I’ve kicked up the hornet’s nest of “Third Positionists” by simply stating what they say themselves about their own ideology: that it’s intensely similar to Marxist Communism and indeed started as an offshoot of classical Marxism.
So there you have a slew of the elite intellectual fascists of the interwebz telling us that they’re virtually the same thing as communists, that they want the state to “seize the means of production” (Marx would be proud) and are authoritarian-leftists. Their only beef with what I’m saying is that I don’t like their slightly modified variant of Marxist Communism and they think it’s great. But they’re still mad that I point this out in a negative way because they’re trying to sell it to socially right-wing people as some kind of one-stop shop fix for all our problems by dipping their variant of Marxism into identity politics to make it more appealing.
This guy who I’ll be responding to here calls himself “Caesar Avg”. He’s basically an anon “reply guy” on the website Odysee and does little more than spam wall-texts full of pseudo-intellectual pretentious bafflegab. The following meandering vomit of strawmen and lies was sent to me by a colleague and I thought it yet another good opportunity to dunk on these disingenuous, bad faith, eternally butthurt spergs.
Let’s begin.
Nothing about Brandon Marrothbard is ‘Right- wing’ or ‘nationalist’.
So social conservatism, ethno-cultural-preservation, closed borders/restricted immigration, pro-family, a competitive market economy and fiscal conservatism (balanced budgets) is not “right-wing” or “nationalist”? Ok retard. You have no actual definition of “right-wing” then, you’re making it up to suit your Marxist whims. You are an economic leftist socialist (aka an egalitarian) so it’s funny you’re trying to appropriate the “right-wing” label for yourself, which is dishonest. I’ve never even read anything from Rothbard nor do I cite him as inspiration for anything so to imply I’m some kind of disciple of his is fan fiction invented by Third Position crypto-communists.
He is on record as opposing all of the following, all of which can be reliably sourced against any attempt at denial or removal
If I am on record then why does this screed of yours contain not a single actual in-context quote from me but a bunch of deceptively “paraphrased” misrepresented strawmen and lies? You didn’t want to quote me directly because that would ruin your whole psyop.
Autarky: ‘socialist nonsense’
A full throttle autarky has never been achieved by any country anywhere, not even your beloved Third Reich. Hitler himself admitted a complete autarky with no trade was impossible in the short term and his attempt at achieving it long term led him to invade Russia to get the resources he wanted, causing 30 million deaths. Well done.
A country should aim to produce in-house what it needs, but there are some things it must get abroad if it doesn’t have the capacity to produce it all in-house. Small countries and island countries for example would not survive long if they attempted “autarky”. They don’t have the labour base or space to be able to produce what they need or might want domestically. Bigger countries can manufacture more but they also have to import stuff they need and to export their own products abroad to bring in revenue. I’m not for a “free” trade but a controlled or limited trade with allied countries.
Isolationism
If isolationism is what you’re after, then your gods Hitler and Mussolini miserably failed the litmus test, having intervened and invaded most of Europe and parts of Africa during their heyday. Their war-hawk expansionism was the opposite of “isolationism” (in fact fascism is inherently war-like and imperialistic) and yet this is the ideology you are defending in your own comment. I am for a type of isolationism when it comes to the non-European world. I don’t think we should get much involved in places like the Middle East or Africa unless there is a vital interest there. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a foreign policy at all, which actually puts you more in line with the libertarians (who are to-a-man isolationists) you hate than me. I think coming to the aid of allied countries in Europe when they are in need, like in Ukraine now, is not a bad thing. If your country was attacked, you will need the aid of other countries too. When Europe is threatened by regimes like Russia and China, an alliance of European countries would do well to put resources together to stop it. Nothing wrong with that, but you’re a libertarian don’t-tread-on-me “isolationist” so you don’t care about anything but yourself right?
Nationalisms, including Nordicism and German and Russian nationalisms, laughably conflated with Communazism
This is dishonest bullshit. I obviously support “nationalism” including that of Germany, Russia and any other country, but you’re dishonestly conflating nationalism with “Nordicism,” which can be interpreted multiple ways, but the variant I oppose is the imperialist one espoused by Hitler and the Nazis. Here’s how Hitler described his foreign policy:
“…the Anglo-Saxons have the mission to govern the people they have subdued, precisely in the name of their superiority. The Nordic race is called to dominate the world, and this right must guide our foreign policy. The goal was the Nordic domination of Europe, and through America Nordic-Germanic domination of the world.”
