Counter-Currents
Emma Sulkowicz
2,287 words
In the month of August the American press turned its spotlight on the suffering of two women. The attention they were given did not correspond to the depth of tragedy of each but rather to the priorities of the parasites occupying the positions of power.
As students returned to campus there was no doubt that Emma Sulkowicz was the victim of choice of our so-called elite. Her hashtag, #CarryThatWeight, was trending on Twitter and promoted by the humanities and arts students, by the secular Jewish females, and their rainbow coterie of Bourgeois feminists.
Parenthetically, I want to emphasize that I do not wish to cheapen the suffering of the hundreds of thousands of women raped around the world each year. I know numerous women in my personal life who have been subjected to this crime, and I do not share the views of those who wish to minimize its seriousness by quibbling over the word survivor, among other things. A White Nationalism that is stripped of chivalric values has cut itself off from its roots in Europe and beyond.
Emma Sulkowicz is a senior majoring in Fine Art at Columbia and has begun her thesis. She will, without a doubt, enter the annals of Degenerate Art alongside the pantheon of unforgettable Performance Artists like the guy who got shot in the arm on stage during the Vietnam War, the Jewish girl who stuffed things up her vagina in the ’60s, and the gay guy with AIDS who sent blood-soaked rags along a clothesline over his audience in the ’80s.
The Asian-Ashkenazi, Ms. Sulkowicz is carrying a futon mattress, a replica of the one on which she was allegedly raped, wherever she goes on campus. Others may help her to carry it but she may not ask for help. Her accused rapist is a fellow student at Columbia. She will carry the mattress until he is expelled . . . or until she graduates with a nice scholarship to an MFA program, and maybe a book contract with a fat advance.
She has been featured on numerous national media outlets, including the cover of New York Magazine; on TMZ, Democracy Now, and local New York stations; and within pages of Newsweek, Time, the nationally distributed Arts & Design section of the New York Times, the Washington Post, various women’s fashion magazines, and all of the New York tabloids.
Her budding stardom has not been hurt by the fact that her claims are almost certainly false. She did not report their sexual encounter as rape until seven months had passed and two other women told her they had sex with the accused assailant. This Manhattan native who attended the ultra-exclusive Dalton School was contacted by the District Attorney’s Office (the prosecuting lawyer who represents the State), after being tipped off by the school. She rejected their offer to begin a criminal investigation. She has since characterized such an investigation as “a waste of time [for herself].” However, since her “thesis” began at the beginning of the year she has not demurred from calling for his expulsion without due process.
This new media darling caught the wave of #CampusRapeCulture at just the right moment, and she will ride it all the way to a tenured position on a Fine Arts faculty.
We have all known a guy who has had sex with a woman on the first day they meet. For about three days he felt like Casanova, that he is the special one. Once he realizes that he is not especially seductive, but she is especially slutty, he is filled with pain and embarrassment. The only half measure of balm for his pain is provided by attempting to sabotage her social life (now known as slut-shaming). Perhaps it was a similar pain that drove Emma to speak to the Columbia University administration back in her Sophomore year. At first, she just wanted to punish him with the same social sanction that sexually active women sometimes received in the days of dorm mothers and sexually segregated campuses over five decades ago. Luckily for him, her wrath didn’t extend to false criminal accusations. When she recalls this decision not to press charges, she does not regret it . . . rather she reflects on the bother of a legal process, “If I sit around waiting for that, I’ll be missing out on other opportunities like creating this piece, or doing other work.”
Her gang of followers across America, who mostly look like rejects from an American Apparel photo shoot casting call, have since taken to slandering the character of sexually active men with bathroom graffiti. There may in fact be true rapists among the accused, but my hunch is they are a minority.
As silly as the behavior of Emma Sulkowicz may seem, there are serious results for the young men being targeted. Many of whom have committed no crime more serious than breaking an immature girl’s heart.
A university run on New Right principles would not have time for such decadent foolishness. There will be a house-cleaning in the humanities faculties that will leave few professors. Our Arts and Letters will once again be in the service of Truth, Beauty, and Goodness rather than the service of the Jewish metapolitical project seeking to deny their existence.
