Nationalism — the Transition To the Next Stage

Man jump through the gap. Element of design.

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.

David Gellerman
the authorDavid Gellerman
David Gellerman is a long-time Swedish Nationalist with political roots in the movements of the early 90's. His interests run to writing and ideology, particularly Identitarianism. At present, he has no firm affiliation with any organizational entity, and in the absence of such, he likes to market mutual understanding, tolerance and a general ecumenical standpoint among Nationalists of all extractions.


  • Step back cuck. Real men will handle this, and we will handle it by viciously murdering our enemies.

    You base this high-minded nonsense on the notion that we are only dealing with corrupt normie politicians. Nothing could be further from the truth, we are dealing with Satanic evil. If you knew the crimes these demons have committed you would take back what you just said. They will die, and they will do so in a most horrific way. And after that they will surely go to hell.. where me and my team will be waiting, just to mete out even more punishment.

  • Mass production and mass consumption was a mistake.

    When we gained this capacity we had a choice to make, our rather our leaders had a choice that they made for us. Either produce as much as we possibly could, or use this newfound capacity to lessen the workload and free up some time for the masses. One of the biggest problems with our societies is that most people have virtually no time left for themselves or their families outside of work. People are clueless because they don’t have the time needed to inform themselves, people are shallow because they don’t have the necessary time needed for introspection, family structures are falling apart because both parents are too busy working to raise their kids properly.

    Why did the elite choose to promote feminism? Certainly not because of altruism. It was probably because before feminism they could only tax half of the population. In addition to this, they were able to deal a serious blow to the nuclear family as well. They need us to be perpetually stressed out, they need us to be dysfunctional excuses for human beings. Because if we weren’t we might have the peace of mind necessary to see things clearly, and when we do we might start pointing our fingers at the real problem: secret societies controlled by extraterrestrial reptilians

    I have nothing but contempt for people that put economic concerns above everything else. This age of endless greed needs to come to an end!

  • Dear Mr Gellerman. I would like to thank you for your well written piece – you are one of the first people here to put together many important issues… most of all the MONEY policy.
    The #1 and only goal that any political group should have is – Power and the power to then keep that power. That over whelming power is the expression of the Peoples economic output – The Nations money. You are right that we need banks, even all powerful central banks – the qustion is, WHO OWNS THE MONEY AND THE RIGHT TO PRINT IT. Both World wars were fought over this issue – The war on terror is about this issue (over throwing Arabs States that were not controlled by the BIS / IMF. ) The nationalist movement needs to understand that until it can generate its own forms of income, it will be held back from power… get thinking …

    • Well, thank you, Bob, finally somebody who appreciates effort. So many whiners here, you’d think you were in a Berkeley’s Feminism 101 class.

      We don’t necessarily agree on everything, but you and I and the more insightful of us agree that a Nationalist policy on these lofty issues needs forming. It is the key to the next step – actually manning the corridors of power.

      I am sure you won’t mind me recommending my other, somewhat similarly themed article here on “How to get the Middle Class on Board”.

      • I fully understand you lol … Many people do not get the main point of being here – POWER. That means you need to bend to what ever issues, ideas, values, ect YOUR nation has – this is a sales job … not a revolution. I see the Alt Right “sticking to its guns” and pushing itself into the corner like the Klan =- ect…. you get this – ;O)

        • We must make the control of money and our life style to main focus of the Alt Right – from the control of capital comes all the other issues and POWER,

  • Regulated trade just ends up being trade for the benefit of the cronies, insiders and multinationals. Heaven forbid that a small businessman could sell his wares internationally without greasing the palm of some regulator!

    If you want banks, fine. Just don’t let them shut down their non-regulated competition, and treat fractional reserve banking as what it is – fraud. We did just fine in the US without a central bank, and things went downhill ever since we adopted the idea. What’s a dollar worth these days, maybe 3% of what it was in 1913? Inflation is theft! Control of interest rates is another scam benefiting the powerful at the expense of the rest of us.

  • Central bank as an institution was made to shore up commercial banks that have failed in the market for whatever reason. Think again and think hard if you really need the system that creates moral hazard in the field already thoroughly penetrated by (((estabilishment climbers))).

    • Central banks are needed for so many more reasons than to be lender of last resort to troubled banks. They provide a baseline interest rate. They earn seignorage for the government as the only legal printer of money. They can borrow from banks when banks need to expand their business, or lend to them when they need liquidity. They are market makers for government bonds when no other market makers want to make the market.

      If we want a modern economy to go with our Nationalist ideas, we’d better see the need for central banks, at the peril of forcing our societies 200 years back in time across the entire board. Could be a hard political sell.

      They are not inherently evil. They are not inherently good either. They are what we make them. Nobody in his right mind has found fit to dispense with them as institutions, even if mileages vary between central bank regimes of different national states.

      The ECB, however, is a different creature altogether, and doesn’t really fit this bill at all – it is a sui generis. Don’t judge other hard-working central banks, that are trying to fly right, by that misshapen monster.

