Category: ethnic interests vs. economics

Some Roissyism in the News, 10/8/16

A rather Roissyian entry.

First, two links brought to our attention by the King of Pussy Pedestalization:

Trump: Hey! I thought that “alpha males” – never mind “God Emperors” – never apologize.

What happened? What will Pepe think? Oh Kek!

Say it ain’t so, Don! After all, “Chelsea may be in the audience.” [note: whiteknighting]. However, let’s state the obvious: this release of Trump’s old comments was meant to throw Trump off for the upcoming debate; let’s see if he is focused or acts like a baited bull. Oh the humanity! Better yet: Oh the Kekmanity!

Roissy asserts:

Here’s a clue, cuckryan, reverence has to be earned. Being born with a vagina doesn’t automatically qualify one for championing…

I wholeheartedly agree. But I go further. Being born with a vagina doesn’t automatically qualify one for having men modulate their every word and action to please you and try and get you into bed.

By the way, Roissy exhibits disgust toward Paul Ryan. I agree again. But who, my dear Roissy, keeps on electing that Eddie Munster-faced turd into office?  Der Movement weeps.

Shocker – I Agree With Roissy For Once

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Fair is fair; if someone I normally critique writes something of great utility, we must give credit. Thus, Roissy (emphasis added):

FYI the slippery snake-like argument that migrants are needed to offset declining native populations is tribe-serving bullshit in so many ways. 

Humans aren’t fungible. A Syrian:Swede swap isn’t 1:1. As a matter of human capital, I doubt any number of Syrians could seamlessly substitute for one Swede, as the negative externalities of having to import hundreds of Syrians just to luck out on finding that one smart and conscientious Syrian with the equivalent talents of the average Swede would nullify the individual fair trade cases. 

The economic market is not the most important market; that would be the sexual market. Followed by the social market. A population decline isn’t “solved” by importing sullen foreign ringers any more than a beef shortage is solved by placing parsley on an eggplant and calling it a steak. Sure, a nation could boost GDP by some trivial amount by importing billions of new consumers, but the quality of life for natives would take a nosedive. It’s time we stopped listening to economists. They shovel lies. 

I bet it warms the hearts of “xenophobic” aging Hungarians to reflect on a near future approved of by scheming economists when they can gracelessly expire in their death beds to the sight of a wage mule brown migrant care worker ignoring the flatline on the EKG to text bomb codes to a sleeper cell over a government-issued iPhag and chortling at grainy video of one of his homies pissing on a native Hungarian’s gravestone. 

Populations have a natural rising and falling rhythm. Like beaches, it’s best if their movement is left unhindered by mitigating interventions. A falling population will never naturally recover if the freed-up land is suddenly occupied by imported foreigners. The elites will have to suffer without their cheap labor and authentic grease truck dining if the people decide they want their nation to belong to themselves and not become a pit stop for Davosians to shelter their income and the third world to plunder.

Labor Day Special: Some Links on Economics

Truth vs. trolls shilling for predatory capitalism.

Of relevance see this about Wall Street pay and also this. Oh yes, all those stock analysts and managers really earn their keep.

In a Ted Sallis regime, all these fatcats would have their wealth confiscated and they’d be sent to do hard manual labor in work camps.  Oh, wait – “that’s communism!”  I don’t care what you call it – its right.  The excuse for the economics uber alles mindset is that “economic growth” enhances the standard of living and overall well being.  The reality is that benefits go to a small group of (mostly incompetent) bigwigs and race traitors, while the general population deals with declining real wages and an endless cycle of mini-boons followed by hollowing-out recessions, never mind the destruction of outsourcing, mass immigration, and overall homogenizing multiculturalist globalization.

It’s time to put the socialism back in national socialism.

Bain Capital: Hood vs. Silver

Silver exposed again.

First, Silver engages in his typically unpleasantly personal attacks against sincere racial nationalists:

silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ Marc • 7 days ago

Actually, a baseless and contrived point. But it evidently had the intended effect. Oh Hood, I just love your essays, you’re the greatest, marry me.