As Greg Johnson has pointed out, in a society reflecting our principles, the only place to find a woman ready for a one night stand would be among the prostitutes working the shipyards. The pathetic spectacle of binge drinking beyond the point of consent that today seems inseparable from the university experience will be an embarrassing and distant memory, just as cross-dressing renditions of Gilbert & Sullivan musicals seem to students of today.
* * *
Maria Fernandes
There was another tragedy in August 2014. That was the death of Maria Fernandes in Newark, NJ. It was covered in the regional news section of the New York Times, NJ.com, other local outlets, and a handful of labor bloggers. She probably got more attention outside of the US than from the national media. It also came days before the “strike” of fast food workers seeking a living wage on Labor Day.
Maria Fernandes was born in Massachusetts to working class parents from Portugal. In case Jessica Alba or any Vantards are reading this . . . yes, Portugal counts as European. She was a woman who oozed maternal instinct and sympathy, as is evident from family photos. She loved animals and cared for her common law husband’s children as though they were her own. She was a huge Michael Jackson fan, a feeling I don’t share but understand and recognize in many people I have met, all of whom are lonely and disappointed with life and are memorable for their simplicity, their kind hearts, and their bitter-sweet life stories. (Her fellow fans raised funds for her funeral costs with this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5Qjyq7USTE) Her immediate family returned to Portugal, but she remained in the US as one of the 7.5 million who worked multiple jobs to make ends meet.
Despite working 4 jobs, including three at separate Dunkin Donuts franchises, she was still eligible for Medicaid and EBT cards. Do you have any loyal Republican friends who wonder why their party rails against social programs like these but never move to defund them? The case of Maria Fernandes illustrates that a preposterously low minimum wage combined with welfare programs for the working poor create a wealth transfer from taxpayers to corporations employing cheap labor. In this case, the DC government is taking taxpayer money into a corporate welfare scheme to the benefit of the franchisees and shareholders of Dunkin Donuts. Taxpayers subsidize these companies so that they do not have to offer health insurance and a living wage to their workers or to make capital expenditures on process improvements to increase the efficiency of each worker. This keeps the dividends rolling in each quarter with minimal investment and effort from the owners of capital.
Maria Fernandes, her Common Law husband, and his daughter
Though she worked more than 40 hours per week, Dunkin Donuts kept her “part time” by separating her hours at different franchised locations for years on end, thus Ms. Fernandes was never eligible for the insurance and retirement benefits set aside for full-time employees. This is a very common practice in the US within corporations employing unskilled labor. Ms. Fernandes knew that she could never say no to her bosses or else they might reduce her weekly hours; there is no guaranteed minimum agreed upon with part time workers. The result was that in the last months of her life from Friday afternoon through Monday morning she worked almost continuously from one location to the next. She would sleep in her car on breaks to try and keep up with the workload. Because she would keep a gas can in her car to avoid an empty tank at the end of the month, she died of toxic fumes during her nap.
From the pre-recession high in 2008 to the time of her death, the US GDP rose over 7%. Over the same period, those who lost their job during the recession returned to work with an average 23% pay cut in similar positions. Post-crash hourly wages have been stagnant from 2009 to present. (All stats are available on the US Department of Labor website.). So who is capturing this newly created value? Obviously shareholders are doing much better than wage earners these past few years.
Had Maria Fernandes followed her parents and sister back to Portugal she would certainly have had a hard time finding a job since the crisis hit. However, neither the tragedy of her death nor of her life could have been possible. The strong labor laws in the civilized countries of Europe (ex-UK of course) guarantee a living wage and minimal health coverage. The tactics used by US bosses to make work precarious and part-time are illegal. The American legal concepts such as “fire-at-will” or the Orwellian “right-to-work” do not exist either. To fire someone, an employer must prove either a material adverse change in the business environment or a “serious fault” on the part of the employee in achieving reasonable expectations. These laws date to the days when Social Democratic parties were “national” by default and “socialist” by conviction. These laws are under attack by the Center-Right Parties who talk tough of Immigration and Identity but are entirely kosher in their policies (if not also in leadership).
