Low Content Quote Thread

[vive_la_insurrection]

Keynes on Communism

How can I accept the Communist doctrine, which sets up as its bible, above and beyond criticism, an obsolete textbook which I know not only to be scientifically erroneous but without interest or application to the modern world? How can I adopt a creed which, preferring the mud to the fish, exalts the boorish proletariat above the bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia, who with all their faults, are the quality of life and surely carry the seeds of all human achievement? Even if we need a religion, how can we find it in the turbid rubbish of the red bookshop? It is hard for an educated, decent, intelligent son of Western Europe to find his ideals here, unless he has first suffered some strange and horrid process of conversion which has changed all his values.

[edit]

[mr.cleaners]

“WHILE THE STATE EXISTS, THERE CAN BE NO FREEDOM. WHEN THERE IS FREEDOM THERE WILL BE NO STATE.” - Vladimir LENin

‘STATE AND REVOLUTION’ (1919)

[Texas_Trigger]

Great quote I just read. I think it has some amazing parallels to the message we are preaching.

“In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete.”

― Richard Buckminster Fuller

[vive_la_insurrection]

“What economics does for you is teach you to think, it’s subject matter is of very little importance”

-Anthony de Jassay

[Smiling_Dave]

"What economics does for you is teach you to think

How times have changed.

[impala76]

Quote of the day:

“The very absurdity of the economic and political theories of Marxism gives the doctrine its peculiar significance. Because of its pseudo-logic, intelligent people refuse to support it, while all those who are less accustomed to use their intellectual faculties, or who have only a rudimentary notion of economic principles, join the Marxist cause with flying banners. The intelligence behind the movement–for even this movement needs intelligence if it is to subsist–is supplied by the Jews themselves, naturally of course as a gratuitous service which is at the same time a sacrifice on their part.”

• Anonymous

[Wheylous]

Nice try, Hitler.

[Marko]

How can I accept the Communist doctrine, which sets up as its bible, above and beyond criticism, an obsolete textbook which I know not only to be scientifically erroneous but without interest or application to the modern world? How can I adopt a creed which, preferring the mud to the fish, exalts the boorish proletariat above the bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia, who with all their faults, are the quality of life and surely carry the seeds of all human achievement? Even if we need a religion, how can we find it in the turbid rubbish of the red bookshop? It is hard for an educated, decent, intelligent son of Western Europe to find his ideals here, unless he has first suffered some strange and horrid process of conversion which has changed all his values.

So it’s the dum-ass of the century on being an elitist.

[Esuric]

Elections are a futures market for stolen property

A diplomat is a man who always remembers a woman’s birthday but never remembers her age.

From the saintly and single-minded idealist, to the fanatic is often but a step.

The finest opportunity ever given to the world was thrown away because the passion for equality made vain the hope for freedom.

Who will deny that a world in which the wealthy are powerful is still a better world than one in which only the already powerful can acquire wealth?

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all

Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter’s prominent position as a Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes’ excellent little book, The End of Laissez-Faire (l926) might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics. There is scarcely anything to object to in it and there is much to applaud –Benito Mussolini

We may summarize the Marxian doctrine in this way: In the beginning there are the “material productive forces,” i.e., the technological equipment of human productive efforts, the tools and machines. No question concerning their origin is permitted; they are, that is all; we must assume that they are dropped from heaven. These material productive forces compel men to enter into definite production relations which are independent of their wills. These production relations farther on determine society’s juridical and political superstructure as well as all religious, artistic, and philosophical ideas

When the Vikings turned their backs upon a community of autarkic peasants whom they had plundered, the surviving victims began to work, to till the soil, and to build again. When the pirates returned after some years, they again found things to seize. But capitalism cannot stand such reiterated predatory raids. Its capital accumulation and investments are founded upon the expectation that no such expropriation will occur. If this expectation is absent, people will prefer to consume their capital instead of safeguarding it for the expropriators. This is the inherent error of all plans that aim at combining private ownership and reiterated expropriation.

The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted to no council and senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it

Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism. The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat of force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace…. Liberalism is therefore far from disputing the necessity of a machinery of state, a system of law, and a government. It is a grave misunderstanding to associate it in any way with the idea of anarchism. For the liberal, the state is an absolute necessity, since the most important tasks are incumbent upon it: the protection not only of private property, but also of peace, for in the absence of the latter the full benefits of private property cannot be reaped. -Mises

[Wheylous]

Oh, grandpa Mises, you.

[ClaytonB]

Cites! >

[Wheylous]

Same thought.

[vive_la_insurrection]

"Physics determines from the beginning the substance and history of metaphysics. Even in the theory of Being as "actus purus “(Thomas Aquinas), as absolute concept (Hegel), as eternal return of ever the same will to power (Nietzsche), metaphysics steadfastly remains physics”

Martin Heidegger

[Bert_B]

As we have said before, we are dealing with the supra-individual and consequently with the supra-rational order, which does not in any way mean the irrational: metaphysics cannot contradict reason, but it stands above reason, which has no bearing here except as a secondary means for the formulation and external expression of truths that lie beyond it’s province and outside it’s scope.

• René Guénon

(You started it.)

[vive_la_insurrection]

“Nothing is more to me than myself”

Max Stirner.

OK, I’m done.

[Bert_B]

That’s cheating.

[Neodoxy]

Alright, who’s ready for some grade A 100 percent bullshit? Well if you are take a gander at this one:

“A human being is a spirit. But what is Spirit? Spirit is the self. The self is a relation that relates itself to itself or is the relation’s relating itself to itself in the relation; the self is not the relation but is the relation’s relating itself to itself.”

-Soren Kierkegaard, “The Sickness Unto Death”

He literally starts off with that. This is the kind of crap that makes people run away crying from philosophy. The worst part is if this was actually stated in a way that made some sense without first reading the entirety of the work or having some insights into basic existentialism then it might be clear that this is actually a very deep insight.

[vive_la_insurrection]

“We have sunk to a depth in which re-statement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.” – George Orwell

[vive_la_insurrection]

@Neo:

I think part of the problem with that quote is that Kierkegaard is very much an Anti-Hegelian AND somewhat of an Aristotelian. So that may explain the language problem, addressing a Hegelian audience. There may also be a translation problem. The odd thing is, Kierkegaard can be very readable.

[Neodoxy]

I’ve been putting the problem down to the fact that he wrote 150 years ago in Danish within the context of a very specific debate. I have similar problems with Nietzsche sometimes.