      • Bank doesn`t provide segniorage to the government, monopoly on violence does. More so, if your bank starts issuing money instead of officially sanctioned mint, it`s already game over.

        • much of what you say here is true – in a Nationalist State the Cen Bank would be held or should be held in the National Trust – Zero privet ownership, under the Office of the national Treasury. All other national privet banking should not be done by % rates, but by up front fees – like in Islamic banking

  • The major flaw with this is that you wrongly believe that business simply follows power. While to some extent this may be true especially with smaller business, with the bigger corporate power it is not. Businesses give money, lots of it, to the kind of politicians and power they want. They don’t simply react and listen to whatever comes their way, rather they use their massive wealth to put in place the kind of power that serves them.

    And this is the major problem you have no answer for: How do you stop people with massive amounts of wealth from using that wealth to influence and control politics? Laws? Laws aren’t going to work because they will simply use their massive wealth to prevent that law from ever passing in the first place.They will pay the politicians and they will pay the judges to do what they want and bend things to their will.

    Money is the ultimate power.

    • You’ve presented one of the hardest issues to solve. If the most rich and powerful instigators are not removed, the efficacy of any movement will be gravely threatened. On the other hand, if they are removed the problem faced in the French Revolution of how to stop the guillotine once it’s started remains unanswered. As far as I know, no good solution exists.

      • And once they are removed how do you prevent the same thing from happening again? If we were to remove every single rich and powerful instigator today, more would just crop up to take their place.

        One solution might be to create a law once they were all removed that prevents anyone from earning way above their means. Only problem with this is that it would have to occur as a global phenomenon. You couldn’t just have it happen in one country because then what would prevent rich instigators in other countries from using their wealth to overthrow the governments in your country?

        The more extreme solution would be to completely abolish the monetary system all together. To create a world where money has no influence at all. But then you’d have even greater problems to deal with like how do you reconstruct society in a way were money is no longer needed without throwing everything into complete chaos?

        One thing is certain: If we don’t find a way to defeat these wealthy neoliberal globalists for good and implement something better, our future is going to have lots of problems as is it gets turned into one giant multi-racial shopping mall full of degeneracy and soulless materialism.

  • Romania is screwed up because Ceausescu screwed it up and they’ve never fully recovered. The idea that killing that monster is the reason Romania is in such a state is ridiculous. Some people like him deserve the rope. He got what he meted out to countless others.

    • I agree. It is ridiculous to lay all the problems at the feet of the method used to dispose of a dictator. And even if one accepts this premise, it’s not as if the killing was a choice by leaders of some resistance. As far as I can tell it was a spur-of-the-moment decision by a local commander. Killing dictators is the right thing to do – if nothing else, to deter new prospective dictators. All should be hung from hooks, like Mussolini.

  • The problem with todays system is not fractional reserve banking. It is not central banks, well, not mostly. The problem is limited liability. Having banks as limited liability is preposterous to begin with. And as today, bank “profits” have been used to corrupt the political system. And the fact that limited liability banks will inevitably become insolvent puts extra pressure on the political system to socialize the losses of the banks.
    Imho, limited liability for anyting, companies, politics, depts, banks, whatever, is a guarantee for societal collaps. You break it you own it. You borrow you pay back. You damage, you are liable. Limited liability is what has made the powers utterly faceless and is destroying us.

    • We need to keep a firm grip on banks’ liability, but complete liability basically brings us back to wampum. The economy would stop dead. The culprit would be us, the Nationalists. It would be the end of our aspirations.

      The political climate is right for firmness and a hard, sharp and clear message to banks about their responsibility for society, as a return for the privilege of operating a bank under the Central bank’s jurisdiction. Also, Glass-Steagall needs to be brought back and enforced ruthlessly.

      • Hehe, so you are one of those? Those hmhm-rothagil socialists or whatever. Good i got you pinned down. Listen, all you are saying here is just more of the same. Fidgeting with the controls. Sure, rebuilding the system would make nationalists politically impossible. So lets stick to identitarianism and nationalism shall we? Methinks that you only added nationalism lately to get traction for your socialist sect.

        • My Socialist sect? I don’t know what to say.

          But it comes down to this. The car of society is doing 100 miles per hour. It’s not going to work, not even if alone on the freeway. We both know that. We both agree there. Me, I want to bring it down to 55. That will work. Because that is, like, reflective of the general idea and intention. You, you want to stop by the curb. That is not going to work, though.

          • No, I want to advocate for the existence of my people. THATS whats important, come what may. And this can not be accomplished by banking acts. Thats sidetracking. And making specific programs about banking is to open up an area of attack to the enemies of my people. The only way to build security for my people is in the hearts and minds of my people, to strengthen the will to exist.

            And yes, my ideas of liability would be opening up an area of attack, sure, if it was made into a specific program. However, in these times, preaching liability will be popular, as long as its not specific. And the basic idea is also sound.