The Democratic Party promised to raise the Minimum Wage in the month leading up to the election of November 2014, when the polls showed they would not control either house of Congress. Since the election, Barack Obama, spokesman of the DC government, proclaimed an Amnesty for 5 million illegal immigrants (almost entirely non-white). Counter-Currents readers are well aware of the benefits this will bring to the oligarchy. As for the minimum wage, I doubt American workers can count on an imperial decree to fix this . . . we have to think of the Constitution after all.
Maria Fernandes would not have been helped by the policy decisions and priorities of the Democratic Party. Millions of Americans in a similar situation must now compete more vigorously with millions of mostly single men who have no family duties to balance and whose third world standards of living will be easily exceeded with the minimum wage as it is. The cries for a minimum wage as a living wage will go unheard for years now.
* * *
Two points are worth making here about our movement.
The difference between White Nationalism the political movement and White Nationalism the internet subculture lies in its ability to serve and represent a constituency that is larger than the movement itself. Our Movement fights for “Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country” to benefit of those who have never heard of us, for white people who read Walmart paperbacks as much as for those who read Faye and Benoist, for those poor souls touched by Michael Jackson as much as for the heroic souls inspired by Arkona.
Finally, many comrades and potential sympathizers have a hard time imagining a White Nationalist America without an intervening zombie apocalypse. When you are painting a picture of a country remade on the order of our values, it might be best to highlight the most banal aspects when speaking with the skeptical. Moving the dial more in the direction of labor than capital when it comes to who captures that extra 7% of GDP might be a good start. Don’t let the banality of this suggestion fool them into believing that reform rather than revolution can fix this, though. When the Democrats had all branches of government, during Obama’s first two years as spokesman of the DC government, they failed to ensure a living wage. Rather they wrote a healthcare reform that was a gift to the private insurance companies and ensured pharmaceutical corporations that Americans would continue to overpay for their drugs. They enacted laws that gave a minimum of oversight to Wall Street while burdening future generations with billions in debt to pay unmerited bonuses to the Wall Street banksters. They wrote a stimulus package that privileged job creation in the affirmative action-addled make-work, desk job centers of the government when they could have invested in infrastructure improvements that would mostly employ white men in the skilled building trades.
Whether we are imagining a breakaway republic or a military caretaker government, only a revolutionary force driven by the ideas of White Nationalism, of the North American New Right, and of Third Way Economics could offer any redress to the injustices faced by millions of our people in America each day and which cost the life of Maria Fernandes.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
26 comments
I agree with the values and priorities Patrick Le Brun advocates here. As a tangible way of “saluting the flag” I’d like to donate a few bucks to the author. What’s the right way to do that?
Make a tip jar donation, and I will pass it on. Thanks for your kind words and your generous deeds.
Thank you very much!
Your generosity and kind words have inspired me to start writing the next one earlier than I had planned.
All the Best,
Patrick
Nice to see New Right drawing the line in the sand between itself and the GOP. Thank you for this.
Yep. The U.S. in a nutshell. A princess at Columbia makes up a rape story and gets on the cover of the NY Times. A working class white woman dies a tragic death and it hardly makes a ripple.
Name one Republican politician who is proposing to cut welfare programs? Most Republican politicians promise to preserve the social/welfare state.
And by the way, minimum wage laws are mandatory unemployment laws. The laws require for a company to pay a person a minimum wage if they hire a person. But it does not
mean that an employer has to hire that person. Chances are your minimum wage proposals would have priced her out of a job. I’m actually seeing more fast food restaurants go to automation. I’m sorry that you’re disappointed that working at a donut shop doesn’t pay $35K to $40K per year. Get over yourself. A good living cannot be legislated.
Hello Jeff,
These are definitely important discussion points you are raising. I will try to gather some data and give a thoughtful response in article form.
All the Best,
Patrick
Well done, Mr. Le Brun.
Jeff,
a good living cannot be legislated, that is quite true. But as it is now, the profits of companies are legislated by taxpayer-supported programs which spare these corporations (companies in general, but the evil lies with corporate excesses) from incurring extra expense. So the corporations are actually becoming the beneficiaries of -corpoate welfare, since someone -the population by way of forcible debt duty- pays their way. Now that can be legislated. Strange indeed.
There is a way by a responsible leadership to ensure that working actually becomes meaningful and worthwhile even for holders of a lowly job.
For the United States that would mean to say good bye to cutthroat capitalism, it would mean to say good bye to flag-waving patriotism waving to and fro the lesser evil in subsequent elections, and replace it with a national unity where everyone, employer and employee, soldier and teacher, housewife and kindergarten teacher, youth and old age feel a real, deep responsibility towards their country, their nation and their common goal of creating a home fit for their needs, fit for their future.
Corporations which exploit their host country at every level could not be part of such a nation. The automation now entering even fast food restaurants, as you say, is an emblematic development pursued by the dead, avaricious money-making machines corpoations are, their answer to the annoying and costly people they ultimately want to make money of.
Things will have to change in a big way. A capitulation before the facts of current life and population management will not be possible, and reality, if not first by a united will, will force a change.
Jeff,
A minimum wage, along with other proper government economic policy, could price Third World immigrants, the very young, and women out of the workplace, and thereby return men to their proper position as sole/primary bread-winner for families. Markets would adjust, there would not be any “shortage of workers” (this argument makes no sense). Mens’ marginal productivity would be increased, and they would be in a better position to support their wives living as home-makers. Women would thereby have a greater incentive to marry, and more free time to raise children. Under this economy, Mrs. Fernandes could have been supported by her husband, and been freed to focus on bearing and supporting children, and creating a traditional home for her family.
An even greater problem for the white working classes is economic globalization (free trade). Employment that previously offered family/living wages has been outsourced to the Third World, Western accumulated capital has been spread over Third World populations, decreasing the marginal productivity of First World (white) workers.
I would also add that economic history, such as the unparalleled living standards the American working classes enjoyed under wide-scale labor union protection (pushing wages, benefits, and working conditions above “free market” levels), are enough to make one skeptical of some of the claims of economic science on minimum wage laws and the like (of course, there is no one economic science, there are 10,001 schools of economic thought).
I’ll finish by saying your comment gives the impression of one devoted to individualist, social Darwinist, “devil take the hindmost” thinking, perhaps motivated by Austrian or Randian “free market” utopianism. “Get over yourself”, in response to Mrs. Fernandes’ story, I find disturbing.
1. Third world immigration doesn’t get priced out with a minimum wage. They circumvent it thereby leaving US workers at a competitive disadvantage. Many are willing to work below the minimum wage and get paid under the table.
2. Union jobs were good while they lasted but those wages and benefits were not sustainable. How many industries have been bankrupted by unions? Let’s see, the auto industry, airline and steel industries. It’s ironic that where industry is becoming very successful in the US is in the South, where they have right to work laws. They enjoy good wages but they are not bankrupting industries.
3. And even during the halcyon days of unions during the good ol’ 1950s, workers at donut shops were not make the equivalent of $35K to $40K per year.
4. The only utopians are people who believe through command and control that they can legislate high wages, high benefits, high purchasing power with absolutely no trade offs at all.
A high-wage, unionized, industrial economy requires protectionism.
Of course one can legislate higher wages, by making capitalists pay more to their workers and less to themselves.
It seems simple enough to look at an economy, determine the total profits of businesses and the total wages of workers and resolve to legislate that the latter receive a higher proportion and the former a lower proportion of the total income produced by that economy. Despite the superficially appealing language used, this is fundamentally an appeal for higher wages and/or higher taxes. The real picture of what occurs when wages or taxes are raised, however, is more complicated than implied here.
The very reason that that particular total income figure – ie the ‘pie’ of that particular size – was produced by that economy relates to the investment decisions of the owners of capital. The investment decisions of the owners of capital, in turn, relate to the expectations those owners form of the likely or potential gain from their investments. And expectations of likely gain themselves relate in part to the costs of labor and taxes.
Raising the costs of labor or taxes changes the expectations of the owners of capital and thereby changes their investment decisions. A higher cost of labor or tax means (all else being equal) that some projects now appear less viable and therefore investments in those projects are not made. The result is that the size of the pie – the total income produced by the economy – shrinks compared to what it would have been. While a more even (‘equitable’ in the parlance of welfare economics) distribution of income may have been achieved it has come at a substantial price – a price, judging by the results of democratic politics, the majority deems not worth paying.
Economics can be frustrating and economists can be frustrating people. Whatever was originally meant by the term ‘the dismal science’ (I have seen varying interpretations given to it), my understanding of it always related to economics’ tendency to frustrate the best laid plans and fondest wishes of economic planners. The reason for this frustration is that people act as they are wont to act, which is rarely as economic planners would have them act. Economists can be frustrating people because they study the ways in which people do in fact act and are thus able to make fairly reliable predictions about the effects of various well-meaning policies. When accurate, these predictions often upset or enrage the proponents of those policies, as though economists themselves were to blame for the policies’ failure to produce the intended results – which is like blaming the weatherman for accurately having predicted rain. Economists famously disagree with one another, and the reasons they do have as much to do with politics as with economics – economists, after all, are people too – but on the big questions there is far more unanimity than is commonly assumed. So by all means, have your policy preferences, but be wary of getting so carried away with them you ignore what people who have devoted their careers to thinking about these questions have to say about them.
Are you trying to tell me that American businessmen will not bake that “pie” for ten million a year rather than 100 million a year? Because Japan has thriving industries where the disparity between the top incomes and the bottom ones are far less than in comparable American businesses. Why is that? Because Japan is committed to egalitarianism? Hardly. But they are committed to maintaining a large middle class and a prosperous working class, and that means that labor gets a bigger slice of the pie than capital. It certainly has not prevented some Japanese from becoming extremely rich.
1. With higher wages mandatory, and reduced demand for laborers thereby, white english speaking males become more competitive, as the generally higher wages they earn in marketplaces demonstrate their productive superiority to Third World immigrants and women. The practice of “paying under the table” could easily be radically restricted by the state, if there were a will to do so (globalist Money largely controls the state). “Competitive disadvantages” due to higher wage rates come from open borders and “free trade”, which again could quite easily be rectified.
2. Industries “bankrupted by unions” largely result from “free trade” and open borders, from opening First World, living wage workers to competition from billions of destitute Third Worlders. I highly doubt that the South enjoys “good wages” when compared to America 40+ years ago. During this time, the average European-American has, in terms of real wages, indebtedness, ability to support families, etc., stagnated or gone backwards.
3. In terms of real wages, even donut shop workers were, not long ago, most likely better off. In the past, with far more opportunities for living/family wages in other sectors (industry), competition away from “low end service jobs” was much greater. Today, with “free trade” and open borders, not to mention ever growing pressure for workers to obtain university degrees (ever more overpriced, and totally uneccessary for vast majority of jobs), and competition for “low end service jobs” has increased several fold, decreasing their wages. Marginal productivity of European-American labor has also dropped, as “free trade”/open borders with the Third World means lower capital accumulation per head of the First World (the white population). What is holding vast segments of the Western population afloat, at the relative level of First World living standards, are the welfare states that were erected in the past, and which, with the drive to globalize/Third Worldize the Westever further, are due to break completely down, run completely out of funding, in the coming decades.
4. I am not suggesting no trade-offs, I am suggesting reasonable trade-offs. Trading the (quite obscene) enrichment of an already highly wealthy, tiny minority of the population, for the well-being of the vast majority of European blooded Americans, and for the well-being of the West generally (demographics (white child rearing), and traditional family existences, for example, are very much bound up with this).
Good God Almighty. Rest In Heavenly Peace Maria.
