[Rei Murasame]

Those are some fair points that you're making, Dave, but I would say again what I've said before, that to get into the position where there is an autonomous state that has the actual power and credibility to choose either to make that decision or to not make that decision, requires the certain conditions be satisfied. After all, if you were to enter power while dependent on finance, it would not be surprising to find that finance would simply tear up your agenda.

The completion of the 'path of national-labour'* and the establishment of corporatist institutions, are the conditions that have to be satisfied in order to attain the power to act; that is the only way that a far right party would ever be able to reach power while maintaining its integrity. The dispersal of economic power into national guilds and corporations which would be entailed, and the eradication of the liberal market order, is the 'price', if you like, of embarking on that path.

It may be that you and Sephardi are not comfortable with that path because of certain economic interests that you have, but consider it like a person who must visit the dentist in order to have a toothache dealt with. It may hurt you a little, but it is a price that must be paid or the toothache will not go away.

It doesn't mean that there can't be a rational debate on what policies would be taken after that point, on a case by case basis. Debate would definitely occur. However, the incentives to make or not make those policy decisions would be dramatically altered from what they are in the present day, and whatever decision is made would actually have teeth, rather than it merely being a paper tiger subject to finance's veto.

* or 'fascist socialisation', the Italians would call it.

[Daktoria]

Regarding your question on why financiers would want to veto paper tigers?

Why are you concerned here? Don't you want a consolidation of industry?

They wouldn't, they'd only veto actual sabre tooth tigers, that's why all the bills that pass are paper tigers.

In case you didn't know, the real estate bubble was collusion between real estate brokers, bankers, and government regulators, counting on the fraud of residential investment.

Do you have any idea how much real estate brokering, regulation, and residential investment is based on femininity?

http://trends.truliablog.com/2011/10/is ... ans-world/

[Rei Murasame]

What?

• What's your definition of 'femininity' and why should I care?
  
  
• This thread has been about fascist socialisation since about halfway through page one, which was my intent for this thread from the time I showed up in it. Why are you acting as though it was ever about anything else?

In case you didn't know, the real estate bubble was collusion between real estate brokers, bankers, and government regulators, counting on the fraud of residential investment.

I rest my case. Thank you for admitting to it.

[Daktoria]

What's your definition of 'femininity'

Paper tigers.

why should I care?

...to learn how to be graceful.

This thread has been about fascist socialisation since about halfway through page one, which was my intent for this thread from the time I showed up in it. Why are you acting as though it was ever about anything else?

FASCIST FEMINISM

I rest my case. Thank you for admitting to it.

I admit women messed up the economy all the time!

Even the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are about women. Not oil. Not WMDs. Not terrorism. Women.

http://personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/pdfs/JOP2009.pdf

[Rei Murasame]

...to learn how to be graceful.

I would hope not to be anything like that.

FASCIST FEMINISM

The title of the thread is actually not relevant, since I quite deliberately neutralised that pages ago. There's a thing that they tell politicians, not to stick to the question if the question is a bad question, but to instead fix the question itself and talk about what you were going to always talk about.

I see that you're determined to either take us back to page one or kill the thread (seeing as the onlookers will get bored of this if we continue these circular back and forth responses to each other), but you can't undo what has already been done, and I am not going to retrace my steps.

My intent was always to talk about fascist socialisation, and this thread was created by Stalker in reaction to a thread where I was talking about that, and so here we are now, and this is the topic.

I admit women messed up the economy all the time!

Even the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are about women. Not oil. Not WMDs. Not terrorism. Women.

That's the most fucking insane analysis of the War on Terror I have ever heard.

_______________________

On a side-note, I find it interesting that you see fit to try to kill this thread now, why didn't you start making a fuss when it was Far-Right Sage carrying the baton? Did you decide only to jump in now that it is me carrying it? Why are you scared of Far-Right Sage?

[Sephardi]

I see what you're saying Rei, but this would cause us to give up our way of life. Also I'm not sure how this sort of system would handle Pharmacy. Would Pharmacists (PharmD professional degree) still make good sums of money? This is my field, and I know small business owners who make up to $400k a year. Pharmacists in corporations, which I'd probably be in since I'm working in CVS while in Pharmacy school, make six figure starting salaries. Usually $125k a year and it goes up from there. How will your system handle us? Would you lower our wages, tax us more, and regulate us more? And would we be able to buy luxury items as quick as we can now?

Would it be quick to start a small business in this system? Or would there be a lot of beaurocracy? My people own a shit ton of small businesses and we don't need it to be regulated more or go through a crap load of regulation just to get it started.

How would education play out if this was done in the US? Would there be any sort of private healthcare choice? I personally support options and easy transition from public to private and vice versa, giving everybody an oppportunity for free healthcare, so the private insurance companies get more competative. I'm sure you don't support any choice of private healthcare though? How would this increase our well being? And what's to stop another dictator from rising up in a Fascist system and shutting down personal rights.

[Suska]

That's the most fucking insane analysis of the War on Terror I have ever heard.

If I'm not mistaken I think Dak was pointing out that our gender models being extraordinarily different and each attempting to spread their model is at the root of our contentions. Do you know what Qutbism is Rei?

[Rei Murasame]

To address the Qutbism thing, I am saying that the idea that we attacked Afghanistan with the idea to make them be like us, is simply not true. The inverse is true however, that because Afghanistan remained backward, it was easy for us to attack it. Furthermore, Daktoria seems to be implying that Anglo-Saxon and Gallo-Roman armies of the 21st century were running out of women and felt some need to go skirt-chasing in Afghanistan which is absurd to the extreme.

In my next post I'll address Sephardi's questions (a lot of my answer to him will be "you will decide that for yourselves after the inauguration of the order", but I suppose I should try to at least forecast some things based on historical trends), but I just want to give a chance for either yourself or Daktoria to respond first to this, rather than cluttering up things by carrying both lines of conversation at once.

[Daktoria]

I would hope not to be anything like that.

Yes, you ARE so hyperborean. Goochie goochie goo!

That's the most fucking insane analysis of the War on Terror I have ever heard.

You think (fellow Japanese) Kanazawa is insane?

Is this insane as well?

On a side-note, I find it interesting that you see fit to try to kill this thread now, why didn't you start making a fuss when it was Far-Right Sage carrying the baton? Did you decide only to jump in now that it is me carrying it? Why are you scared of Far-Right Sage?

My eyes can't be everywhere at once.

That said, I've engaged FRS over post-Cold War NATO in the Iraq thread. If anything, he seems to be the one who's afraid because he refused to elaborate on what he believes the role of NATO is today.

____________

...am curious how this section got renamed "paternalism and corporatism" BTW.

[Rei Murasame]

You think (fellow Japanese) Kanazawa is insane?

Should I support every single thing that comes off Kanazawa's keyboard just because his name is Kanazawa?

My eyes can't be everywhere at once.

Oh, really.

...am curious how this section got renamed "paternalism and corporatism" BTW.

It had something to do with me, that's all I can say.

[Preston Cole]

It had something to do with me, that's all I can say.

At least now the title's going to educate some of the political illiterates out there that assume corporatism equals corporations when they see the word next to Paternalism and Plato's picture.

And on the issue of corporatism vs. government regulations in a nationalist state, corporatism only works well if the state is fascist and totalitarian. Because theoretical corporatism, which neither Italy nor Spain or the Estado Novo achieved, demands absolute organic cooperation and consequently a strong single-party state unhindered in applying fascist indoctrination.

[Dave]

Those are some fair points that you're making, Dave, but I would say again what I've said before, that to get into the position where there is an autonomous state that has the actual power and credibility to choose either to make that decision or to not make that decision, requires the certain conditions be satisfied. After all, if you were to enter power while dependent on finance, it would not be surprising to find that finance would simply tear up your agenda.

Financiers care about one thing: profit. I'm not terribly worried about them beyond the additional restructuring--a restructuring which will take place regardless owing to debt dynamics in advanced economies today. Eventually the house of cards is going to come crumbling down.

In my economic order they would have great opportunities for profit, as the overall rate of economic growth would accelerate compared to today. What they would lose would be enormous leverage and rehypothecation, scale (ie the too big to fail problem), and certain financial markets that exist now no longer would (e.g. consumer credit).

I'm not seeing the problem. It's true that financiers have political influence, but they always have and that hasn't stopped liberal states from regulating and restraining them at many junctures. And financiers should have political influence. Allocating capital is a very important role, and financiers have a lot of specialized technical knowledge that makes them very useful.

[Daktoria]

Should I support every single thing that comes off Kanazawa's keyboard just because his name is Kanazawa?

Of course not. His racist gibberish is rather ludicrous. There are plenty of beautiful colored women in the world.

Take Sabrina Sato for instance.

Oh, really.

Well if you don't mind...

It had something to do with me, that's all I can say.

Perhaps that's for the better. It's about time you jumped off the fascist shtick and jumped onto something more appreciative.

[Rei Murasame]

At least now the title's going to educate some of the political illiterates out there that assume corporatism equals corporations when they see the word next to Paternalism and Plato's picture.

Indeed, and I'm going to have to actually start with Daktoria, it seems.

And on the issue of corporatism vs. government regulations in a nationalist state, corporatism only works well if the state is fascist and totalitarian. Because theoretical corporatism, which neither Italy nor Spain or the Estado Novo achieved, demands absolute organic cooperation and consequently a strong single-party state unhindered in applying fascist indoctrination.

This is true, as it is noted particularly in the case of Italy that on both tries, Mussolini for various reasons was unable to complete the process.

______________________________

Of course not.

Then you shouldn't be surprised that I find his description of civil wars to be wrong, and your application of it to the War on Terror to be even more wrong.

Perhaps that's for the better. It's about time you jumped off the fascist shtick and jumped onto something more appreciative.

Preston Cole was - hilariously enough - referring to people like you. The name change on this subforum was not instituted as a move away from fascism, but rather a move deeper into it and with a bigger tent. In other words, this subforum is now simply more embracing of my position than it was before.

I half-suspected that you actually realised that, but then this latest statement from you shows that I assumed too much!

_______________________________

I still haven't composed my response to Dave and Sephardi yet, that will come next, I pinky-promise.

[Daktoria]

Then you shouldn't be surprised that I find his description of civil wars to be wrong, and your application of it to the War on Terror to be even more wrong.

Why won't you surprise me?

Preston Cole was - hilariously enough - referring to people like you. The name change on this subforum was not instituted as a move away from fascism, but rather a move deeper into it and with a bigger tent. In other words, this subforum is now simply more embracing of my position than it was before.

I half-suspected that you actually realised that, but then this latest statement from you shows that I assumed too much!

No, you assumed just enough. I always knew fascists were sexually confused...

As for me, perhaps. After all, feminism is a byproduct of consumerism which rose from advertising firms. The connection between corporations and feminism is quite obvious.

Where did my little paper tiger go?

[Rei Murasame]

I refuse to believe that you don't know what corporatism is.

[Suska]

armies of the 21st century were running out of women and felt some need to go skirt-chasing in Afghanistan which is absurd to the extreme

Armies of the 21st century are confused by new-media and by women having a say in the matter, that is the end of imperialism. WW1 was the last clear case, mating groups kill each other to diminish the excess of men and provide opportunities for glory. You didn't even address Qutbism. It's not Islamic Fundamentalism in the sense of everyone will be Islamic or be killed, it's Fundamentalism in the sense that they feel that what American women have been doing in the west must be stopped from being done under Islam.

When historians smack their foreheads about man's irrationality it's only that they haven't a clue about the connectivity of things in the natural world - the rationality of it is just of a wider order.

[Dave]

Of course not. His racist gibberish is rather ludicrous. There are plenty of beautiful colored women in the world.

Take Sabrina Sato for instance:

His article referred to black women, not non-whites in general. Sato is Eurasian much like Rei.

Kanazawa's article was sloppy, but basically correct. This is of course why he was raked over the coals: he said a naughty thing about blacks everyone knows is true.

[Far-Right Sage]

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

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

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

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

Yes, this all comes across as reasonable enough Dave, but even in a mixed economy or the "Third Way" professed by British Labour and the "New Democrats" (Tony Blair and Bill Clinton) of the early-mid 90's onward, the slippery slope when still working within the framework of a liberalized economy makes itself evident within a very short matter of time. Of course in any market, any sytem of bartering there is causation, as you refer to, and an increase in fuel prices will lead to an increase of prices in your local Dunkin' Donuts or Starbucks, as the price of transport for fresh milk, cream, and sugar has risen - or so it is justified.

What this narrative of the economy never tackles however is the scale of profit margin. Oftentimes, faced with such rising costs (transport of material required to operate and maintain the business, rise of production costs for the materials themselves, etc.), the first option of a lucrative private industry, however small, will be to gouge their customer base via unprecedented price hikes or scale back their rate of pay or benefits package for their lowest-salary workers. The problem is that whether they employ the former option, the latter, or both, such actions serve as an institutionalized form of assault on the American working and middle classes, performed in tandem with the robber barons of our new century (in every industry - food services, communication, petroleum, computers, the airlines, etc.) facing no cap on their ever-rising salary or bonus packages.

I worked in pharmaceuticals for most of my "professional" career, if one could call it that, as I came to the trade when a formal education wasn't required, and was still able to make well within my target range for a comfortable lifestyle which continues after retirement. The pharmaceutical industry today for young people starting out, much like insurance and virtually every other domestic business in the sun which has been tainted by huge money interests, often foreign in nature, is entirely transformed in the most negative of ways.

I would have been quite satisfied and pleased to tend to my profession, tend the property I still own, but be prevented from an outrageous salary at the expense of those around and under me, as this is not the way business has to be run, nay any private industry has to be run in the United States or any other country, and it is not the way one compatriot, one comrade behaves to another. Without helping ourselves, innovation, indeed our entire civilization will go nowhere, but without a system of enforcement to ensure citizens are allowed the freedom of their property - living quarters and businesses, will have to be maintained alongside the public good, the national and societal interest, then it is all for nought. Because the economy is a means to an end, not the end in itself, and liberalization is the golden spear which harpoons this most noble of aspirations. The alternative to a society which is not racially and culturally aware and nationalistic in nature, ready to use the collective helping hand of the government to sometimes reward those who perform heroic and creative forms of self-sacrifice for our national family, and punishment for those who act out, is an endless spate of class warfare and the edge of the abyss, thus achieving the endgame of both the Marxist and global-capitalist systems: the fall of our high society and the ascension of a class of beasts. Such aims are already close to completion.

That said, I've engaged FRS over post-Cold War NATO in the Iraq thread. If anything, he seems to be the one who's afraid because he refused to elaborate on what he believes the role of NATO is today.

Is that so?

I checked back recently, and as far as I can see, I responded giving my position on the detriment of NATO's actions and operations in modern times, yet you have failed to respond.

[Dave]

The "mixed economy" did not originate with Tony Blair, but with various interwar theorists. Some of these were liberals, such as John Maynard Keynes, whereas others were fascists like Hjalmar Schacht. The general idea was a managed market economy to achieve goals of full employment, moderate inflation, high wages, and rapidly expanding output. It was based on the idea of management-labor peace with state involvement, and without exception it was implemented in every Western country from 1948-1973. This was the period of the highest economic growth in Western history (the USA grew slightly faster in the Gilded Age, but only barely) and greatest relative standards of living for ordinary workers. There were certain problems with the system which led ultimately to its breakdown, but many of the basic premises were valid.

The policies of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton represented a departure from this to the "neoliberal" paradigm, a globalist model which prioritized capital over labor.

Naturally any capitalist would be delighted to gouge his customer base to increase profits, which is why robust competition and antitrust policies are needed to prevent this.