Print this post Print this post

Tradition Isn’t Socialism

2,589 words

Suppose you’re out there on social media and you’re arguing for nationalism. Suppose you make the argument that the activities of transnational gigacorporations undermine the health, security, and welfare of independent nations. Suppose you put forth an argument for state intervention on behalf of the health, security, and welfare of that nation against said gigacorporations. You’ll probably be hit with a barrage of cuckservative claptrap decrying “socialism.”

For reasons not quite clear to myself, I maintain among my social media contacts a good deal of normie-con Boomer and Gen-X Americans (the latter group insists on making the distinction). As a result, my feed is full of cringeworthy attempts at memeing, mostly revolving around the themes of “Hillary lies,” “Orange Man Good,” and “Democrats are un-American anti-Semites.” One particular type that annoys me to no end is the “AOC is dumb” type, probably because the Boomers posting it actually believe they’ve pwned Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Say what you will about AOC, but she is not dumb. Even if she is lacking in raw processing power, she has that kind of practical intelligence that gets you elected to Congress and makes you the face of the rising Woke Coalition at age 30. My own big three-oh is looming ever closer, and I’m starting to think that raw processing power ain’t all that it’s cracked up to be, especially compared to AOC-style demagoguery.

It’s bad, and it’s gonna get worse. Boss Boomer (you may know him as Donald Trump) himself successfully pivoted to anti-socialism as the chief plank of his platform after the Swamp proclaimed that it is mighty miffed by attempts to drain it. People aren’t sure if Orange Man is drinking the cuckservative Kool-Aid, or if it is a Machiavellian move in a political world where old people vastly outstrip youngsters in voter turnout – but then again, it doesn’t really matter. Ironically, he is the only Right-winger currently in America who has made headway on economic policy which puts nation over GDP and sovereignty over wealth. By imposing tariffs on America’s trading “partners,” he’s shaken up the underlying assumptions of the global order and won the beginning of a victory for America.

Tariffs, import quotas, restrictions – these are all methods of limiting foreign entities’ access to a nation’s domestic market. Employing them to deny an enemy – or even just rival entities – the ability to generate wealth for themselves on the domestic market is a step in the right direction, especially if such wealth is generated at the expense of domestic wealth generation, or worse yet, at the expense of the nation’s health (sometimes in a literal sense, as with fentanyl imports). Likewise, border security is another tool in the sovereign’s kit, and indeed, we can conceptualize lax border security as an in-kind subsidy to smugglers of all goods (and labor).

However, state borders aren’t the only dividing lines in our world. Most financial and economic literature only deals with market access as a phenomenon of international trade, but this is, I suppose, based on the wrongheaded assumption that trade is limited (or limitable) only between states. Internally, market access is assumed. Okay, not really. For example, if you want to work as a barber, you need a license from the state, which is to say that access to the hairstyling market is restricted from the supply side. Restrictions on the demand side are seen in vehicles, weapons, and similar – chiefly dangerous – goods (dangerous here in the sense of posing a threat to the regime; I am not allowed to purchase these 54 books from Amazon, and I believe they’re deliberately delaying delivery of one tome I bought way back in August). But this does not quite reflect the nature of market access limitations, as the process is ostensibly merit-based, and whoever fulfills the requirements can obtain that license. In reality, this is a perversion of market barriers to entry.

If there is one thing you’ll take away from this article, let it be this: People make economic decisions for non-economic reasons. This is the core red pill on economics. If we marry this to the Hegelian notion of “if it exists, it is reasonable” (which is to say that there is a reason for it, even if it is not necessarily a good one), we have developed an insight into economics that brings it into alignment as a field with the various strands of Dissident Right thought. Rather than make a fetish out of wealth and efficiency as the cuckservatives and lolbertarians, we take the (ironically Misesian) position that value is subjective and that what people want out of economic activity isn’t necessarily greater wealth, greater efficiency, or consumer goods.

For example, my current employment makes zero to negative economic sense. Despite (or maybe because) of my intellect, I am a bad worker. I am often late for work, and when I do arrive, I arrive with the insomniac’s world-contemptuous scowl overlaid against a stubbled jowl. I resolve office politics with threats of violence, and I’ve been known to disappear for hours on end, only to return in a state of mild inebriation. I write monograph-length critiques of TV shows from ten years ago during office hours. What value I do produce is mercilessly exploited, and my successes are due more to innate charisma and an ability to charm people into forgiving my worst offenses rather than effort or passion. You have to be either crazy or my mother to hire me – in fact, the latter is my employer. The poor woman’s business slaves on with a Nicholas R. Jeelvy-shaped elephant strapped to its back for one simple reason: Anything else means ceding control of the concern to a genetic line different from the one for whose upkeep the business was established. Without me and my brother, my mother’s business has no reason to exist, and for this reason, it will sacrifice its efficiency in order to keep us employed, and hopefully give us the necessary skills and experience to one day operate it. We do not make a fetish of profit, but rather, the business’ interests are subordinated to the family’s. Meritocracy is, in a sense, a morally bankrupt method of economic activity, paling in comparison with the sheer power of nepotism.

