Worst reactionary ever?

[Dimentio]

I am thinking this must be the record.

S_EDbunwrJM

9i9QYB4CmBE

[Palingenisis]

What about Juilus Evola???

[ed miliband]

I just wish all the bastards who take people like Pentti Linkola seriously would commit suicide. If cutting the world's population is so drastically important to you you should probably start with yourself.

Linkola seems to have emerged from a Knut Hamsun novel, maybe Growth of the Soil.

[Demogorgon]

It is kind of ironic that the first video is accompanied with black metallish neo-folk that would certainly not be possible to make if we went back to pre-industrial times.

Anyway this fellow seems to come up in your posts rather a lot, isn't he a bit too obscure to justify that kind of attention?

[Os Cangaceiros]

At least he's honest about the fact that he wants a lot of people to die, LOL

[Bud Struggle]

Seems he's a bit of a fan of Stalin. :) (Finnish Stalinsts.)

[Revolutionair]

He looks like a failed wanna-be Zizek. I think he wants to be the other end of the dialectic, or like Zizek said: the worst slave owners were those that were kind to their slaves. Linkola wants to be the unkind slave owner.

If my hypothesis is correct, then I dislike him. He wants to be the role, instead of being the role and denying it and thus truly embracing the role. (if that makes sense)

[Dimentio]

What about Juilus Evola???

Julius Evola and Savitri Devi are probably sharing a second place, but they are probably too much up in the clouds...

[ComradeMan]

What about HITLER?

[Dimentio]

Linkola would be worse if Linkola came to power.

[PigmerikanMao]

ATTENTION:

I do not take this man seriously.
That is all.

[NewSocialist]

Ludwig von Mises [and all the trash he spawned: Hoppe, Rothbard, Nozick and co.]. Then again, Ayn Rand was pretty fucking horrible too.

[Palingenisis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.J._Rushdoony

This guy was pretty psycho.

[Fabrizio]

At least he's honest about the fact that he wants a lot of people to die, LOL

I'll give him that, he gives it you straight. :D

[Robert]

"We will have to learn from the history of Revolutionary movements."

I read that every day in this nuthouse.:(

[Skooma Addict]

Ludwig von Mises [and all the trash he spawned: Hoppe, Rothbard, Nozick and co.]. Then again, Ayn Rand was pretty fucking horrible too.

You think Mises was the worst reactionary ever?

[Palingenisis]

You think Mises was the worst reactionary ever?

Forgive me for saying this but at least Linkola and Evola have a little bit of style....Mises certainly gets the reward for the most boring and annoying reactionary ever.

[Red Commissar]

So what, is this Linkola like that guy who held up the Discovery Channel offices?

[BeerShaman]

Satanist?:ohmy: LOL! I know of a girl who would completely agree to him. My fault? Ihaven't yet bashed her head!

[Demogorgon]

Linkola would be worse if Linkola came to power.
I can't help thinking the average youtube user would be worse if they came to power, but that's the thing, simple practicalities slow people down, Hitler would have been even worse again had he had the means to have done everything he wanted. The thing about these nutters though is that they are utterly incapable of getting anywhere with their ideas. That's why idiots like this don't worry me, they are incapable of actually doing any harm.

For instance, if you were to ask me what the most insane outlook there is in the world, I would answer that you could do a lot worse than Esoteric Hitlerism, but I certainly wouldn't class them as dangerous, they can barely tie their own shoelaces most of them.

[ComradeMan]

Forgive me for saying this but at least Linkola and Evola have a little bit of style....Mises certainly gets the reward for the most boring and annoying reactionary ever.

They are all reactionaries. I don't care about their "style".

[Revolution starts with U]

I heard a Mises supporter say the other day that the minarchy Mises supported was a welfare state w strong labor protections. This seems to fly in the face of everything I know about him... but I can't find any of this information anywhere. So I assume, like those types (right libertarians) usually do, he was just talking out his ass to cover himself.

[Kiev Communard]

Worst reactionary ever? - Adolph Hitler, obviously.

