Post: #1

I think this is a very interesting idea, that Libertas (I believe) touched on in the EU Migrant's thread, and not one I've seen discussed a great deal, either on the internet or in the newspapers.

It's something I've been reflecting on in various forms for a while now, without defining it as such, and Libertas' post served to crystallize some of these thoughts in my mind. I think it is a much more useful explanation of irreconcilable political divides, as they affect ordinary people, rather than the grasping political elite who one might, were on cynically inclined, suspect believe in nothing at all beyond their own re-election.

I find it useful personally because it provides a congruent guiding principle to my varied political beliefs, which can often span both sides of the conventional 'Left/Right' political spectrum. Nationalism can be a dirty word, and sadly it tends to attract all sorts of unthinking people looking to provide simple answers to complex problems. However, I think the (perhaps deliberate) discrediting of the 'Nationalist' position by painting is as necessarily right wing, racist or fascistic, has done a tremendous amount of damage to our political system. When people now complain that 'all politicians are the same', they are, perhaps unconsciously, correct, in that whether the political party is to the left or the right, all of the political parties that matter are Globalist in outlook.

Ironically, I believe that in many respects, the lack of a serious, thoughtful, Nationalist party fuels the division between races and prevents assimilation an acceptance of those who come to our countries to live. Many of these people are now 3rd or 4th generation immigrants, and yet do not feel assimilated into our culture. I believe much of the blame for that must be laid at the feet of their host nations. It is my belief that a country with a Nationalist, rather than Globalist, outlook, should take pride in the effective and comprehensive assimilation of immigrants into its society - essentially the opposite to the idea that Nationalism should be equated with Nazism/fascism, the automatic assumption of which seems to me to be a semantic ploy by the Globalists to discredit their opponents before they've even had a chance to make their case. The lack of a legitimate, unstigmatised outlet for people to express their frustration through is, to my mind, a root cause in the adoption of crass beliefs on a wide array of topics, and causes excessive backlash against the many law-abiding and peace loving people of various minority races that the various Western shores. But without such a platform to express dissatisfaction with the Globalist agenda, it is these people who are, ironically, most at risk, as otherwise thoughtful and gentle people are forced to become more extreme in order to protect and pass on the values that they hold dear.

A dangerous topic, perhaps, and certainly not a simple one, but hopefully something we can discuss thoughtfully.

Post: #2

This interview with Le Pen crystallized it for me:





Le Pen is an interesting example because she seems in some ways to actually be a LEFT WING nationalist in the vein of old school New Deal Coalition type liberals that I work with, and not the postmodern freaks who would be globalist in outlook according to her anyway.

She mentioned she had some differences with Nigel Farage, who seems to be more of a right wing free market nationalist, but that they agree on all the real big issues of the day, hence their nationalism.

Trump actually seems somewhat between Farage and Le Pen in that regard.

I'm currently trying to work on a political philosophy that politicizes the tenets and ethos of neomasculinity, which I'm tentatively calling a sort of "nationalist libertarianism," which I suppose is closer to Farage than Le Pen, but I'm not sure how important that distinction is to the overall scheme.

I'm working on a PM that I plan to send to a select group of you to see how we can get our reaction started. I like what Teedub said about "globalists vs. people" because that's really what it's about.

People live in countries and locales, not on an abstract cosmopolitan "globe."

Post: #3

Nah, it's just Left and Right. Nationalism is right-wing, the trade aspects of globalism are right-wing, and the migration aspects are left-wing.

These 'anti-globalist' types aren't nationalists, and there is no such spectrum between the two. People who claim to be against globalism are generally protectionists. They want to erect walls against foreign competition, and they want to do it for their own personal benefit and the benefit of the corporations that are lobbying them.

A great example is Holden, an Australian car company. As a result of protectionism of Holden, everyone in the country pays stupid prices for cars due to tariffs etc. The only people who benefit are the executives and share holders of Holden, union executives, and lobbyists. Everyone else in the nation has to tolerate the higher prices for cars that results. The entire nation must subsidize a select group of rich automobile executives and union bosses, to protect their shitty car company that can't compete with anyone else, just because "it's Australian". That's a pretty fucked up charity to be forced on everyone.