Gradually, genetic lines which are cohesive and which put kin before ability, insofar as they allow exceptionally talented non-kin to enter (someone has to do the actual work, after all) triumph. Take the Jews, for example. Much has been made of their in-group preference. In reality, I think that Jews mostly engage in nepotism, and that this nepotism looks like in-group preference as seen from the outside due to their low numbers and high degree of inbreeding. Every Jew is the genetic equivalent of third cousin to every other Jew – and most of the time, they really are cousins, nephews, and nieces to each other. I don’t believe the tales of exceptional Ashkenazi IQ. I do believe that nepotism is sufficient to explain their overrepresentation among the wealthiest and most powerful in the West.

Scaling up from the basic model of nepotism, we can see that familial and pseudo-familial links, as per J. Philippe Rushton’s genetic similarity theory, scale up to vast patronage networks, which are mostly based on kin- or pseudo-kin selection for entrance and advancement. These patronage networks straddle entire markets and industries. In many ways, these informal yet iron associations are the real economic superpowers of today. My essay on woke capital’s free option deals with one such example of a patronage network, based on woke ideology but coalesced around the Jewish Wojcicki family, which aside from having an interest in the Wikimedia foundation also managed to marry into Google’s management and ownership structure. The patronage network protects YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki and will make sure she is taken care of even if she nosedives the video-sharing platform. She therefore doesn’t have to make decisions with economics in mind, but rather can focus on what she really wants. From YouTube’s behavior, we can see that they want power for Leftism and the corporatization of the Internet. Economically, this is insane, as Styxhexenhammer will tell you in every other video, but it makes sense when viewed from other perspectives.

One thing that has to be understood if we’re going forward that this is, as the kids say, the absolute state of human economic activity. We win by strategically denying and granting access to markets we control depending on loyalty to ourselves. This is good advice for microeconomic behavior (as a general rule, loyalty is more valuable than ability) and a good way of looking at things at the macro level. Human economic life consists of a vast mesh of overlapping, competing, intersecting, cooperating, and ever-expanding patronage networks. To various degrees, they’re all a combination of the familial and ideological. They’re all concerned with limiting and granting access to various markets, or market segments that they control. Only once you’ve got your foot in the door and have entered the market does your ability to perform begin to matter. Libertarian cringe aside, the free market does indeed provide the best and most efficient solution among those on offer, and it will reward the best from those allowed to compete, but concerns relating to loyalty behoove us to disallow some from competing, even – and especially – if they’re liable to defeat the loyal in competition. Protectionism merely means valuing loyalty over ability and efficiency, given that it is a scaled-up version of nepotism.

The cuckservative-lolbertarian trope of “muh gubment interference in the economy” is therefore a dead end. Traditional society did not have a public sphere as we understand it. There was a King or an aristocrat who owned the land, there were yeomen who owned land, there was the church which owned land, and city-states – whether aristocratic as per the Ragusa model, or nominally subject to an Emperor, as those of the Hanseatic League – which owned land. Everyone else was their tenant, and economic life was entirely private. Disputes were resolved privately. The most hardcore of traditionalists decry the peace of Westphalia, which concentrated violence in the hands of the state and asserted their right to wage private war as lords, yeomen, Church, guild, or city-state. Yes, guilds. Yes, armed hanse. Yes, recreational McBattleships. Project Management Consultants are only the beginning.

The Hanseatic League could conquer market access for itself by force of arms. Minor medieval guilds could do that, too, and even though they operated under royal writ, many of them were more or less sovereign entities, especially in light of royal and noble disinterest in commercial matters (war and farming being the two professions fit for an aristocrat). A guild is a formalized patronage network seeking to restrict market access to insiders. More often than not, guilds would coalesce around familial cores.

We live in a degenerate phase of our civilizations. Following the Treaty of Westphalia, the power to compel was monopolized by the state as an entity. Guilds, hanses, and churches lost their military edge, and still the need to bar outsiders from protected markets persisted. Trade unions seek to restrict entry into specific labor markets on the supply side for the benefit of insiders. In days of yore, they might have used their own muscle; today, they have to rely on the government’s muscle (or take a blind eye to their own flexing). Chamber-like organizations are trade unions for yuppies. For example, I am a member of the Macedonian Bar Association. It means I am better than you, in the sense that better means “has the right to represent others in a court of law in the Republic of Macedonia, unlike you stinking peasants.” It also means that I kissed the right asses and paid the right fees (or rather, my mother did), and that gives me the right to enter that very lucrative market on the supply side. If you threaten my privileged position in this market by attempting to force your way into it without the guild’s stamp of approval, rough men in blue uniforms will give you a good going-over with billy clubs and boots, and cart you off to a prison for further humiliation. In better days, the bar would have had its own cadre of leg-breakers (although we would have probably called them lictors). In this degenerate age, we have to make do with cops and bailiffs.

Since the state has reserved violence solely for itself, it now has to do violence on behalf of the various guilds, unions, aristocrats, and yeomen jockeying for power, who persist. This is true despite the fact that their positions may have ended. But if a position is abolished, it does not follow that the concept it signified is abolished as well. What has happened is not the end of patronage or economically-motivated violence, but rather a frantic competition between the aforementioned groups to capture the state for the purpose of controlling market access.

In this sense, the state is now forced to interfere in economics, even though previously, a King would not have concerned himself with the bickering of merchants. Instead, the state has to play an active role in economics in order to protect its sovereign interests and the interests of the nation it rules over, given that it has an inherent interest in its health for military reasons first and foremost.

However, rational state intervention in economic matters is conflated with socialist utopianism in the mind of the Boomer, and this is merely due to ignorance. America is ultimately a child of Enlightenment liberalism, and tradition is as much an enemy to it as is socialism. The Boomer mind has collapsed the entire “enemy” category into “socialism” (pronounced: soshulism), mostly because the feel-good liberal ideology doesn’t brook the idea of “enemy” – it only recognizes unreconstructed, toothless reactionaries to educate. In their eerily honest Twitter cringe, Boomers will equate monarchism and socialism.

We like to make fun of the Boomer here, but it’s good to understand ourselves as well. We are not socialists in the sense that we want the nationalization of industries (well, not across the board at least), but in the sense that we recognize that some compulsion is necessary in the market, and that whereas once this compulsion would have been handled by private actors, in this degenerate age, the state is the only one which can swing the big club to control market access.

For this reason, I am greatly intrigued by Third Positionism. I do not want the state to be ideologically beholden to either free markets or economic control, but rather to see the two as tools which can be used for achieving certain goals. Third Positionism is morally neutral: It supports that which is useful and leaves the ruler to determine the ontological direction of policy.

To summarize, what they call socialism isn’t really socialism. The contemporary American – and American-style liberal – cannot conceive of a world outside his own limited model, and will act and speak accordingly. Insofar as we want (or can) to convert these normies to our cause, we have to explain to them that the world is much bigger (and much older) than they believe. The normie conservative deceives himself if he lumps tradition in with socialism. He mustn’t believe that you belong in the same box as AOC. Rather, you’ll have to patiently appeal to his social instincts and – hopefully – any vestige of understanding that men aren’t, as Thomas Carlyle put it, beavers whose end-all-and-be-all is labor, labor, and more damned labor.


  1. Voryn Illidari
    Posted October 24, 2019 at 8:14 am | Permalink

    It’s hard to take seriously anything you write when in the first half of the article you proudly admit that you are a drain on your own family’s business and that you threaten fellow employees, presumably your own family members, with threats of violence. It doesn’t matter how you intellectualize this or what kind of “traditionalist” or otherwise antimodern argument you cobble together to justify it. This is fucking scumbag behavior and you owe your mother an apology and probably also a resignation. I’m sure you’ll call any prescription for responsible behavior a “Boomer” point of view, but it’s the truth (I’m a millennial, btw.)

    • Franz
      Posted October 24, 2019 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

      “It doesn’t matter how you intellectualize this or what kind of “traditionalist” or otherwise antimodern argument you cobble together to justify it.”

      “Economics” is just another version of Jewish psychoanalysis. Fact is, no Traditional society needed terms for Socialism, Capitalism, Monarchism. Thomas Aquinas’ subsidiarity was all that was required: The plowman’s furrows needed no “theory”, the monarch’s medallion to protect all the work needed in his realm had to do with power, not rationalization.

      The worst thing that ever happened to “the right” was the CIA/Skull & Bones boy Bill Buckley’s joining traditionalist jabber and Establishment economics. Conservatism became a Wall Street debating club and the real right became a joke.