(I guess if I were to start critiquing Hood, Silver would suddenly find Gregory as an “indefatigable” fighter and full of “energy” and my comments indicative of “mental instability”).

And then he tries to make apologies for Bain’s “creative destruction” –

silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ teapartydoc • 6 days ago

If you, like Hood, think competent financial management doesn’t enhance the production of real goods and services then, I’m sorry, you just don’t know what you’re talking about.

silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ Andrew • 5 days ago

who left nothing of real value

If I sell you a pizza and sate your hunger I guess I haven’t left anything “of real value” in the long-term either. So what? It’s called living. If I provide the service, I’m entitled to profit from it.

He extracted maximum profit
That’s generally evidence of efficiency, not deceit.
Just like a tapeworm, he and his company were highly successful and competent.
Tapeworms don’t enter into voluntary contracts with their victims.

A few excerpts, emphasis added:

At the time, Mitt Romney had been running Bain Capital since 1984, minting a reputation as a prince of private investment. A future prospectus by Deutsche Bank would reveal that by the time he left in 1999, Bain had averaged a shimmering 88 percent annual return on investment. Romney would use that success to launch his political career. 

His specialty was flipping companies — or what he often calls “creative destruction.” It’s the age-old theory that the new must constantly attack the old to bring efficiency to the economy, even if some are destroyed along the way. In other words, people like Romney are the wolves, culling the herd of the weak and infirm. 

His formula was simple: Bain would purchase a firm with little money down, then begin extracting huge management fees and paying Romney and his investors enormous dividends. 

The result was that previously profitable companies were now burdened with debt. But much like the Enron boys, Romney’s battery of MBAs fancied themselves the smartest guys in the room. It didn’t matter if a company manufactured bicycles or contact lenses; they were certain they could run it better than anyone else. 

Bain would slash costs, jettison workers, reposition product lines and merge its new companies with other firms. With luck, they’d be able to dump the firm in a few years for millions more than they’d paid for it.

But the beauty of Romney’s thesis was that it really didn’t matter if the company succeeded. Since he was yanking out cash early and often, he would profit even if his targets collapsed. 

Which was precisely the fate awaiting Georgetown Steel. 

When Bain purchased the mill, Sanderson says, change was immediate. Equipment upgrades stopped. Maintenance became an afterthought. Managers were replaced by people who knew nothing of steel. The union’s profit-sharing plan was sliced twice in the first year — then whacked altogether. 

Romney was charging GSI $900,000 a year in management fees to run the company. The Kansas City mill received $900,000 worth of ineptitude in return. 

Although Bain borrowed $97 million to retool the plant so it could also produce wire rods, it left the rest of the facility to rot. 

To save costs, Bain went miserly on everything from maintenance to spare parts and earplugs. Equipment deteriorated. Since the new managers didn’t know how to repair it, “they’d want to rent a new piece of equipment out instead of maintaining what we had,” says Morrow. The waste and inefficiency was breathtaking. 

Bain’s plan all along was to streamline the company into greater profitability, then reap the rewards with a public stock offering. But the exact opposite was happening. Even Roger Regelbrugge, whom Bain installed as CEO, knew the debt was crushing GSI from within, according to Reuters. If a public offering didn’t materialize, the company would collapse. 

Steel was about to enter a periodic downturn. Countries around the world were locked in a war of tariffs and government-subsidized production, creating a glut and driving down prices. Romney’s flip strategy was never meant to endure difficult times. 

Workers saw the end coming; they were particularly worried that Bain was badly underfunding their pension plan. So they went on strike in 1997, bringing a traditional Rust Belt flair to the festivities by littering the streets with nails and gunning bottle rockets at security guards. 

