[Editor’s Note: It is timely that this discussion at Occidental Observer is taking place. Many who advocate for an ethnic region for Whites, an Ethno-State, are filled with the emotional fervor of the proselyte; yet few have any idea of the intrinsic mechanics. In similar fashion, this has also been dealt with here, and most certainly will require much understanding by the common man and woman.
In such an environment as we find ourselves in, every person must be educated and animated with the philosophy of White Nationalism, for an uneducated electorate is not conducive to a thriving and striving Folk. If you don’t want to be led, then you must learn how to think, and struggle for the position of leadership.]
Little consideration is given to the economic foundations of a White ethno-state. While many in the Alt-Right know conceptually what an ethno-state should be like in the abstract sense of demographics, the minutia of public and economic policy to obtain or maintain such a state is lost. While not exhaustive, the following paper is intended to steer conversations into more concrete terms addressing the economy of a White ethno-state. That is, an anti-materialist economy that serves the nation, versus the nation serving the economy in materialistic capitalism and socialist-communism. A Third Position meshing of populist and socialism is proposed.
The demagogues on the left and right both use the terms populist and socialist to malign their political opponents. Populism has become synonymous with right-wing authoritarianism to the left. The same argument is used by conservatives to associate socialism with communism. Indeed, the populist primacy of the people and the socialist primacy of the class are seen as contradictory ideals. In reality, elements of populism and socialism can be complementary to one another in a dynamic economy. Socialism’s securing the welfare of the people and populism’s emphasis on the common man’s economic growth and interests are not antagonistic to one another, but complimentary.
To many, the concept of socialism is distinctly leftist. Historically, Socialism has been associated with Marxism and “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” This Marxist Socialism aims at the elimination of all hierarchy which is natural to man. Communism aimed at the flattening out of wages and elimination of class distinctions altogether.
Socialism’s modern form has taken on a much more egalitarian or cultural-Marxist form. Rather than a flattening of wages, the current mode aims to advance the interests of groups defined by their race or gender. Law schools and Officer Candidate Schools in the military give preference to minority applicants as if they would starve if they did not become a lawyer or lieutenant. A White contractor’s tax dollar goes to subsidize his competitors through the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and other affirmative action initiatives. Public funds are appropriated to the sexual reassignment surgery and AIDS treatment of prisoners. Cultural Marxism is the onslaught against all remaining Western values.
For most people, the only alternative to socialism/communism is free capitalism and classical liberalism. While the two ideologies are often portrayed as diametrically opposed, the dogma and psyche of their proponents are essentially the same, and often become precursors to one another. Communism and capitalism are both materialistic at their core. Communism and capitalism both believe that the state serves at the will of the economy and not visa-versa and both are inherently globalist—consider Marx’s belief that communism could only truly work on a global scale and the capitalist’s disdain for economic nationalism and desire for open borders. Today the Cultural-Marxist ideology of open borders (which will yield greater numbers for the coalition of the aggrieved) fits hand-in-glove with the open borders sentiments of capitalists desiring cheap labor.
Modern political discourse revolves around comparing everyone to Hitler. Liberals liken the inept attempts at traditionalism by Conservatives to Hitler, and Conservatives lob quips about Hitler being a socialist back at the left. This begs to question, was Hitler a Socialist? Yes, he was. Hitler was not a socialist in the Bernie Sanders welfare sense, but more in keeping with rationalism and traditionalism. The economic policies of National Socialism did not elevate the minority at the expense of the organic and indigenous majority, but instead benefitted and ensured the welfare of the Volk. Accordingly, National Socialism is a form of Right-Wing Socialism.
Right-Wing Socialism significantly predates Marx’s Socialism. British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (of Sephardic heritage) presented Right-Wing or “Paternalistic Conservatism” based on the notion that a people develop organically, and their values form the foundation of tradition and morality.(1) Disraeli correctly promulgated hierarchy as natural—a distinctly right-wing notion. This sense of duty from the bottom to the top and the top to the bottom of one’s people is both distinctly right-wing and distinctly socialist. Instead of dominating or revolting against one another, the English social classes remained intact. The peasantry, working class, bourgeois, and aristocracy had a duty to one another. Under Disraeli, England saw sweeping reform of industrial labor conditions, public health, and the environment.
Disraeli also collaborated with another Right-Wing Socialist, Otto Von Bismarck, to address the decline of the Ottoman Empire and rising Russian influence. Bismarck enacted policies of mandatory insurance for workers to care for illness, injury, aging, and retirement. He aimed at forming a bond and sense of loyalty among the various classes of The Reich.(2) Bismarck’s policies of state-socialism were populist as well. Bismarck supported the Germanization of minorities living on the fringes of the empire and expulsion of others. During the Long Depression, Bismarck enacted Protectionist policies by imposing tariffs on imports to support domestic agriculture and industry.
Right-Wing populism is gaining traction in America and the rest of the West. The sentiment that many Whites in the West feel correctly affirms that their countries have been sold out to international banking, globalism, and the ethnic and gender activists operating under the banner of cultural Marxism. The central tenet of Populism is the empowerment of the working and middle classes. The appropriate response of the West is economic nationalism (where the West itself is seen as a nation), ending immigration from non-Western countries and beginning the process of repatriation, and the establishment of a centralized financial system dedicated to economic nationalism.
Regarding the central bank, a central bank comprised of international investment bankers cannot possibly have the national interest in mind. Accordingly, I propose a state-bank that is run similarly to a Credit Union. Instead of the Fed determining interest rates based on the volume or value of loans, the interest rate will be determined based on the socioeconomic implications and goals set out by the state. Furthermore, the profits of the bank will be reinvested back into the state and subject to annual audit.
The declining percentage of Whites in America has roughly coincided with the decline in American manufacturing jobs. Whites have predominantly occupied manufacturing occupations in America dating back prior to even the Industrial Revolution and Civil-War. Under the current regime, White families have often been forced to sift from manufacturing jobs to lower paying jobs in the service and retail sectors. With hierarchical structure leading to greater opportunities to advance and better opportunities to unionize, it’s no wonder that manufacturing jobs pay an average 20% higher wage than service sector jobs. Additionally, Amazon and online shopping continue to kill retail jobs and the sales tax revenue of White suburbs.
There are two main causes of Western Europe’s demise at the hand of Moslem immigrants: the destabilizing of countries like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya as a direct result of U.S. foreign policy and the ideology of multiculturalism in which the political and cultural interests of the traditionally dominant White majorities have been denigrated. Socialism in any form is simply incompatible with open-borders and immigration. As Milton Friedman said, “It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state.” Open borders creates the problem of economic free-riders draining the system and only exacerbates immigration problems by encouraging more. A physical border armed by lethal and non-lethal means along with the means of deportation is wholly necessary to enact any facet of socialism. With closed-borders and immigration, the state is better able to enact socialistic programs that address public health, the environment, and social welfare.
The populist-socialist economy does not aim at the full-on nationalization or replacement of private sector healthcare. Rather, the goal is to supplant and fill in the holes or correct market failures in the existing system. Those with pre-existing conditions should be accommodated through the state plan, assuming they haven’t gamed the system by avoiding paying health insurance until they are ill. Financial incentives based on actual costs to the healthcare system could be built in to discourage unhealthy lifestyles—smoking, drinking to excess, obesity, etc.
The same incentivization process for state sponsored healthcare could be used for those who are applying for welfare. Under the current system, welfare recipients are required to show little to no effort to find employment and receive government assistance in the form of welfare, Section 8 Housing, and food assistance. To receive such assistance, people who are deemed physically capable of working would work—perhaps in public works programs if no other jobs are available—in order to benefit from assistance programs. Such labor could include ditch digging, reforestation, stream and litter cleanup, to the laying of roads. The goal of this program is to develop a work ethic and esprit de corps in the nation while getting the taxpayer some measure of ROI on their money.
In the same vein, I propose a Third New Deal. This jobs program will be largely centered on America’s lagging transit and transportation infrastructure and environmental sustainability. For example, a “green jobs” program could target those in declining industries like coal to retrain them on the construction of wind farms. This jobs program will create a new demand for environmental and civil engineers. Additionally, those on welfare programs will earn their subsidence along with the incarcerated. The creation of work camps for criminals will focus on the production of public goods and occupy the majority of the prisoner’s day in compensation of the victim(s) and society to house, feed, and clothe lawbreakers. Those physically able who refuse to work will be given the cheapest-most meagre rations and living quarters.
Progressive tax policy will continue in the populist-socialist economy. Those with the greatest ability to pay, will do so. However, given the declining birthrate among Whites, government intercession is necessary in tax policy. Tax policy would give tax breaks and grants for children based on the number of children and their ability to afford their family size. For instance, a household with an income of $150,000 could be given a tax rebate equal to 4 children, while a household with an income of $100,000 could be given credit for 3 children. Such a policy promotes larger White families while keeping White kids off the state’s welfare system.
The populist-socialist economy is dynamic in that its interventionism is dictated by the ebbs and flows of the economy. The populist-socialist economy has certain tradeoffs its willing to make when dealing with the unintended consequences of interventionism. Some of these priorities are: (1) the deflation of inelastic goods (i.e., goods, such as basic necessities, that do not show less demand as price increases; (2) prioritization of full employment over the inflation of elastic goods; (3) economic independence and self-sufficiency to the greatest extent possible with regard to imports; and (4) a positive or at least neutral trade balance. As Whites in America are a dwindling majority, whatever enhances and swells the size of the middle class—the majority of Americans by definition, is good for Whites in America. Thus, populism promotes the middle-class interests while socialism protects the middle class from the volatility of boom and busts cycles in the market economy.
What I propose in the populist-socialist blended economy is the primacy of the people, security of the underclass, and welfare of the nation. The state acquisition of industry and private property is not proposed here, but rather the flattening of the wage gap through regulation and incentives. The present economy forsakes the White middle and working classes at the expense of the under and the top 1%. The police officer, infantryman, factory worker, and farmer are to be exalted not just notionally, but practically as well. And most of all, a populist-socialist economy gives the state the tools necessary to intervene for the survival and prosperity of the White ethno-state.