    • DP84
      Posted October 24, 2019 at 8:37 pm | Permalink


      Millennial here as well. Just turned 30 last summer. I actually thought Jeelvy made some interesting points about the differences between merit and loyalty – sometimes, merit IS loyalty – but that being said, I agree with your assessment of his behavior.

      The fact is, our country, the USA, is a different place compared to Europe, particularly Southeast Europe, where nepotism and low trust is the norm. It makes sense in Europe for nation-states to force corporations and businesses to act according to the national interest. But the Boomers and Gen Xers Jeelvy speaks of are probably all of them Americans, and I doubt Third Positionism will ever fly here.

      This is going to sound impossible to populist ears, and I admit that it might be a pipe dream, but the only way to neutralize corporate power is to either take control of them directly through our own “march through the institutions,” or, more realistically, create our own businesses which become forces to be reckoned with (Mindweapons in Ragnarok has advocated something similar to this, albeit on a much smaller, quieter scale).

      But in any case, given what we know about America’s culture and the sentiments of its people, there’s pretty much a 0.0% chance that corporate power will be reigned in by opposing corporations directly. And besides, I myself am deeply skeptical of anti-corporate and anti-business sentiments given that the Left has been telling me my entire life that I need to “team up” with non-whites and jews who hate me and my race in order to “take down” the “evil rich.” And furthermore, given that I very much enjoy things like Disney World, Fast Food, Wal Mart, Cars, and Times Square, I don’t really want life in America to change back to traditional ways. What I want is for the Left and their vile coalition of the oppressed to go away and leave me and White people like me the hell alone. Since they refuse to do that…well, I don’t have to explain it any further.

    • Kudzu Bob
      Posted October 25, 2019 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

      Lighten up.

  2. Alexandra O.
    Posted October 24, 2019 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    I am still re-reading and digesting this essay between the merits and demerits of Socialism and Capitalism, which seems as well to be the political ‘rag-toy’ of both sides of our current political ‘system’, with both pulling and pushing and growling — neither are getting anywhere but are voraciously upsetting us all.

    For me, economics comes down to one sentence: “Money is all that stands between you and death”. And to make it more personal and meaningful: “Money is all that stands between ME and death”!

    I ran across this concept in a little book entitled “Jews and Money”, by Gerald Krefetz, 1982.
    In the full paragraph, it reads: “Most Jews still harbor a European mentality when it comes to personal money: they treat it seriously and soberly; they speak of it in hushed tones, rarely joking about it. For Jews, money has stood between life and death. It was central to their existence. Money was not worshiped but they considered it as essential to their material being as One God was to their spiritual being. Money had an existential reality for Jews, for it gave them substantiality in alien eyes.”

    This book, and all of Dr. Kevin McDonald’s three massive tomes on Jewish life, are what have kept me from ‘hating’ Jews, or being ‘anti-Semitic’, as I — and all White Nationalists are routinely accused — and it has defined my relationship with money as well. I’m 76, retired, and I bless every dollar that my German mother and English aunt inspired me to save. Bless your European ancestors and follow their advice about “work hard and save your money” and stop obsessing about Socialism vs. Capitalism. Take care of #1 first, and your close loved ones, and remember also Jane Austen’s advice about money: “A large income is the best recipe for happiness I ever heard of.” Of course, she was a woman and a bourgeois, so – – – –

  3. Arthur Konrad
    Posted October 24, 2019 at 11:10 am | Permalink

    The problem of Economism is the false presumption that economy exists for economy’s sake, and that man in fact IS a homo economicus. Hence “it harms the economy” is a ruling abstraction that informs the policy makers, leaving no space for the agency of human will. If migrants can’t come in, and corporations cannot have access to low paid workforce, it’s “bad for the economy”. If we cannot relentlessly exploit resources, hyper-produce waste, and organize our lives around the principle of economic growth, then it’s “bad for the economy”.

    The inevitable conclusion being here that eventually, the interests of the economy and the interests of life itself, as Pentti Linkola astutely warned, will become directly opposed, or more precisely, they already are. We know which side to choose.

  4. HamburgerToday
    Posted October 24, 2019 at 11:47 am | Permalink

    Great essay, delightfully presented.