Oh please. If this woman were black you’d all be piling on at how stupid she was.
The lot of the poor can be improved marginally by tinkering with minimum wages and related legislation here and there, but economic reality very quickly asserts itself. Socialists, therefore, are never, ever satisfied with mere tinkering. They are instead driven by a burning, undying lust to take down their socioeconomic betters, economic realities be damned.
I can appreciate the very real need to present an image of paternalistic care, but the more you fall prey to leftist economic delusions the more you forfeit the right to refer to yourselves as “the right.” Proceed with caution.
You would never fall for Jews saying that they are hated because they are superior, yet when business people assert that socialists and welfare statists hate them merely for their virtues, do you really want to take that at face value?
I regret my use of the ambiguous term “betters.” I meant it in the sense of “better positioned” rather “naturally superior” or “more virtuous” (though I am certainly convinced that the market, while an imperfect institution, does a good job of rewarding virtues like determination and perseverance as well as talent). I have thought about, observed and debated socialists for far too long not to be aware that they all too often find it metaphysically unbearable that some people do better than others and that they are consequently in large part motivated by a weird combination of envy and existential anxiety to tear down the existing order.
That said, there’s no question in my mind that economic elites’ insatiable desire for ever greater wealth and influence presents WNs (and mere race-realists) with an enormous obstacle, second only to Jewish influence (and often one and the same). How to overcome this obstacle is a very important political (and metapolitical) question. I really don’t know the answer, but I very much doubt the wisdom of the traditional socialist line of attack. Copying the left in moving towards ‘third way’ economics (essentially little more than the ‘centrist’ position in today’s western democracies packaged as a specific prescription rather than an emergent property) seems the most promising position to adopt, but I think it would be a mistake to place undue emphasis on economic issues (as Le Brun’s article does) versus racial issues since people don’t need WNs for economics. More out-of-the-box thinking would attempt to introduce eugenic/demographic policy into the welfare mix (in the sense of formulating specific policies rather than or as well as philosophical defenses/justifications), though again I’d warn against undue emphasis here since non-WNs could fairly easily take these policy issues away from WNs.
WNs are needed for economics, since most of the Right is utterly brainwashed by “free market” ideology. But capitalism, unless it is regulated for the common good, is even more racially destructive than communism (because it is more dynamic). I think that businessmen, like the grandmother in Flannery O’Connor’s “A Good Man is Hard to Find,” will be good men (good citizens) as long as someone (a government bureaucrat) is there to kill them every minute of their lives.
The whole point of metapolitics is to get the mainstream to “steal” our ideas. Hell, I can’t give them away fast enough for my purposes.
In my case, you’re preaching to the choir. How do we get everyone else on board?
Everyone needs to read this. I nominate it for a comprehensive review here at CC.
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674430006
Juxtaposing an upper class Asian-Jewish feminist’s fame with the near-anonymous death of a white working class European immigrant woman is a brilliant idea that renders all sorts of insights that can’t be found in the dominant old school left/right discourse.
For example, analysis like this starts to develop an economic and social perspective which is purely white, and which represents white interests – a blindspot suppressed by the dominant discourse. The truth is, the white working class and middle class does not have the same experience or same interests as non-whites of the same socioeconomic strata. Our socioeconomic struggle cannot be reduced to class, and our racial struggle cannot be described without talking about class and capitalism.
Great article, and I look forward to the next one.
Strange as it may sound, essentially yes. But to clarify, it’s not some generic ‘businessman’ we’re talking about. It’s the broad class of businessmen, who differ greatly among each other in terms of their appetite for risk and reward. No one policy ever affects each of them identically, just as no one policy or economic condition affects all consumers or all workers identically. For instance, if the price of airline tickets permanently rose by, say, $500 would that affect your travel habits? It wouldn’t really affect mine. But many people’s travel plans would be affected, which can be empirically demonstrated. If they really, really had to fly, you might ask, wouldn’t they still go ahead and pay the higher price? Of course they would – if they really, really had to. If my child faced some life-threatening condition that required my immediate presence overseas I’d pay virtually any price to get on that plane, certainly. But those are exceptional circumstances; all else being equal, an exorbitantly high price would deter me from flying. Businesses aren’t any different. Business decisions can’t help but be affected by the economic environment in which they operate. Change that environment and you’ll assuredly have some effect, for good or for ill, on business activity.
All investment decisions involve risk – it’s unavoidable. Whether that risk is judged worth taking depends on the expected reward. It’s very easy for a third party to tell John Q. Capitalist, “Hey, go ahead and invest in that line of new ABCD Machines. Your expected reward might reduce from $7 million to $4 million, but what, $4 million’s not enough money for you? Sheesh talk about greed!” The reality is this: you’re not John Q. Capitalist. For all you know that $7 million expected reward was considered only marginal in his estimate for the purposes of taking on the risk of purchasing the ABCD Machines; reduce the expected reward to $4 million and he cans the project.
What are you going to do, force John Q. Capitalist to invest in the ABCD Machines anyway? That doesn’t work because you were never privy to his plans in the first place. You’d have to have government making (originating) all the decisions for the owners of capital, dictating to them what risks they’ll take and what rewards they’ll have to settle for. Once you start down that road the reasoning quickly becomes: why allow owners of capital any rewards at all? Why not simply appropriate their capital and tell them to settle for a wage like everybody else and then distribute the rewards of investments to the people at large, who after all, as organic components of the racial state, are the ones who truly ‘deserve’ them? It’s the eternal temptation. And as the track record of highly planned economies shows, it just doesn’t work very well and in the most highly rigid forms – like the USSR – it eventually grinds to a virtually complete halt.
You mentioned Japan. Rather than discuss the ins and outs of Japanese economic regulation (which I’m far from expressly opposed to), let me offer a counterexample – Israel. What sort of economic system have the worlds most ethnocentric people settled on? Israel commenced with dirigiste developmental policies much like western Europe’s in the period after independence (aided immensely by German ‘reparations’ and Jewish donors from the diaspora) and ran into the same problems as Europe in the 1970s. Since the mid-1980s, again like much of the western world, it has engaged in freeing up the economy – and has reaped handsome economic rewards from it. If capitalism per se were as ethnically corrosive as some WNs think, wouldn’t Jews be the first to catch on?
I think that if we cannot find CEOs who will share more with the workers, then we will simply replace the CEOs with some bright young men from Bangalore who will work for far, far less. Instead of expropriating the expropriators, we’ll outsource the outsourcers.
That will give us time to raise up a new generation of public spirited entrepreneurs, who will be capitalized with the trillions of wealth that we will expropriate from those who enriched themselves by dismantling the American industrial economy.
White Nationalism will empower the workers of the tech industry, the building trades, etc. to replace the businessmen who want to replace them. They can fire their bosses and replace them with people who work for them, rather than against them, and for the common good.
Maybe we should explore automating the management at Dunkin’ Donuts and dividing up all the profits among the employees.
A comment on this from Ted Sallis:
It is my understanding that the sharp increase in income inequality in the USA began in the 1970s, and really skyrocketed in the ’80s and ’90s. In the period of WWII-Watergate, income inequality was at relatively low levels. That was a period of generally good economic growth for the USA (*); certainly, there were ups and downs – but none of the downs were as devastating at the recent financial crisis and deep recession that took place in the context of today’s free trade/high income-inequality regime.
Also, see this https://www.globalcreditportal.com/ratingsdirect/renderArticle.do?articleId=1351366&SctArtId=255732&from=CM&nsl_code=LIME&sourceObjectId=8741033&sourceRevId=1&fee_ind=N&exp_date=20240804-19:41:13 and this http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3203122?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21105327012553 as well.
Of course, the WWII-Watergate period also saw the solid growth of an American Middle Class, and the 1950s are fondly remembered by American traditionalists as a period of relative cultural stability.
