Nationalist Economics Bulletin

Week of December 27, 2005



1. The global neoliberal economic order continues to slowly crumble.
This
bulletin has warned before that a) this model depends, when push
comes to
shove, upon American power, and b) this power is crumbling in Latin
America,
leading to defections by neo-socialist governments like that of Hugo
Chavez
in Venezuela. Since we started these warnings, the neo-socialist
tide has
spread to Bolivia and Peru, and threatens to go continent-wide as
Venezuelan
oil money is poured into financing leftist parties in the region.
Now comes
the clearest sign yet that these governments are serious about
repudiating
global neoliberal capitalism: the government of Venezuela has given
an
ultimatum to the American oil giant Exxon Mobil accept new profit-
sharing
terms or forfeit its giant oil reserves in the country.

If this precedent spreads, it is obvious that the global capitalist
dream of
a seamless world-wide framework of secure property rights for foreign
investments, sometimes unkindly called the divine right of capital,
is over.
And without that, they can't get the untrammelled flow of capital
around the
world that they want, which means a one-world unified capitalist
economy
simply isn't going to happen. Even those Latin American nations whose
revolt against the existing economic order has been more mild, like
Brazil
and Argentina, have repudiated key pieces of it. Argentina's
Kirchner, for
example, has repudiated the guidance of the International Monetary
Fund, a
lynchpin of the neoliberal order. Economic globalism has peaked, and
is now
running backwards, just as it did after the previous peak of (paleo)
liberal
economics, just before WWI.



<http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4544390.stm> Click
here for
related story on the BBC website



2. The above being said, let no-one imagine that socialism is going
to work
any better in 2006 than it did in 1976. That is why the BNP does not
advocate socialism anymore, except for physical and social
infrastructure,
like roads, schools, and hospitals. The Latin Americans rebelling
against
global capitalism will eventually discover that socialism is still a
dead
end, and they will be forced to admit something that is already
obvious to
economic nationalists like the BNP:



This isn't so much an anti-capitalist revolt as an economic-
nationalist
revolt.



In truth, what Venezuela and the others are really revolting
against, is not
capitalism as such. It is the fact that foreign multinational
corporations
are getting the profits, not their own people. Despite the Marxist
rhetoric
spewing from the old-time leftists who are leading the charge, it is
quite
clear that if the oil and gas were being extracted by privately-owned
companies operating in a free market, but 100% of their shares were
evenly
distributed among the populace of these countries, nobody would be
revolting
against anything. In other words, this is really about economic
nationalism: about not letting foreigners walk off with natural
wealth that
belongs to the people. And not just economic nationalism, but the
kind of
populist economic nationalism (which defines the economic interest
of the
nation as the economic interest of the nation's people, not of the
nation's
capital, a bastard version) that the BNP espouses. So, while we have
little
sympathy for the violent, trouble-seeking, terrorist-loving,
hammer-and-sickle waving, anti-white agenda of the neo-socialists of
Latin
America, we do take their revolt as evidence that our policies are
the wave
of the future.



<http://www.hacer.org/current/Boli034.php> Click here for a story on
the
anti-white politics involved



But why don't these South American socialists openly embrace economic
nationalism, if that's what they're really about? Because, as per
usual,
greedy socialist politicians are using the bait of wealth-
redistribution to
con the populace into turning control of the economy over to them.
State
socialism is, at bottom, always a power-grab by socialist
politicians, who
pretend that state ownership is somehow, magically, worker
ownership. But
it is not the same thing at all. Real worker ownership, which the BNP
espouses, means ordinary workers owning actual shares in the
companies they
work for, just like capitalists do. Not only is this real ownership,
but it
also enables the efficiencies of the free market and entrepreneurial
dynamism to continue, not be smothered by the dead hand of socialist
central
planning.



3. The other key factor at work in this Latin revolt is something
that
global capitalists prefer not to talk about: the racial dynamics of
capitalism. The fact that everyone tries to ignore is that the
capitalists
in Latin America are mostly whites descended from the Spanish
conquistadors
of the 16th century, while the lower classes are mainly descendants
of the
pre-1492 Indian populations, plus of black slaves in places like
Brazil that
had a slave economy. In some countries – our old enemy Argentina is
the
whitest – whites predominate demographically. In others, like
Bolivia, a
thin crust of rich white people sits uneasily upon a vastly more
numerous
native base.



In the language of Prof. Amy Chua's insightful book
<http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0099455048> World on Fire,
whites
in Latin America are a `market-dominant minority.' For various
reasons
(most of them obvious), in a capitalist economy, they tend to come
out on
top, especially under the extreme neoliberal capitalism that has
been tried
in the region since the end of the Cold War. In large part, Latin
America's
older tradition of heavy-handed paternalistic economics (which
wasn't neo-
or any other kind of liberal) was tacitly about a) compensating for
this
racial imbalance with a bit of income redistribution, and b) getting
the
state's hands tightly on the economy as a lever of social stability.
Neoliberalism has done away with both these things, and the resulting
political upheavals reveal revealing a crucial fact:



Neoliberal capitalism is ethnically untenable in large parts of the
world.




Such parts also include much of Africa, where certain tribes
dominate, and
places like Malaysia and Indonesia, where Chinese, not whites, are
the
wealthy few.



What is the significance of this for British nationalists? As
follows:



a. It shows the falsehood of the globalist fantasy that the
capitalist
economy can exist in some serene space, above the messy business of
actual
people, actual peoples, and nasty facts like racial conflict. This
is a
dream that only makes sense to yuppies who are so materialistic that
everyone they know, of whatever ethnicity, only really cares about
money.
But capitalism can't exist in a vacuum, as it depends, if nothing
else, upon
secure property rights, which depend in turn upon a stable political
system,
which requires communities that are not racked by ethnic conflict.
Race and
ethnicity matter, even if all you care about is money, because they
form the
basis of stable societies in which wealth is secure.



b. This fact reveals that, to a large extent, the Latin American
neo-socialist revolt is an ethno-nationalist revolt. Foreign ethnic
groups,
through their self-consciousness as peoples, bound by common ethnic
identity, have seized state power with the explicit aim of
challenging their
abuse by global capitalism. Although the indigenous people of Britain
could, in most ways, hardly be more different from the angry
peasants of
South America, the pattern, of a people's self-conscious realisation
that
global capitalism has no loyalty to it and cares naught for its
economic
interests, is unmistakably the same. No wonder globalists are
determined
to erase our consciousness of our identity as a people! It is indeed
a
threat to their plans to reduce us to a deracinated mass of
consumers, easy
to buy off with consumer trinkets and incapable of uniting against
them.



4. The fallout from Blair's sell-out on Britain's EU rebate
continues to
come in. The Democracy Movement has released a good list of six myths
(that's being polite; we'd say lies) he is trying to palm off about
the deal
he just struck:



Myth #1: `This deal is an investment in the future prosperity and
stability
of Eastern Europe.'

Reality: The extra £2.5bn per year 'investment' Tony Blair has
agreed to, on
top of the net £3.5bn Britain already pays every year to the EU,
would be
paid into EU coffers, not ring-fenced for any Eastern European
country.
Where the money subsequently goes to from EU accounts no-one
actually knows
for sure. The EU's own auditors have been unable to approve the EU's
accounts for an astonishing 11 years running. If we wish to invest
in the
future prosperity and stability of Eastern Europe or indeed anywhere,
deserving cases would get more of the money we and other countries
have to
offer if grants were made directly, rather than via a leaky,
expensively
administered central EU budget.


Myth #2: `The purpose of the budget is rightly to transfer resources
from
the wealthier west of Europe to the poorer east of Europe.'

Reality: This is not true. Rich countries will still receive the
most money
from the EU. Per head, the top three recipients of EU funds will
continue to
be old member
countries - Luxembourg, Belgium & Greece. Wealthy countries like
Ireland and
Belgium will continue to be net recipients from the budget. The EU's
budget
for 'administration' alone will be £34bn, rising 28% from current
levels. EU
law-making is to receive billions more in areas like 'justice & home
affairs', 'freedom security & justice' and 'the EU as a global
partner'
including 'a substantial increase in the Common Foreign and Security
Policy
budget'.

Myth #3: `The rebate will rise, not fall.'

Reality: Blair attempts to mislead that this is a success, by not
explaining
why this will happen. The rebate is a refund of a proportion of the
amount
we pay to the EU. It would only go up if our net payments to the EU
have
also gone up. And as Blair himself later confirms, our contribution
to the
EU `will increase by 63% over the next financing period in
comparison with
2000-2006.'

Myth #4: `It was right that the UK should contribute properly to
enlargement...we have to be ready to accept our fair share of the
costs of
that policy.'

Reality: Under the current arrangements, Britain already pays more
than its
'fair share' to the EU. Between 2000 - 2004, on average Britain paid
£3.5bn
per year more to the EU than we received back. Britain is currently
the
second largest net contributor to EU funds. By any standards, this
is a
'proper contribution' to the EU's costs - many say, already far too
much.
Yet Tony Blair has still agreed to a near doubling of the amount we
will pay
to over £6bn per year on average from 2007 onwards.

Myth #5: `We also agreed on a fundamental review of all aspects of
the EU
budget, including the CAP...it is then possible for changes to be
made to
this budget structure in the course of this financing period.'

Reality: First Tony Blair said that there would be no reduction of
Britain's
rebate without "reform" to the EU's wasteful Common Agricultural
Policy
(CAP).This was then watered down to a 'commitment' to reform. Now
all Blair
has secured is a 'review' of EU spending...in 2008. But those who
stood in
the way of CAP reform during these negotiations will still have
their veto
in 2008. And since the budget deal, they have confirmed that they
will not
support any change to the CAP before 2014. New member states, which
will
receive large payments from the CAP, will also become less willing
to reform
the policy.

Myth #6: `UK and French contributions will from 2007 for the first
time in
history be in rough parity.'

Reality: This is simply not true. Britain's net contribution between
2007-2013 will be £42bn - £6bn per year. France's will be £35bn.
Britain is
therefore paying a significant 20% more than France, despite our
economy
only being 6% bigger. Britain will also receive less EU money per
head than
any other EU member country - half what France will receive and a
quarter of
what Ireland will get.



<http://www.democracy-movement.org.uk/> Click here for the Democracy
Movement's web site



---------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
---------------



Copyright 2005 British National Party. <http://www.bnp.org.uk/>
http://www.bnp.org.uk



A summary of the BNP's main economic policies may be found here:



<http://www.bnp.org.uk/candidates2005/manifesto/manf9.htm>
http://www.bnp.org.uk/candidates2005/manifesto/manf9.htm



Past BNP Nationalist Economics Bulletins may be found here:




<http://www.bnp.org.uk/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi?
flavor=archive&list=bnpeconomic
s>
http://www.bnp.org.uk/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi?
flavor=archive&list=bnpeconomics



Responses to this bulletin, and questions about BNP economic
policies, are
welcomed at <mailto:economics@...> economics@... .