[ZeroNowhere]

Killing many Jews and such is the most reactionary thing ever (of course, Hitler was the first person to think of this, and pogroms never happened), whereas forcing countless Africans over to work as slaves, with many of them dying on the journey, and hence propping up a regressive mode of production, was more or less neutral. But really, is advocating or enforcing the former really so clearly more reactionary (and it seems to be presented as more or less an obvious thing) than the latter?

[ComradeMan]

Killing many Jews is the most reactionary thing ever (of course, Hitler was the first person to think of this, and pogroms never happened),

Hitler did not only target Jews to start with. Secondly, Hitler and his regime carried out a reign of terror and a level of extermination in an almost clinical and industrial fashion without precedent in cold blood. No one is denying the "pogroms", but as a result of pogroms over 6 million or more people did not result in being gassed or shot.


whereas forcing countless Africans over to work as slaves, with many of them dying on the journey, was more or less neutral. But really, is advocating or enforcing the former really so clearly more reactionary (and it seems to be presented as more or less an obvious thing) than the latter?

The centuries of slavery were not the results of the policy or ideology of one person and an inner-circle of followers who seized power in a specific country at a specific time. Nor was slavery the results of a political ideology that focused on racism. Slavery had existed since time immemorial.

[Demogorgon]

Killing many Jews is the most reactionary thing ever (of course, Hitler was the first person to think of this, and pogroms never happened), whereas forcing countless Africans over to work as slaves, with many of them dying on the journey, and hence propping up a regressive mode of production, was more or less neutral. But really, is advocating or enforcing the former really so clearly more reactionary (and it seems to be presented as more or less an obvious thing) than the latter?
I think what stands out about the Nazis is they happened in a later time period and purposefully dragged their society backwards into crueler times. The appalling crimes of slavery were committed in times when such cruelty was seen as normal and hence did not stand out so much amidst all the other horrible events going on whereas systematic genocide in a highly advanced country using modern equipment to carry out its aims is a particularly terrifying prospect to many people.

[Dimentio]

I can't help thinking the average youtube user would be worse if they came to power, but that's the thing, simple practicalities slow people down, Hitler would have been even worse again had he had the means to have done everything he wanted. The thing about these nutters though is that they are utterly incapable of getting anywhere with their ideas. That's why idiots like this don't worry me, they are incapable of actually doing any harm.

For instance, if you were to ask me what the most insane outlook there is in the world, I would answer that you could do a lot worse than Esoteric Hitlerism, but I certainly wouldn't class them as dangerous, they can barely tie their own shoelaces most of them.

http://emergentor.blogspot.com/2007/12/emergents-dictionary.html

[Dimentio]

I heard a Mises supporter say the other day that the minarchy Mises supported was a welfare state w strong labor protections. This seems to fly in the face of everything I know about him... but I can't find any of this information anywhere. So I assume, like those types (right libertarians) usually do, he was just talking out his ass to cover himself.

Yes. Because there are no taxes, everyone would afford their own welfare...

[ed miliband]

Forgive me for saying this but at least Linkola and Evola have a little bit of style....Mises certainly gets the reward for the most boring and annoying reactionary ever.

Yeah, when I think of Mises I think of bloated men with dandruff.

[Skooma Addict]

Forgive me for saying this but at least Linkola and Evola have a little bit of style....Mises certainly gets the reward for the most boring and annoying reactionary ever.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Paligenisis.

[Dimentio]

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I think she was joking. And you have to agree Capitalism is a pretty heavy stone.

Read The Lightning and the Sun in comparison.

[NewSocialist]

You think Mises was the worst reactionary ever?

You are correct, sir. His whole disgusting philosophy can be summarized in his view of human nature, which was as follows, "...Atlas Shrugged is not merely a novel. It is also (or may I say: first of all) a cogent analysis of the evils that plague our society, a substantiated rejection of the ideology of our self-styled "intellectuals" and a pitiless unmasking of the insincerity of the policies adopted by governments and political parties... You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you." His bullshit excuse for a "philosophy" is what motivated generation after generation of bourgeois economists and politicians to attempt to undermine the welfare state, human rights and the whole of socialism.

