[Sephardi]

I hate Capitalists too, Rei (sips on my mocha latte while wearing my Armani Exchange shirt). Goddamn Capitalists.

Rei, I'm still kind of confused how you identify yourself with Europeans against Asians even though you are Asian? You ethnically have more in common with the Filipinas then with the Europeans. Can you please explain this?

[Rei Murasame]

Your entire post has completely sidestepped mine. What the hell.

I am not against Asians, there is nothing that should even remotely suggest that in anything I have written! Truly remarkable, I've got Dave telling me that I want to help them but that he thinks this is bad, and now I've got you asking me why I am 'against' them.

You have got to be kidding me. I don't have to answer that, you all know the Third Position ideology well enough to know the answer. I expect these questions from the centre-left, not from you.

[Dave]

I'm just about to go for extremely late lunch, but I will just say this as a quick response. Basically Dave it's like you are ideologically in error, because we have been specifically told before that the same discursive and economic manoeuvres that are required by developing countries, are similar to those that we'd need to adopt. That is not expected to still be a novel idea, it's the accepted strategy.

Rather than arbitrarily hating them, we should encourage them to mirror our ideology, where possible (in cases where we have no geopolitical tension with them otherwise). Not only does it reduce the number of people that we have to struggle against, but it really annoys international financiers and wins us allies abroad. It also is instrumental in building our power base up.

Third World countries should be subjugated to us to serve our interests. They should be kept poor, miserable, and oppressed and transfer their resources and labor to us at highly exploitative rates with most benefits accruing to us.

I also have no idea how you think that the present system can still be reformed!

Separate discussion, but it has been reformed many times and can be reformed again. In fact it is being reformed right now with the Basel III accords.

[Rei Murasame]

Okay, both you and Sephardi are completely out of step with the accepted position. I hate to do this, but while I'm out, read this summary PDF and see why you are in error: [PDF]

I shouldn't have to be saying this. Besides, I don't like summaries. Read it, but here's the piece relevant to this particular issue we are having now:

Europe and the Third World are common partners in their struggle against global capitalism because it causes immigration. Therefore, in order to stop immigration, the New Right should be critical of:

…The capitalist logic, and we should aid Third World countries to break with the views of ‘development’ as [exposed] by the World Bank and the IMF. This implies the recognition that the first victims of immigration are the immigrants themselves, and that because their identity is being menaced. In this sense the immigration problem should make us reflect on the defects of the French model of Jacobinean inspiration, which integrates individuals and makes them renounce their cultural roots (de Benoist 1993a: 53).

[...]

The solution is cultural assertiveness of both Europe and the Third World. Therefore, the same ideological arguments used to support the Third World’s cultural emancipation are used to advocate Europe’s cultural renaissance as a culturally pure entity unsullied by immigrants. As a prominent French intellectual has said, ‘…here we are confronting a right-wing that is not for colonization, nor for the nation, nor for the West -- for Europe, certainly, but a Europe returning to its roots’ (Domenach 1981: 80)

If you look back through my entire posting history on PoFo, I have never deviated from that pattern. There is no contradiction on my end.

[Sephardi]

Your entire post has completely sidestepped mine. What the hell.

I am not against Asians, there is nothing that should even remotely suggest that in anything I have written! Truly remarkable, I've got Dave telling me that I want to help them but that he thinks this is bad, and now I've got you asking me why I am 'against' them.

You have got to be kidding me. I don't have to answer that, you all know the Third Position ideology well enough to know the answer. I expect these questions from the centre-left, not from you.

Aren't you an English nationalist though? So you support English interests over non-English, such as Asian, interests.

I also don't understand the anti-Capitalist. Capitalism can be controlled well enough to serve our interests. There will be hell to pay if you touch my brand name stuff and I'm sure Dave can agree with this. I've noticed Dave has been moving toward my economic beliefs and is pretty much "there" now. We have an idea that the multinational corporations and proletarians are helped at every turn to squeeze the middle class and that the white, male, petite bourgeois should have the power that they deserve. It's what I call "Producerism", which is pro white male, pro middle class, pro upper-middle class, yet pro economic-nationalist Capitalist belief. Us Americans will never accept anti-Capitalism. Capitalism has served us well. We just want to create an economic nationalist system (well me and Dave, House, etc. do).

[Dave]

Who cares about the accepted position Rei? Controlling immigration is a simple matter which any functional state is equipped to handle. The high level of immigration to Western countries today is a deliberate policy choice, not some uncontrollable force of nature. You sound no different that the various leftists who state that the only way to stop high levels of immigration is to develop the Third World--which is impossible anyway owing to HBD, as you ought to know.

To the extent that the Third World can develop, this is harmful as it increases their power relative to us. Germans used to emigrate to the United Kingdom for industrial work, but then Germany developed which ceased this migration. Was Germany's development good for the UK?

China, as a massive and high human capital country, is developing rapidly. This has already slowed Chinese emigration and will slow it more. Is China's development good for us?

Spektorowski, and you, seem to be trapped in the universalist mentality that what goes for the goose must go for the gander. I often call this the white man's disease. It is a mentality that must be dispensed with. Like the Jews, we need to ask what benefits us. Everyone else can go fuck themselves.

[Rei Murasame]

Aren't you an English nationalist though?

Only through a prism of Eurofederalism. I'm not called one of the most Eurofederalist posters on PoFo without a reason.

I also don't understand the anti-Capitalist. Capitalism can be controlled well enough to serve our interests.

I am going to really tackle this when I get back, but now let me say that you are all revealing yourselves as 'liberals who dislike immigrants', which is not the same thing as actually having nationalism-that-makes-sense.

"Producerism", which is pro white male, pro middle class, pro upper-middle class, yet pro economic-nationalist Capitalist.

When I get back, all of you need to explain to me how the fuck you plan to get power without courting labour in the way I described on the previous page (and thus ceasing to be liberal at all in the process of that courting anyway!).

Basically I think your stance is not coherent. It has no way of being translated into practice, since you imagine - wrongly - that the middle class can seize power on its own. Not a chance. That's not revolutionary, that's a weird attempt to speak the impossible into being, it's like a plan that involves naivete coming from your every orifice.

China, as a massive and high human capital country, is developing rapidly. This has already slowed Chinese emigration and will slow it more. Is China's development good for us?

Well I did add the exception: "in cases where we have no geopolitical tension with them otherwise". I did think of that.

The rest I'll tackle when I get back.

[Sephardi]

Rei, study Germany under Bismark, which was the strongest economy in the world at that time using Capitalist new mercantilist policies and incorporating "Producerism" as a way of life. Corporations were allowed to exist as long as they helped the middle class and the nation (hence the new mercantilism which stopped the possibility of multinationals shipping jobs oversees or getting out of control).

[Cookie Monster]

(hence the new mercantilism which stopped the possibility of multinationals shipping jobs oversees or getting out of control)

In the long term mercantilism can lead to increasing monopolies which could stagnate trade, innovation and development. Or at least I recall reading how Adam Smith viewed it as a disruptive system and why he promoted the concept of a free market in order to counter this stagnation/decline.

[Sephardi]

In the long term mercantilism can lead to increasing monopolies which could stagnate trade, innovation and development. Or at least I recall reading how Adam Smith viewed it as a disruptive system and why he promoted the concept of a free market in order to counter this stagnation/decline.

If the government regulates trade, they can break up these monopolies, similar to what Teddy Roosevelt did. Any harmful monopolies would be broken up.

[Far-Right Sage]

Well, David is a classic capitalist. That's not a terrible shock.

I've been reading the bulk of this discussion and find it all highly amusing. I will remove myself from the premises momentarily, but I had to step in when I ran across this:

I also don't understand the anti-Capitalist. Capitalism can be controlled well enough to serve our interests. There will be hell to pay if you touch my brand name stuff and I'm sure Dave can agree with this. I've noticed Dave has been moving toward my economic beliefs and is pretty much "there" now. We have an idea that the multinational corporations and proletarians are helped at every turn to squeeze the middle class and that the white, male, petite bourgeois should have the power that they deserve. It's what I call "Producerism", which is pro white male, pro middle class, pro upper-middle class, yet pro economic-nationalist Capitalist belief. Us Americans will never accept anti-Capitalism. Capitalism has served us well. We just want to create an economic nationalist system (well me and Dave, House, etc. do).

What you are discussing has absolutely no connection to capitalism, no more than National Socialism has a connection to Marxian socialism. I implore you to research the history and ideological backdrop of producerism.

[Sephardi]

What you are discussing has absolutely no connection to capitalism, no more than National Socialism has a connection to Marxian socialism. I implore you to research the history and ideological backdrop of producerism.

Producerists espouse economic nationalism and a regulated Capitalist system. "Patriotic" Capitalists are viewed as great innovators while multinational corporations and most of the financial sector is viewed as traitors and with hostility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Producerism

[Far-Right Sage]

The actions of multinational corporations in the West of modernity, however much I may detest them, are entirely in line with and function as the logical conclusion of the advance of global capitalism.