A major argument made by the capitalist shills is one of incentive. In other words, while Mr. Capitalist would make a necessary investment if assured of a $10 million return, he would not make the same investment if the return was only, say, $4 million. We are told that we cannot dictate to Mr. Capitalist that he invests without ending up in a completely controlled environment as in communism. Thus, economic activity would decline without the unfettered free market, and to the Last Men, economic activity is all.
The problem with that argument is that it looks at the situation from an absolute, rather than relative, sense. It assumes an absolute threshold for YES/NO decisions about investment; in the case described, it also assumes that Mr. Capitalist has other options for his money that have a better risk/benefit profile than the $4 million return.
Is this true? While we cannot dictate investment without going to a completely controlled (and assumed stagnant) economy, we CAN create a set of alternatives from which Mr. Capitalist must choose to make the best outcome given those available alternatives.
Therefore, if Mr. Capitalist observes that the $4 million return provides the best risk/benefit outcome for his money (e.g., doing nothing sees his money value eaten away by inflation and/or subject to higher tax rates), then Mr. Capitalist will – if we cherish the “rationality” of the market – make that investment. He may wish he could get $10 million, but if the other alternatives are all worse than the $4 million return, that’s what he would do, make the $4M deal – and if some reason he wouldn’t do it, someone else would.
The same principle applies to salaries. A CEO or entertainer will demand compensation in line with what their peers make, and, I agree that they may lose incentive to perform at the highest level if underpaid relative to their peers. However over – and underpaid are relative terms, given what obtains in a given national economy. If CEOs and athletes and actors/singers routinely earn tens of millions of dollars/year in net income, then that is what they will expect and demand. If, however, the highest salary is capped at, say, $1 million, then that is the target. Will the CEO play video games all day and let the company crash because he’s not getting the $100 million bonus he wishes he could get, but is not allowed for anyone in the new economy? If so, there are others who can take his place. Will the ballplayer fumble the football or strike out if he’s denied a 10 year, $300 million contract no longer allowed for any player? Adjusted to today’s money, adjusted for inflation, the great athletes of the past only made a fraction of what modern athletes make. And yet, they still played, still hustled, still made their records. Better than working on the farm or on the assembly line, eh?
Arguments about Israel are also disingenuous. First, Europeans are not as ethnocentric as Jews, and one cannot equate the effects of capitalism in the two cases. Second, Israel, while being an ethnic-based state, is not a true ethnostate: it has large minorities, a demographically endangered majority, and the same pressures for cheap labor found elsewhere. The only difference is that the greater ethnocentrism of the Israeli majority has eroded the momentum for free movements of labor there. The same does not necessarily hold for the West.
*Granted, the fact that major competitors were devastated in WWII and/or under rigidly Marxist regimes helped; then again, the protectionist and income-equality policies helped as well, and could have been used to preserve the economic advantage, instead of having those advantages squandered through “free trade” and predatory capitalism that outsourced a major part of the American economy.
http://eginotes.blogspot.com/2014/11/economics-113014.html
Yes, of course. If the mainstream “stole” the entirety of NANR ideas there wouldn’t be any problem. In fact, that would be perfect. The danger arises from the mainstream adopting only one or two ideas and using them to sideline NANR.
Consider immigration, to use an obvious example. If NANR spends an inordinate amount of time or effort banging the drum about an immigration moratorium, people who support the NANR based on its immigration platform can very easily be poached by the mainstream, with the NANR left hung out to dry because it has nothing more to offer them.
It’s the same thing with economics. If undue focus is placed on the economic ‘harm’ (I obviously have a different view) caused by capitalism, and the NANR hammers away at anti-capitalist this, anti-capitalist that, such economic supporters can very easily be poached by the mainstream left, who’d only need to make a few meaningless noises about anti-multiculturalism in order to differentiate themselves from the lunatic cultural left and again NANR finds itself on the sidelines.
NANR should have something to say about economics, and immigration, and race-relations, and a thousand other things besides. But to place undue focus on any of these takes attention away from the racial ethnostate objective which only NANR (and the most closely related ideological outfits) stand uncompromisingly in favor of.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment