culture might come from America itself, or it might come from an outside source. It may be from a war lasting a couple of years bringing the country to its knees, or it may be a slow transition as the new ideas are integrated until eventually what we have is no longer recognizable as what we once had.

Going further...arbitrary racism, where I hate all Indians, or aborigines, or black people, gains me nothing. Non-arbitrary "racism", where I hold in contempt a culture that gives me nothing and costs me much, can give me much.

A black man that believes he is superior to me because he is black, and that his culture (whether it be "hip-hop" culture or some weird Al Sharpton culture) is something to be despised. An Indian who thinks that I stole my land from his ancestors, and he is the rightful owner of that land merely because of that, should be mocked into submission. A muslim that thinks that I should fall under Sharia law because it is the will of his imaginary friend earns nothing but my contempt and hatred. The white man who believes his culture to be the best because of HIS imaginary friend and believes that all black, Jews, hispanics, or what-have-you should be rounded up and shot does me no favors, and should be laughed at.

A black man that takes his culture, integrates into and perhaps improves my culture, is to be praised. The Indian or the Muslim who do the same should likewise be applauded. The white American who looks at these people from other cultures, and can decide what about their cultures is worth integrating into his own and what should be left out, should also be praised.

If the black guy or Indian or Muslim believes their culture to be better, than they can fight for it. This goes on throughout all cultures, with the end result being the same: the greatest, strongest culture will win over the weaker ones. I can't really blame them for fighting, as I would do the same. By the same token, I feel no pity for them, either, were they to lose and die. Even in the fighting an exchange of cultural ideas take place, hopefully with the best ones winning out in the dominant culture.
Indians today are not the Indians of yesterday due to an accumulation of knowledge from use white devils. Sure, they can dance around their little fires in buffalo costumes all they want, but they still have knowledge that they didn't when we first arrived (the earth is round, we revolve around the sun, whiskey is fun times, etc.). If this makes their culture strong enough that some day in the future they overthrow us poor white fools, then so be it. If their culture is good enough, maybe even some of those white devils will join them against their brothers.

I don't know if Fist shares similar thoughts (or even if anybody here does), but as far as I can tell, that's the best way to advance as a species, and as individuals. Take what is good, leave the rest behind.
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#32959 - 12/16/09 01:57 AM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: CJB]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



This, in my opinion, is a comprehensive statement on many of the issues of racism for sure.

I don’t think anybody would suggest that a conquered (and submissive or resentful) race is in a political position to dictate terms on anything to the conquering and dominant race.

An individual or group of a conquered race may choose behaviours, which an individual or group of the conqueror’s race may view as contemptible or commendable.

It is patently obvious to me that if one intends to evaluate individuals on the basis of race rather than on quality, individual merit or intelligence than they will not be very smart at all.

I certainly do not celebrate the murder of people, because we were the superior race, due to a more technologically advanced and scientifically knowledgeable society.

The society we have now is, but I don’t see any pride in how it was really established.

You may state that this is just the way things are or were and you are right.

I can’t see the point in continuing to engage in the sort of 19th century racial theories, which Redbeard based his racial thinking on.

It is critical to my self interest and I believe Australia’s self interest that Australia continues to pursue a policy of celebrating multi – cultural diversity.

Why? Take a look at the world map and you will see why. Australia must continue to engage with Asia as Asia is our closest neighbour.

We want to enjoy an affluent society and also dispel those parts of our past which continue to haunt us.

We want cohesion and we should, in my view, be recognising our past and addressing it and moving forward.

How do we address it? By acknowledging it and making reasonable compensation or meaningful gestures if we can.

Last up, I agree that our nations may disappear as a result of future war or violence or cultural deterioration or replacement, but I doubt that anybody will be using violence against the white races any time soon, especially while the nuclear deterrent exists.

Top
#32976 - 12/16/09 07:36 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: ]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
I would argue that most people who use the words 'race' and 'racism' have no idea what those words mean.

Perhaps you should define terms before going any further.

 Quote:

First up Dr.LaVey does not refer to Redbeard's racial thinking in The Satanic Bible. This aspect of Redbeard's thought is not included by Dr. LaVey. And in fact Dr. La Vey mentions a number of times that an alien elite will not be determined on racial grounds. If this is the case, then how would you justify Racism Satanically?


Just a reminder, the LHP predates man. Like I said before, you really need to ground yourself in an understanding of metaphysical reality. Have you look at my recommended reading list? Howard Bloom cover this subject quite well in "The Lucifer Principle." Nature is a bloody bitch. LaVey did fine work bringing these principles to the masses, but he was simply codifying observable metaphysical reality. He didn't invent this reality, he simply pointed it out. Redbeard presents us with essential truth, LaVey presents us with the essential truth wrapped in the veneer of a certain aesthetic.

 Quote:

The contention here is that of course might is right...


