Nationalism — the Transition To the Next Stage
Nationalism is in good shape. We are playing according to a winning game plan. Our ideas are winning support in segments of the public that hadn’t even heard of us five years ago or so. In the time to come, we will have more and more candidates who share our ideas elected to high political offices. As in Hungary, so also in the United States, in France, Germany and many other constituencies.
Even my own long-suffering Sweden may be set to have a political party that will represent Sweden’s indigenous population, as opposed to present policies of representing basically everything and everyone else.
Metapolitically, we shall continue to have an increasingly powerful media presence, with media institutions that can successfully vie with traditional media for “top-of-mind” access to the public, and are competitive in forming public opinion. This text’s being published in a medium of that variety is something of a token of that, even today.
To my way of thinking, this is a good time to start thinking about the next stage, so we can be prepared for it when we get to it. History is full of initially successful political movements whose success petered out, in part because these movements didn’t look ahead, anticipate and prepare enough.
It goes with the territory that a discourse like the one that you are reading, is necessarily reflections of reality as seen through a temperament. Because honesty is the best policy, and because a degree of straightforwardness is a necessary component of honesty, it seems adequate that I should declare openly from which vantage point I observe, and through which temperament I see things. I am something of a “liberal nationalist” if such a creature can be thought to exist. Furthermore, I am also a conservative nationalist. If you will bear with me, in spite of these apparent contradictions, I will also try to make it clear what it is that I mean by that, through the examples that I will put forward.
Conservatism as horse sense – even if it’s broken, try to fix it before throwing it away
Our mission is to change today’s untenable situation for something better. In doing this, we face a choice of either trying to reform those of society’s institutions whose means of operation have led up to the situation today or supplanting them with our own alternatives. My suggestion is a caution against trying to tear too many things up too fast. We may have to tear some things up – the present mainstream media are beyond salvation, and need to be outcompeted by our own, the sooner the better – but many other things will probably serve us after some rethinking and tinkering.
The process that has resulted in today’s society, and its institutions, is something of an evolutionary process. Our societies and their institutions worked reasonably well 50 years ago, with no real influence from mass migration, excessive globalization or multi-culturalism. Like the Russians say, we may need to make a cut, but we also need to measure the cloth seven times first. We need to be very good at judging what we do, if we want to compete with the evolutionary process that led to the Occident of 50 years ago and its functional civic and political institutions.
Liberalism – controllable and controlled Liberalism – as wealth creator
The industrial and commercial revolution that started in Great Britain roughly at the beginning of the 19th century, and that later spread peacefully to all corners of the world, operated on principles that are unparalleled in creating wealth and well-being everywhere it came. Much as many Nationalists dislike the word because of the meaning it has taken on today, Liberalism was part of the package. I am not sure if I can swing anyone around by pointing out that it was a completely different concept from today’s, basically anarchistic, brand of Liberalism where everything goes unless you are a native European or are of such extraction, in which case nothing goes other than quietly living through your own genocide.
The classical liberalism which created mass production for mass consumption had many shortcomings. But it was framed in a context of personal responsibility, and open, acknowledged responsibility for society and posterity, that basically makes it have nothing other than the name in common with today’s liberalism. It was about freedom of creation, not about destruction and nihilism as today’s liberalism, and we can not dispense with classical liberalism’s unique ability to create wealth and benefit for all of the society. Adam Smith’s invisible hand, the linchpin of liberal economic theory, provides for all of the society, the stronger providing for the weaker, however inadvertently or indirectly. We need this economic model for the safe, healthy society we envision, even if we know that it is not the end-all-be-all and that thoughtful regulation is in order.
Regulated, thoughtful trade benefits nations and nationalism
Free trade is a favorite catechism entry for today’s globalists, more or less one that they would hold up as a simple law of nature. They are fond of accusing critics or sceptics of free trade with evil intent and backwardness, and their general idea is that trade can never really be free enough, unless for the hindrance and ignorant perfidity of critics or skeptics.
But, as Lipsey and Steiner point out in their classical work Economics: “It is quite a jump from the proposition ‘Some trade is better (…) than no trade’ to the proposition ‘A bit more trade than we have at present is better than a bit less trade’.”. Advantages of ever freer trade – hard, indisputable advantages for most everyone – are not demonstrable in theory but follow from personal opinions of economists and others. Laid-off workers in the United States’s Rust Belt, Britain’s Midlands or Germany’s Ruhr Area would tell you so.
There is nobody who advocates no trade at all, other than Kim Jong-Un. But nationalists have a right to both approve of international trade in general, and to disapprove of some international trade in particular if it hurts some more than it gives benefit to others. Let us steer well clear of Kim Jong-Un on this (as we usually do) while still keeping our senses about us when it comes to propositions of ever freer trade without constraints.
Retroactive justice will hurt us
We are justified in feeling deep anger towards the individuals in power who have deliberately mismanaged and tried to dismantle our nations for decades, for no other reasons than to enrich themselves and the special interest groups that they serve. That anger is part of the fuel in the engine that keeps us loyal in working for our cause. I myself feel a deep, seething anger, and I can feel everybody else’s through myself and my feelings, too.
We are not justified in departing from long-honored legal and judicial principles of the Occident, principles that have helped build the Occident strong, particularly the principle of nullum crimen sine lege, “no crime without law”. If someone has done something that was not illegal when he did it…we don’t have a business prosecuting it, however much we disapprove of the person or what he has done. Not because the person hasn’t deserved it, but because we need to abide by these principles, so we can build on them in the society with which we will replace the wrongdoer’s preferred society. That is the best way of getting back at him, as well as protecting ourselves from untenable judicial principles.
To field some examples, Romania and Czechoslovakia went different ways in liberating themselves from Communism. The Romanians executed their former dictator Ceausescu, essentially on the basis of shotgun justice, while the Czechs and Slovaks held tribunals to publicly name and shame former Communist officials. No offense to Romania or Romanians, and I understand the need of urgency when lives are possibly at stake, as long as a dictator is still alive and can command his minions, but I can’t help feeling that these events partly shaped the destinies of these three nations: the Czech Republic and Slovakia are functional national states, while Romania seems mired in all kinds of trouble.
The individuals now in power over our nations, who might deserve shotgun justice, aren’t worth departing from our supporting principles for. Let’s go one better than them and build our societies on solid principles.
Businesses will follow the power
Businesses, in particular big, transnational businesses, have been a flexible instrument in the hands of the operators of globalization and multi-culturalism. It has so far been a lost cause to try and make business leaders see reason through pointing out the long-term damage that globalization and multi-culturalism inflicts on societies, even the damage that will come to the businesses themselves when the society in which they operate has one day been wrecked and made dysfunctional.
Businesses and their leaders aren’t really evil in the way that too many politicians and practically all traditional media workers are evil, they are just beholden to their result sheets. They will always kow-tow to power because of the symbiosis in which they live with power. Power keeps society and legislation tailored to help businesses make financial results that power can tax. Businesses, in turn, oblige to power’s ideological agenda – almost whatever that agenda is.
When we have our fair share of power – the power to which our support in public opinion merits us – businesses and their leaders will listen to us. We, too, will need well-functioning businesses to tax and so fund our better, humaner society. There is no reason to frighten business leaders with any purported policy that would eventually hurt their result sheets. They will keep listening to power tomorrow as they do today, only power will happen to be in other hands. There is, however, good reason to speak firmly to businesses today about negative consequences of their ideologically driven actions, today. We need to make sure they understand that in supporting globalization and multi-culturalism, they are going against the historical current and this might hurt their result sheets both today and tomorrow. Stock holders have a hard time with that – coveted bonuses might have to go. Just think about that.
We still need banks, including central banks
Many nationalists with an inclination to view society as driven by principles of economics (a very well-reasoned idea) can tend to think that banks, and in particular central banks, are something of evil’s very center, a kind of Dark Tower.
But banks don’t kill people – bankers do. If we let them. Bankers, more than any business leaders, will listen to power when power speaks firmly and intelligibly. They are also sophisticated enough to predict – it is their job to be sophisticated and prescient – that a new set of hands at the seat of power will affect them profoundly. Because it will affect them tomorrow, they will start thinking about this today, as long as we can credibly state our case in public, including our firm determination to set things right through political means.
We need a market economy, even if we want it somewhat regulated so it doesn’t go out of kilter as often.
In order to have a market economy and the credit system it entails, we need to have banks, even if we want to hold them to their reponsibilities to society as a whole, in return for their privilege (it is not a right) to operate banks.
In order for the banking sector to be well ordered, we need to have a central bank, even if we want to have a say in the appointment of its governors and officials, as well as a means of contributing to the draft of its charter.
The central bank is a political body, and what we need to make sure is that we build independence of day-to-day politics into its operations. A central bank should serve the long-term interests of the people of the national state where it has its domicile, not some opaque, general globalist agenda.
I am sorry to have to say this, and I am aware that I am offending some good and solid nationalists, but it is as utopian as the Left’s vacuous, globalized, multicultural, Socialist society to think that we could have it very much differently. We need the banks, the central banks, and the credit system, we just need to make sure that we have a sufficient political handle on them. There is a reason why practically nobody has it very much differently. Other than North Korea. Or Somalia. You get my drift.
I may have stirred up more trouble than is good for me with these few thoughts of mine. It would be wonderful to have a public discussion follow on these general issues that I have tried to raise, and where anybody would be free to point out where they find me wrong, in the comments or in longer, regular texts.