Articles « Nationalist Alternative

Archive for the ‘Articles’ Category

Why support Nationalist Alternative

Wednesday, August 25th, 2010

by Michael Kennedy

Nat-Alt picture

A Fresh Political Alternative

For many Australians, it strikes them as odd, and constricting, as to how a supposedly democratic system at election time, really only offers two possible choices. Come election time, its a choice between Labor or Liberal, with minor parties vying for protest votes. Most Australians are aware that this duopoly doesn’t really offer much choice. Many Australians are wanting an alternative, not just a protest party, but a real alternative. Many have been asking for a party to emerge which will take seriously issues concerning unsustainable population growth and immigration, the seemingly out of control way our society is changing, our privacy and right to be free from government censorship and monitoring. The blind rush for direction-less growth has led to housing becoming unaffordable, poorly planned sterile urban slums, devoid of public transport, adequate roads and facilities, chocked with traffic yet still growing uncontrollably to satisfy developers urges. While Australians are gridlocked daily held up by heavy traffic and roadworks designed to alleviate the strain, any benefit that may have been gained is lost with the record high intake of people. People are struggling to even fit on public transport in the mornings, yet those who say we are full are called racist!

Nationalist Alternative provides a fresh political alternative. Nationalist Alternative is for Australians who feel that the government is no longer acting in their interests. Nationalist Alternative is for Australians who want a greater say in the future of their country, and not have it left to CEO’s and Executives of major corporations decide what becomes of Australia.

Other Parties

The Greens have grown in popularity, thanks largely to the disillusionment that voters have with the two major parties. The Greens have also committed themselves to opposing Labor’s internet censorship policies, something that the Liberals have been suspiciously silent on. The Greens also (at least appear to) take environmental problems seriously. But there is nevertheless well deserved disdain and suspicion of the Greens. The Greens push a leftist ‘progressive’ social ideology, a policy which the last few decades have shown to be detrimental to Australia, yet they persist. While the Greens have (rightfully) called on Australia to take better care of its environment, to curb emission’s and our environmental impact, they call for no immigration restraint. The left side of politics has been very vocal in denouncing those who call for greater control of our population growth, yet population growth is one of the major factors which multiply and increase our environmental impact. While Australians are urged to use less water, to cut power usage, to cut carbon emission’s, environmental groups which unfortunately tied protection of the environment with ‘progressive’ liberal ideals don’t see the paradox. Any party which can’t see how a policy of reducing environmental damage contradicts one which doesn’t allow regulation of population growth is either in denial or just plain foolish. While Australia’s dams are running low, desalination plants, which consume large amounts of energy, provided by the very fossil fuels who’s use we should be reducing, are built to accommodate this growth. That is one of the major reasons why we at Nationalist Alternative believe that we need to cut immigration levels to help save water here in Australia.

save water cut immigration

Meanwhile, Socialist parties who use ’socialism’ as a cover for what really is a communist party, operate their parties the way they would operate this country. A centrally controlled, undemocratic bureaucracy, where marginal groups are used as political pawns. Communist/Trotskyite groups merely use irrelevant issues like Gay Marriage rights and helping to “free” the refugees to promote their own insidious agenda which is to destroy Australia.

“Be the change you want to be “ – Gandhi

While we all realise that Ghandi was obviously NOT an Australian, he nevertheless, did believe in Nationalism for his own country. We at Nationalist Alternative run our party the way we want our country to be run. Nationalist Alternative is not a ‘do as we say and think as we want you to think’ type of party. Our members and supporters are not just political cannon fodder, but take an active part in the parties activities. We believe that Australia is OUR country, its YOUR country, and Nationalist Alternative is OUR party and its YOUR party. Nationalist Alternative exists to give those who more or less support our basic platform a voice, a voice that many Australians have been asking for.

Nationalist Alternative supports protecting our environmental heritage, without the hypocrisy of also supporting policies which lead to the uncontrolled growth that’s destroying it. We oppose completely proposed internet censorship and monitoring, without the hypocrisy of being a party which also supports crushing political speech it doesn’t agree with, and actively using intimidation and threats of violence to stop other parties from promoting their platform as socialist groups have done.

Why Nationalism

Nationalism is often classed as ‘outdated’, ‘backwards’ but with never any real reason. Yet when we look at the attempts at pluralistic diverse societies in the UK, Europe and America one fact remains clear, its a policy failure. While people in these countries still promote the virtues of increased democracy, those same people move away from it! While other people have yet to catch up to this important fact, we have realised it. Australia isn’t just a resource which people move into. The people who built Australia didn’t immigrate into already existing cities, infrastructure, hospitals and social groups, these were built by the people for the people. This is the heart of what a nation is. A family is simply a small nation. A family household is run for the family. The house, the family budget, the car and furniture as well as rules exist to serve the family. The nation is somewhat similar. It is the creation of people who more or less share a common cultural and ethnic/racial heritage, who more or less are in a situation together and share a common future. Just as it would be utterly ridiculous for a mother to exchange her children, simply to make the family budget better, we consider it utterly ridiculous that people within a nation can just be changed for economic gain. For Nationalists, the economy, the government, the institutions and infrastructure exist to serve the people. For Nationalist Alternative, our funds, our website, our party name and image exist to serve who take part.

Why Nationalist Alternative

Nationalist Alternative encourages those who want a greater say in the future of their country to engage in political activity. We are not just interested solely in money or foot soldiers for staged protests, but for Australians who share our ideals and vision to take an active part. Joining Nationalist Alternative isn’t just becoming a member of a party, its becoming part of a movement, having a real voice, a real say.

Tags: Australia, communist, Liberals, Michael Kennedy, Nationalism, Nationalist Alternative, Refugees, The Greens
Posted in Articles, Commentary, Uncategorized | Comments Off

Using Refugees to belittle the Immigration Debate

Friday, July 23rd, 2010

By Michael Kennedy

“Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Boat People are used as a way to release pressure from the real immigration debate”.

It seems that recently Australia has rediscovered its obsession with asylum seekers. News stories now abound of how more boats are on the way, of how asylum seekers (always by boat, not by plane) are given first class treatment, shacked up in luxury accommodation while “working families” struggle to pay the mortgage. One only has to load up the website of Victoria’s most popular rag, the Herald Sun, and sure enough the issue is mentioned, as it is pretty much every day in the more neo-conservative publications. “Now I’ll fix the boats: Gillard “1 says the headline. Since when has Labor taken a strong stance against boat people? Since it’s been a popular vote grab. The “Tampa” election showed that its a hot button issue, even bigger than environmental degradation through salinity, emissions, the housing affordability crisis and unsustainable population growth.

When Howard was elected in 1996 he cut the planned immigrant intake to 68,000, but by last financial year he’d more than doubled it. His planned intake for next financial year is almost 153,000 – plus 13,000 under the humanitarian program. To that you can add about 24,000 New Zealanders – who don’t need visas and will be arriving to join the 470,000 of their fellow country-persons who are here. Last calendar year was the eighth straight year of net immigration (that is, net of permanent departures) in excess of 100,000.The media slyly links ,not explicitly, but implicitly, illegal refugees with a sense of being inundated with hordes of people. From the opinion of many of the Australian public, that seems to be working. Many Australians seem to believe that the country will be flooded by boat people alone, and make statements about how our infrastructure is already at capacity. Nothing clears up the air like a bit of perspective, and nothing better brings about a sense of perspective than factual data.

In 2009, 5,000 asylum claims were lodged in Australia 2. USA & Canada have over 80,000 claims and Europe close to 300,000. That figure of 5,000 might seem high, but in reality, it is not. Legal immigration exceeds this every fortnight. This is half the number of assisted immigrants than arrived at the start of the 20th century, when Australia had a much smaller population. According to Wikipedia, “Net overseas migration increased from 30,042 in 1992-93 to 177,600 in 2006-07. This is the highest level on record.” In two decades, that’s a 500% increase, one largely brought about by the ‘conservative’ Howard government. Howard was an expert at making his Battlers believe he shares their dislike and distrust of foreign dominance, via sole opposition to boat people. Yet in the background on behalf of big business he ran the biggest immigration program Australia had ever seen including one where the proportion coming from non European sources is now greater than 50%.

Asylum claims therefore account for less than 3% of our immigration intake, a fairly unremarkable proportion. Yet if you were to follow the popular press, this tiny percentage is going to inundate the country, that we don’t have room for that few percent, that if the government would just crack down and secure our borders against this few percent, we’d be a lot better. It seems a silly position, one bereft of logic and proportion, but why are Australians so worked up about boat people? Why did Tampa demand so much attention for the handful of people on it, when the population was increasing by thousands each week from planes flying overhead? Why is it OK to suggest that refugees be blasted out of the water, with even the opposition minister Tony Abbott stating he’ll do “whatever it takes”. “Whatever it takes” does not exclude some form of violent action. And why is there a strange paradox in the media, where it is permissible for paid commentators like Andrew Bolt to make all sorts of grandiose statements against them, when even suggesting that legal immigration be scaled back gets one branded a racist?

How is it that Nationalist Alternative is lambasted simply for advocating a political policy where the government would assist a greatly reduced level of international students and economic refugees (i.e. The huge ‘skilled intake’), a policy which hardly is inhumane, but the same media silently and selectively allows far more vigorous comments by neo-conservatives levelled against the small intake stream comprising boat people/asylum seekers/refugees.

You will note that none of these neo-conservative commentators speaks of removing Australia from the overarching United Nations dictates (1951 Refugee Convention) that impairs national sovereignty in the first place? They simply are not serious and only wish to defer public sentiment away from the real issues.

Surely comments about blasting women and children out of the water, who many consider could quite well be in ‘desperate need of refuge’ are indicate of a less ‘humane attitude’ by liberal standards, than comments about taking in less people to study and live here from overseas, people who are generally quite well off anyway (they have money) and are coming from countries which have a reasonable to high standard of living.

This state of affairs most likely exists because of one simple factor. Money. Economic immigrants are skilled (at least some) and have money, or the capacity to earn money. They will buy consumer goods. They will put deposits on houses with over inflated prices to fund the baby boomer’s retirement and therefore keep that asset bubble inflated. They provide labour to big business, and quite often, cheaper, that is, more ‘cost effective’ labour, as an increase in the supply of labour will drive down its cost, as there are more competitors in the race to the bottom. Make no mistake about it, big business, the Real Estate industry and even smaller business love immigration. The ‘ruling class’ in modern western society isn’t aristocrats, dictators, feudal lords, emperors, kings or seeming not even a democratically elected government. It is big business, the corporations. Anyone who’s been following the events regarding the Resource Super Profits Tax would only be too keenly aware of the clout that big business and corporations have in modern society.

Refugee image

The Institute for Public Affairs have states that Western Australia needs more people to prosper. A sentiment echoed by the mining industry. They IPA states ?We are now in the largest boom in the State’s history. The challenge for the State is to make the most of the boom and getting more people to the State is the key to doing so.? What can be gleaned from this, isn’t that population levels are crippling the state, but there is the potential for greater growth and greater economic gain (presumably only for those who are already well off), but that there simply is the opportunity for greater profits, if there were more people.

The IPA is a centre right think tank which advocates free market politics, trade liberalisation, climate change scepticism and limited government. The attitude isn’t one of bringing in more people to fill a need, but a lamentation that there are potential further profits which could be gained if it weren’t for Australia’s restrictive immigration policy. It is an attitude which suggests a lack of any form of restraint. The last sentence states ?While more people will bring challenges, such as ensuring that there is adequate land for housing, schools, hospital beds and roads, it is the key to our future prosperity.?. All that is written about how hundreds of thousands of Australians are going to cope with real and pressing issues they face each day, is mentioned in a throw away line at the end. It’s pretty obvious that many who are calling for an increase in the intake of people, consider the trouble it causes for many Australia a negligible externalities. Other companies benefit from skilled immigration. Wages can be depressed by increased competition for jobs and bottom lines can be increased through finding cheaper sources of labour, and by lowering working standards and conditions.

What does this have to do with refugees? Probably due to the fact that asylum seekers generally don’t have skills and don’t have as much money by the time they arrive onto the taxpayer’s payroll after sometimes exhausting thousands of dollars on people smugglers. An Afghan refugee isn’t soon going to be in a position to put a deposit on a house, or apply for a position in the IT industry. In other words, they are less useful to big business. Another big business, the media, relies on selling a product just like any other business. The product that news media sells is not just news stories and information, but a guiding hand, a sense of representation for the average person.

It is no secret that most Australians think immigration rates are too high. Many are concerned about how sustainable intake levels of 200,000 per annum are, how we can do this while water is becoming more scarce, infrastructure such as transport and health are bursting at the seams and competition for housing is high, with astronomical prices denying hard working young Australians the opportunity to own even a modest home

to raise a small family in. Sentiment against misguided government policy, largely fuelled by a religious belief in ?growth? and rapacious and insatiable business who seems to resent any restraint is high. This spills out into resentment against the immigrants themselves, though for the rates and social issues that have arisen as a result, Australians with their generous natures have been very accommodating and tolerant. The sentiment is still there, and the media knows this and knows that it is a marketable product. This leaves the media with a paradox. They cannot steer Australians towards wanting lower levels of legal immigration because the media is itself big business. Rupert Murdoch is not likely to kill off the inflow of people which is the golden goose for other plutocrats. The Australian and the Herald Sun are not going to turn against the Real Estate industry and the mining industry, who buy valuable advertising space and milk Australia’s frustration at the unsustainable and rapid growth and change occurring. How to use this sentiment, while at the same time maintaining the status quo? The answer is simple. Redirect the sentiment, which appears at face value to be exactly what the popular mainstream media has been doing. With Australians concerned about growth, about the future of the nation and bewildered at the government constantly increasing the rate of population growth when most people believe the opposite is necessary based on their personal experiences, they want a media outlet which shares their concern.

The mainstream media has been doing this, by directing the ire, the resentment and frustration towards the most helpless and economically least advantageous immigrants. Asylum seekers, refugees and boat people. It’s always boat people too, as it conjures up images of dishevelled, dodgy looking opportunists scrambling ashore. Asylum seekers who arrive by plane don’t look like they are doing anything illegal or dodgy, nor is there a stand off in mid air, so they are rarely if ever mentioned. The spectacle with them just isn’t there. With the mainstream media turning a blind eye to anti-refugee sentiment and never bothering to call the so called ‘racist’ dog whistle, they kill two birds with one stone.

Firstly, the papers sell. Hyperbolic headlines with barely a scratch of truth about how refugees are arriving in vast numbers of boats and given luxury accommodation fuel the sentiment, and direct attention. The attention is taken away from the vast number of people who use student visas as a back door, away from the large number of ‘economic’ migrants, and towards a relatively small, insignificant numbers of refugees. The claims about luxury treatment, about harbouring terroristsand disease only serve to inflame passions, sell papers and sway government policy. The government then sees asylum seekers as THE pressing immigration issue, and will act on that, rather than on population growth in general. The other outcome is that the discussion moves towards the few percent of arrivals only, and not the bigger picture in general. The flow of labour and capital which serves big industry is no longer considered as part of the equation, and therefore is no longer threatened by discussion about immigration. The immigration debate then is purely about stopping boats. It has been effectively neutered. The papers sell. The Australian population think their concerns about growth are being attended to. Growth continues unabated.

Australians deserve honest debate on pressing issues such as the environment, population growth through government policy, industrial relations and social programs. But this debate is degraded and dragged into the gutter as a small proportion of the population twist the debate, and mislead the population, leading them to incorrect conclusions and given them skewed perspectives. Young Australians who may have only had one opportunity to vote in a federal election, or no opportunity deserve a better quality of discussion from the general public and the media. This can only be done holding an accurate perspective, being honest about what is happening and not being led by hysteria.

In short, Australia cannot have any meaningful public debate about how immigration policy will shape the future of our nation if there is stage managed ‘contained hysteria’ about boat people. The media, which usually is so quick to hyperbole about parties who call for lowered immigration, turns a blind eye to anti-refugee sentiment , while grilling those who suggest that local students should be considered over cashed up foreign students or that the ‘legal’ migrant intake is way too high. This is an absurd situation and one that Australia currently finds itself in.

There are of course legitimate questions and issues concerning asylum seekers, issues about processing, about controlling borders and how to differentiate between legitimate refugees (on Australia’s definition not the UNs..) from opportunists, but the hysteria is out of proportion to the problem. If it is held to be humane to give refuge to someone fleeing persecution and possible death then it is by no means inhumane not to offer someone who has an education and a job, the opportunity to study here as a hair stylist to gain permanent residency so as to bring the rest of the family, simply because there is more space here, or more money to be made.

Australians deserve a better quality of discourse on this issue, especially younger Australians who will MOST be affected by these policies.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/triguboff-lets-trade-trees-for-homes/2006/10/10/1160246131958.html

1 http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/new-pm-julia-gillard-vows-to-address-issue-of-asylum-seekers/story-e6frf7jo-1225887320708

Tags: Asylum seekers, boat people, Immigration, Michael Kennedy, Nationalist Alternative, Refugees
Posted in Articles, Commentary, Uncategorized | Comments Off

Nat-Alt Radio Broadcast (Episode 2) – Australia’s Decline

Friday, May 14th, 2010

By David Ellerton

This is the second episode of Nat-Alt Radio which is done by a new speaker named David Ellerton. In this particular speech he will discuss; immigration, the break down of the family unit and green taxes. There will be a number of other interesting speeches on a broad range of topics in the future from Nationalist Alternative so stay tuned!

To download the audio file, click here.

Parts one and two of Episode 2 of Nat-Alt Radio can also be viewed below:

Tags: Australia's Decline, David Ellerton, Green Taxes, Immigration, Nat-Alt Radio, Nat-Alt Radio Episode 2, Nationalist, Nationalist Alternative, The break down of the family unit
Posted in Analysis, Articles | Comments Off

Nat-Alt Radio Broadcast (Episode 1) – Introduction to Nationalist Alternative

Friday, May 7th, 2010

By Victor Simpson

In a new addition to Nationalist Alternative we will now have an audio-broadcast program called ‘Nat-Alt Radio’ here is Episode 1 by Victor Simpson which will introduce the fundamental aspects and beliefs behind Nationalist Alternative. This will become a regular feature with Nationalist Alternative with a variety of different speakers. Stay tuned for many more episodes of ‘Nat-Alt Radio’ in the future.

To download the audio file, click here

Parts one, two and three of Episode 1 of Nat-Alt Radio can also be viewed below:

Tags: Audio Broadcast, Episode 1 of Nat-Alt Radio, Introduction to Nationalist Alternative, Nat-Alt Radio, Nationalist Alternative, Victor Simpson
Posted in Articles, Commentary, Uncategorized | Comments Off

Liberal Democracy – Is it really democratic?

Friday, April 30th, 2010

By Aldred Wulfric

Our ‘governments’ have abdicated real sovereignty to universal global institutions and govern us in a top down manner presiding over alienated atomised citizens in a geographical zone rather then a harmonious people in a nation/tribe.

Liberal Democracy, with its accompanying economic system of unfettered free market fundamentalism is the form of government that has enabled the above outcome and has managed to convince millions that it is democratic and representative of the average citizen.

Liberal Democracy works on the basis of rights before politics and emphasises the importance of the individual. There is a presumption that these ’rights’ are universally accepted or justified in their application across all peoples. However, Liberal Democracy fails to recognise and account for irreconcilable differences, which will lead to significant social tension. For example, ‘the right to life’ and ‘the right to choose’ or the ‘right to privacy’ and the ‘right of freedom of speech’.

Liberal Democracy would have us believe that it is a given that a set of universal ‘rights’ exist and that in addition, its proponents have ‘discovered’ what they are. The ‘humanitarian left liberals’ along with the ‘neo-conservative right liberals’, filled with missionary zeal now seek to enforce their discovered ‘rights’ across the globe. In doing this they obliterate all cultural and ethnic differences in their wake. This underlies the attempt at installing a Universalist Bill of Rights in Australia by various totalitarian humanists. This begs the question, who gets to define what are rights, and what are not rights?

The following extracts illustrate, ‘rights’, which themselves are not objective facts (like the law of gravity), but subjective and derived from alternative sources depending on the people group, context and history.

Professor of Politics, Richard Bellamy is quoted in Roland Axtmann’s book ‘Liberal democracy into the twenty-first century: globalization, integration and the nation-state” as arguing

“that rights must be related to, and rely upon, particular conceptions of human community and human flourishing as they emerge from the self-understanding of particular political communities” (Bellamy 1993: 54;1994: 429).

John Gray similarly posits that rights are

“ shaped by our judgements of the vital interests, or conditions of well being, of the person under consideration”

[Gray, John (1993). pg101 Beyond the New Right. Markets, Government and the Common Environment, London, New York, Routledge]

Gray further undermines the concept of pre existing ‘rights’ when he comments

“in political and in moral philosophy, the good is always prior to the right: we make judgements about the rights people have, only on the basis of our judgements of the interests central to their wellbeing” (Gray 1993: 102)

Understanding how even ‘rights’ themselves arise from a subjective process dependent upon the tribe and their conception of ‘good’, we may ponder on what if anything modern liberalism presents to us. One fact that is grounded in thousands of years of recorded human nature are that the concepts of ‘particularity’ and ‘diversity’ [ nationalism ] characterise humans more than the modern manufactured concepts of ‘the universal’ and ‘sameness’.

No amount of liberalism’s most effective tool Political Correctness can eradicate this. Political correctness is a euphemism for intellectual censorship infesting children’s textbooks, university curriculum’s and corporations HR departments.

Given that rights arise from the ‘good’ and that the ‘good’ arises from ‘particular conceptions of human community’ and ‘judgements of the interests central to their wellbeing’ it stands to reason that a harmonious society , one with an accepted set of relevant ‘rights’ will be one where the inhabitants share a common (homogeneous) definition of ‘good’. The ‘good’ is defined by the values and beliefs (culture), of shared purpose, lifestyles and direction, of common grounding and heritage.

In differentiated plural ‘societies’ or more accurately the socially engineered attempts at today’s multi-cultural, multi-racial society, division is rife and judgements about liberty and appropriate ‘rights’ become controversial evaluations leaving all groups alienated and unsatisfied.

Liberal democracies are characterised by a society torn and divided amongst itself. Parliament is full of ‘political parties’ constantly buffeted and influenced by competing subsets of interests, of minority groups and lobbies that never pull together in one direction. Political parties or most modern liberal ones, never represent the people but simply their donors, lobby groups and corporate backers over a 4 year cycle.

Contrast this with a homogeneous nation peopled by those with similar and shared ancestry, culture, ethnicity and subsequently a common definition of the ‘good’.

Liberal Democracy is also characterised by the central prominence and promotion of the activities of private individuals who are focused on the pursuit of peculiar interests. Hence in Liberal Democracy the individual is expected more or less to rely on the state for his liberty. The liberal state has ‘discovered’ and instituted his ‘rights’ and citizenship is mainly a non participatory condition to be passively enjoyed.

Contrast this to non hyphenated ‘democracy’, or real democracy, in the tradition reaching back to Aristotle and Machiavelli where in order to enjoy liberties; individuals have the duty to participate in politics to jointly determine the character of their community. In this republican tradition political activity is seen as essential to achieving self fulfilment and liberty can only be achieved and fully assured via a self governing form of community where citizenship is a responsibility happily assumed by the individual.

Further distinctions are gained through the following quotes

“The first [ democracy] makes citizenship the core of our life, the second[ liberal democracy] makes it its outer frame. The first assumes a closely knit body of citizens, its members committed to one another; the second assumes a diverse and loosely connected body, its members (mostly) committed elsewhere” (Walzer 1989:216)

“In the liberal tradition, rights guarantee freedom from external constraints; in the republican tradition, citizenship rights allows its bearers actively to engage with others in the public realm, to participate as citizens among citizens in a common practice in order to form themselves into politically autonomous creators of a community of free and equal persons on the basis of mutual recognition” (Habermas 1992b: 325-9)

“a community of families and aggregations of families [ the nation ] in well being, for the sake of a perfect and self-sufficing life”

A clear distinction emerges that Liberal Democracy is undemocratic and should be stripped of the use of the word ‘democracy’. Terminal problems with Liberal Democracy include;

Liberal Democracy has an unclear, ambivalent manufactured set of ‘rights’ that have no foundation in a communal and consensual concept of the ‘good or ‘interests central to the peoples well being’ and that this results in alienation, no direction and debasement of all its competing sub groups.
That this arises is part due to its social engineering experiments like multiculturalism and multi-racialism that render consensus impossible. .
That its parliaments are unrepresentative and strangled by political parties who are in turn chained to a miasma of conflicting agendas and large cash donors.
That it impedes personal liberty and grass-roots consensus by encouraging the disengagement of individuals from the political process and promotes man and women as ‘private’ individuals (atoms) who are unrestrained in their pursuits of purely self based interests. (unrestrained of course within the bounds set by LibDems main tool – political correctness…)
Liberal Democracy rests on a flawed thesis that a set of universal human rights can act as foundational principles for any and all social or political order. The fatal flaw is due to universal rights having been illustrated as only pre-supposing not pre-existing a given way of life and hence the existence since time immemorial of different ways of life or conceptions of ‘human community’ amongst the earth’s peoples will generate in turn ‘different’ sets of rights.
The fallacy of universal rights and the identification of the concept being only pre-supposed rather than pre-existing is best highlighted by the definition of ‘pre-supposition’ – An assumption, conjecture, speculation or something supposed without proof

Nationalism in contrast, is democratic and a natural condition of humankind.

Has contained in its definition of politics the explicit recognition of a public dimension, the idea that the individual exists on a level beyond mere private concern and personal rights but also communal or group duties.
Builds engagement by welcoming and indeed expecting citizenship to include participation in society beyond private pursuits.
Empowers the individual by their active involvement in governance.
Upholds the right for all peoples in the world to unite in their various homogeneities to self govern and institute rights that are not invented or transferred but find foundation in a common heritage, culture, lifestyle, spirituality and ethnicity. What Aristotle called the common interest or ‘good’ and this good in politics is justice.
Society is far less divisive, combative and alienating and allows for the full expression of one national form/culture/spirit moving in unity.
Government that emerges is therefore representative to a much higher degree as it is based on mutual recognition in regard to the common good of the nation it is selected from.
A globe full of these national forms (nations) each dominant only within its own land and society whilst respecting its neighbours complete independence, truly ensures a deep diversity worldwide compared to a globe where every continent has enforced multiculturalism/racialism and over time one cosmopolitan city ‘with great shopping districts and a China town’ is much like the next regardless of which continent it is on.

Tags: Aristotle, citizenship, Commentary, democracy, governments, Liberal Democracy, Machiavelli, multi-racialism, Multiculturalism, Nationalism
Posted in Articles, Commentary, Uncategorized | Comments Off

Ethics for Australian Business

Friday, January 29th, 2010

Ethics for Australian Business

By Vivian Roberts

“If you do not act with integrity … you are not likely to enjoy the kind of reputation that will keep good people in your employ, or keep customers coming back for your products or services.” - John Ralph.

There is an often quoted saying used by those in business for immoral and unethical behaviour towards others. Chances are you have had this line used on you before; “it’s nothing personal, it’s just business”. For many, this statement justifies any wrong doing to another because it’s rationalised in the accumulation of wealth. This was exactly the case when Pacific Brands (Bonds/King Gee) CEO Sue Morphet sent the jobs of 300 Illawarra textile workers overseas. It implied that value could only be found in financial wealth, and that there is little or no value in social and ethical responsibility.

Pacific Brands came under intense public pressure with sections of the community vowing in protest to never purchase Pacific Brands products ever again. Like so many other International companies, Pacific Brands was willing to accept the short term losses and wait until public pressure subsides, public apathy kicks in and sales start to increase again. The loss of bonds to the Australian manufacturing industry was another blow in the Australian psyche, and reaffirmation that “Everything is made in China”.

BHP Billiton axed 1,800 jobs when the Ravensthorpe Nickel mine was closed in Western Australia. The impact on the town was devastating, leaving working Australians with mortgages greater than the property value of their homes. This is just another example of how the social impact of International profit mongering is the Pandora’s box of Liberal democracy.

Former Australian Prime Minister Billy Hughes made the following comments after clearly recognising that business and economics are inter-related with the personal and national condition;

“But if it were a question of trade only affecting our pockets, the fiscal question might be fairly left to settle itself. But it reaches down to the very roots of our lives. You cannot proceed upon the assumption that the economic policy of a nation has no relation to its national welfare. The relations between the two are inseparable, intimate and complex. This fact is fundamental; to ignore it, is to not only to invite but to ensure national destruction”.

Australians are exposed to unethical business practices on both the micro and macro level, from the preference of cheap foreign workers over long standing Australian workers; the selling of Australian mines to foreign Governments; pollution cover-ups; insider trading; to the bribing of local Government councillors to approve developments that are not in the interests of the communities they represent. All of these examples have one thing in common; the use of economic rationalism and little consideration for social and cultural impacts as having a societal value.

The Australian Government has legislated business ethics in the framework of preserving the environment and biodiversity after long term lobbying by interested parties. State and local Governments now require land developers to engage in biodiversity impact statements and environmental management plans if their applications are to be successful. However, social and cultural impact statements largely remain the undiscovered country in terms of Australian legislation. No person or business is required to submit a cultural impact statement for the business practises they engage in, nor is alocal council under any obligation to determine if a new Mosque or Hindu temple will have any unfavourable social impacts on the local community.

It should be a legal requirement for any organisation who preferentially employees foreign 457 guest workers over local workers to complete a social and cultural impact statement. Not only should the statement cover how foreign workers will “fit” into Australian society, but whether or not they understand and accept the social norms, culture, and resource restrictions of being an Australian resident. Had cultural impact statements been performed either by large corporations or the Federal Government before large scale importation of cheap labour, it is doubtful that reactive programs (assimilation assistance) implemented by the Australian Government would have been needed. All of these problems create significant costs to the Australian taxpayer, which is a cost to society which is socialised and borne by the average Australian citizen.

In the absence of Government legislation, it is up to the Australian people to ‘vote with their feet’ when purchasing products or services, and to become comfortable with the mantra ‘my dollar is my vote’. This is now more important than ever, considering that voting for Labour or Liberal is a vote for misrepresentation.

In using purchasing power as a vote, Australians place a value in social and ethical responsibility. This same social responsibility is practised when purchasing green electricity. The cost to buy a socially, ethically and environmentally responsible product is usually greater than the cheapest standard product on the market. Yet, Australian’s continue to demand green/ renewable sources of electricity, despite the higher economic costs. Similarly, Australian’s need to demand Australian made and owned products are available to the marketplace, regardless of the higher economic costs. It is our social responsibility to ensure Australian jobs by purchasing Australian products. Become comfortable when shopping and asked by a sales assistant ‘Can I help you?’ and reply ‘yes, what products are Australian made?’. If they answer none, ask for the boss, manager or at least convey to the assistant you demand Australian made products, and shop elsewhere. Of course the assistant is not the boss but the message starts to get through via employees as well.

Consumer boycotts and responsible purchasing are effective tools to bring about necessary social change. The boycott Israel campaign is one such example of economic resistance carried out overseas on another issue to good effect. For example, in 2004 the Presbyterian Church (US) voted 431-62 for a resolution “to initiate a process of phased, selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel” because of their continued war crimes” which continued until 21 June, 2006.

Regardless of whether the state authorises official sanctions, the main value of a product boycott is to effectively empower local people to ‘self sanction, shame or bring into disrepute’. The object of the boycott is in changing behaviour to meet the expectations of the community in which an organisation resides and derives its profits. Individuals must take more responsibility for their choices in the changing of Australia’s demographic and cultural landscape. Directing personal cash flows is one of the most powerful and easy tools people can harness. If enough people get on board, a REAL powershift occurs in the community’s favour regardless of what the oft unrepresentative Australian state does.

Nationalist Alternative Ethical Business Guidelines

There is a growing trend by Australian businesses to involve themselves in what’s referred to as Ethical Business Practise; however, what is ethical business exactly, is a term not clearly defined, nor easily understood by Australian consumers. Often ethical business is represented as one that supports overseas interests such as “rainforest alliance” or “fair-trade coffee”. Often these are nothing more than marketing strategies, designed to woo people who might want to purchase ‘ethically’. Ethics therefore becomes just another commodity to buy and sell. While these products are certainly more socially responsible than their cheaper counterparts, the message to Australian consumers is often contradictory with a “Buy Australian Made” message. As such, Nationalist Alternative has developed an Australian Ethical Business code of practise supporting the local Australian workforce, with minimal social, cultural and environmental impacts.

1. Is committed to the Australian nation, its interests and its people.

2. Clearly, honestly, and accurately represents its products, services, terms and conditions.

3. In dealings with the wider community is respectful and courteous in all communication.

4. Takes responsibility for environmental, social and cultural impacts of the choices made by its employees in the service of the organisation.

5. Has environmentally, socially and culturally responsible growth targets.

6. Invests in community programs that support Australian interests.

7. Takes a pro-active stance towards up skilling: Invests in apprenticeships and mentoring programs for its employees and economically disadvantaged Australians.

8. The majority of shareholders are Australian citizens.

9. Provides a cultural working environment that supports and encourages a healthy work-life balance, one where families have the chance to spend adequate time together.

10. Maintains appropriate security policies and practices to safeguard personal information of employees and customers

By purchasing from ethically and socially responsible companies which meet the Business Ethics Guidelines, Australians can ensure the economic prosperity and social future of their country. Within a similar framework of these guidelines, the not-for-profit organisation AUSBUY was created to support and represent Australian Business. AUSBUY receives no Government funding, nor are they politically aligned; however, their position on foreign investment is quite clear.

“When we do not own our companies the decisions are not made here, the profits do not stay here and our jobs are at risk. We become tenants in our own country. The importance of a strong cultural identity is not just important for Australia’s citizens. It is also important to business, tourism and trade as it contributes to our international reputation as sophisticated, vibrant and progressive.”

Similar organisations to AUSBUY exist, including Fight back for Australia which was started in 1999 by Mike Rogers in response to predatory pricing, which caused Australian manufacturers to go out of business and then be snapped up by foreign investors. As such, he promotes a website dedicated to buying Australian made and owned grocery products. His message echoes that of Nationalist Alternative and AUSBUY. Buy Australian made and owned products. The rewards of doing so, multiply exponentially according to Mr Rogers. If we all spent an extra $50 per week more on Australian products, it would create over 100,000 Aussie jobs for Aussie workers. Currently, Australians spend $1.4 billion dollars a week on grocery items, with only 10% spent on locally made products. The benefits of buying Australian made extend not only to keeping our money in the country, but it’s also more environmentally friendly. Purchasing locally made products reduces the costs associated with transportation compared to products made overseas. For instance fruit and vegetables are a good example of our major supermarket retailers doing the wrong thing. There is something incongruous about helping Australian farming communities on the road to recovery from the devastating effects of Australia’s drought, while at the same time promoting produce like mandarins or grapefruit from Israel or California.

To identify the country of origin of a product, check the barcodes! Australian made products will have a barcode that begin with 93. Whilst not necessarily 100% accurate due to loopholes with some items not requiring compulsory country of origin labelling, the following list is helpful for avoiding non Australian made products.

00 ~ 13 USA; CANADA
30 ~ 37 FRANCE
40 ~ 44 GERMANY
49 ~ JAPAN
50 ~ UK
57 ~ Denmark
64 ~ Finland
76 ~ Switzerland and Lienchtenstein
471 is Made in Taiwan (see sample below)
628 ~ Saudi-Arabien
629 ~ United Arab Emirates
729 ~ Israel
740 ~ 745 – Central America

All 480 Codes are made in the Philippines and products made in China have a barcode beginning anywhere from 690 to 695.

Alternatively, Aussie Farmers Direct is a free home delivery service providing only Australian made and owned groceries.

The Australian people need to become more responsible with their purchasing power, and recognise the impact their choices have on society. To protect our industries, our workforce, our Nation, we must financially support those enterprises. Your dollar is your vote.

“Australians who have contributed to this country deserve this. We want all Australians to make informed decisions about where they spend their hard earned money and that the majority of it goes to other Australians. Successive generations of Australians have laboured for this country through being productive, clever and innovative, and we stand up against the best in any measure. Just ask the rest of the world how good we are.” – AUSBUY

Tags: ausbuy, buy australian made and owned, ethics, local produce, Nationalist Alternative
Posted in Articles | Comments Off

Progressivism: The road to nowhere.

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009

Part II of Nationalist Alternative’s series on Political Correctness

“Progressivism: The road to nowhere”

By Gavin James

In the first article, we looked at how Political Correctness and modern day liberalism takes on religious aspects by using concepts analogous to ‘Original Sin‘ and ’stained bloodlines’. Much like mainstream religions, Political Correctness has asserted itself by making bald assertions and requiring people to adopt these as articles of faith. Political Correctness, despite its name, is therefore more akin to a religion, a new age belief system, a faith, than a political ideology.

Progressivism is a political term which refers to ideologies and policies which favor reform, particularly reform of a liberal or left wing nature. While the term progressivism doesn’t necessarily refer to left wing politics, it is largely used by the ‘left’ to refer to its own ideologies, and has become synonymous with ‘leftism’, particularly in the Western World. So much so that many liberals will simply refer to Politically Correct ideologies as ‘progressive ideologies’, and refer to themselves simply as ‘progressives’. In this article we will look at progressivism in Political Correctness, and how the PC establishment determines what ideals are progressive and which are regressive.

The very term ‘progressive’ has two distinct and obvious connotations. Firstly, by merely labeling any particular idea as ‘progressive’, one associates that idea with the positive, with progress, going forward, reaching a desired goal. It is usually assumed that this goal or destination is a positive one. Progressive ideas therefore immediately appear to be ones that support society, which propel its evolution and development. Conversely, by simply labeling an idea as ‘regressive’, one associates that idea with the negative, with regression, going backwards and moving away from a desired goal. Regressive ideas therefore generally appear as ones that go against society, which retard its evolution and development.

Secondly, the term ‘progressive’ defines the goals. An ideal which may be value neutral, or morally ambiguous can be made out to be positive, that which works towards a goal. By stating that restructuring the management hierarchy of a company is a progressive step, it implies that the end goal, the new management structure, is a desirable outcome and beneficial to all involved.

Hence the proliferation and overuse of jargon such as ‘going forward’, ‘moving forward’, ‘positive step’ used by managers. Simply defining something as ‘forward thinking’ or ‘progressive’ makes the assumption the end goal is a positive one. The use of lexicon is far easier than actually proving the merits of the end goal, or actually having a positive outcome for other stakeholders. Another example may be the increasing liberalization of marriage, such as the push for gay and lesbian marriage. Gay marriage is often put forward by the left as ‘progressive’, but the left never really prove this outcome as being the one more beneficial to society at large. They simply assume this to be so and therefore define loosening the definition of marriage as one of progress. There was no analysis, no reason to come to this conclusion. It was simply assumed to be the case, that humanity would progress towards liberalism and this is how a society SHOULD advance. It is worth noting, that other spheres of politics also use this idea of a single, desirable outcome which is made out to be the only possible conclusion of a developing civilization. This can be seen in how urban sprawl, economic growth and development of vacant land is seen as inextricably linked with progress of humanity.

Another example, often casually brought up is the ‘inevitable’ mixing of the races. It’s often assumed that eventually there will be one race, and that somehow this is an inextricable part of progress. Again, there is no basis for this other than merely asserting that a particular ideology is the way forward. It also makes the rather ridiculous assumption that the 1.2+ billion Chinese and 1 billion Indians will somehow take in several hundred million immigrants of other ethnic groups and intermarry. This isn’t a statement of fact, or observation, as its only the Western world which sees such demographic shifts as ‘inevitable’, and only the Western world which believes this to be inevitable, or even necessary. This is simply a statement which reveals political bias, and perhaps personal bias against Westerners, Whites, Anglo’s or Europeans in general.

Undefined purpose:

One central tenet of most major religions is fatalism, or perhaps more accurately, the idea of a divine plan or other plan. Fatalism is the idea that existence and humanity exists for a particular, defined purpose. Whether that purpose is becoming more Godlike or making that religion universally followed, there is a purpose which is figuratively, or literally, written by the creator. It can also be a new age belief in destiny, in bringing higher degrees of spirituality. It can be a belief that evolution has an end goal, a final purpose or destination which humanity should be working towards.

Political Correctness takes this concept and applies it in a somewhat secular context. Defined purpose becomes liberalism, and those ideals which are progressive and work towards creating the liberal, left wing utopia are portrayed as being the outcome of social and political evolution. Competing and contrary ideas are considered regressive, which serve only to pull people away from the destined goal. Being a progressive implies knowledge about the future or knowledge of the ultimate end game for human existence. Like the prophets and seers of old, progressivism is some kind of revealed knowledge which would not normally be obvious or attainable. These revelations are then disseminated as gospel truth, to be protected from inquiry and heresy. Indeed, the zeal in which Political Correctness attacks those who hold contrary notions about what social progress involves, is evidence in and of itself, the lack of solid reasoning and scientific proof behind the assertions it makes.

Embarrassing?

Embarrassment is an emotional state experienced by people who have been caught, or witnessed, performing a socially unacceptable or absurd conduct, which reveals ones weaknesses and foibles otherwise desirable that others do not know exist. Embarrassment is also an emotion often reported by people in regard to political or social decisions that others have made. The embarrassment purportedly stems from being ‘caught’ belonging to a group which has acted in a socially or politically unacceptable manner. While personal embarrassment, such as being caught with ones pants down in public is an understandable and clear example; however, ‘group’ embarrassment is a little more complex.

A common critical argument used, by the left AND the right, but more so the left, is an expression of ‘embarrassment’ at the behaviour of other people in society, or their representative government or social figureheads. This is a common and often used ‘argument’ by the left. Expressions of ‘embarrassment’ that their nation might not pursue ‘progressive’ policy, or move towards ‘regressive’ policy. It can be embarrassment that fellow nationals have not embraced internationalism and still retain a sense of national and cultural identity. The choice to express ones dissatisfaction in terms of embarrassment is revealing. Embarrassment only exists when one is caught or witnessed, when one professes this sort of embarrassment, it is also an admission that one considers there to individuals present whose opinion will be affected. The question therefore remains. Who is witnessing? When one expresses embarrassment that their country hasn’t adopted left wing ideals, who exactly is judging? Their peers? This doesn’t make sense, as the person professing embarrassment clearly isn’t involved, and their peers would know that. And they would know that. Other nations? Perhaps, but considering that the Western world is largely the most ‘progressive’ (according to liberalism), again this makes little sense. More conservative nations (such as the rest of the world) would hardly think less. An alien civilization who is observing? Far fetched, but explains a bit more. The conscious universe? Who is this observer whose opinion has been affected is unknown, but it does reveal that there exists a sense of external consciousness, observing and judging. To feel judged, one must know the moral standard by which they are being judged. Therefore, the liberal who is embarrassed is unwittingly admitting belief in some sort of external moral framework, and someone, or something which is judging according to that framework. This ties in with the concept mentioned before of the assumed ‘divine plan’, or belief that existence itself has a conscious, or designed end goal. It is also further evidence that Political Correctness is indeed a religion.

Political Correctness’s underlying weakness here is that assertions are made which have no basis. Who says that left wing progressivism, or right wing progressivism is right? Where is the edict which states that we must grow economically, or continue to ‘develop’, or follow Marxist historical inevitability? Centuries of scientific inquiry have not revealed and planned or intended purpose, only unthinking laws. There is distinction between legitimate futures and illegitimate futures. Any future is permissible, and there is no entity outside humanity, aside from a belief in God, who has expectations as to where the human species SHOULD end up. Even Christianity as a religion is largely apolitical. Jesus did not engage in partisan politics.

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” – Mathew 22:21

Jesus was concerned with the next life, with God’s kingdom, NOT whether one votes Green or Nationalist or Independent. Whether nations remained as separate or distinct entities, or merged was irrelevant. One was not judged on their political convictions here on earth. Political Correctness fills that void and concerns itself with these questions, and forces a specific mode of thinking. It takes an almost ‘otherworldly’ revelation about what is right or wrong, and concerns itself with very earthly matters.

Conclusion

Perhaps the idea that there is no ‘preferred’ moral system in the universe makes people uncomfortable. The only universal moral system is the one that an individual will choose. The universe is morally indifferent, regardless of what happens to us, and doesn’t protect us from a ‘wrong’ decision, nor does it reward us for a ‘right’ one. Having faith that creation exists, with the intention of people reaching a state of living completely dignified and living comfortably provides emotional security. Being able to assert that ones political convictions are right, not just because they believe it so, but because some form of higher authority agrees, not only gives further comfort, but gives ones beliefs greater clout.

Political Correctness, while not the only political ideology which acts as if it is derived from a higher source, is one of the most prominent ones. Cold, hard analysis shows that what PC asserts, and what it demands of us is not based on accumulated knowledge, trial and error and precedent, but bald assertions and assumptions. In place of facts, faith is substituted. Where objective and open analysis should be, close minded dogmatism exists. People who take it upon themselves to promote and enforce Political Correctness rely on others to take for granted, the very basis of the source of their beliefs. They rely on people taking at face value, the moral superiority of their ideological position, or failing that, fear of being ostracized as some kind of ‘heretic’, a small minded bigot working against a noble cause. The “burning at the stake” of Brendon O’Connell is just one example.

The fact remains that there is no solid basis for progressives to define what ‘progress’ is other than personal opinion. There is no valid argument which states which direction civilization must head towards. There are no other successful civilizations on other planets which we can observe and make inferences from, so there is no external yard stick. Liberalism claims to hold a morality which propels humanity forward, but there is no precedent for this, no evidence that this is true.

In fact, if anything, Liberalism and Political Correctness is demonstratively fatal towards healthy societies. A fact which is masked with oppression of any point of view, or speech or even thought which would mention this flaw. If it could be widespread, that the basis for Political Correctness is nothing more than opinion; no more sacrilegious than a cult; has no more authority than any individuals own personal bias; would go a long way towards removing the corruptible and oppressive influence that Political Correctness has. By simply refusing to acknowledge its largely unsupported moral basis, it loses relevance. The emperor has no clothes. Nothing more needs to be done than to simply act and speak as if this so.

Tags: Ideology, Nationalist Alternative, Original Sin, Political Correctness, Progressives, Revisionism, Western Ideals
Posted in Articles | Comments Off

A Consideration of Value and Money in Society

Tuesday, July 21st, 2009

Part I of Nationalist Alternative’s Economics Series
“A Consideration of Value and Money in Society”

by Michael Kennedy

On what ‘Value’ means

Money can be seen as a representation of the inherit value of human labour, thought and of raw materials. Money itself is a conceptual tool created in order to quantify the value of goods and services which are traded. Currency can be considered as the form that money takes, whether dollars, pounds, beads, gold or poker chips.