*sigh*

No, not really. It is the celebration of a metaphysical reality. Much like relishing in the fact that water is wet. Most would be 'satanists' are little more than White Light Secular Humanists in dark clothes. Their personal moral code is little more than a poor reflection of the Judeo-Christian morals they claim to reject. Satanism is about self-deification - about creating your own values (albeit through the lens of enlightened self-interest).

If man is an animal like any other - no better, no worse - this then begs the question, what moral code does nature follow? Redbeard gives us the answer.

So, again, to Socrates...

Are there cultures that are clearly superior and cultures that are clearly inferior?

Is Aboriginal Culture superior, inferior, or equal to Western Culture? Show your work...
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#32978 - 12/16/09 08:04 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



I wanted to make a few final comments and then leave this thread alone.

I have never had the pleasure of visiting the United States or Norway. I have certainly been exposed to the United States through the Australian and American news media and through books, movies and television programs.

Whether these sources of information and opinion regarding the United States somehow paint a picture of the United States, which is accurate and reflects the experiences of American citizens is up for debate.

Norway is almost a blank canvas to me. I would like to visit and study it along with a million other places and things in the world which interest me.

One thing, I would like to therefore claim: I may not really be in a position to know how an individual American and an individual Norwegian may view their culture, history and their national or personal interest and experience.

Primary historical records, consensus and our lived experience overwhelmingly state that the white races of the world, built a more sophisticated and effective machine of war and then drove it through one country after another until the white races ruled most of the world. The indigenous populations of the countries, which the white races conquered, of course suffered as a result.

The justifications or propaganda used for these actions during the late 18th and 19th century tend to rest upon racist and religious assumptions.

These actions are fact as has been pointed out.

For Australia I would suggest the following to you and I will not try to talk about America or Norway or any other country.

The ‘White Australia Policy’ was one of the most strategically dangerous pieces of policy ever adopted by this country, considering who our nearest neighbours were and are, and considering how far away Great Britain was and considering our “real value” as an “important asset” of the British Empire worth fighting for.

I did not start or continue the process of genocide in this country, but I am saddled with its consequences. This whole country is saddled with it at some level.

Keep in mind that these “racially superior gentlemen” were actually killing children of all ages and these killings were not somehow “humane,” but were rather so horrible that they would make the average person sick.

Do you think this was Satanic? What do you think Dr. LaVey’s opinion would have been?

I want to briefly articulate what I personally believe to be the real vision of Dr. LaVey and why I believe he excludes racism from his philosophy and consequently from Satanism.

We seem to me to have the following problems to deal with at some future time:

• Over population and rampant consumerism and the Malthusian nightmare.
• Environmental disaster due to over population and rampant consumerism and a mode of production we continue to insist on employing.
• Overwhelming stupidity in the vast majority of the population and at all levels of our political and economic society.

These problems have been willed into existence by the very white race, which assumed that it was in fact racially superior, to the other races which it conquered.

And yet these so called “inferior races” had lived for tens of thousands of years, according to their own standards, without threatening their own long term survival or the resources they needed for survival.

How smart are we whites really? It’s time for clarity and not arrogance in my opinion.

I believe that Dr. La Vey was not a racist and I believe his philosophy excludes racism and he had very good reasons for excluding racial issues from his philosophy.

We need a highly stratified society and we need an elite human species as soon as possible.

We need Social Darwinism for sure, but not based on the 19th century belief in racism.

The stupid must perish for sure, but who are the stupid ones?

The elite needs to be composed of the most intelligent and creative people possible and it must not be based on racial considerations. Those old racial prejudices will not produce the goods.

We need ‘Pentagonal Revisionism’ in my view and we need it now.

Anyway no more from me on this.

It’s going to be a very hot day where I live today with temperatures over the 40 degree Celsius mark. No doubt we will have bush fires and problems with the transportation systems.

Top
#32979 - 12/16/09 08:48 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: Fist]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Hi Fist,

Sorry I should have responded to you.

I know that after moral and religious worldviews are discounted or put out of commission, or recognised as mystifications than one is left with a world the way it really is and that world is a "cruel" world based on domination and submission and dog eat dog as it were. A survival of the fittest as it were.

Have studied Darwin himself who is the real authority here.

Trust me I know Dr. LaVey's and/or Redbeard's ontological position.

It is obvious that such a world has always been.

It is also obvious that in such a world than one's own self or godhood is the basis of ones own actions or positions or view of the world.

Anyway we differ on the issue of race.

Best wishes to you Fist.

Top
#32981 - 12/16/09 09:10 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: ]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
Hmm, just one thing and then whatever...if you wanna respond go ahead, if not, well, I guess I wasted five minutes of my life.

 Quote:

We seem to me to have the following problems to deal with at some future time:

• Over population and rampant consumerism and the Malthusian nightmare.
• Environmental disaster due to over population and rampant consumerism and a mode of production we continue to insist on employing.
• Overwhelming stupidity in the vast majority of the population and at all levels of our political and economic society.