I do not however oppose Nordic self-preservation, which is different to what Hitler was doing, which was Germanic EXPANSION. I explained that here:
He states there “Russian nationalism” but what he’s actually referring to is my opposition to Russian-Eurasianist imperialism of Putin, which he clearly supports, because if he didn’t support it he’d have to stop defending Hitler’s Lebensraum. So this sack of dogshit is trying to sell you Eurasian IMPERIALISM as if nationalism when it’s much closer to homogenizing globalism as it’s erasing borders in Eastern Europe and Russifies the regions it conquers.
and the very same Zionism that he otherwise defends, all to be replaced with a homogenizing pan-Europeanism: an EU minus non-whites, an Americanization of Europe
Yeah I’m such a huge defender of Zionism, like this video here right? You’re a stupid bad faith liar.
If by “support” you mean I think Israel already exists, likely won’t go away any time soon and diaspora Jews should probably go live there instead of in our countries, then guilty as charged. But that’s what any decent European nationalist would support, not some third worldist Islamist like yourself doing the reply guy Internet Intifada bit.
My Pan-Europeanism is not “homogenizing” because I don’t advocate we erase any current borders nor do I even support the EU’s current existence. It is merely a sentiment of brotherhood among European countries so that we can cooperate and avoid the murderous fratricidal infighting of the past, which you clearly revel in. Your fascist hero Oswald Mosley however did support a “homogenizing” pan-Europeanism, what he called “Europe a Nation”:
It says he was inspired to that idea by none other than Benito Mussolini whose “manifesto of the Italian Social Republic included a call for the establishment of a European Community”. So your own ideological godfathers supported this idea that you are falsely attributing to me. Talk about a massive SELF OWN! So you are out of step with your own demigods. Wow, you really dug yourself a hole here didn’t you retard?
I’ve never supported the “Americanization of Europe” either, whatever that’s supposed to mean. Just another strawman invention of this rat.
Revanchism
So his real views come out. What he is defending is not “nationalism” but revanchism, which is the lust to reclaim perceived lost territory. Revanchism is imperialism and doesn’t usually end with taking back just some “lost territory” but expanding further, as Hitler and Mussolini both did. This is also what Putin is doing and this scumbag supports both Hitler and Putin’s revanchist imperialism. Revanchism is a recipe for eternal conflict in Europe. Borders have shifted and changed so many times that if every Euro country decided to do militarist revanchism tomorrow, the entire continent would go up in flames. I bet you want that because you like to see bloodshed and death of Europeans. I think border disputes among Europeans can be worked out amicably without killing each other.
State-ownership, erroneously conflated with Marxism and socialism
That’s exactly what Marxist Socialism advocates, you moron.
The only way to “collectivize” all businesses and property is to have a centralized state take it over, which was the method that every single self-defined communist or socialist state employed to achieve this end. Mao’s China, Soviet Russia, Castro’s Cuba, Kim’s North Korea, East Germany, etc., all did this. Do I really have to explain the basics to this uninformed child?
Marrothbard claims that possessing economic similarities to some Marxist, somewhere, is proof of that person’s Marxism
It’s not just some similarities to “some Marxist somewhere” but to Marxism itself, you assclown. It’s proof that your ideology was inspired by and was a variant of classical Marxism, which most intellectuals of fascism readily admit, you fucking moron. Here’s what Mussolini said about himself:
It was inevitable that I should become a Socialist ultra, a Blanquist, indeed a communist. I carried about a medallion with Marx’s head on it in my pocket. I think I regarded it as a sort of talisman… [Marx] had a profound critical intelligence and was in some sense even a prophet. – Talks With Mussolini, Emil Ludwig, Pg. 38
Here’s what the other founder of fascism Giovanni Gentile said about it:
It is necessary to distinguish between socialism and socialism—in fact, between idea and idea of the same socialist conception, in order to distinguish among them those that are inimical to Fascism. It is well known that Sorellian syndicalism, out of which the thought and the political method of Fascism emerged—conceived itself the genuine interpretation of Marxist communism.
Here’s what the most prolific scholar of fascism A. James Gregor said of it:
[Italian] Fascism was a variant of classical Marxism, a belief system that pressed some themes argued by both Marx and Engels until they found expression in the form of ‘national syndicalism’ that was to animate the first Fascism.
So your own ideological godfathers and leading scholars of the ideology agree with me and not you. You’re a dishonest charlatan.
