The Japanese economic model as a refutation of neoliberalism

The following Post-Autistic Economics Review article, from March 2005, is an investigation of Japan’s enduring economic success by Robert Locke.  It was sent to me by Wintermute who urged me to read the whole thing.  It’s long ... some 8,000 words.  So I will not reproduce it in its entirety here.  But if you want to understand how the Japanese function economically, and whether they have a better way of doing things than our market-driven approach, I do urge you to read the article in full at source.

The basic picture of Japan is of a non-socialist but nevertheless centrally-planned economy.  The central planning, however, is not the proscriptive unreality of Gosplan.  It is subtle and it does not over-reach itself.

And in case you are asking why Wintermute would be interested in the Japanese, here’s what Locke has to say about Fascist and National Socialist economics:-

Neoliberal economists are dimly aware of the fact that fascist and Nazi economics were centrally-planned but not socialist, but they tend to dismiss these economic systems because of the attendant political horrors and have made precious little effort to develop rigorous theoretical accounts of how they worked.  As we shall see, the Japanese system has achieved many of the things the fascists wanted.

My own somewhat kneejerk reaction is to retreat into genetic determinism and point to our inherent individualism, with its clear concomitant in the free market.  Could the Japanese system function for long among a people who did not naturally exhibit high degrees of conformism?

Read, and see what you think.

GW

Japan, Refutation of Neoliberalism

No-one wants to talk about Japan these days.  The conventional wisdom is that the bloom went off Japan’s economic rose around 1990 and that the utter superiority of neoliberal capitalism was vindicated by the strong performance of the American economy during the 1990s.  Furthermore, everyone is now convinced that China – whose economy is 1/8 the size of Japan’s – is the rising economic power and therefore the appropriate object of attention.

But Japan is, despite everything, still one of the master keys to understanding the future of the world economy, because Japan is the clearest case study of why neoliberalism is false.  Simply put, Japan has done almost everything wrong by neoliberal standards and yet is indisputably the second-richest nation in the world.

This doesn’t mean that neoliberalism is wholly meritless as an economic theory or as a development strategy, but it does mean that its claim to be the only path to prosperity has been empirically falsified.  Japan’s economy is highly regulated, centrally-planned by the state, and often contemptuous of free markets.  But it has thrived.

What follows is for space reasons necessarily a sketch and exceptions, subtleties, and refinements have been left out.  Facts have been homogenized and caricatured to make structural fundamentals clear.  But a reader who bears this in mind will not be misled, as detail analyses are available elsewhere.

Are We Lied to About Japan?

Contrary to popular opinion, Japan has been doing very well lately, despite the interests that wish to depict her as an economic mess.

The illusion of her failure is used by globalists and other neoliberals to discourage Westerners, particularly Americans, from even caring about Japan’s economic policies, let alone learning from them.  It has been encouraged by the Japanese government as a way to get foreigners to stop pressing for changes in its neo-mercantilist trade policies.  It has been propagated by corporate interests who gain from free-trade extremism with respect to Japan.  And it is promoted by ideologues committed to the delusion that only a laissez-faire economy can prosper.

This is a formidable set of potential liars, equipped with money, technical expertise, transnational reach and state power.  The Japanese government is centralized, elitist, and quite capable of fudging statistics if it wants, particularly since there are few Westerners who understand Japanese accounting.  National accounting is notoriously susceptible to creative accounting anyway, as the world learned at the time of the Asian Crisis of 1998.  So the assumption that the standard published figures about Japan’s economy are true is dubious at best.

Japanese culture puts a premium on maintaining “face” and other forms of polite public presentation that constitute literal falsehoods, or at least fictions, so it is a natural instinct for the Japanese to tell the West what it wants to hear about Japan’s economy.  Japan’s government is heir to a Confucian tradition in which the public is told only what the rulers deem it should know.  Journalists and academics, who in America or Europe would have challenged its version of the economy by now, are loyal collaborators of the system, not its critics. So from a Japanese point of view, there is nothing immoral, unusual, or terribly difficult about misrepresenting Japan’s economic performance.  In fact, because it is in the national interest, it would be unpatriotic not to.

A Crisis Invented to Fit a Theory

The idea that Japan is thriving is not so different from the received wisdom as one might think.  The Western press has over the last few years been full of stories about Japan’s deep gloom, but in point of fact, the admitted state of the Japanese economy – let alone its actual state – is simply not that bad and in any other country would be producing mild expressions of concern, not brazen crowing about a crisis sufficient to force change in the fundamentals of the system.