You can't 'protect' your country from being uncompetitive. You can't legislate away shitness.

There is no conflict between globalism and nationalism, so long as immigration is restricted to being based on the well-being of the nation, and people disallow bloodthirsty conquerors from getting into power. Unlimited goods crossing borders, but limited people.

Post: #4

It should be noted that Holden auto and engine production will end in Australia by 2017. All Holdens will be built elsewhere and imported.

Saying that, Australia is really too small of a market to make comparisons with the US, Germany, Japan, China, etc. Of course, all of those countries, except the US, have high tariffs on imported cars...

Post: #5

Good post H1n1, I've also wanted to write a post on how to discuss racial issues.

Instead of discussing "race" which to be honest is filled with holes and exceptions, substitute in culture instead.

People automatically understand "culture" to be a nebulous concept where as race is something solid. When discussing immigration, don't say "These middle easterners are racially deplorable people with their backwards attitudes on women, etc etc".

Say: "These middle easterners are culturally deplorable people with their backwards attitudes etc etc"

Reframe racial arguments as cultural ones. Watch people be unable to respond back.

Post: #6

(09-13-2015 11:05 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  Good post H1n1, I've also wanted to write a post on how to discuss racial issues.

Instead of discussing "race" which to be honest is filled with holes and exceptions, substitute in culture instead.

People automatically understand "culture" to be a nebulous concept where as race is something solid. When discussing immigration, don't say "These middle easterners are racially deplorable people with their backwards attitudes on women, etc etc".

Say: "These middle easterners are culturally deplorable people with their backwards attitudes etc etc"

Reframe racial arguments as cultural ones. Watch people be unable to respond back.

I've done that. They still screamed racist.

I laughed.

Post: #7

Yes, and it's been that way for at least twenty years or more.

Being critical of a culture = "racist" in the non-logical way it has been redefined.

Post: #8

The whole idea of globalization is so we don't have to murder each other when we need certain resources, instead we can freely trade them and make a profit to boot.

The rest is baggage that comes with the turf.

Post: #9

I just finished reading an interesting article that deals with quite similar issues. The essay is rather long, so take your time and perhaps have a hot beverage while reading it.
It discusses the classical theory of elites and the theory of managerial revolution, and tries to provide the reader with an explanation of how this new world we are dealing with came to be. Furthermore it should be noted that it is written from a white nationalist view. But don´t be afraid, even if you are a black cosmopolitan it should be an entertaining and thought provoking read, as it is really not so much about race, as it is about the progress and principles of human society.

Why the American Ruling Class Betrays Its Race and Civilization

Afterwards, some short reading on James Burnham and, for a balanced view, the criticism of his work is recommended:

James Burnham
Second Thoughts on James Burnham

Certainly interesting to know that Burnham´s theory of managerial revolution might have been one inspiration that contributed to Orwell´s "1984".

Post: #10

It's really government by estrogen and r selection vs. testosterone and K selection.

Post: #11

I would say the true dichotomy is not political at all, but like deathoffatties said is the competition of values/resources between the strong individuals and the weak masses. Unfortunately, after long contemplation, I feel most discussion of these matters is a distraction mechanism to placate potentially strong individuals.

Post: #12

(09-13-2015 10:31 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Nah, it's just Left and Right. Nationalism is right-wing, the trade aspects of globalism are right-wing, and the migration aspects are left-wing.

These 'anti-globalist' types aren't nationalists, and there is no such spectrum between the two. People who claim to be against globalism are generally protectionists. They want to erect walls against foreign competition, and they want to do it for their own personal benefit and the benefit of the corporations that are lobbying them.