When it was all over, the Steelworkers’ union agreed to wage and vacation cuts in exchange for extra health and pension safeguards should the plant close. Yet GSI was now hemorrhaging money, says David Foster, the union official who negotiated the deal. He claims that Bain cursed the company by placing its own interests above those of customers or long-term stability. 

“Like a lot of private equity firms, Bain managed the company for financial results, not production results,” says Foster. “It didn’t invest in maintenance or immediate customer needs. All that came second to meeting monthly financial goals.” 

It would take a few more years of bleeding, but GSI eventually fell to bankruptcy. The Kansas City mill closed for good; 750 people lost their jobs. Worse, Romney had shorted their pension fund by $44 million. The feds were forced to cover the difference, while workers saw their benefits slashed in bankruptcy court. 

The battered Georgetown plant and the foundries in Arizona and Minnesota ultimately were bought out of bankruptcy by new companies. Their workforces were halved.

Let’s count the ways that Silver is wrong. First, Bain Capital was not “competent financial management” and did not routinely “enhance the production of real goods and services.” Romney was flipping companies to make money, often leaving wreckage behind – not only the human wreckage of ruined lives (yes, it’s called living, Silver), but the wreckage of what used to be successful companies that were effectively providing those “goods and services” before they were subjected to leveraged buyouts. Bain was the equivalent of someone “flipping houses” to make quick profits, NOT like someone buying a home as a long term investment and making substantial improvements over time.

Second: A pizza is a real object of real value to someone desiring sustenance. A pizza is a physical object containing calories that, even when digested, are incorporated into the eater’s system. Bain’s leveraged buyouts and “creative destruction” and middleman profits added no real value, did not improve the long-term sustainability of all the companies so purchased, did not invent anything, produce anything not produced before, and, as stated above, did not even provide competent financial management. 

Third, maximum profit can very well be achieved through deceit. See: Madoff, Bernie – who lived very well before exposure. See successful con men throughout history (Silver I believe being very well acquainted with the concept of the con man). See the behavior of Jews in business (Bain being very Jewish-like in behavior, indeed – Mormons akin to Jews?).
Fourth, what Bain was doing may have been technically “voluntary” to the companies bought out, but it can still be considered akin to parasitism. A hungry and stupid person may eat poorly cooked pork. They may not have “voluntarily” accepted a tapeworm, but were infected by a parasite through their own greed, gluttony, and/or stupidity.
Fifth, and most importantly, even if Silver is right and Bain was the paragon of financial efficiency – so what? Hood is approaching this from the standpoint of a racial nationalist, not a laisses-faire predatory capitalist with a “profits uber alles” mentality. Many racial destructive activities are justified in the name of “economic efficiency” and “economic growth.” Romney’s “creative destruction” is no more justified from a strictly racial nationalist perspective as would be alien immigrant labor, for example.
As usual, Silver is unmasked as an unpleasant apologist for predatory capitalism and someone whose alleged interest in racial preservation is a complete sham.

Do the right thing. Spencer, and ban the thing.

A Dream, Not a Nightmare

What we need in one paragraph.

Breezy makes himself useful by quoting this:

Things get darker still, for, if the G.O.P. becomes ever whiter, failing to peel away working-class voters of other races, then partisan conflict could look more and more like racial conflict. That is the nightmare. Our politics are bad enough when voters are mobilized mainly by culture-war issues, such as abortion, because compromise is often impossible. But when voters are mobilized by issues of identity, something most people can’t change, then nothing works. It’s just war.

If you want to know what is needed in America, summarized in one paragraph, then re-read what is block quoted above. Balkanization, identity politics, hatred, suspicion, chaos, making the Multicultural System unworkable (“nothing works” indeed) – that is the key to salvation. Diversity and multiculturalism need to be made as unpleasant as possible, made impossible, made painful. We need an atmosphere of despair and desperation, a sour atmosphere where each raciocultural group is in conflict with the others, where alliances across racial lines (even with those wonderful Imperial Orientals) is impossible.