    I go with Marx’s insight that ‘capitalism’ is a culture in which the claims of the owners of the resources of production are given preference before all other claims by any other parties in a given ‘society’. ‘Socialism’ is, on the other hand, any system that attempts to establish a preference for other claims on the resources of a society. Consequently, ‘capitalism’ can be expressed in only one way — in favor of the ownership class — but ‘socialism’ can take many forms. One of those forms is, if I understand Jeelvy is ‘custom’ and/or ‘tradition’ and/or ‘social cohesion’. So, the reflex-arc reactions of the typical American ‘conservative’ regarding anything other than ‘capitalism’ being ‘socialism’ is based upon an accurate perception, it’s just a very narrow perception.

    James Burnham was correct in identifying that the power of ‘ownership’ had been superceded by power of the managerial class and that a new secular order based upon ‘expertise’. The success of the managerial elite ultimately — as is so often the case — resulted in a cult of ‘expertise’ which now supercedes expertise itself such that ‘merit’ has devolved to mere credentialism and ‘science’ has devolved to the human centipede of ‘scientific consensus’ and ‘peer review’.

    • Posted October 26, 2019 at 1:00 am | Permalink

      Good restatement. Owners getting shafted by managers is generally the core problem of modernity and everything else flows from it. Managers, unlike owners, have no skin in the game and no stake in the future.

      • nineofclubs
        Posted October 27, 2019 at 11:56 pm | Permalink

        I disagree. Managers still dance to the tune of owners. If they don’t, they are removed by the board.

        The problem is that managers imagine that shareholders only care about the bottom line – which at present looks to be (and is) best served by globohomo. Since no one ever actually asks shareholders whether they really care about their children growing up in a multiculti cesspit, it’s assumed that they don’t – so long as the dividends keep rolling in.

        There’s a whole question about the legitimacy of shareholders as ‘owners’ under capitalism. Marjorie Kelly’s book, ‘The Divine Right of Capital’ explores this in detail. Along with the insanity of how we currently produce new money and spend it into circulation, this ownership question is – IMO – one of the biggest (of many) flaws with capitalism.

        But that aside, the question of nationalism’s position on socialist economics remains contentious.

        Leading Australian nationalist, Dr Jim Saleam refers to the ‘Money Power’ in this excellent piece – which should be read by all nationalists with lingering Cold War phobias about socialism.

        The article also refers in passing to Friedrich Hielscher, who – along with Ernst Niekisch – warrant closer attention by those genuinely interested in the Third Position.


  5. Bobby
    Posted October 24, 2019 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

    Mr. Jeelvy, I’ve decided to appoint you as one of my private tutors on history and politics, which is to say that I greatly appreciated this piece and am looking forward to more of your insightful writings.

  6. A.M.
    Posted October 25, 2019 at 9:25 am | Permalink

    The people telling you to overthrow the “evil rich” are the evil rich… How can that be? Well actually it can be very easily if the “evil rich” are actually only lying to you when they tell you that, and that’s exactly the way it is. People are never actually going to like being controlled by corporations run by high bourgeois/elites, that’s obvious, but in any capitalist economic order, that’ll always be the way it is, that’s obvious. Less obvious is the fact that, while you may think that this reality could only ever be a hindrance to the perfect functioning of capitalism, not only isn’t it, on the contrary, it can actually be exploited to optimize it. What the high bourgeois/elites haves learned since 1950 is reverse psychology, paired with a realization of the mind-blowing degree to which an individual will willingly, happily lie to himself/herself, to their own detriment, if a lie, and/or the very state of believing in it, is packaged craft-fully, brightly, and attractively enough, then marketed persistently. They took public outrage at capitalism/corporatism, and it’s inevitable negative effects on public health, and turned it into a corporate asset. The result is the crown jewel in Neo-liberalism’s royal garb, liberal socialism, the kind of fake, modern, western, capitalist socialism being advocated by the likes of Bernie Sanders and AOC, the kind of socialism that replaces the laborer proletarian with the “brown proletarian,” the traditional woman with the homosexual, and class consciousness with “wokeness.” This kind of socialism, unlike real Marxism, isn’t only harmless but actually useful to capitalism. It harnesses public rage at capitalism and directs it toward the only people capable of affecting real systemic change, demographic majorities, instead of the real offenders, class minorities. Now the more liberal sheep rage against capitalism the more it flourishes. It’s almost Marxism inverted. The real left, like Nietzsche’s god, is dead in western politics, while an image to the contrary is zealously cultivated, that no one may notice. It’s been an incredibly effective strategy, boomers attest.

  7. d_malaparte
    Posted October 25, 2019 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

    This article was a pleasure to read. I laughed out-loud several times.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    Here’s the Thing

    Trevor Lynch: Part Four of the Trilogy

    Graduate School with Heidegger

    It’s Okay to Be White


    The Enemy of Europe

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace