- Counter-Currents - https://counter-currents.com -

The Color of Capitalism

[1]1,698 words

I’m no economist. I don’t know whether the gold standard [2] is a silver bullet or an anachronistic and deflationary hustle. I don’t quite understand how “social credit” would work.

My general feeling is that the money question is a secondary one, as a number of economic strategies have been shown to work when competently implemented on populations which start off with sufficient “human capital.”

Conversely, no economic strategy is going to work when the people entrusted to implement it are integrally hostile to us: When Jeffrey Dahmer is your surgeon, none of the surgical tools on the table are going to improve your prognosis.

When I was working within the system [3] to pass an illegal immigration bill in Indiana, I found out the hard way that agribusiness and other industries relying on the exploitation of illegal immigrants were the real opponents. Groups like La Raza and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus play a peculiar and seemingly treasonous role (treasonous to their own people, that is) in being paid to help perpetuate a system where the people they’re supposed to be representing are able to invade here but only as a helot laboring caste. There’s no money in either granting them amnesty or deporting them, so the nativists and invaders are sure to remain frozen in the current stalemate.

If anything, we nativists might be smart to focus more narrowly on the issue of birthright citizenship, as the capitalists would probably find the idea of an hereditary helot laboring caste appealing. While America’s Jewish oligarchy actively promotes our dispossession for their own well-documented reasons [4], America’s nascent New Right must also consider how capitalism and the mercantile morality it projects also pose a grave threat to tribe, tradition, and transcendence. Forgive me for quoting a prominent anti-White Jewish ideologue, but I’m afraid Noam Chomsky said it best:

Understanding Power, by Noam ChomskySee, capitalism is not fundamentally racist — it can exploit racism for its purposes, but racism isn’t built into it. Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist — just because its anti-human.

— Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky [5]

Capitalism is surely an effective method of acquiring wealth and power in a mature civilization, but when capitalists themselves truly seize control, they’re guaranteed to attack and undermine a civilization’s very foundations in search of profit. The East Asian nations, most prominently China, seem to have arrived at an effective model wherein an indigenous managerial elite rely on a sort of national capitalism, a market which is pretty much unregulated save for where the profit motive is trumped by the interest of the state. The increasingly wealthy capitalists may sooner or later translate their wealth into the power necessary to challenge the Communist Party’s hegemony, but it appears to be working well so far for the Chinese state, if not necessarily for the Chinese workers.

One who’s not an auto mechanic or engineer would be presumptuous and potentially self-defeating to insist that the car’s engine be designed a certain way. But when shopping for a car, one still needs to have a clear idea of the car’s purpose. While I do plan to study economics in more depth in the future, I don’t need to have done so in order to define how a Radical Traditionalist worldview impacts the economic realm. For example, a hierarchical and anti-egalitarian worldview is compatible with income inequality — even extreme income inequality. However, there is necessarily an upper constraint on how much capitalists can make and what that capital can purchase. To set no limit on that is to guarantee that wealthy oligarchs will amass the power necessary to replace the beneficent indigenous elites with their apparatchiks.

The elites do not owe the subjects happiness or abundance. As stewards, what they really owe them good health, defense, justice, continuity of culture and tradition, and a future. By this metric, North Korea’s admittedly problematic Kim dynasty [6] exceeds America’s oligarchy. North Koreans [7] may struggle in the present, but the future existence of the North Korean people has not been imperiled. While their abilities to express themselves and innovate have been inappropriately curtailed, they’re encouraged to celebrate their culture and identity. Future generations of North Koreans will likely have harsh criticisms of the Kim dynasty, but they’ll actually be around to express those criticisms.

As is so often the case with Jews, Chomsky’s creativity lies primarily in creative destruction. He very effectively deconstructs the strategies Western elites have exploited to control their minions both at home and abroad. His analytical powers mysteriously escape him when  the topic changes to getting specific about the individuals and institutions actually doing what he so vividly outlines. His analytical powers also escape him when the topic changes to action. Like Alex Jones and others throughout the political spectrum who rail against “the elites” while also railing against “antisemitism,” their action items are either absent altogether or laughably underdeveloped.

Chomsky claims that “The consistent anarchist, then, should be a socialist, but a socialist of a particular sort. He will not only oppose alienated and specialized labor and look forward to the appropriation of capital by the whole body of workers, but he will also insist that this appropriation be direct, not exercised by some elite force acting in the name of the proletariat.” In summary, the workers of the world should sort of take back the wealth and power in a disorganized manner, trusting one another to equitably share whatever spoils they reap from the capitalists. If you’re struggling to imagine how this would actually work in practice, you’re not alone.

Ideologically consistent leftists are completely paralyzed when it comes down to action items because they deny human nature in favor of idealized abstractions and because their biases and taboos preclude naming the most influential and organized oligarchy of all. Occupy Wall Street’s unifying meme — opposing “the 1%” — is a deliberate act of self-censorship by those who know who the capitalist oligarchs are and an admission of ignorance by those who don’t. Humans exist in tribes and are directed by elites as surely as geese exist in flocks which organize and act in a predictable manner. Humans don’t exist in percentiles, and you can’t fight a revolution against an ephemeral statistical artifact.

While the pursuit of wealth can be and often is a positive force, capitalists can’t be entrusted with sovereign power. They’ll construct treaties to enrich themselves rather than the nation. They’ll exploit the military to defend their infrastructural investments abroad. They’ll construct laws and regulations which are anti-competitive, kicking the ladder away once they’ve reached the top. They’ll keep a boot firmly on the necks of our workers and pit them in a competitive race to the bottom against illiterate and impoverished migrant laborers at home and sweatshop laborers abroad. They’ll chop down the forests and even the mountains [8] in search of wealth, dumping the waste products in our rivers and lakes.

R. L. Dabney, a prominent Presbyterian theologian who defended traditional Southern traditions and institutions in the wake of the Civil War, asserted that “American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward to perdition.” Unfortunately, American conservatism’s embrace of “free markets” and “free trade” exposes it as more than a mere shadow of Radicalism. In this way, it’s just as destructive to tribe, tradition, and transcendence as American liberalism.

Samuel T. FrancisCapitalism, an economic system driven only, according to its own theory, by the accumulation of profit, is at least as much the enemy of tradition as the NAACP or communism, and those on the “right” who make a fetish of capitalism generally understand this and applaud it. The hostility of capitalism toward tradition is clear enough in its reduction of all social issues to economic ones. Moreover, like communism, capitalism is based on an essential egalitarianism that refuses to distinguish between one consumer’s dollar and another. The reductionism and egalitarianism inherent in capitalism explains its destructive impact on social institutions. On the issue of immigration, capitalism is notorious for demanding cheap labor to undercut the cost of native workers. But it is not only in America that it has done so.

— Samuel T. Francis

America’s New Right movement can and should consider a variety of economic theories, but allowing the merchants to control the state and dictate its policies is incompatible with our shared ideals. Many of America’s paleoconservatives identified this problem, but were generally unwilling to challenge the Enlightenment ideals which were designed by and for our mercantile elites. A radical departure from contemporary orthodoxy is absolutely necessary to restore what we’ve lost, conserve what little remains to conserve, and chart a course to a future we belong in. This includes a rejection of not only the farcical extreme egalitarianism of today, but the abstract egalitarianism of our founding fathers and their founding documents. This even includes a rejection of democracy, a system which empowers the capitalists to buy up voting blocs in the same way equity firms buy up shares of corporations in the course of a hostile takeover.

Many White Advocates would prefer to limit the scope of our work to merely defending White identity and interests without indulging in such “extremism.” They argue that rejecting capitalism isn’t going to make it easier to get along with Tea Party voters. Rejecting democracy isn’t going to play well within our democratic political process. Both indigenous capitalists and Jewish elites are integrally anti-White, and ridding ourselves of both will require a radical departure from the mainstream. Our goals are not possible within this system. It will require a disciplined and determined vanguard capable of understanding, embodying, and conveying the radical transformation which will be necessary to challenge and replace the regnant oligarchy. I don’t really care what type of economic system will be preferred on that fine day when we take control, just as long as it’s being implemented by and for our nation and our state.