He continues:
Intriguingly, since he also (mis-)perceives Marxism as overwhelmingly economic
The reason this fascist wants to say that Marxism is not principally economic is precisely because that is where the intense similarities lie, and he wants to distance his ideology from it. It’s the same method that Marxists use to distance themselves from fascism. But when you read Marx’s main two works The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, you will see that it’s almost exclusively an economic doctrine of anti-capitalism and not much else.
Here’s a synopsis of Communist Manifesto:
“Class relations,” “economic forces driving history,” “proletarian revolution to overthrow capitalism,” etc.
And here’s a synopsis of Das Kapital:
“An analysis of capitalism,” “economic structure of society,” “economic organization,” “critique of capitalism” and its defenders, etc.
Does any of that sound like much more than economics to you? Marx identified himself as both a philosopher and ECONOMIST. He was obsessed with economics and wrote almost exclusively against capitalism in economic terms. Whatever social shit he wrote, he also linked that back to his economic fixation with anti-capitalism. So when Engels writes against the “nuclear family,” he does so because he believes the nuclear family is part of “the capitalist system” and must be dismantled. It all comes back to anti-capitalism.
The sperg continues:
he routinely commits the same ‘economic spergery’ and ‘rigidity’ of which he has in the past accused others (‘you agree with me on everything but economic issue X, therefore you’re my enemy and worse than liberals and libertarians’)
I’m simply insisting that someone who calls themselves an “anti-communist” actually be one and not a crypto-communist as fascists are. If fascists want to do economic spergery as they often do (anyone who doesn’t profess hardcore socialism is deemed an enemy) and insist that anyone who is “pro-White” adopt their gay socialist economic leftism, then why should I not return the favour in reverse? Either way, this relationship won’t work out.
and his arguments for capitalism verily demonstrate his own crass materialism
Arguments you’ve yet to cite or even refute.
The birth rates of North Korea and eastern Germany, for instance, are significantly higher than those of South Korea and western Germany
So you are confirming that you are a communist who favours North Korea and commie East Germany over their more capitalist counterparts… and exclusively over birth rates? Birthrates ebb and flow and generally the more prosperous a country the lower the birthrates, should we take that as an argument against prosperity and for poverty? North Korea today has a below replacement level birthrate:
Socialist countries were generally the most favourable to women’s rights/education/advancement and were some of the most pro-abortion countries in the world, so an economic system alone won’t change that. That’s mainly in the realm of social policy.
but Marrothbard will preference the latter over trivialities such as higher GDP per capita. Anyone who chooses GDPPC over birth rates and racial homogeneity demonstrates that he has nothing to do with the Right: he demonstrates, au contraire, his extreme economism driven by completely misplaced priorities
Firstly, it’s a false dichotomy. I don’t have to choose between a “low birthrate capitalist country” and a “higher birthrate socialist one”. I can choose a higher birthrate capitalist one or strive for it. And it’s just a complete lie and you can’t quote me saying that anywhere because I haven’t said it. If I had to choose between a country with a lower GDP (that doesn’t mean it’s “socialist” it just has a lower GDP) but was racially homogenous or a country with higher GDP but racially not homogenous I’d chose the former. So you’re just a liar.
He writes:
Were Marxism purely economic, his attitudes to it immediately become laughable and unwarranted: declaring economics- those of an ethnostate that you will never get your master motive is such a moronic choice of a hill to die on
Marxism is mostly economic as I showed earlier, you child. I’m not dying on any hill least of all the fictional hill you’ve invented and attributed to me, you dipshit.
Totalitarianism, which he fallaciously posits necessitates submission to Leftist and liberal states, demonstrating a total lack of logical and political-philosophical understanding.
Totalitarianism can come in many forms, also leftist forms, so genuflecting to totalitarianism in general is misguided, but typical of fascist blockheads like this. Fascism is indeed totalitarian statism paired with economic leftism. And if you believe fascist doctrine, then yes, you MUST submit to leftist and liberal states too since they are STATES and the STATE is supreme in your doctrine. If you don’t obey these leftist and liberal states, then you’re implicitly acknowledging that states are NOT supreme and can be opposed by “individuals” (citizens). Your entire ideology is thus refuted by your actions!
Let’s quote Mussolini:
The Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. It is opposed to classical liberalism [which] denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual… And if liberty is to be the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.
Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State – a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values – interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people (14). No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State (15). …The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature’s plans. If classical liberalism spells individualism Fascism spells government. The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity.
If you take all that garbled bafflegab literally, what Mussolini’s saying is that the State is God and you, mere mortal, are its slave. “Nothing outside the state,” is the motto of fascism, which means, that everything and everyone is consumed by that mammoth beast of a state. Where in the world would “private property” fit into that? Private property is outside the state, which cannot be so, under fascism. You have no rights and certainly no right to “rebel against any law of the collectivity (aka the state),” which is a crystal clear edict from Lord Mussolini that rebellion against states is invalid (according to him).
If these totalitarian principles don’t apply to ALL states, including “leftist and liberal” ones, then why should they apply to ANY state? Why does a state run by bald-headed adulterer Mussolini get this privilege of tolerating no rebellion and opposition but no other type of state does? If the principle is not universal, then it’s not worth the paper it’s written on. When a law says “thou shall not kill another person,” that can’t be interpreted as “thou shall not kill… except in X Y Z circumstances where it is ok to kill”.
The sperg continues (yes it goes on and on):
In addition to rejecting everything Right-wing and nationalist
You failed miserably to prove any of that outside ridiculous strawmen you invented.
he is also on record as believing in all of the following, all of which can be reliably sourced, and which demonstrate remarkably that he is more Marx-rothbard than Marrothbard: the schizophrenic, feces-packed cloaca of a dyed-in-the-wool Left-liberal who exhibits signs of literal drug addiction or mental illness
So now the crackpot dives into a litany of ad homs because he’s got nothing left in the chamber.
including obsessiveness, e.g. about the pack of trivialities collectively known as
Communazism
Communazism: let’s ask Goebbels about that one.
“We want the Germany of labor. What does that mean? We want a Germany in which labor and accomplishment are the highest moral and political values. We are today a workers’ party in the best sense of the word. Once we have taken over the state, Germany will become a state of labor, a workers’ state.” – source
“Lenin was the greatest man, second only to Hitler…the difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is very slight…” – source
“It would be better for us to go down with Bolshevism than live in eternal slavery under capitalism.” – source
So Goebbels admired Lenin, said the differences between communism and Hitlerism were “very slight,” and that he’d rather go down with Bolshevism than Capitalism. Yeah, he sounds very anti-communist doesn’t he? Hitler also admired Stalin including his economic system.
Here’s a few more quotes from actual experts and historians:
“[Hiter] had become a vehement critic of the system of free enterprise and a confirmed adherent of the system of a planned, state-controlled economy.”
— Dr. Rainer Zitelmann, historian
ㅤ
“[Hitler’s] concept of organized economy was close to genuine socialism”
— Dr John Toland, historian
ㅤ
“It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and others, including democratic socialists, thought so too.”
— Dr George Watson, historian
ㅤ
“Another source of the Nazi Party’s popularity was its liberal borrowing from the intellectual tradition of the socialist left. Many of the men who would become the movement’s leaders had been involved in communist and socialist circles.”
— Götz Aly, historian
ㅤ
“One final point of similarity between Nazi and Soviet policies should be noted, although its meaning is far from clear. Both governments reorganized industry into larger units, ostensibly to increase state control over economic activity”
— Peter Temin, economic historian
ㅤ
“Government finances for state-owned enterprises rose from RM 4,000m. in 1933 to RM 16,000m. ten years later; the capital assets of state-owned industry doubled during the same period, and the number of state-owned firms topped 500”
— Richard Overy, historian“Those [capitalist] firms and organizations that regularly engaged in large-scale political funding continued—right down to the last election prior to Hitler’s appointment as chancellor—to bestow the bulk of their funds on opponents or rivals of the Nazis.”
— Henry Ashby Turner, historian
ㅤ
“The [Nazi] government tells these seeming entrepreneurs what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. The government decrees at what wages labourers should work, and to whom and under what terms the capitalists should entrust their funds. Market exchange is but a sham.”
— Dr Ludwig von Mises, economist“the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development.”
— Ian Kershaw, historianㅤ
ㅤ
“The [Nazi] government did place restraints on foreign exchange, imports and exports, prices, wages, and the allocation of labor. It determined the quantity and nature of what should be produced. Profits were limited and directed by the government back into reinvestment for expansion or for the acquisition of government bonds”
— Jackson Spielvogel, historian
ㅤ
“The economic tendencies of fascist states… … would be more correctly described as anti-capitalist than capitalist.”
— Alan Milward, historian
The case is closed on this one, kid. Communazism is not the figment of some boomer’s imagination, as fascists love to claim, it’s very much a real thing that can be proven with the words of Nazis and fascists themselves. They’re not called Beefsteak Nazis for nothing (red on the inside, brown on the outside).