Even the Japanese government admits that Japan is not actually declining economically, but rather growing at about 1% a year (which has ticked up to 2% since these words were first written.)  This is a better performance than many other nations in recent years. So even if one accepts the official statistics, Japan is not in anything like the death-spiral that laissez-faire mythology supposes.  It is, at absolute worst, accepting all the public mythology, stuck in a gentle stagnation of slow growth.  And that it may now be emerging from this simulated rut (partly because the truth was getting too hard to conceal between the cranes on the Tokyo skyline) only reinforces this argument.

And this stagnation, even if one believes in it, is (or was) at the top of a very high plateau of aggregate and per-capita GNP, so Japan is hardly suffering by any reasonable international standard.  It is, even according to the official figures, the second-richest country in the world.  It is doing far better than other economies which get better press because they conform more closely to the globalist model of what an economy ought to be.  It is a vastly richer nation, for example, than Britain, which globalist magazines like The Economist like to depict as an economic leader because it genuflects, at least in theory, to the right neoliberal theories.

Furthermore, the Japanese system is deliberately designed to contain the usual forms of economic stress that produce shocks to the political system, like inflation and unemployment, so Japan’s (quite mild, really) economic problems are miles away from having the political consequences needed to cause the radical revision of the system that see-what-they-want-to laissez-faire ideologues suppose.  Is 5% unemployment, in the context of a family structure more intact than in any Western nation, a crisis? In what other nation would 5% be considered a crisis level?

Nevertheless, we are fed a neoliberal fantasy that Japan is in a state of economic crisis and that this crisis is forcing her to revise her economy to conform to the world-conquering American version of capitalism.

{snip}

Modeling the Japanese System

The best way to model the Japanese system is to start from the conventional models of free-market capitalism and centrally-planned socialism and discuss how it differs from both.

In order to grasp what the Japanese have done, it is worth comparing it to Western attempts to achieve the same thing.  For example, the Japanese have understood that the ambition of the advocates of the “mixed economy,” like Hugh Gaitskell in the UK, to socialize the “commanding heights” of the economy, has some rational basis, in that it embodies the desirability for some government direction of the economy without a total Gosplan-style takeover.

But this aspiration was misinterpreted in classic socialism, which understood the commanding heights to be basic industries like coal, steel, and railways.  The problem with this, however, is that these industries do not command anything.  Important though they are, they do not constitute a lever by which the economy as a whole can be controlled; they do not issue orders to the rest of the economy which determine how it behaves. The supply of capital to business, however, does, and this is under state control in Japan.  One way to think of the Japanese system is as a capitalist economy with socialized capital markets.

Capitalism Without Plutocracy

Another case in point: does capitalism require plutocrats?  The classic capitalist answer is that somebody has to own productive assets with a view to maximizing their profit, some of those who do will succeed brilliantly, therefore somebody must be rich.

But the Japanese see this as wasteful, so their system is designed so that corporations, in essence, largely own themselves.  Even when there are nominal outside owners, corporations are managed so that the bulk of the wealth generated by the corporation flows either to the incomes of present workers or to investment in the future competitive strength of the company, making the workers and the company itself the de facto or beneficiary owners.

Most corporate capital in Japan is owned by banks, and the banks are principally owned not by shareholders, but by other companies in the same keiretsu or industrial group.  And who owns these companies?  Although there are some outside shareholders, majority control is in the hands of the keiretsu’s bank and the other companies in the group.  So in essence, the whole thing is circular and private ownership of the means of production has basically been put into the back seat.

Actually nationalizing the means of production would produce all the problems that led to the wave of privatizations in many nations in the last 20 years, and is unnecessary anyway.  The Japanese system makes a sly mockery of both capitalism and socialism.

Forcing Growth by Forcing the Accumulation of Capital

One key way in which the Japanese system differs from American capitalism is that it squarely faces a fact that neoliberal economists admit, but tend to do nothing about:

The rate at which any economy – capitalist, socialist, feudal, fascist or what have you – can grow is dependent on how much of its production is saved and invested, rather than consumed.

America does almost nothing to increase its very low savings rate.  Japan has a very high savings rate and this is a result of deliberate government policy and the lynchpin of the entire system.

How do they do it?  The architects of the Japanese system understood that the socialist and communist way to produce high savings, i.e. outright confiscation of wealth, is destructive of people’s incentive to work (not to mention its other problems) so they did not implement it.  They understood that by definition, savings = production – consumption, so they focused on repressing consumption.

This means, for example, deliberately restrictive zoning policies that keep Japanese houses small, and it means not having the various devices in place by which America subsidizes borrowing and makes debt easy to assume.  As a result, the populace of Japan is forced to save a far higher percentage of its earnings than Americans do.

It is a mistake to attribute Japan’s savings rate, or many of its other key aspects, to “culture,” as Japan had the same culture before WWII, when her savings rate was low.  It is the interaction of culture with deliberate state policies, not culture itself, that is key. The use of “culture” as a catch-all explanation by foreign analysts of Japan is an evasion of serious analysis.

Controlling the Economy by Controlling the Accumulation of Capital

The Japanese government deliberately channels savings into a limited number of financial institutions under its control simply by making sure there is nowhere else to put the money.  For example, it has seen to it that the Japanese cannot just open a brokerage account at Merrill Lynch and invest their money in the American stock market.

This huge torrent of savings flows to a handful of major banks, which the government has under its thumb because banking is extremely regulated in Japan, enabling regulators at the Ministry of Finance (MOF) to crack down on any bank at any time they see it doing something they don’t want it to.  So the banks are subject to the whim of the government, which then controls the economy by controlling how the banks allocate all this capital.

The net result is that the world’s second-largest pool of private investable capital is subject to the control of a few hundred elite bureaucrats in Tokyo.  The leverage they exert by controlling where this capital goes is the key to all their power.

How Japan Avoids the Problems of Soviet-Style Central Planning

The real genius of this system is that it is so indirect. These MOF bureaucrats are not stupid.  They have read von Hayek, watched the Soviet Union struggle, and understand perfectly well that classic Gosplan-style central planning is unworkable.  So they do not even remotely attempt this.

They understand quite well that the day-to-day detailed operation of the economy is best left to the invisible hand, just like Adam Smith said.  They do realize, however, as Adam Smith didn’t, that it is possible to manipulate an economy that is 99% capitalist into being, essentially,  a centrally-planned economy if the state controls the right 1%.  And this “right 1%” is the allocation of capital, especially big capital.

The MOF uses its stranglehold on the allocation of capital to make the banks into willing servants of its mission to control the Japanese economy.  The banks, which in this respect (but not others) function similarly to the classic universal banks of Germany, handle almost all the detailed work of figuring out which companies should be loaned money and for which projects.  The MOF essentially sits back, audits their performance, and rewards or punishes as appropriate.

{snip}

Wall Street Works, But Isn’t It Awfully Expensive?

Essentially, the architects of the Japanese system looked at the classic capitalist economy and reached the exact same conclusion as the average member of the Western world: that most of it is rational, but that an absurdly high proportion of national income is wasted rewarding the tiny elite that performs the capital-allocation function.  Wall Street types do their jobs reasonably well, but why not replace them with elite bureaucrats who will perform the same function for $90,000 a year apiece, rather than people who earn ten, or even a hundred, times that?  After all, one can teach bureaucrats the same technical skills of economic analysis.

In the Japanese view, investment banking is a business which, because of its structural monopoly on extremely valuable information, tends to produce grossly excessive returns for those engaged in it.  The capital allocation function is irrationally priced because the intrinsic bottlenecks of information make it impossible for new entrants to drive down returns.  Therefore the market cannot be relied upon to rationally price it.  Capitalism, paradoxically, is rational except at its very pinnacle.

{snip}

Fascism Without the Fascism

If the use of non-economic incentives sounds familiar, it is because the last time this issue was seriously addressed in the West in the context of a modern economy was by Peter F. Drucker in his 1940 book The End of Economic Man, which discussed how the Nazi system was based on creating a non-economic power structure to resolve the social conflicts that had been irresolvable within capitalist European society.  This, in his view, was the sick genius of Nazism and the reason it had been able to come within a hair’s breadth of creating a world-conquering social system.

The political economy described above is the product of thinking that originated among Japan’s colonial bureaucrats entrusted with the industrialization of Japan’s colony of Manchuria in the 1930’s.  They published their Economic New Structure Manifesto in 1940 as a result of their experience of the inefficiency of traditional capitalism as a development strategy.  In the short run, the elite Zaibatsu capitalists of Japan vetoed their ideas, but in the long run, partly as a result of the American occupation’s assault on the big property owners, a product of their New Dealers’ conviction that industrial concentration was an abettor of fascism, they were able to triumph.

One way to describe the Japanese achievement is to say that they have achieved what the Nazis wanted to achieve but didn’t, largely of course because they were mad serial killers obsessed with a lot of things other than economics.  Ironically, Asiatic Japan comes closer than any nation on earth to what Hitler wanted.  It is a socially conservative, hierarchical, technocratic, orderly, pagan, sexist, nationalist, racially pure, anti-communist, non-capitalist and anti-Semitic society.

Of course, it would be unfair to describe contemporary Japan as Nazi-like in any of the senses that are notorious (though one cannot help observing that she has never been contrite about her WWII actions the way Germany has.)  More correctly, the architects of the Japanese system learned from their disastrous experience in WWII that the kind of society they wanted could not be achieved through a totalitarian predator-state and they calculated that it could be achieved through the forms, though not the content, of liberal democracy, which is how Japan presents itself.

{snip}

Practical Implications

This does not all mean that nations setting economic policies can ignore neoliberal prescriptions willy-nilly and expect not to pay a price. The Japanese system is a sophisticated construct that requires some of the world’s most skilled economic managers.  Outsmarting capitalism is not a game for amateurs.

The Japanese system is a system, so one cannot just copy any piece of it and expect it to work outside its original context.  But some pieces depend upon things that are sufficiently similar in other economies that they are plausibly imitable.  For example:

1. Any nation can usefully increase its savings rate, not necessarily by Japan’s means.

2. Any nation can prop up working-class wages by not importing cheap foreign labor.

3. Advanced nations can benefit from carefully relaxing anti-cartel laws to allow cooperative R&D, as in the Sematech consortium in the US.

Other policies, like lifetime employment and cartel price-fixing, would clearly be a disaster if simply imposed, because they need constraints supplied by the rest of the system to ensure that the benefits are socially diffused and not just captured by narrow interests.

The lynchpin of the system, politicized capital allocation, probably cannot work in a democracy, as it would just result in plants being built in the districts of powerful parliamentarians and would not make investments whose payoff exceeded one election cycle.  Naturally, kleptocratic oligarchies wouldn’t be good at it either; politicized capital allocation is only likely to work under highly Platonic systems like the MOF.  And even then, there is no guarantee: power still corrupts and one can easily imagine such a system becoming inbred and perverse.  Japan’s achievement is an empirical fact, not a guarantee to all eternity.

Other policies fall in between the imitable and the inimitable, like the emphasis on advanced manufacturing, an extremely complex topic.

Still other policies, like protectionism, can only be rationally evaluated in the context of a general debate on the topic of which the Japanese case is but an important part.

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, March 17, 2007 at 07:59 PM in Economics & Finance
Comments (8) | Tell a friend

Comments:

1

Posted by Voice on March 17, 2007, 09:21 PM | #

Thanks GW

I really enjoyed that…

2

Posted by wintermute on March 18, 2007, 05:03 AM | #

I am a little surprised by your use of the term “retreat”. Is there something in the article that you dislike, or are repelled by?

My favorite part:

If the use of non-economic incentives sounds familiar, it is because the last time this issue was seriously addressed in the West in the context of a modern economy was by Peter F. Drucker in his 1940 book The End of Economic Man, which discussed how the Nazi system was based on creating a non-economic power structure to resolve the social conflicts that had been irresolvable within capitalist European society.  This, in his view, was the sick genius of Nazism and the reason it had been able to come within a hair’s breadth of creating a world-conquering social system.

[. . .]

One way to describe the Japanese achievement is to say that they have achieved what the Nazis wanted to achieve but didn’t, largely of course because they were mad serial killers obsessed with a lot of things other than economics.  Ironically, Asiatic Japan comes closer than any nation on earth to what Hitler wanted.  It is a socially conservative, hierarchical, technocratic, orderly, pagan, sexist, nationalist, racially pure, anti-communist, non-capitalist and anti-Semitic society.


[. . .]

More correctly, the architects of the Japanese system learned from their disastrous experience in WWII that the kind of society they wanted could not be achieved through a totalitarian predator-state and they calculated that it could be achieved through the forms, though not the content, of liberal democracy, which is how Japan presents itself.

For readers here, I would like to reiterate Guessedworker’s reiteration of my original claims for this article: it is revolutionary. I would not only encourage careful study of the article, I would encourage you to copy it and mail it along to anyone you know with an interest in political economy. With its ritual obesiance to conventional pieties, it bypasses conditioned reflexes against ‘fascism’ and presently economic facts, especially about the weaknesses of neoliberalism. Locke mentions more than once that Japan is the second wealthiest nation on earth, but the purported ‘wealthiest’ - America - posesses ludicrously abundent natural resources and limitless supplies of cheap labor. If modern Western ‘capitalism’ had to perform its magic on a resourceless rock in the middle of the ocean, with no slaves and no Mexicans, it would be instructive to see which system would outperform the other. Also, as Locke observes, certain “irresolveable social conflicts” seem endemic to modern capitalism. Is there a different way out of the underworld than the one found by the Italians and the Germans in the middle of the last century? Reading between the lines of Locke’s report - no, not at all. Without a system of “non-economic power structure” - i.e. modification of Vaishya (merchants, artisans, farmers) rule by Kshatriya (military) or Brahmin elements. Modern society is probably too degenerate for anything even approximating rule by Brahmins, if it were even possible to reconstruct such at this late date. The whole history (in the sense of written history) of the West, as shown in Evola, is rule by Kshatriya over Brahmin and Vaishya elements. The only trace of Brahmin rule in our branch of the Indo-European family would be the Druids in Gaul and Britian.


Locke is self-described conservative thinker, often featured on Frontpage.com, who two years ago wrote a definitive essay on the ‘transnational overclass’. That he returns to the scene with a glowing report (albeit with some pro forma grovelling) on fascism - real, honest-to-gods fascism, the kind Mussolini would recognize as his own grandchild, is nothing short of amazing. He has recapitulated in his own person, over the course of just a few years,  the entire cyle of European political development from the late nineteenth century all the way up to the mid thirties. Seeing free trade lead to the growth of a ‘transnational overclass’, Locke returns, via a commodius vicus of recirculation, to Wewelsberg Castle and environs!

Now, Locke is still very philo-Semitic. But reading his whole essay, and considering it in the context of his previous essay and great concern with the ‘transnational overclass’ and its goals, one would be force to admit that he is one reading of Culture of Critique away from seizing control of a local beer hall.


I found the article very hopeful, for two reasons:

Firstly, that an objective observer and self-described conservative, simply by following a single line of investigation honestly to its conclusion, would reach a good approximation of our own position. If Robert Locke can do it, others can do it too. Since I see evidence everyday of the unwillingness of people to reason properly, or worse, the willingness of people to reason improperly, I am overjoyed to see even one person use this noblest of human faculties as is intended, to seek the truth and to help others, and not merely to make himself comfortable: “there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.”

So, a little rejoicing in heaven. Robert Locke proves the race is not wholly lost.

Secondly, the article gives me hope because I do not see the question of economic organization as split by the poles individual - collective. Kevin MacDonald is always careful to use the term ‘relatively individualistic’ to describe our subspecies. I would agree that Blacks, for example, would not be very good at the sort of economic co-ordination that Locke describes, but I know for a fact that we are.

Italy’s economic performance, based on a model not at all dissimilar to the one Locke describes, functioned very well and with a minimum of brutality, providing economic growth to a backwards economy in the midst of a world depression for twenty years. Considering that Communism was as eager to take Italy as it was for Germany, this is an achievement we may very well call extraordianary. That Mussolini had no talent for foreign policy can not be used to gainsay his social mechanisms, which were widely admired at the time, and which were, for many Italian-Americans, preferable to the United States.

So: if Italians can do it, surely Northern Europeans can, which upon examination, turns out to be the case.  Neoliberal economists like to pretend that German prosperity was a Keynesian side effect of war production, but the German economy wasn’t even on a war footing until 1942 or 43. Their initial successes in Russia were acheived with equipment (especially tanks) that were grossly inferior, both technologically and numerically. I think - among many other reasons - that the fascist experiment is held in such horror by moderns is precisely because it was so successful as an economic order. In order for fascism to have worked (which it did in Italy and Germany), then most of modern economics would have to be dead wrong - something I think Pound had figured out quite early: “the American money system is cuckoo. It is inethical.”

Finally, since many readers here do not have my or Professor MacDonald’s advantage of living in America, they may not fully appreciate just how much conformity is possible among Aryans. I believe de Toqueville was the first to commit this observation to writing. Without institutions to stabilize identity, simple mammalian reflexes - what GW calls genetic determinism - intervene. However, these reflexes do not intervene to cause anarchy. Rather, they go into a state of intense vigilance, scrutinizing every neighbor both for cues of how to behave and what to believe, as well as enforcing vicious sanctions for the tiniest variation from the mean. All of which is to say, they tend to the collective, rather than the individual, even when we are examining their effect on a relatively individualistic population.

Not that I regard any of that as optimal - simply that we are not a bunch of showboating blacks who couldn’t play a proper game of basketball to save their lives.

Finally, as protective cover for anyone discussing alternate systems of social and economic organization that solve for hostile ethnies, imported labor, capital accumulation, central banks, economic autarchy and the like, obviously the word ‘fascism’ can’t be used - if for no other reason, it’s too busy being used to describe the prototypical Near Eastern social orders of hyperlegalistic polygamy under the hairsplitting rule of mullahs. Thus, both to avoid confusion as well as social opprobrium, I recommend the term national mutualism as an interim substitute. It sounds nice, but is certainly not in violation of any truth in labelling laws.

Indeed, there is a certain sense in which any self description as ‘fascist’ does not accurately convey these beliefs about the proper role of national interest versus the interests of capital and heterosity. People’s heads have been filled with so much nonsense that it an unfortunate necessity to use a neologism to relate a paleo-veracity.

Not unlike the way Americans now have to call themselves “Euro-Americans” in order to convey what is actually already contained in the first term. And for our UK readers - is there a preferred term that will now describe what was once perfectly summed up by the term, “The English”?

Post Scriptum to GW: Doesn’t “Wintermute” take a capital as a proper name? Or am I in official disfavor?

3

Posted by jp straley on March 18, 2007, 09:32 AM | #

http://www.anonym.to/http://wwwgnxp.com

Part of the Japan savings rate capital accumulation phenom could be induced by partial privatization of social security.  Careful rules could be instituted on the use of the treasure;  benefitting only companies who have a virtuous econ circle within the US.  Huge base of capital looking for an outlet—modest returns acceptable & etc.

JPS

4

Posted by karlmagnus on March 18, 2007, 12:34 PM | #

Thge Japanese system is fairly close to the British system as practiced by Pitt and Liverpool in 1983-1830 (with Smith and Ricardo, respectively, as their advisors.) The state doesn’t run things or own things, it merely takes an intelligent interest in economic development and ensures that the conditions are in place for it to occur, and the it benefits the home country and not a bunch of foreigners. Neoliberalism is a crude Whig fantasy born out of the repeal of the Corn Laws. For example, Liverpool didn’t believe in free movement of labour; you could be hanged in 1810 if you stole British textile technology and gave it to the Americans, let alone the French.

The ordered hierarchical society, using the Church of England to keep the lower orders playing their role and not disrupting the system, is also a very Japanese approach.

5

Posted by Søren Renner on March 18, 2007, 12:48 PM | #

Point the first: I find the essay (as redacted here) to be of great interest and I intend to read the complet version.

Point the second: Go, Wintermute! It is not that you are prolix, but rather that I myself am cryptic and overlaconic: as long as you (and others here, who seem to be decloaking weekly) say what I would say out loud and at length if pressed, then I don’t have to feel that I should break my own style to the bit, but may let it run free in the sunlight meadows of .... see, it gets away from me. “There it goes, rehiving off again ....”

6

Posted by Kenelm Digby on March 19, 2007, 08:46 AM | #

My opinion is this: The entire subject of economics is pure worthless bunk, apart from the foundation work of the early 18th century theorists such as Adam Smith and his ilk.
The only irreducible factor governing ‘national wealth’ is the genetic character of the people inhabiting a particular ‘nation state’.

7

Posted by Elliott on July 05, 2007, 09:29 AM | #

“Ironically, Asiatic Japan comes closer than any nation on earth to what Hitler wanted.  It is a socially conservative, hierarchical, technocratic, orderly, pagan, sexist, nationalist, racially pure, anti-communist, non-capitalist and anti-Semitic society.”

Though people despise Asians almost as much as Jews (re. hateful comments, posts mocking them, etc), they must be doing something right. Even South Korea has partially succeeded, albeit recently (it’s similar to the Japanese model)

8

Posted by Frank on January 07, 2011, 09:10 AM | #

This is an amazing article, GW. Thanks.