Understanding the relationship between money and conceptions of value is vital in understanding broader economic trends, and the impact that those trends have on society.

Monetary value exists quite simply because there is a desire or a need for something that is not freely available. This object or service can only come about through labour, manipulating materials or from the minds creative process. Food has value to us because it is useful to us, it sustains life, stops hunger and is enjoyable. Its monetary value however comes from the fact that food is not freely available. It must be grown, transported, picked, cooked, stored etc. That is, in order for food to be available someone must use their intellect, labour and their materials. Air on the other hand, is so freely available and abundant, that nothing at all needs to be done to have it. Therefore, despite the fact that one would die faster without air than without food, air might have value to life, but monetarily it is worthless. A portion of air does not represent any labour or thought and the materials are too abundant to require any labour or thought to acquire. Though the gases that air comprises of do have value, you cannot sell air. The only air that is sold, is air that has been manipulated, either filtered air or compressed air and the value is increased because of the processing and addition of a storage container.

The three sources of value:

There are three common sources of value. Intellect, labour and materials. Intellect is the thought processes which either create new tools or objects, new structures, or the process by which materials are manipulated to create objects which are useful to people. Labour is the manipulation of matter and energy to provide goods and services of value, and materials is the matter and energy used and the final products.

Money is a means of exchange, essentially an intermediary between objects of value. While bartering goods is essentially identical to paying for goods with money, bartering has limitations. Namely that it is harder to value objects and services consistently and fairly and that bartering requires one to store the goods they are bartering with, and hope the providers of goods and services they require will accept their goods as payment. A child care worker for instance, would not be able to barter his or her services with a plumber who has no children. A farmer who grows fruit seasonally would come across difficulties because essentially he or she only has wealth so long as the fruit keeps.

Money becomes the intermediate storage of value, and it becomes the promise of goods and labour in the future. The farmer with seasonal fruit can offload the fruit, acquire money which essentially is a store of value, and then exchange that value stored in the money for goods and services at a future point in time, at his discretion. In these simplistic scenarios, we highlight that money, or more specifically, the currency, has a fixed value and that money is a tool used to encapsulate that value by representing value in a specific quantity of currency. So a shirt sells for $60 because $60 is the quantity of money (in dollars) which the seller believes represents the value of the materials, the labour put into the materials and the intellectual effort expended in order to create the shirt. The profit margin is really nothing more than an over valuation of the labour and intellectual effort behind the product or service. This is an over valuation which the customer is willing to accept and which the seller can use to expand their wealth and their business capabilities.

To go back to the barter example to make this point clearer, if a farmer with oranges was to trade his fruit with an apple farmer who for some reason REALLY wanted an orange, the orange farmer would be able to get more apples than usual for the trade. This might seem irrational but is in fact perfectly logical because valuation is a personal judgement that varies from person to person. As we by nature will seek the most desirable outcome, we are willing to spend large quantities on drugs if we are addicted to them, because the ‘cost’ of not having the next fix is greater than the cost of getting the drugs. Someone with an expensive drug habit, even if it is alcohol has made the decision that the experience of drinking, or avoiding abstinence is worth a large portion of their labour.

The example mentioned previously regarding the shirt shows an idealistic scenario where the buyer is aware of the true value of the shirt and is free to make the decision. In reality, this is rarely the case, as corporations collude to restrict choice, as they obscure knowledge about the product and monopolies arise which can essentially create a scenario where the customer cannot have any say in judging the worth of the product or service being supplied by the monopoly. Microsoft for instance, by engaging in monopolistic practices, has managed to dominate the PC market by making sure it is the ONLY software company distributing operating systems pre-installed on PC’s. Ignorance of alternatives leaves people with the false conclusion that the prices charged are necessary, and Microsoft’s advertising and PR statements, by creating fear, uncertainty and doubt about other products create in peoples minds a distorted and incorrect framework by which they judge the value or the worth of the product. This can occur at smaller levels too, with small businesses, agents and independent sellers taking advantage of the poorer bargaining position the buyer is in. There are many examples as such, i.e., any product advertised by creating fear in the customer that choosing a competitors product will lead to undesirable outcomes or any product sold at extraordinarily high prices because it is in shortage. A housing market bubble created due to shortages, or perceived impending shortages is another clear example.

The issuing of money

Much has been said about how central banks can seemingly issue money from thin air. Many point to this as some form of global scam, or sleight of hand. While the conditions by which the money is issued, and the quantity issued is certainly open to criticism, the fact that the money supply is increasing and that money comes seemingly from thin air is perfectly logical.

In any growing society, valuable goods and services are created. People are born, and with them come the capacity for labour, invention and the creation of new goods and services. Materials are extracted from the earth, processed and used to manufacture goods which are of greater use than the raw materials that comprise them. Human labour combined with materials creates useful products and services of value where none existed before. The fact is, the vast quantities of food produced, cities, technology, knives, clothes, automobiles, roads, statues, toothbrushes, art, and music all seemingly came out of thin air. Settlements were built where little else existed. A deposit of copper ore has limited value to people because of its limited usefulness, but processing that copper ore can create electrical cabling which is of far greater use. This ore is dug from the ground, turned into wire, and this copper wire enters the economy. This wire which did not exist as part of the economy is introduced into the economy.

As money is a representation of value and wealth, as the wealth increases, extra money must be issued into the economy to be used as an intermediary. The money is backed by the goods and services within the economy, which theoretically can increase indefinitely. Therefore, the mental tool used to represent the value within the economy, money, must be able to keep up. Currency appears to be issued from thin air because from casual observation, items enter the economy from thin air. Having currency backed by gold only backs one object with theoretical value, with another object of theoretical value of which there is a finite amount. The confusion comes from a lack of distinction between money and currency. Money is an intellectual construct whereby value can be quantified and where a trade can be carried out in two stages, where an employee provides labour for the economy, receives money which is a promise of access to future goods and services and then later uses that money to redeem those goods and services. Currency is the physical, or paper or electronic representation of money, the actual dollars used, or the actual gold. Currency does not need to have intrinsic value and only really has value because of a universal recognition that this item can be used to trade valuables for other valuables. Gold is no exception, though it is more useful than paper notes, but not because gold bullion is useful, but because gold is useful in the manufacture of electronic components. Gold however has been considered valuable in the Old World universally and historically, for quite a long period of time. Gold is the only precious metal available in alluvial form and which can be extracted from the ground in a metallic state instead of an ore. This, and it’s lustre, malleability (useful in making jewellery) and long standing reputation as a precious metal, a symbol of wealth and status has ensured that gold remains valuable.

The concept of value extended

If human beings were so simple as to only require goods, services and materials then we could fairly easily qualify what goods are of value and what aren’t.You could rely on a vast centrally planned economy like in some Communist examples (Chile) to describe and set an enormous array of prices, in one document for any conceivable good, service or material. In reality, the situation is far more complex. People need more than just bread, water and shelter and certainly people want more than just mere survival. People desire status, entertainment, desirable surrounds, security, social bonds, contentment, among many other things. In a simple economy, money acts as an intermediary for trade between tangible goods and services. As an intellectual construct it serves this purpose, but psychologically speaking the distinction people draw between the value of a potato grown from the ground, and the value of a house which has a view is somewhat vague. The monetary system is quite simply not suited to deal with the complexities of the human mind and the way the mind assigns value.

So far, we have looked at wealth creation through the introduction of goods and services into the economy which did not exist. However, as we have become accustomed to using money as a panacea to assign value, we have also used money to represent other more ambiguous forms of value.

The house by the beach cost a fixed quantity of money to build, however upon being sold, the price paid does not reflect the actual value of the house, but rather the perception of value. If beach front property becomes more popular, then people can be convinced that is of greater value. To a degree this is true; however it is not true in the same way that cotton in the form of a shirt is of greater value than a cotton plant. The former is temporary, a mental construct from based on perceived changes in value due to competitive pressures or social standing, the latter represents an increase in value to the economy which is tangible and usable.

So the increase in housing cost as witnessed in the early years of the 21^st century led to the following scenario. A fixed item, in this case the house, demanded a greater proportion of goods and labour in order to acquire it even though the house in question essentially remains unchanged. This is a different scenario to the once off profit made when an item is given a fixed value. Someone purchasing a house for $250,000 and then selling the exact same property in the roughly the same condition for $450,000 would claim they have ‘made’ $200,000 dollars. But wealth is created through the intellectual and physical labour of people, and the creation of goods. Earlier it was discussed that food grown, ore extracted and services rendered enter the economy from ‘thin air’. Here we have another value which enters the economy from thin air, the perception of the increase in value of an item of static value. However, unlike goods and services, which you can see, touch, buy or at least make measurable use of, this value is purely theoretical.

What ‘wealth’ is created here? The answer is none, though modern economic systems allow one to use that wealth and convert it into goods and services. In this scenario someone hasn’t made wealth, but rather appropriated money, the promise of future goods and services, without inputting the equivalent value of goods and services back into the economy. This is essentially how people can ‘make a living’ without working, and many people who are taken in by this allure of ‘wealth creation’ do not understand that there is no wealth creation, but rather it is appropriating wealth which existed elsewhere. The financial systems in place, have allowed such a transaction to take place. So the seller sells the house and the buyer is put into a position where they must input more into the economy than was originally required. As this increase in value also is considered an increase in value of the total value of the state, an asset bubble can lead to additional money being issued into the economy and in wealth being stored in property. Given this situation, the bubble must be maintained to prevent economic problems caused by the re-evaluation of the asset in question, and as the bubble cannot grow indefinitely, the conditions for an inevitable crash are created.

The important point is that people do not draw distinctions between a micro-economy growing due to the creation of wealth, and a micro-economy growing to people perceiving a rising value. As money is missed into the economy to accommodate for the inflating value of static items such as properties, or shares in a company who’s performance has not substantially altered, this money is backed by very little other than the whims of the market. With nothing more than a change in opinion, this value can disappear and the value that entered the economy, also disappears. The money that was issued to facilitate these transactions remains, so we are left with more money representing an economy of less value. The value of the currency adjusts accordingly and inflation occurs.

No free lunch

To illustrate the following point, assume there are two nations on an island. Nation A enjoys a high standard of living. The people who live within this nation are relatively productive, civilised, tend not to commit many crimes and create a pleasant society. Nation B has a lower standard of living. Nation B has higher crime, greater disparity between rich and poor, is dirtier and has less developed infrastructure. The people in nation B are just as productive as nation A, but tend to maintain and accept, a much lower standard of living. Whereas people in nation A expect low population densities, people in nation B are more tolerant of crowding. People are free to move from one nation to the other and the two nations trade with each other. People in nation A earn more than nation B.

The first obvious point is that citizens of nation A are much less likely to move to nation B, than vice versa. The second one, is that due to the better quality of life in nation A, nation A is of greater value, that is, the home environment is of greater value because it is more desirable. This form of intrinsic value is often unmeasured and disregarded, and not considered as the measurable value held in the economy is, particularly in the “modern” Western World.

A contemporary real life counter example is the small Asian nation of Bhutan, where a former King of Bhutan, King Jigme Singye Wangchuck coined the phrase “Gross National Happiness” in 1972. This index is a collection of various measurable and qualitative factors such as political, social and mental wellness, among others. While all these factors essentially become qualitative when factored into an index, it can be argued that the intrinsic value in living in such a society would increase or decrease more or less in line with such an index. This index is considered so important, that the new constitution adopted in 2008 states that government programs must be measured by the happiness they produce, and not by the economic benefits that might arise.

Recently, this index has been falling, paradoxically due to economic growth. British economist Sir Richard Layard who has specialised in the Nation’s happiness index states

“There’s a lot of evidence that a rather cohesive societies often experience falls in psychological well-being when they go into economic take-off.”

While this might appear counter intuitive, what is happening is that the intrinsic value in their social structure, their culture and way of life is being sacrificed at the expense of more immediate economic value. This is occurring largely due to increasing commercialisation, which may be beyond the control of Bhutan’s government. Value in one area (the economy) is growing at the expense of value elsewhere (value of culture, of the traditional lifestyle). In the economic sphere, there appears to be growth, but at the other side of the equilibrium is the loss of quality of life, the loss of happiness and contentment, something often ignored. Has the overall value of the nation increased? Or has the wealth and value of the nation simply been transformed and moved elsewhere?

Back to the example of nations A and B, people running companies in nation A might realise that people in nation B are working the exact same jobs, and being just as productive, yet willing to accept a much lower wage. Companies in nation A then engage either in off shoring and outsourcing, or recruiting citizens of nation B to live and work in nation A. The citizens move to nation A and allow the companies to increase their profits. A familiar scenario for anyone who lives in the western world. The government of nation A exclaims that this is good for the economy, as companies are making more money and driving up the stock market and the population generally agrees.

However, gains such as these don’t come for free. Someone has to pay, somewhere, somehow. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Citizens of nation B move to nation A to certain areas and those areas start to become more and more like the areas found in nation B. Working conditions in nation A lower as its citizens have to compete with nation B Like the equilibrium discussed earlier, the apparent economic gains made by nation A, are mitigated by the loss of quality of life, of the peoples well being and happiness. This loss then directly translates into financial terms, as some suburbs lose value, as peoples wages lower, as lack of job security prevents people establishing loans and so forth.

The value of the area drops, and the value, or quality of life drops as well. Job security drops as jobs disappear overseas and competition for jobs and space increases. Crime increases, wages are lowered or curbed, forcing citizens of nation A to compromise their quality of life. Essentially, to allow economic gain in one area of the nation (within the companies balance books), a cost has been borne elsewhere, amongst the citizens of the nation.

At its most basic level, a financial transaction has taken place. The quality of life that one would normally expect to afford for their particular income is lowered, as the income which others can gain, is increased. Because the correlation between these two is abstract, a direct link is rarely made and people just see it as social progress. The economic progress experienced by some is made possible by others accepting corresponding regressions. Value has been transferred from one entity (the community) to another. The problem with this transaction is that it is usually done without the full understanding of the community, or their consent.

Another example would be changes to urban planning to allow for greater population density. While greater population density can lead to savings in building infrastructure, these savings are negated by the lower quality of living in high density areas. Subdividing property can seem to increase the value of land, but the increase in density leads to additional costs.

Good economic policy must look not merely at dollars and cents, but the total value of the nation which goes far beyond things which are held as being traditionally of monetary value. Changes in living conditions, in the demographic make up of the country, in the quality of life actually have very real economic impacts in ways which are overlooked.

Looking at the bigger picture

If you only look at the dollars and cents of any national economy, you are only looking at a portion of the equation. By only looking at a portion of the equation, what can appear to be a boom in reality isn’t when non-fiscal ramifications of economic policy are taken into account. These aspects are usually the most important to people, as a good economy is only useful in that it provides a better standard of living. To have economic growth and greater profit at the expense of living standards is counter productive. Taking as an example, the off shoring of employment to other nations where a lower standard of living is maintained, and thereby lower wages, might appear good policy in terms of direct measurable metrics, it comes with a sacrifice which negates any financial advantage. From a nationalist perspective, this arrangement is undesirable as it is a transfer of opportunity out of the nation into another nation for the benefit of what is usually a handful of individuals.

The economic systems and conventions that a nation adopts should first and foremost be those which allow the nation the greatest opportunity to improve living conditions. The economic system and conventions, much like the concept of money itself, must remain tools which serve the people, rather than systems requiring the servitude of the people.

“The economy is not an end in itself. It is an element in the life of societies, among the principal ones but only one element”
http://www.developments.org.uk/articles/bhutan-where-happiness-outranks-wealth/

http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=40,8113,0,0,1,0

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/11/14/consumed5_mmr_1
“Bhutans falling Happiness Index”

Tags: Articles, capitalism, commerce, economics, happiness, money, Nationalist Alternative, society, value
Posted in Articles | Comments Off

Nationalist Alternative