I think you’ll agree, after watching this so-called “children’s film”, there must be something worthy of deconstruction if not prosecution as hate speech:

Heidi

We’re finally rid of these bad old days thanks to the great work of the Frankfurt School!

The SPLC and ADL must be alerted to the sewage gushing forth from the Internet into the personal computer media players of children around the world.

Citizen’s dividends—the replacement of all government transfer programs with a simple cash dividend paid equally to all citizens—is the single-plank political platform that can, in the present climate, be used by a minor party to capture control of virtually any parliamentary government in the West.

The rationale is simple:  Immigrants are not citizens and they would be deprived of public benefits.  This would be immensely popular.  Moreover, it would “empower” the populace to fight for their “entitlement” to their own country in a manner far more effective than any “get out the vote” campaign. 

The response by the political parties now in power—traitors that they are—would, of course, be to fast-track “a path to citizenship” for immigrants, but they would be doing so in an economic environment far from conducive to popular apathy toward such shenanigans.

This can’t work in the United States without the take over of one of the 2 major parties because of the way the electoral system works in the US.  But in parliamentary governments, minor parties can get a foot in the door, as demonstrated by the recent EU elections.  That’s all it takes because once this idea is aired in the halls of power, it will necessarily attract an enormous amount of attention from the usual suspects:

“Isn’t this racist?  Isn’t this inhumane?  Isn’t this xenophobic?  What about refugees?  Why should immigrants pay taxes if they aren’t going to get a citizen’s dividend?”

It would be wonderfully clarifying.

As for the economic effects, I’ll simply point out what should be fairly obvious by now:  The current economic crisis is caused by centralization of wealth to the point that the populace isn’t simply impoverished, but is so deep in debt that the consumer base has collapsed.  This was caused not by “easy money policies of the central banks” but by the subsidy of wealth built into any society that protects property rights by taxing economic activity.  The would-be upwardly mobile pay the bills—not the recipients of the primary government service:  protection of unnatural concentrations of wealth.  Although it is true that this means the proper source of revenue for the citizen’s dividend would be a net asset tax on in place liquidation value—a tax that eliminates taxes on economic activity—it is not essential to political success that such a tax reform be another plank in the platform of the citizen’s dividend party.  That change would come in due course as people were empowered to fight back against centralized wealth’s capture of government.  However, once the tax reform is adopted, the populace would be very motivated to maximize the net in-place liquidation value of the nation’s assets.  They will become keenly interested in the real externalities of immigration, graphically demonstrated in places like California.  They might even start thinking other taboo thoughts about human ecology, sociology, economics and politics.

This is Martin Hutchinson’s current article on Prudent Bear, looking back to the mercantilist origins of China’s current grab for natural resources and pondering alternatives to the kind of future it implies.

GW

THE RETURN OF THOMAS MUN

China’s recent announcement that it would use its $2 trillion of foreign reserves to boost its companies overseas acquisitions tells us that its economic beliefs are neither those of Adam Smith, nor of Karl Marx, but of the 17th Century mercantilist Thomas Mun. It is becoming clear that in economics, unlike in “hard” sciences, old belief systems never die.

Mun (1571-1641) wrote a classic magnum opus “England’s Treasure by Foreign Trade.” Published only after his death in 1664, it was nevertheless very influential. Mun had been a Director of the East India Company, and, unlike earlier theorists, believed that foreign trade was beneficial. However he didn’t hold with any high-falutin nonsense like comparative advantage, or maximization of global economic welfare. For Mun the purpose of foreign trade was to export more than you imported and, consequently, amass a huge store of foreign “Treasure,” which you could then use to found colonies that would take control of natural resources.

To further this objective, countries should: cut back domestic consumption as far as possible; increase the use of land and other domestic resources to reduce imports; encourage the export of goods made with foreign raw materials; and export goods with price-inelastic demand because profits would be greater.

Mun’s theory made sense in the 17th Century economic jungle — and today it obviously makes sense to China. The renminbi, China’s currency, is undervalued, so exports consistently exceed imports. Domestic consumption is kept low and savings high, both of which suppress imports. In industries such as automobiles where consumer demand is inevitable, foreign manufacturers are forced into domestic joint ventures, so that domestic manufacturers can be developed to replace imports. Domestic agriculture and resource extraction efforts are intensive. China has set up free trade zones, in which foreign parts are assembled into goods that are then exported. Finally, the country has amassed a gigantic store of $2 trillion of “Treasure,” which is now to be used to assist in foreign acquisitions. Those acquisitions are not to be on Wall Street, as prime minister Wen Jiabao helpfully explained, but in natural resources, where China can assure itself of exclusive raw materials supplies for decades to come.

READ MORE...

by Dan Dare

When Gordon Brown cynically hijacked the BNP’s slogan “British Jobs for British Workers” and featured it so prominently in his keynote speech to the 2008 Labour Party Conference, he could not have had the dimmest inkling of how much grief that would eventually cause him. And yet now, amazingly, and despite all the aggravation he suffered as a result of the “British Jobs” fiasco,  he’s been caught out once again trying to steal the BNP’s thunder.

This time the theme is “Local Houses for Local People”, a catchy title for a brand-new wheeze intended to defuse the controversy which has grown-up around the vexatious matter of how social housing (publicly subsidised rentals) should be allocated. The BNP has enjoyed considerable success in promoting the notion that immigrants obtain an unfair share of the limited amount of social housing that is actually available. Predictably enough, Brown’s announcement proposing to modify the allocation rules to favour ‘local people’ over newer emtrants provoked howls of outrage from the usual suspects. Ironically it has even been denounced as illegal, being apparently in direct conflict with the key sections of the raft of Race Relations and Equalities legislation that NuLabor has painstakingly introduced into law since coming to office.

READ MORE...

By The Narrator

Note: as this is the middle of summer and with so much heavy political subject matter on the table I thought I’d offer something a little lighter yet still relevant. It’s a review of a twenty-year-old film. Actually, as I lay out the entire plot below, it’s more than just a spoiler free review.

It’s, admittedly, a bit of an oddball film, but after viewing it again recently for the first time in years -as well as reading some reviews of it, (plus the fact that I’ve not seen it mentioned on other pro-Western sites) - I went ahead with a write up of it as it struck me as just how pro-nativist the film actually is.

THE BURBS (1989)

‘The Burbs’, a somewhat obscure 1980’s oddball comedy staring Tom Hanks and Carrie Fisher met with mixed reviews and mediocre box office success upon its release twenty years ago, yet its theme is hardly abstract or uncommon.  The story is set in the Midwestern, middle-class (all White), cul-de-sac of Mayfield Place.  Its residents consist of the “rational” straight-man Ray Peterson (Hanks) and his wife Carol (Fischer), pudgy gossiper Art Weingartner, gung-ho war veteran/gardner Mark Rumsfield and his scantly clad wife Bonnie, cantankerous “old guy” Walter Seznick and (of the featured neighbors) nosy teen, Ricky Butler.

It’s the kind of traditional neighborhood where everyone is local and they all know one anothers quirks (such as Ray walking the dog as an excuse to smoke cigars as his wife won’t let him smoke in the house. But all the neighbors know better anyway). It is thoroughly modern, yet quaint and safe in its familiarness.  Into this scene of middle American homogeneity come the new neighbors, the Klopeks.

Little is known of them, accept for their name, yet most seem to have heard, and gladly exchange in, disturbing rumors about them. These rumors are exacerbated by the strange noises coming from the Klopek home at night, and the fact that they are only seen coming and going after dark. The exception to the gossiping is Ray, who consciously works not to notice anything out of the ordinary, as he “vacations” around the house for a week in the world he chooses to perceive.

READ MORE...

True, as we look through Being itself, through time itself, and look into the destiny of Being and the extending of time-space, we have glimpsed what “Appropriation” means.  But do we by this road arrive at anything else than a mere thought-construct?  Behind this suspicion there lurks the view that Appropriation must after all “be” something.  However:  Appropriation neither is, nor is Appropriation there.  To say the one or to say the other is equally a distortion of the matter, just as if we wanted to derive the source from the river.