This world is hardly overpopulated, and probably won't be any time soon. Our technology advances with our population, so there won't be a food shortage (unless a stupid country rejects that technology). I remember in another thread talking about great blankets of cloned(?) cow meat, and that's just one prime example. Genetically engineered crops and the like will keep the technologically advanced nations afloat. Such a Malthusian catastrophe, if it does happen, will occur globally in the far-flung future, or possibly locally in countries that don't have the technology to adapt. Those countries that face such a Malthusian catastrophe or some other population and/or food related catastrophe in the nearer future are actually, to a one, not western (white) countries.

I am curious as to the mode of production you're referring to here...not really sure I know what you're talking about. Unless you mean oil, maybe?

For the last bit...yeah, I'd have to agree with you on that. Stupid people with stupid policies don't come from just the Great White Race though.
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#32982 - 12/16/09 10:17 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: CJB]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
Again, most people have no idea what they are talking about when they use the word 'race.'

Never the less, most certainly we could use a great culling among the people who are phenotypically 'white.' The most obvious place to start would be with the ones who reject Western culture out of hand. They can usually be found with their hats on backward and listening to hip-hop.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#34332 - 01/21/10 01:06 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: ]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: MatthewJ1


Can anybody let me know what Obama is up to? What is his economic policy and will it produce the goods?


His policy, like all other post Depression Presidents, is to kowtow to and/or collude with the Fed to make certain that the majority of the people of the US have enough means to get by (some comfortably) in such a way that the system is largely perceived to be working.

Since the economy is largely smoke and mirrors (no gold standard)I perceive the Fed and all Presidents who continue to allow it to exist as it is as co-conspirators against us (We the People).

By raising and lowering interest rates, creating money and using a few other tricks, the Fed can either stimulate or slow down the economy.

The larger balance of the population is completely vulnerable to the dollar. For the most part, unless we can buy something from the store we will starve if something interrupts the status quo as we are not (again, in large part) self sustaining separate of the dollars we earn.

This President and any other 'choice' we get in the polls will strive to maintain the status quo, despite what they say.

Notice how the President is the focal point for the economy and NOT the Federal Reserve? Ask yourself why that is and see where it leads you.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#34334 - 01/21/10 01:22 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: Fnord]
Psychotic Offline
stranger


Registered: 01/15/10
Posts: 16
Loc: New York
i dont exactly know what hes up to. i persionaly dot care much about the government. but from what i heard hes trying to end the war in iraq
_________________________
http://www.artabus.com/psycochild

Top
#34345 - 01/21/10 04:15 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: Psychotic]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
The cattle don't much care about the slaughterhouse either until they get a six pound sledgehammer to the forehead.

He may be trying to end the war in Iraq but he's also trying to amp up the one in Afghanistan. Why? Because nothing stimulates an economy better than a good war!
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#34352 - 01/21/10 09:01 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: Psychotic]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
At your age, small wonder you don't care about the government. Why should you, anyway? You're technically not even a citizen until you turn 18. It wasn't until I hit my 20's when I started caring about where my vote went, and paying attention to politics (not to be confused with paying attention to the "political experts" on every news channel!).

There is no WAR in Iraq. The proper term is a CONFLICT. A war has clear, objective goals, and we just went in there all willy nilly and trashed the place, only to have to put it back in order after we were done playing with it. Obama's only downsizing our troops there, so he can shift forces over to Afghanistan (which is how we got to Iraq in the first place--thank you, Dubya). But just like every other country we've trounced, we will MAINTAIN a military presence in order to keep a hold of things for our own peace of mind. Just like in Germany (Rammstein Air Force Base) and Japan (US bases on the Mainland and in Okinawa). Those once-enemy countries have become our allies (not like they really had a choice in the matter), and I'm sure strategists are figuring that Iraq will turn out in the same way.

Afghanistan is a tough bitch, and we need to make sure that we're leaving Iraq in a relatively stable condition before we fully commit troops to winning the hearts and minds of the Afghans (lol). After all, we're fighting against the monster we created back in the 70s.
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#34353 - 01/21/10 09:48 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: Nemesis]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Nemesis

There is no WAR in Iraq. The proper term is a CONFLICT. A war has clear, objective goals, and we just went in there all willy nilly and trashed the place, only to have to put it back in order after we were done playing with it.


True, to an extent. War was declared in Iraq under Bush Sr. Iraq signed a cease fire agreement(UN resolution 687) with the US and with the UN contingent upon Iraq adhering to some strict resolutions, which they did not do. Authority is granted under the UN resolution to enforce compliance with military action should the need arise. Iraq was in violation of several of those resolutions, the most egregious being the stockpiling of arms (acquired from Russia).

You do speak the truth in a broad sense though about it all being a bad idea to begin with.

I wouldn't blame it all on Bush though. There is ample and easily locatable evidence that the large balance of Congressmen & Senators fully supported this effort after 9-11 looking at the same evidence that Bush looked at. Most of them had the luxury of backpedaling after the fact. Bush did not have that luxury but, hey, he wanted the damn job.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
Page 2 of 3 <123>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.537 seconds of which 0.508 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.