[Decky]

Helping Filipinos to rise up against their disgusting government and go back home, also helps women of all classes in the North Atlantic too. How? Well, the Filipinos are over here in Europe acting as maids and private child-minders and thus giving the European states more alibis to refuse to develop child-care services at the state level further ("oh," saith the capitalists, "but you have many miserable Filipino maids you could hire, we don't need to fund child care services run by the state!"). By depriving the capitalists of that alibi, it helps women in the North Atlantic to gain the traction necessary to call for universal child care in those states that did not have it, regardless of social class.

You see feminism through a bizarre middle class lens.

If foreign maids and Au Pairs were sent home the middle class would just use the domestic working class women as their slaves.

It would be second wave feminism all over again.

"Oh, lets empower the middle class women while ignoring or in some ways worsening the position of working class women."

[Rei Murasame]

I know, but that is very much on purpose, Decky. If they go home and find that they have fight their own middle class in order to have their interests recognised, then that is exactly what we hoped would happen. The idea is not to send them home and ask them to adapt feminism to the status quo, the idea is to encourage them to stay in their homeland from the outset and cultivate a desire for class, gender and ethnic struggle alongside their friends, in order to attain the feminist and nationalist objectives.

That's why I said, "rise up against their disgusting government", because their government is already using them as slaves, just it uses them as slaves in collaboration with the governments of North Atlantic states.

[Sephardi]

I'm gonna agree with Dave. We can use Capitalism and our military to enact mercantilism or new mercantilism against third world countries to gain resources for cheaper prices. This would make the first world middle class more richer than Corporatism.

[Rei Murasame]

Also, to address some other issues:

Rei, study Germany under Bismark, which was the strongest economy in the world at that time using Capitalist new mercantilist policies and incorporating "Producerism" as a way of life. Corporations were allowed to exist as long as they helped the middle class and the nation (hence the new mercantilism which stopped the possibility of multinationals shipping jobs oversees or getting out of control).

I did, and by the same logic, you could've written "study Britain under Benjamin Disraeli", or "study Japan under Ito Hirobumi", and it would only cause me to perhaps smile painfully, because you cannot get those times back, nor were those times really as good as you think they were.

You have to think like a systems analyst (which is easy for me anyway); instead of looking at the resulting end-policy, you need to look at the flows and processes, which in a political context means the social and economic forces that led to the policy becoming possible and shaped the institutions that influenced it. This means that you end up having to look at the entire situation in Germany at that time and the history of it.

The sort of things that happened under Bismark happened in a context where guilds and industrialists were engaged in their own activism and political intrigues - which are too lengthy for me to retell here - and the fact that there was an existing pressure from the socialists, all of which resolved to push the upper-middle class in Germany to consent to grant the lush social services and guarantees to workers that you are lauding, as a tactic and an offset to those challenges, in order to shore up their own dominant position in society.

That situation in that era (which in the grand trend of history was a mere bump in the slide downward into the descending phase of capitalism) is completely different from the forces that are in play now, because now there is no organised and threatening socialist competition, and now the power of organised labour has been sharply reduced. And so the upper-middle class has a hefty economic status advantage in this era. You are telling me to go back and re-study the pre-war era again, but I am going to have to tell you to re-study the last thirty years looking at the development of neoliberalism.

It should be obvious that the haute bourgeoisie (hereafter referred to as 'upper-middle class') is not going to reach out its hand to you now in genuine co-operation, because they share none of your interests in this era. The only use they'd have for your producerism would be to mobilise you as an attack-force against the working class, the working class that you for some reason hold in as much contempt as they do.

After that, they'd then release you and you'd see a complete retrenchment of neoliberalism. Just with even lower wages going to the working class than before, and even more rapid destruction of petite bourgeoisie (hereafter known as 'middle-middle class') businesses.

If the government regulates trade, they can break up these monopolies, similar to what Teddy Roosevelt did. Any harmful monopolies would be broken up.

For the reasons I mentioned above, none of that would happen at all. The state would still be controlled and regulated by the same upper-middle class that you would not remove because you have thumbed your nose at the working class and thus you would end up depending on the upper-middle class for your power base instead.

It doesn't take a lot of effort to see that if the upper-middle class gets to regulate itself, then they are not going to harm themselves, are they? No, they'll just keep doing what they are doing right now.

Pretty much the only good marks I got in University was for defining, in detail, dictatorships and authoritarian regimes.

I don't doubt that, what I doubt is that you understand how these regimes are actually formed.

I notice this appearing a lot in this topic, the use of the words 'defined', 'identify', 'espoused', 'like' and 'pro-'. As though everything stands as some sort of half-baked conception with no grounding in bio-geographical, class, gender, and ethnic interests, and as if the role of an ideology is not to produce the results that a dominant class happens to desire.