A great example is Holden, an Australian car company. As a result of protectionism of Holden, everyone in the country pays stupid prices for cars due to tariffs etc. The only people who benefit are the executives and share holders of Holden, union executives, and lobbyists. Everyone else in the nation has to tolerate the higher prices for cars that results. The entire nation must subsidize a select group of rich automobile executives and union bosses, to protect their shitty car company that can't compete with anyone else, just because "it's Australian". That's a pretty fucked up charity to be forced on everyone.

You can't 'protect' your country from being uncompetitive. You can't legislate away shitness.

There is no conflict between globalism and nationalism, so long as immigration is restricted to being based on the well-being of the nation, and people disallow bloodthirsty conquerors from getting into power. Unlimited goods crossing borders, but limited people.

I used to think like you, but now I understand things differently.

The downsides to protectionism is that a country's consumers need to pay Holden and its employees more money.

The upside to protectionism is that Australia has it's own auto-maker, and if war breaks out they will be able to produce their own vehicles without relying on other potentially hostile neighbors. Moreover, Holden's employees will be men who keep the knowledge of automaking, which means high paid laborers who have families and provide valuable technical knowledge to future generations of Australians.

When you consider the upsides against the downsides, protectionism against foreign intervention makes a lot of sense. What's more important: saving money or building a strong population with healthy birthrates and a talented workforce?

All globalization does is let a country spend it's money on slave labor somewhere else to save money at the expense of their citizens' cultural capital. The men lose out on jobs and skills, which translates into less families because men without jobs means they cannot provide for females. The lower birthrates then translate into slower demand at home and contracting economy, which then causes more men to lose jobs and fewer families created as a result. Globalization is a vicious cycle that ends in depression or dead countries.

Moreover, while protectionism does prevent native industries from facing competitive pressures from abroad, as long as there is still free-trade inside of a country's borders then one could always argue, "If Holden sucks so badly then why don't other Australians make their own auto company?" In theory protectionism should still allow for competitive pressures from domestic markets.

So really, protectionism is a good thing. It's subsidies for specific companies which are very bad, such as Walmart getting huge subsidies from state governments to build mega complexes. Protectionism makes a country self-sufficient, which is a good thing. It's subsidization which is toxic socialism and a killer of economies because then the state is picking winners and losers directly.

Post: #13

I think the dichotomy is Globalism vs. Localism.

The globalists have already essentially nullified democracy. Democracy is supposed to be a system which allows for expression of the will of the people. But when you look at the reality, voting has absolutely no effect anymore on public policy. The Europeans are being told they have to accept massive replacement level immigration from the third world. But who voted on this? Not only aren’t they allowed to vote on it, but they are expected to not even talk about it. If an issue is really important, you aren’t allowed to discuss it and the main stream media will ignore it.

Then look at America, the establishment gives you a choice between Jeb and Hillary, two over the top pathetic candidates. Hillary is corrupt and unliked while Jeb looks down with boredom at his shoes when he talks. Both are paid off with money and serve the globalists, so it doesn’t matter to those in control who you pick. It’s a useless decision. They are so arrogant to offer a choice of such pathetic losers to us because they have contempt for our opinions. It is like a bureaucratic school lunch program dishing out soggy unappetizing meals and telling you to shut up when you complain.

They control the media and can use it to manufacture a false reality and a gigantic uniform junk world culture.

A good book that goes into depth about this is: “Democracy: The God that Failed”.

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-The-God-...0765808684

The only way to fight globalism is to do the reverse. Give your loyalty to smaller units. Become local. Even the US is too big. Support secessionist movements. There is a lot of land in America. There is no reason why there can’t be hundreds of states to support different local identities. Multiculturalism is the enemy of human uniqueness. Something like Europe use to be, with local microstates still existing.

Politics isn’t the only source of power. We can build networks and communities. Give your loyalty to your family. Have children and keep them away from state education. Think local and don't spend a lot of energy on a dog and pony show national election which will have absolutely no effect on your life.

The only reason to have large units is so that the elites can raise large armies to create war and destruction. Look at what these creeps are doing to the Middle East. Globalism is not creating peace. It is creating perpetual wars. People don’t benefit from this and the human misery is never ending.

Post: #14

(09-13-2015 08:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  I used to think like you, but now I understand things differently.

Then may you change your mind again

(09-13-2015 08:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  The downsides to protectionism is that a country's consumers need to pay Holden and its employees more money.

The downside is they need to pay the government more money via the tariffs. Most cars purchased aren't going to be Holden. Also yes, they have no choice but to feed the Holden parasites.

(09-13-2015 08:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  The upside to protectionism is that Australia has it's own auto-maker, and if war breaks out they will be able to produce their own vehicles without relying on other potentially hostile neighbors. Moreover, Holden's employees will be men who keep the knowledge of automaking, which means high paid laborers who have families and provide valuable technical knowledge to future generations of Australians.

When you consider the upsides against the downsides, protectionism against foreign intervention makes a lot of sense. What's more important: saving money or building a strong population with healthy birthrates and a talented workforce?
...
Moreover, while protectionism does prevent native industries from facing competitive pressures from abroad, as long as there is still free-trade inside of a country's borders then one could always argue, "If Holden sucks so badly then why don't other Australians make their own auto company?" In theory protectionism should still allow for competitive pressures from domestic markets.

Protectionism removes competitive stresses. It makes for a retarded workforce who can only produce junk, and who's wages have to pay for that junk at unaffordable prices. Without protectionism, Australian businesses are formed based on the profit motive. Capital goes into projects that businessmen feel can be productive. If some businessmen can think of a way to beat foreign manufacturers using local resources, they do so. They focus their capital on the country's strengths, not on it's weaknesses, strengthening the country overall. Protectionism is to a country what welfare is to a man.

Protectionism is the equivalent of refusing to compete in the Olympics because you can't tolerate the stress of winning and losing, and instead having a 'special Olympics' where 'everyone is a winner, so long as they try!'.

If the government is concerned with trade interruptions due to war, protectionism is the least effective tactic. All the aggressor countries will be more powerful as a result of focusing on their strengths instead of wasting their energy on what they're shit at. The best strategy involves allying with countries with complementary strengths. Then if war breaks out, you just ask them to send one of their expert factory construction teams, instead of relying on your molly-coddled local manufacturers to suddenly and magically become competent.

(09-13-2015 08:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  All globalization does is let a country spend it's money on slave labor somewhere else to save money at the expense of their citizens' cultural capital. The men lose out on jobs and skills, which translates into less families because men without jobs means they cannot provide for females. The lower birthrates then translate into slower demand at home and contracting economy, which then causes more men to lose jobs and fewer families created as a result. Globalization is a vicious cycle that ends in depression or dead countries.

No, the men focus on jobs and skills which match the country's strengths, boosting income-per-capita. The attributes of the country also thereby input new colour into the culture, thereby strengthening the uniqueness of the culture. Demanding every country should be just as good as every other country at everything is to demand global uniformity rather than national identity. Non-migration Globalization is not vicious in any way shape or form, it is merely an extension of rational action.

(09-13-2015 08:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  So really, protectionism is a good thing. It's subsidies for specific companies which are very bad, such as Walmart getting huge subsidies from state governments to build mega complexes. Protectionism makes a country self-sufficient, which is a good thing.

Protectionism makes the country 'self-sufficient' in the same way the USSR was 'self-sufficient'. It is a terrible thing.

Post: #15

(09-13-2015 11:07 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 08:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  I used to think like you, but now I understand things differently.

Then may you change your mind again

(09-13-2015 08:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  The downsides to protectionism is that a country's consumers need to pay Holden and its employees more money.

The downside is they need to pay the government more money via the tariffs. Most cars purchased aren't going to be Holden. Also yes, they have no choice but to feed the Holden parasites.

Again, not true, and notice you failed to answer my objection that Holden still must compete against other Australian auto-makers. Therefore competition still exists.

Quote:

(09-13-2015 08:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  The upside to protectionism is that Australia has it's own auto-maker, and if war breaks out they will be able to produce their own vehicles without relying on other potentially hostile neighbors. Moreover, Holden's employees will be men who keep the knowledge of automaking, which means high paid laborers who have families and provide valuable technical knowledge to future generations of Australians.

When you consider the upsides against the downsides, protectionism against foreign intervention makes a lot of sense. What's more important: saving money or building a strong population with healthy birthrates and a talented workforce?
...
Moreover, while protectionism does prevent native industries from facing competitive pressures from abroad, as long as there is still free-trade inside of a country's borders then one could always argue, "If Holden sucks so badly then why don't other Australians make their own auto company?" In theory protectionism should still allow for competitive pressures from domestic markets.

Protectionism removes competitive stresses. It makes for a retarded workforce who can only produce junk, and who's wages have to pay for that junk at unaffordable prices. Without protectionism, Australian businesses are formed based on the profit motive. Capital goes into projects that businessmen feel can be productive. If some businessmen can think of a way to beat foreign manufacturers using local resources, they do so. They focus their capital on the country's strengths, not on it's weaknesses, strengthening the country overall. Protectionism is to a country what welfare is to a man.

You're not citing protectionism, you're citing a complete lack of competition. Notice you how talk about USSR at the end?

Quote:Protectionism makes the country 'self-sufficient' in the same way the USSR was 'self-sufficient'. It is a terrible thing.

You didn't comprehend anything I said. USSR used subsidies and directly picked winners and losers in their state industry. I support competition WITHIN a nation's borders and not from without, and I cited the numerous social benefits to justify this practice.

The problem with Austrian economics is that it's bluepill. It doesn't understand that men need jobs at home or there will be no families. It doesn't matter if they are the "best" at something or not. Competition should be encouraged amongst members of the same country to promote fitness but not from abroad.

America became strong on tariffs from 1780's-1900's. Birthrates and marriages were high.
Britain used Mercantilism and became ultra wealthy. Birthrates and marriages were high.
China today has used tariffs and it's become the second richest country in the world between 1970 to the present. Birthrates would be high if not for one child policy.

It's obvious Austrian economists are wrong on this because they fail to consider the social implications of globalization smashing the workforce and rendering men unfit to work. Austrian economists just assume people are going to reproduce like lab rats without any understanding of male-female dynamics. This is no surprise - the average economist is a huge beta male.

Post: #16

Quote:The problem with Austrian economics is that it's bluepill.

Post: #17

(09-14-2015 05:59 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Again, not true, and notice you failed to answer my objection that Holden still must compete against other Australian auto-makers. Therefore competition still exists.

I answered it with my 'special Olympics' example. You have 'competition', but the best are forbidden to compete. Competition is about being the best out of everyone, not the best out of your special insular protected group.

(09-14-2015 05:59 AM)Samseau Wrote:  You're not citing protectionism, you're citing a complete lack of competition. Notice you how talk about USSR at the end?

It's the same thing. Protectionism (e.g. a tarriff) is anti-competition. That is specifically what it is about, usually under the guise of "protecting local jobs (from foreign competition)" etc. More 'protection' = less competition.

Countries that shy from competing with each other fall behind those who do. They then end up being dominated by them by either hard or soft power. Their citizens also have to tolerate lower standards of living resulting from reduced division of labour due to raising trade walls around the country. Australians have to produce their own planes and electronics and call centers; Japanese have to mine their own minerals and grow all their own food; Icelanders produce their own wine; No thanks, that backwards, send-us-back-to-the-caves nonsense can stay in the history books.

National specialization is as natural and matter-of-course as local specialization and individual specialization, and attacking the former is as wrong and as damaging to people's qualities of lives as attacking the latter.

(09-14-2015 05:59 AM)Samseau Wrote:  You didn't comprehend anything I said. USSR used subsidies and directly picked winners and losers in their state industry. I support competition WITHIN a nation's borders and not from without, and I cited the numerous social benefits to justify this practice.

The problem with Austrian economics is that it's bluepill. It doesn't understand that men need jobs at home or there will be no families. It doesn't matter if they are the "best" at something or not. Competition should be encouraged amongst members of the same country to promote fitness but not from abroad. ()

America became strong on tariffs from 1780's-1900's. Birthrates and marriages were high.
Britain used Mercantilism and became ultra wealthy. Birthrates and marriages were high.
China today has used tariffs and it's become the second richest country in the world between 1970 to the present. Birthrates would be high if not for one child policy.

It's obvious Austrian economists are wrong on this because they fail to consider the social implications of globalization smashing the workforce and rendering men unfit to work. Austrian economists just assume people are going to reproduce like lab rats without any understanding of male-female dynamics. This is no surprise - the average economist is a huge beta male.

Belief that correlation implies causation, on top of selective examples of history whilst ignoring a multitude of historical counter-examples, including wildly false conceptions of history and present, plus Ad hominem nonsense ('Austrians are beta', 'you're unable to comprehend things' etc) and strawmen. Use of 'selective correlation implies causation' is in a different league to full-picture logical-linking.

Anyway I think this response was too selective and too ignorant of some of the good points I made to indicate bothering with further argument. I also very specifically rebutted that the claimed social benefits are false and wouldn't happen (after the 4th quote), and that men are more able to provide even greater income under no protectionism (and why), and your response was: just to repeat your claim.

So I don't think we're going to be able to reach any agreement, as I think we're operating under different metaphysics and different levels of argumentative rigor. We would need a common philosophical base to resolve disputes on facts and concepts.

Post: #18

Bump.
Very prescient post.

Post: #19

(09-14-2015 05:59 AM)Samseau Wrote:  I support competition WITHIN a nation's borders and not from without, and I cited the numerous social benefits to justify this practice.

The problem with Austrian economics is that it's bluepill. It doesn't understand that men need jobs at home or there will be no families. It doesn't matter if they are the "best" at something or not. Competition should be encouraged amongst members of the same country to promote fitness but not from abroad.

Coming from a more centrist perspective than many folks here (it might be my Massachusetts Puritan heritage), my own issue with free-market libertarian ideology is it seems to assume as a given that a free market of competition is what corporations actually want; meanwhile right now I'm dealing with a laptop which won't charge because I'm using a non-OEM wall adapter which didn't transmit the correct code to the onboard lockout chip over its superfluous third wire data connection.

A captive audience is one that pays up. Why would corporate America really want a smaller government, and fewer regulations? It's my impression that they've been pitching for the same team for a while now. If by some miracle a small government that kept its hands off trade issues were magically created, it would simply have money thrown at it until it was once again on the payroll.

You could argue that the reason the Clintons are a bunch of crooks is because that's what the market demanded of them. And I feel that globalism is finally not a left or right issue, but simply an unavoidable consequence of progressing technology. Wal-Mart didn't destroy the economies of small towns, at least not directly, it was advancing technology that allowed something like Wal-Mart to exist. A niche opened up for it, and in it came, as surely as night follows day.

To adapt a phrase: even if you reject the globalism, the globalism will surely come to you. The great struggle of the Trump administration will be attempting to turn the clock back with a clock that I'm not sure it's possible to move the hands in that direction on, at least not without paying an enormous cost, which given that even "Real America" tends to like its Netflix, hamburgers, shiny trucks, retirement funds, and relatively inexpensive consumer goods, we might finally not be willing to pay out for.

Oh, and fuck us hard if they make that silly Rapture-bunny binny Sarah Palin Secretary of the Interior. I'm remembering this early 1990s made for TV movie called "By Dawn's Early Light" where most of the cabinet is killed by an accidental nuclear strike, and the Secretary of the Interior becomes acting president with all the launch codes. I'm picturing Palin sitting up there in the war room on the "Looking Glass" 747 trying to puzzle out What Would Jesus Do in this situation. Shit!