That is the ONLY reason why I’d vote for Trump in November (if he’s somewhere on the ballot). The agenda of Sanders to attempt to unite people across racial lines is a great reason to root for Clinton in the Democratic primaries.  

One must of course weigh the possibilities.  The worst outcome is for Trump to lose to Clinton, and have the White masses convinced that they must go back to cuckservatism.  A Trump victory – however unlikely – would be great from the standpoint of balkanizing chaos. The more likely positive outcome would be for Trump to be cheated out of the nomination, and for Clinton to crush a cuckservative Republican in November, as Trump supporters stay home or vote third party.

Anything that stokes anger and hatred and bitterness, anything that drives Whites to rage, anything that provokes Whites to “we’ve had enough pitchfork time” – that’s what we need. 

Hatred, bitterness, chaos, desperation, and despair – the winning formula.

Alpha Incompetence and Those Green Pieces of pPaper

Two points.

First, from VDARE, an excellent one paragraph summary of Trump’s incompetence as a political candidate and as a leader:

…his infuriating lack of message discipline, refusal to invest in campaign infrastructure, and seeming indifference to debate preparations is leading the campaign to careen from one disaster to another, from last Thursday’s dumpster fire of a debate to Saturday’s loss of the Maine caucuses. Indeed, were it not for early voting, his campaign would be regarded as being in a tailspin.

Quite right.  The “movement’s” embrace (in the case of the gamesters, the word “embrace” conjures up their psychosexual fantasies of “alpha male” Trump – here’s looking at you, Roissy) of Trump is quite disturbing.  Praise the anti-Establishment movement, yes.  Use Trump in an instrumental fashion to “monkey wrench” the multiculturalist regime, yes. But this fawning hero worship of Trump as a White savior who is the “last chance of White America?”  Absurd. That’s an incompetent affirmative action “movement ” leadership excited over a candidate who is, in essence, a carbon copy of themselves: a shallow, incompetent, political quota queen with poor judgment and an inability to avoid disaster.

Second, I read an Establishment nitwit criticizing Trump’s protectionist economic plans (e.g., tariffs).  The Establishment take is that our trade deficits with countries like China are good things  After all, according to this “logic,” we are getting the best of the deal!  We are getting actual goods from them, while we are just giving them “green pieces of paper.”

Very good!  Putting aside just why all these countries (especially the Chinese with their rat-like level of raw animal cunning and lustful mercantilism) would allow us to “get the better of them” in this manner, and putting aside that, according to the economy-uber-alles worldview, accumulating those “green pieces of paper” is the entire purpose of existence, we can ask a question: What exactly is China doing with all those “green pieces of paper?”

Let’s see.  They are building a national infrastructure that is more modern that that of the crumbling American one.  They are building mass military power and the consequent geopolitical influence that comes with it, associated with an overtly anti-American agenda. They use “soft power” economics to push American interests aside in Asia and Africa. They buy up American properties and businesses.  They exert influence over the American economy.  They make America dependent upon Chinese exports, including for strategically important items, which would put the USA in quite an interesting position given an American-Chinese military conflict.  They have hollowed-out the American economy, wrecking our native industrial base, with all the implications that has for our future and long-term strategic power.  They have forced American businesses to set up manufacturing in China, where they copy our methodologies and utilize technological capital built by Americans for Chinese benefit, and they use all their wealth and power to facilitate the colonization of other nations – including America – by Chinese immigrants.  Well then, I do wonder who is benefiting by the exchange of cheap shoddy goods for “green pieces of paper,” eh?

Further, imagine the same advice was given to an individual: It’s great to go into debt and throw away the future of your posterity, so as to buy some cheap consumer goods today! Savings?  Who needs them?  That’s just “green pieces of paper!”  Better to buy some Chinese-made product from Walmart that disintegrates within a month of bringing it home! That’s the ticket!  Live for the moment!

I would think any financial advisor who said that to a client would not be taken seriously. Why should we take seriously similar advice given at the national level?