Producerists espouse economic nationalism and a regulated Capitalist system. "Patriotic" Capitalists are viewed as great innovators while multinational corporations and most of the financial sector is viewed as traitors and with hostility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Producerism

Amazingly, there is that word 'espouse'! It even comes with 'viewed as' in the sentences after it. This doesn't save your producerism from being an emotional attempt to cling to the so-called 'middle-middle class values' (as through these somehow existed somewhere outside time and space in a data store, and somehow were not a process connected to material reality?! How? Why?) which is destined to fail.

The use of the word 'espouse', and the complete lack of a process for building a folk state, is what should tip you off that something is very wrong there.

____________________________

EDIT:

Controlling immigration is a simple matter which any functional state is equipped to handle.

I beg to differ. The immigration policy is always going to be connected to an economic motivation in addition to the other motives, and so if you craft a system that makes it profitable for people to open the flood gates and let them in, the odds are extremely high that it will happen. Yes, the state has the power to block entry to anyone it wants, but the process that causes the correct group of people with the correct interests to be in power in order to execute that choice to block entry, has to be carefully crafted.

And to do that, we had to look at how the global capitalist system works and devise a solution that in the initial stage demands 'the impossible' (within that system) and in subsequent stages seeks the tearing-down of that system in order to erect a system that will not produce mass immigration as one of its results.

We could not have arrived at a solution to the conflicts created by immigration until we are able to recognise that large companies led by international finance which has financialised them and also financialised the state, are the ones that have fostered and made this situation of mass immigration possible. It is not by chance or by whim, it is the logic of liberal-capitalism which inheres in these events.

It is not possible to attack immigration without first criticising and attacking liberal-capitalism.

[Lensky1917]

I don't see how fascist feminism would be much of a big deal. Women are always telling us men what to do and nagging us anyways. Must we men just cling to the illusion of power?

Got to say it'd be cool getting dominated by hot women in uniform.....

[Far-Right Sage]

I'm gonna agree with Dave. We can use Capitalism and our military to enact mercantilism or new mercantilism against third world countries to gain resources for cheaper prices. This would make the first world middle class more richer than Corporatism.

Who constitutes "we" and to what end? This will not produce a world, nay a single country, with any set of respectable values or civilization. The reduction of everything to the material is what must be averted and this is why Communism and the capitalism you make excuses for here are often considered two ugly sides of the same tarnished coin. We have already seen the effects of such thinking, and it leads to the placement of foreigners and foreign labor on par with one's own citizenry, the unchecked racial and linguistic dilution of entire population groups, and soulless consumerist swaths of society who believe more in the power of an Apple product or a McDonald's hamburger than in their country, in each other, and in their own innate spiritual abilities as living men.

On the subject of markets setting prices, Dave, you should consider corporatism. I'm not against private ownership of certain things (certain industries, private property in terms of one's home and transportation, etc.). I'm not a Marxist after all!

Why should prices for common items (milk, paper supplies, cereal, etc.) and even luxury items, along with every other aspect of society, be set arbitrarily by a few to the detriment of the collective? I have seen certain companies develop themselves and their practices over time and the attitude of today is "If we can raise the price of a box of Special K from $1.99 to $2.49 (or even more deviously, affect price raises through quantity reduction) and further plunder the American worker, then there is nothing stopping us and this is desirable!".

If people will continue to pay the inflated prices and humor the scale, then such action is justified. The American people may pay $6.00 or $8.00 a gallon gasoline prices, but this doesn't mean it is in the best interests of this nation's citizens or the state of the state as a whole.

[Dave]

Primarily because administrative prices are not necessarily coupled to economic reality. For instance, if the cost of the production of grain and electricity rises then the production cost of Special K is necessarily more expensive. Failing to adjust the price creates a constant loss and prevents adjustment of consumer behavior. Over time such contradictions result in a completely irrational economic system which is incredibly wasteful of resources and poorly adaptive.

This isn't even speculation, we have the historical experience of both planned economies and of wage and price controls in the West. Surely you're old enough to remember the gas shortages and lines for gas in the 1970s? This was caused by price controls. Not only did this result in an absolute shortage of gas, but because of the fixed costs it largely ceased to matter to oil companies where their refined fuels where shipped--it made no difference.

That said, it doesn't mean I'm blind to this concern or don't support action. I am in favor of a mixed economy, not economic liberalism. I think that economic activity should be managed and regulated by the state in order to meet specific objectives, but that this should be done in an economically rational way. To keep the cost of Special K low, the government should keep input costs low by promoting bountiful agricultural production and cheap energy. Robust competition and anti-trust policy would in turn prevent a monopolist from arising and reaping these gains for himself.

And actually I think Special K should be banned, like all other breakfast cereals. They are very unhealthy and detrimental to our nation.