What remains to be said?  Only this:  Appropriation appropriates.  Saying this, we say the Same in terms of the Same about the Same.  To all appearances, all this says nothing.  It does indeed say nothing so long as we hear a mere sentence in what was said, and expose that sentence to the cross-examination of logic.  But what if we take what was said and adopt it unceasingly as the guide for our thinking, and consider that this Same is not even anything new, but the oldest of the old in Western thought:  that ancient something which conceals itself in a-letheia?  That which is said before all else by this first source of all the leitmotifs of thinking gives voice to a bond that binds all thinking, providing that thinking submits to the call of what must be thought.

The task of our thinking has been to trace Being to its own from Appropriation—by way of looking through true time without regard to the relation of Being to beings.

To think Being without beings means:  to think Being without regard to metaphysics.  Yet a regard for metaphysics still prevails even in the intention to overcome metaphysics.  Therefore, our task is to cease all overcoming, and leave metaphysics to itself.

If overcoming remains necessary, it concerns that thinking that explicitly enters Appropriation in order to say It in terms of It about It.

Our task is unceasingly to overcome the obstacles that tend to render such saying inadequate.

The saying of Appropriation in the form of a lecture remains itself an obstacle of this kind.  The lecture has spoken merely in propositional statements.

Martin Heidegger, “On Time and Being” translated by Joan Stambaugh, ISBN:0-022-32375-7, p 23-24

I present this for discussion by those more familiar with continental philosophy than I because I have a hunch it is as important as it pretends.

A couple of days ago the BBC News website informed us that a “Romanian mayor has been strongly criticised by Jewish groups after appearing dressed in a Nazi uniform at a local fashion show.”  Radu Mazare is mayor of Constan?a, the Black Sea port and the oldest living city in Romania (having been founded around 600 BC).  He was, he explained, inspired to wear the costume by the film Valkyrie.  But it’s not an explanation that the “offended party” requires:

Dr Efraim Zuroff, a Holocaust historian and the director of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Jerusalem, expressed “insult and outrage” at the mayor’s appearance.

In a letter to Mr Mazare, he wrote: “It would be hard to adequately describe the depth of the pain that your appearance caused, not only to Jews and other victims of Nazism, but to any person of moral integrity who knows the history of World War II.

“Today it is well-known that the Wehrmacht played an active role in the mass murder of European Jewry and many other innocent victims.

“By dressing in a Wehrmacht uniform, you are expressing totally unwarranted support and nostalgia for an army which committed the most terrible war acts of genocide.”

Dr Zuroff suggested Mr Mazare could make amends for his “incredible lack of judgement” by bringing an exhibition on the crimes of the German army to Romania.

So, is this the speech of a beautiful but tortured Jewish soul lying flayed and bleeding on the ice-cold alter of German history?  Is he making manifest that great testament to human evil which is the G-d-given lot of all Jews?  Or does he merely have a practical mind?  Never mind the insult and outrage, and even the “pain” of a depth “it would be hard to adequately describe”, is all he really wants to keep Christian Europe’s head-down in the moral mire?  Might one conclude that, far from being a Chosen vessel of Man’s redemption from evil, Dr Zuroff is a ruthlessly opportunistic race huckster ... the kind of man who might not be above employing that indescribable Jewish “pain” in a trick:

(Thanks to reader KD who sent me the link to this video.)

We saw something very like opportunistic trickery with Prince Harry’s fancy dress back in January 2005:

READ MORE...

by David Hamilton

More than 6 million babies have been aborted since the Abortion Act 1967 came into force in Britain and around 75 million in the USA! There are 500 abortions every day in England and Wales and the figures show 67% of are carried out before the 10th week, and 89% before the 12th week. There are about 190,000 abortions a year in England and Wales. The official practice is that an abortion can be performed up to 24 weeks and needs the consent of two family doctor’s. The woman can seek a second opinion or go private. It is usual in cases when the child is likely to be disabled or not expected to have a high quality of life.

The debate is between liberals and feminists on rights, but is never on the woman’s duty to our posterity: the needs of our ethnic group are ignored. The two sides argue where the rights lie, couching the argument in rational terms. But what about our natural instincts? What about our emotional bonding with our people and the consequent responsibility for one another and the continuity of our people?

READ MORE...