CC should not be allowed to read this btw.

Post a Comment:

Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Smileys

You must prefix http://anonym.to/? to gnxp.com links...
e.g., http://anonym.to/?http://www.gnxp.com/...

Copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting
it just in case the software loses it because the session time has been exceeded.

Remember my personal information

Next entry: Majority Report For 20070317

Previous entry: Serial killer white-out

image of the day

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

Majority Radio

Recent Comments

Also see trash folder.

Hymiewood commented in entry 'MR Radio: Stan Hess, DanielS and GW discuss the seventies and activism today' on 10/31/14, 07:06 AM. (go) (view)

Anonymous commented in entry 'Black Lies in White Nationalism: Hitler didn't instigate war, modestly sought appropriated territory' on 10/31/14, 03:18 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/30/14, 10:35 PM. (go) (view)

wobble commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/30/14, 07:10 PM. (go) (view)

wobble commented in entry 'Salter: Accept that the State is no longer ours and rebuild radically of our people' on 10/30/14, 06:37 PM. (go) (view)

Meta-ontology commented in entry 'Apollo&Dionysus: Were Hippies Protesting the Moon Landing, Ayn?' on 10/30/14, 02:29 AM. (go) (view)

Be-In commented in entry 'Apollo&Dionysus: Were Hippies Protesting the Moon Landing, Ayn?' on 10/29/14, 01:06 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/29/14, 08:02 AM. (go) (view)

voznich commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/29/14, 03:13 AM. (go) (view)

Celtic Tribalism commented in entry 'Pay attention' on 10/28/14, 10:31 PM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/28/14, 08:59 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'MR Radio: Migchels, Bowery Address Malign Economics' on 10/28/14, 03:22 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/27/14, 10:03 AM. (go) (view)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/27/14, 06:36 AM. (go) (view)

mctc-me commented in entry 'Elitism, secrecy, deception … the way to save white America?' on 10/27/14, 02:42 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Apollo&Dionysus: Were Hippies Protesting the Moon Landing, Ayn?' on 10/26/14, 06:16 PM. (go) (view)

Carolyn Yeager commented in entry 'Apollo&Dionysus: Were Hippies Protesting the Moon Landing, Ayn?' on 10/26/14, 05:53 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Apollo&Dionysus: Were Hippies Protesting the Moon Landing, Ayn?' on 10/26/14, 03:53 PM. (go) (view)

BlutundBoden commented in entry 'Apollo&Dionysus: Were Hippies Protesting the Moon Landing, Ayn?' on 10/26/14, 01:28 PM. (go) (view)

BlutundBoden commented in entry 'Apollo&Dionysus: Were Hippies Protesting the Moon Landing, Ayn?' on 10/26/14, 01:26 PM. (go) (view)

Carolyn Yeager commented in entry 'Apollo&Dionysus: Were Hippies Protesting the Moon Landing, Ayn?' on 10/26/14, 10:20 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/26/14, 08:39 AM. (go) (view)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/26/14, 07:48 AM. (go) (view)

Occam commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/26/14, 07:37 AM. (go) (view)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/26/14, 07:25 AM. (go) (view)

Frunobulac commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/26/14, 06:58 AM. (go) (view)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/26/14, 05:20 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Apollo&Dionysus: Were Hippies Protesting the Moon Landing, Ayn?' on 10/25/14, 04:34 AM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Apollo&Dionysus: Were Hippies Protesting the Moon Landing, Ayn?' on 10/25/14, 03:22 AM. (go) (view)

Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/24/14, 07:14 PM. (go) (view)

Ebowling commented in entry 'Ebola remiss an alarm for border control as even most objective standards of human ecology ignored' on 10/24/14, 08:18 AM. (go) (view)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Thank You, Ebola-chan!' on 10/24/14, 05:55 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Comments On Vico by Enza Ferreri, Greg Johnson, et al.?' on 10/24/14, 05:47 AM. (go) (view)

Al Ross commented in entry 'A Labour of ... well, not hate exactly, but certainly scorn' on 10/24/14, 05:41 AM. (go) (view)

Lurker commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/24/14, 12:15 AM. (go) (view)

General News

Science News

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Anti-White Media

Audio/Video

Controlled Opposition

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa

affection-tone