The sperg continues:
and paranoia, e.g. obsessively defending against imagined Marxist infiltrators, and just plain mental illness, including a grossly exaggerated sense of self-importance.
The reason he doesn’t want me to sniff out “Marxist infiltrators” is because he is a classic example of such infiltration. Really, he’s a confused Marxist who doesn’t realize the extent of his ideology’s tie-ins with Marxism or if he does realize it he wants to cloak it in bafflegab to psyop you into embracing it.
Marx- rothbard believes, to pick but a few examples that:
The Axis were the real aggressors in WWII (and, by extension, Leftists and liberals were merely innocent victims of their aggression-precisely the Leftist and liberal version of WWII)
They were undoubtedly the initial aggressors as I discussed here about Hitler’s Lebensraum:
The only people who deny this are fascists and Hitlerists who have concocted a fictional revisionism designed to rehabilitate Nazism so they can pass it off as the only “solution” to anti-White leftism. Moreover, his labeling of “leftists and liberals” as the Axis’ opponents falls short. If he’s referring to Stalin, well Stalin was once an ally of Hitler, and he was a fellow brother-socialist with Hitler. Mussolini was a leftist-socialist-authoritarian. FDR was no capitalist, he was a socialist-leaning Keynesian who was praised by Hitler and Mussolini for his New Deal interventionism. They considered him at that time one of them. Oswald Mosley also met with FDR. FDR also praised Italian Fascism.
FDR was also privately anti-Semitic and he and Churchill were more or less “White nationalists” in their day. So who are the “liberals” in this picture? Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and FDR were all economic leftists and Churchill was the only free market guy in that equation. On social policy all of them had a mixture of left and right policies, including Stalin who banned abortion and homosexuality, so these labels are meaningless here. “Left-Liberal” appears to be a catch-all insult that fascists use for anyone who doesn’t support fascism. It’s equivalent to the way leftists use the label “fascist” for anyone right of center on social issues.
This has laughably led this supposed anti-Marxist to oppose the Axis invasion of Marxism’s own ‘motherland’, the USSR
I oppose it because it led to the deaths of 30 million Europeans and crusader Hitler was not even a genuine “anti-Marxist” as he claimed, he was a crypto-Marxist who just wanted to replace Stalin’s version of Communism with his own modified ethnically exclusive version, while ethnically replacing Slavs from their lands to facilitate Germanic ethnic expansion. He kept Stalin’s collective farm system in place in Ukraine, for example, what a heroic saviour from Communism! Only a truly homicidal lunatic would support that endeavor.
This is what Nazi Germany had in store for the Slavs as Rosenberg confessed:
“From the point of view of cultural policy, the German Reich is in a position to promote and direct national culture and science in many fields. It will be necessary that in some territories an uprooting and resettlement of various racial stocks [Voelkerschaften] will have to be effected.”
“In his “Instructions for a Reich Commissar in the Baltic Countries and White Russia” (officially referred to together as the “Ostland”), Rosenberg directs that the Ostland be transformed into a part of the Greater German Reich by Germanizing racially possible elements, colonizing Germanic races, and banishing undesirable elements.”
So the sperg supports homicidal imperialism and ethnic replacement policies and tries to sell it to you as “based right-wing nationalism bro!”
Sperg goes on:
Power is intrinsically bad, and that governments are intrinsically prone to mass murder statements that logically lead to anarchism and libertarianism
Never said that “power is intrinsically bad,” more fan fiction. Totalitarian governments are prone to mass murder and repression, as all of history has shown (Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, etc.), but I don’t take that to mean that a government isn’t required to have a functioning society and can’t be made into something good. Governments are what you make it. It’s the type of people running it and their values/intentions that make a gov good or bad, not necessarily the thing itself, although I believe a certain level of checks and balances are needed to keep the state from abusing its power against citizens. I’m not a totalitarian but neither am I an anarchist or doctrinaire libertarian. I’m somewhere in between those two extremes.
Jews are not intrinsically bad. Only Left-wing Jews are bad. But this is only because they are Left-wing, not because they are Jews.
Why would I argue that Jews are “intrinsically bad”… like they’re racially pre-destined to be bad? I have no scientific evidence to prove that, so why would I assert it? I think their culture and religion has bad elements in it that lead them to do bad things, certainly tribal things that harm us when left unchecked, but that’s different from saying they’re genetically evil or whatever you’re implying. And that’s not even a true statement. I have also said that right-wing Zionist Jews are bad insofar as they don’t care about Whites, use us for their own gain and are not our “allies” as some civnats assert. So you’re lying about my positions here again. Take this video:
But if hypothetically most Jews (who are a small minority) were not left-wing and promoting left-wing social agendas and were just minding their own business, then what genuine reason would I have to dislike them? Just because they are Jews? That’s the exact kind of meme Hitlertard anti-Semitism that groups like the ADL want us to embrace because it’s so easy to discredit since it has no logic behind it.
No part of their ‘badness’ is because of their Jewishness, only their Leftism a classic case of liberal- conservative, Trumpian Zionist reasoning that aids Marx-rothbard’s preoccupation with spewing defences of Israel, cloaked under the farcical excuse
Again false as I’ve said there are bad parts of their culture and religion, such as the “chosen people” and “tikkun olam” bullshit. I’m just not willing to make the bold claim that it’s some genetic thing, which neither you or I can prove with science, so you’re the idiot here making claims you can’t prove to “one up” my measured and rational anti-Semitism with your unprovable unhinged 4chan version of it.
(a repetition of his one-time obsession with pro- Ukrainianism, one replaced as rapidly as he took it up because Azov = Communazism, also characteristic of drug-fuelled obsessiveness and/or clout- chasing)
The unhinged butt-blasted sperg has little left in the tank so all he’s got now is laughably false accusations of drug-taking and clout-chasing, despite the fact that my stance against both Putin and Hitler are unpopular among the blockheads of the e-right, so that’s total proof I’m doing the opposite of clout chasing and am pursuing the truth because I think the truth matters more than illusory internet clout. And his anti-Ukrainian bias comes out too, so he’s a Zigger in addition to a Hitlertard. The two often go hand in hand.
of merely correcting a pre- existing pro-Palestinian (earlier, pro- Russian) bias
I never had a “pro-Russian bias” and have supported Ukraine since 2014.
Belief in Communazism led him to abandon the Ukraine; belief in Islamofascism led him to take up Israel in its stead
I haven’t abandoned Ukraine, more lies. I recently did a debate destroying some zigger on the issue. And I don’t “support” Israel in any real sense either. A “supporter” of Israel would not make the kinds of statements about them that I have. This asshole has to lie his ass off about my positions, misrepresent and just make shit up because he can’t refute my actual positions which trump his own garbled bafflegab crypto-Marxism.
That the State is already too powerful where private interests are concerned, easily refuted by the statistical fact that tax avoidance is rampant and immensely costly to governments worldwide, precisely because it is those said private interests who are, conversely, too powerful where the State is concerned
This is of course your Marxist perception, but the State is handily in control of things not “private interests”. If private businesses had more power than the State, they would stop paying taxes tomorrow and they would abolish all regulations that inhibit them. All they can do is find legal ways to shelter their wealth. Big companies do pay all kinds of taxes beyond what is called “federal income tax”. They have state or provincial taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, etc. Why pay any of that if they’re above the state? The reason why some corporations get away with paying no “federal” income tax is because despite what their financial statements say, they either ran at a net loss that year or wrote off net losses from previous years. This article explains this:
The state has the power to tax, regulate, imprison citizens, start wars, print currency, break up companies (anti-trust), etc. All powers that private companies do not have. During covid they forced all businesses to shut down, causing many to go bust including large companies, not possible if “private interests” run the state. Governments have broken up big companies using anti-trust laws, like Theodore Roosevelt did during the trust busting era, like Reagan did with AT&T, and they have nationalized businesses. They’re still launching anti-trust lawsuits against corps today.
I’m not saying that this shouldn’t be the case, but let’s not lie to ourselves that it’s not already the case everywhere.
The sperg is really mad now:
He is incredibly destructive, harmful, spiteful, and repellant: his ignorant ideological regression; his oversensitiveness to criticism; his incessant over-opinionation
What I’m really destroying is your ideology in real time bud. There’s no regression merely a realization of what fascism is, what fascists themselves say that they are and what all the scholars agree that they are: an offshoot of classical Marxism. You’re in denial about that because you’re a deluded idiot who is choking on his own perverse pseudo-intellectual bafflegab.
his paranoid, obsessive witch-hunt for imagined Marxist subversives-one particularly laughable when Haz/Maupin are openly courting libertarians, not the Right
No they’re courting MAGA types and preach unvarnished radical state socialism, which would have virtually no appeal to “libertarians”. And you’re not “the Right” you’re an economic leftist who cloaks his leftism in racialism.
his constant hammering of divisive wedge issues, which, far from increasing his reach as he so hopes, merely split an already small group into smaller and smaller ones over mere trivialities
If these are mere trivialities, then why are you so butt-blasted about them that you spam-post wall-text after wall-text attacking me about these same trivialities that you don’t care about? What’s funny is that you would have no issue with me hammering JQ, race, trannies or whatever else you agree with me on, but you have a massive pickle up your ass about me hammering these Putintards and Hitlertards on their flaws and bullshit because you are both. You basically just want me to get out of the way and let you retards hijack right-wing politics and turn it into a Hitler/Putin demon cult.
as evidenced, for instance, by his ever-declining views and likes
So first he says I’m a clout-chaser and now he says that my positions on these “wedge issues” are not good for clout, so which is it retard? You’re just pissing in the wind now aren’t you faggot? Evidently, I don’t care about likes and clout like some woman. I care about the truth.
his Al impersonation of Johnny Gat’, which borders on the criminal
A stupid hoax made up by this homosexual pole dancer you can see below. Very credible source indeed.
The pole dancer’s “evidence” for that is that me and Johnny Gat have similar positions on Ukraine. Wow, total proof bro. It doesn’t even make any logical sense why I would do that which would amount to me putting in tens of hours of work making two feature length documentaries just to give Gat the credit for it all? It’s so retarded but that’s what you get from 60-IQ criminally paranoid wignats.
This sperg wants to talk about obsessiveness while he clearly has some kind of Martinez Derangement Syndrome and is seething endlessly about me in comment sections.
If he is not being paid for this, he should be: he has done immense unpaid labour for the Right’s enemies
But once again you’re not even right-wing, you’re an economic leftist larping as the epitome of “right-wing” when even your own fascist compatriots say fascism is “authoritarian-left”.
This sperg also showed up on my Odysee channel trying to claim that apartheid South Africa was not truly capitalist because it created some state-enterprises, he says:
Having learned more about SA since this exchange, I feel compelled to remark in hindsight that this is clearly false. The Apartheid-era economy was totally dominated by state-run parastatals. These parastatals, such as Eskom, were privatized by the very same ANC who you think are for State ownership owing to your conflation of State capitalism with socialism. They are far less efficient now than then. Apartheid SA works against your narrative.
According to various sources these state-run enterprises were created to counteract global sanctions.
“Many state-owned firms were established during the apartheid era to counter the impact of international sanctions against the country” – Wiki
“When white rule came to an end in 1994 the government of Nelson Mandela inherited a siege economy, full of state-backed firms whose job had been to soften the pain of sanctions by pursuing self-sufficiency.” – TIME
Ok so no country is capitalist then because most countries have some state-owned enterprises (SOEs) alongside a mostly privatized economy. This South African guy says at 12:00 of the video that “for white people South Africa had one of the purest forms of free market capitalism in the world”.
Mind you, this was a country with “Anti-Communism” laws on the books, so if they were communists themselves, that’d be a major psyop. At worst, they were Keynesians.
Then he said that state-owned enterprises (SOEs) are inherently good (of course, he’s a commie after all) and that South Africa is doing worse after some privatizations of these SOEs.
The Apartheid-era economy was totally dominated by state-run parastatals. These parastatals, such as Eskom, were privatized by the very same ANC who you think are for State ownership owing to your conflation of State capitalism with socialism. They are far less efficient now than then. Apartheid SA works against your narrative.
Those parastatals are still state run today. A brief period of privatizations was reversed.
Wiki lists all these companies as SOEs today:
“DPE has oversight responsibility in full or in part for six of the approximately 700 SOEs that exist at the national, provincial, and local levels: Alexkor (diamonds), Denel (military equipment), Eskom (electricity generation), Transnet (railway transport and pipelines) South African Express, South African Forestry Company (SAFCOL) (forestry), South African Broadcasting Corporation”
Eskom, state run energy, is listed today as a “public utility”:
They had to lay off thousands of people because of inefficiencies and losses:
“Between 2020 and 2021, two thousand employees lost their jobs at the power utility. 6000 more jobs are reportedly at risk in order for the company to continue operating”
I looked up how well these SOEs are performing today and, despite Mr. Caesar’s claims, it’s a sad sight indeed. They’re all massively in debt, racking up huge losses, plagued with corruption and need constant bailouts:
By the end of the Zuma administration in 2018 corruption within South African state owned enterprises by individuals connected to government such as the controversial Gupta family had led to many enterprises facing deep financial difficulty.[4] Deepening financial issues, mismanagement, maladministration and government bailouts of enterprises such as the South African Broadcasting Corporation,[5][6][7] South African Airways,[8][9][10] Eskom,[11][12] Denel,[13][14] PRASA,[15] and Transnet caused increased public controversy. By the end of 2015–16 combined government guarantees on debts owed by state owned enterprises had reached R467 billion (equivalent to US$33.1 billion) and were expected to reach R500 billion by 2020 representing 10 percent of South Africa’s GDP.[4] The situation at Eskom was regarded as so serious as to lead the South African business newspaper Business Day to speculate that it could cause a national banking crisis.[12] In 2021 the South African Treasury reported that South African Airways had accumulated a total loss between 2008 and 2020 of R32 billion (US$ 2.1 billion) and received a total of R60 billion (US$ 4 billion) in government guarantees.[16]
That doesn’t sound like your beloved state-owned enterprises are being run efficiently to me.
Here’s what TIME Magazine had to say about these wondrous state-owned enterprises in South Africa:
“SCOOPING up gems from the beaches that form part of one of the world’s richest diamond deposits ought to be about as profitable as, well, scooping up diamonds from a beach. Yet South Africa’s state-owned diamond miner, Alexkor, has managed to make a hash of it. Over the past decade it has posted losses more often than profits and has needed frequent bail-outs…. As many as half of the diamonds it mines there fail to make their way onto Alexkor’s income statement, according to diamond-industry insiders. (The government says that only 10% are stolen.) … In this it is not unique. South Africa has more than 700 state-owned firms, though only a few count for much. The biggest include Eskom, the power monopoly, Transnet, the railway and ports monopoly, South African Airways (SAA) and Denel, an arms firm. Between them they account for at least 5% of the country’s economic output. Yet these behemoths are mighty drags on growth. During the global commodity boom before the 2008 financial crisis South Africa’s mines struggled to expand because underinvestment by Transnet had led to bottlenecks at ports and on the railways. Some reckon the country’s coal and iron ore mines could have increased their exports by as much as 50% had they had the means to get their minerals out to international markets. Chronic underinvestment by Eskom, meanwhile, has led to rolling power cuts that have slashed productivity in factories and mines (as well as irritating South Africans, who like light in their homes). Many state-owned firms are also racking up large losses (see chart) and guzzling subsidies. Petro SA, a national oil company that wants to build the largest oil refinery in Africa, will in fact gain a superlative even if that plan doesn’t go ahead: it is about to post a loss of about 15 billion rand ($1.1 billion), the largest ever by a state-owned company in South Africa.”
“SAA, meanwhile, has soaked up more than 30 billion rand ($2.3 billion) in bail-outs over two decades. In the process it has managed to smother domestic competition: ten of the 11 private airlines that opened after South Africa’s skies were deregulated in 1991 have gone out of business.
Instead of learning the obvious lesson—that the state is not good at running businesses—the South African government seems keen to double down. In mining, for instance, ministers talk about having a state-owned firm take over existing mines that are cutting jobs or going out of business because of low commodity prices. Instead of “unpatriotic” capitalist mines, the government would like more state-owned ones. “We think we should give it a push and see if it works,” says Ngoako Ramatlhodi, the minerals and energy minister. His policies reflect a wider shift in the government’s move away from markets and towards a “developmental state” in which the government owns “strategic” industries and uses them to pursue goals other than profitability.”
So not only has South Africa not moved towards privatization, it is still moving away from it. Despite all these failures, the South African state is doubling down on their SOEs and are modeling themselves now on China:
Most new plans for the economy are now drawn up by two communists, Ebrahim Patel, the economic development minister, and Rob Davies, a trade minister who doesn’t seem to think much of trade. Their model is China. An ANC policy document gushes that the economic “leadership of the Communist Party of China…should be a guiding lodestar of our own struggle.” Many in the ANC like the idea that the ruling party should control businesses directly, and China’s recent troubles probably won’t change their minds.
SA President Cyril Rhamposa admitted the SOEs are a disaster:
During last night’s State of the Nation Address, President Cyril Ramaphosa acknowledged that state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and local government are the state’s greatest weaknesses. Many SOEs are struggling with significant debt, under-investment in infrastructure, the effects of state capture and a shortage of skills, the President said.
But I bet our fascist friend will say that this is only because they’re being run by black people. White Communism is so much better, he will say. It is marginally better, I will say, but not desirable.
At least when in the private sector, the inefficient businesses go under, better ones pop up and taxpayers don’t have to foot the bill for incompetence or poor business decisions, whereas inefficient state run enterprises just get a bailout every year.