[GPDP]

Obviously Hitler, but come on, that one is fucking obvious.

A good runner up IMO is Henry Kissinger. The man is very intelligent, cold and calculated, and reactionary to the bone. But most importantly, he actually had power, and exercised it to the fullest extent to ensure the dominance of American imperial interests. And to top it off, he was pretty much honest about it all. Check out what he said about Allende's election:


I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people.

Ok, so the quote is supposedly disputed, but I would not be surprised if it really was him that said it. The man is pretty much Machiavelli's The Prince personified.

[Kiev Communard]

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Actually, it is Mises and his supporters who make no sense whatsoever in the light of current economic situation that runs contrary to all their lofty theories. But I agree, he can't be called the worst reactionary ever, because he was rather irrelevant from the start on. More clever reactionaries are not so dumb in exposing their true intentions, as Mises and Ayn Rand were, they usually call themselves "men of the people" fighting against "godless intellectual elitism".

[Salyut]

Actually, it is Mises and his supporters who make no sense whatsoever in the light of current economic situation that runs contrary to all their lofty theories. But I agree, he can't be called the worst reactionary ever, because he was rather irrelevant from the start on. More clever reactionaries are not so dumb in exposing their true intentions, as Mises and Ayn Rand were, they usually call themselves "men of the people" fighting against "godless intellectual elitism".


It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.


Yep.

[Kiev Communard]

He actually wrote that???? Wow, he was even more clueless that I previously thought!

[GPDP]

He actually wrote that???? Wow, he was even more clueless that I previously thought!

No, he wasn't clueless. I'm sure he knew exactly what fascism entailed. But to the diehard reactionary, even fascism is preferable to the very thought of socialism. That is exactly what he meant when he said fascism had "saved European civilization." If it means dictatorship to save capitalism (and therefore civilization, for there can be no other civilization than capitalist civilization to these cranks), then dictatorship it is.

[Kiev Communard]

No, he wasn't clueless. I'm sure he knew exactly what fascism entailed. But to the diehard reactionary, even fascism is preferable to the very thought of socialism. That is exactly what he meant when he said fascism had "saved European civilization." If it means dictatorship to save capitalism (and therefore civilization, for there can be no other civilization than capitalist civilization to these cranks), then dictatorship it is.

When I said "clueless", I meant "too open in expressing his real views".

[Skooma Addict]

You are correct, sir. His whole disgusting philosophy can be summarized in his view of human nature, which was as follows, "...Atlas Shrugged is not merely a novel. It is also (or may I say: first of all) a cogent analysis of the evils that plague our society, a substantiated rejection of the ideology of our self-styled "intellectuals" and a pitiless unmasking of the insincerity of the policies adopted by governments and political parties... You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you." His bullshit excuse for a "philosophy" is what motivated generation after generation of bourgeois economists and politicians to attempt to undermine the welfare state, human rights and the whole of socialism.

So a letter he sent to Ayn Rand makes him the worst reactionary ever? Also, his writings were not that popular (although he was a distinguished fellow of the AEA).


It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.

I have been over this quote so many times it isn't funny. I do not find this self evident evilness in this quote like everyone else here seems to. Mises believed that socialism was generally worse than fascism. This belief isn't that extreme or that uncommon.

[#FF0000]

I have been over this quote so many times it isn't funny. I do not find this self evident evilness in this quote like everyone else here seems to. Mises believed that socialism was generally worse than fascism. This belief isn't that extreme or that uncommon.

Yeah I mean honestly Skooma's right. It isn't that surprising that a capitalist would prefer fascism to socialism. I mean after all we say that fascism is just capitalism in hyper-defensive mode.

[NewSocialist]

So a letter he sent to Ayn Rand makes him the worst reactionary ever? Also, his writings were not that popular (although he was a distinguished fellow of the AEA).

That letter to Ayn Rand is a revealing look into the man's perverse psyche. To Mises [and his ilk] capitalists are basically gods among men, and the "masses" are ungrateful, brainless swine who just need to get out of the way of these magnificent god-men -- his work reflected this mindset. Mises laid the intellectual groundwork for almost every subsequent reactionary economist and politician, which led to abominations like Pinochet. And don't think you can lay the blame for dictators like Pinochet squarely on the Chicago school, because Friedman was greatly influenced by Mises and the Austrian school, despite the minor differences in their ideology.

[Skooma Addict]

That letter to Ayn Rand is a revealing look into the man's perverse psyche. To Mises [and his ilk] capitalists are basically gods among men, and the "masses" are ungrateful, brainless swine who just need to get out of the way of these magnificent god-men -- his work reflected this mindset. Mises laid the intellectual groundwork for almost every subsequent reactionary economist and politician, which led to abominations like Pinochet. And don't think you can lay the blame for dictators like Pinochet squarely on the Chicago school, because Friedman was greatly influenced by Mises and the Austrian school, despite the minor differences in their ideology.

You don't know what you are talking about. You are just making things up and you know it.

[NewSocialist]

You don't know what you are talking about. You are just making things up and you know it.

Exactly what did I make up? That Mises was an elitist prick? That his work has offered a philosophical justification for attacks on human rights [of the 'positive rights' persuasion]?

[Sean]

You don't know what you are talking about. You are just making things up and you know it.
Could you actually refute the points instead of stamping your feet and typing childish responses like this?

[Salyut]

Yeah I mean honestly Skooma's right. It isn't that surprising that a capitalist would prefer fascism to socialism. I mean after all we say that fascism is just capitalism in hyper-defensive mode.

Ah but don't look at it from the "Mises <3's fascism" perspective. Look at it from the "so called classical liberal/anti-statist is a titanic hypocrite" angle. It's a lot more fun. For someone that threw a tantrum at Montcalm* after someone brought up progressive income tax policies, he didn't seem to have any qualms about working with Dollfuss.

Clearly this man was a stalwart defender of Liberty. :thumbup1:


"The masses do not think. This is precisely the reason why they follow those who do think. The intellectual leadership of mankind is a position held by the very few who are able to think." (10)**

*some economic get together in Switzerland. I've probably got the name wrong.
**Apparently this is sourced from "5. Ludwig von Mises, The Market Economy, trans. Danny Lewis, (Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1932), p. 68." I am trying to find a copy on the interwebs but this one might be print only.

I don't believe Mises was the worst reactionary, just a annoying ideologue from the dustbin of history that has reemerged due to Ron Paul and whatever. Prior to 2008 I had never heard of or encountered Miseans.

If you want a reactionary: LaRouche. Mises has nothing on the guy.

[L.A.P.]

ATTENTION:

I do not take this man seriously.
That is all.

Don't worry, everyone else feels the same about you.

[L.A.P.]

What about this user on YouTube that replied to my comment?


There is no such thing as a collective anarchist because its just a socialist asking for "no state" as long as he can have collective control over society.

There is anarchists and there is collectivists.

The only real anarchists are anarcho-capitalists who want to abolish the state.

[Kiev Communard]

What about this user on YouTube that replied to my comment?
This user is merely a victim of "Objectivist" propaganda, nothing more.

[Ocean Seal]

This guy seems too far out to do any real damage, the worst reactionaries are those with actual potential to seize power. I mean does it look like this guy's ideology would ever gain more than 1% of the vote anywhere? The most dangerous reactionaries are those who appear to give out a more moderate message, but continue to exploit the people without them even noticing.

[ComradeMan]

Paligenisis.

:lol:

Premonition?

[Princess Luna]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.J._Rushdoony

This guy was pretty psycho.
:scared: holy shit

[Ravachol]

Who cares about Mises or libertarians anyway. They're some boring people on the internet with no relevance whatsoever, the same goes for the whole Evola crowd who read too much Tolkien and sniffed too much glue.