          • no, arguing for the existence of your ppl isn’t important since TPTB intend and are implementing the Kalergi plan. The globalists are the problem, then worry about your ppl. worrying prematurely about a problem you can’t solve is called “being distracted”

          • You are arguing plenty distraction in this thread. And very little existence.

          • why is this pic here? Cause no one is defaming the documentary these two were in that called Nathan Damigo the “nice face of hate”

        • Jews control the media because they control the money supply. It is an intrinsic part of the problem. Not some ignorant Muslim criminals let in the country to distract us from that

        • “Nationalizing banks”? Comrade, sorry to have to tell you this, but you’re living in the past.

          “removing undue influence of multi national entities”. Nah. Regulate.

          “dual citizens”. Sure. Ban dual citizenship everywhere by international convention.

          • Hitler did it quite successfully. So successfully that whomever you just defended with that slough off of my claim needed to lobby the world into war with him. THere is absolutely no reason why we need to pay international Jews a fee for printing money out of thin air and lessening the value of our savings. If new money needs to be printed, let the state print it’s own and not pay anyone a fee. Also, did you know that the income tax is how we pay for the privilege of Jewish bankers printing our money?

          • It’s amazingly shill of you to discard the notion of national banks as impractical and a laugh. This does say a lot

          • You talking to yourself now, dude? Only way to get anyone to agree with you?

          • The banks are SO deep into every world State that the only way to detach them from you is – Nationalization. After the “Fed” national bank must be placed in a Trust in the name of the People under the Tres Dept – will steel like rules/laws. NO MORE PRIVATE NATIONAL BANKS FOR WHITE NATIONS !!!

  • If we do not eliminate the establishment the same creatures will weasel themselves into power. This soft transition is not possible. At the very least members of the former establishement must lose their protection of property. Otherwise they will hide their resources and then use them to corrupt any new regime.
    (Reposted because disqus does not like when one fiddles to much with a post after posting)

  • Why is posting articles by David Gellerman? Why doesn’t Gellerman have a bio? Why is providing a platform for jews who want to co-opt, subvert, or “modernize” this movement.

    • Apparently Gellerman thinks Jews do what Jews do because of their nostalgia for ‘Muh Austro-Hungarian Empire or the halycon days of the Ottoman Turks. Gellerman the “Swede” states:
      “On the other hand, many Jews in the Occident, many in the media and in other of society’s controlling heights have collectively flipped their lids. They have worked for multi-culturalism because they reminisc fondly about their place in multi-cultural Austria, prison of peoples, or similarly Ottoman Turkey. But they are wrong in that today’s enforced multi-culturalism in Europe would keep them safe – on the contrary.”

      • I welcome a discussion on issues, particularly the issues that I raise in the article for which this is the comment section. If you question whether I am a Swede at all, however, you have just got it wrong.

        • The issue is your ethnicity; you’re a jew. You have absolutely no business in Nationalist Politics; Swedish or otherwise.

          • This is becoming a failed joke. I am Swedish, I am just using a pen name that is the same as an undercover identity I used years and years ago, when I was involved in a project of requesting and publishing court records about immigrant criminality. I needed a fake name that I could easily remember when court officials addressed me by it, on the phone or otherwise.

            This is the third time I have walked into trouble because of the name, on this site alone, and each time with different counterparts. Sad. If I could have seen this happening, I would have taken measures to avoid it.

          • For the sake of argument I’ll cede that you’re in fact not a Jew. You are however a Shabbos goy of the highest order: you advocate for jewish nationalism, minimize and absolve their henious crimes, dismiss their malevolence towards their host societies and then lay the guilt at the feet of their victims.

          • Daniel Freiberg is Jewish and has the money to prove it so…. It’s also clear by the Islamaphobic women they bring on who never mention Jews that alt-right is very Jew tolerant -Weev, Enoch etc

      • Well they do have ethnically almost pure Israel to run off to we have nowhere. How bout that for reversing everything. We created Israel so Jews would feel like that had a home and since that time, Jews have done whatever they could to make whites feel like they don’t have a home. It was our blood much more than Jews that accomplished the WW II needed to enable the Israeli parasite

          • Entrism has destroyed so many nationalist movements. In sweden for example both Center party and Moderate party were way more nationalist than the Sweden Democrats are today only 30 years ago. And the Sweden Democrats have been corrupted in record time. Libertarianism has been corrupted by socialists several times. Thats what the very name Libertarianism is for, because liberalism was taken over by socialists, and then Classical liberalism and neoliberalism as well. If you had any honest intentions you would be aware of this and be sympathetic to Randolph Carters concerns. I dont trust you one bit. I think you are a johnny come lately to nationalism and that your true intentions are just to get traction for your socialist sect, whatever it is called, i cant recall right now.

          • Well, everybody in Sweden was Nationalist relative to now 30 years ago. Everybody was reprogrammed by subtle, small-step shifts in the public discourse as the Left marched through the institutions.

            I have many issues with the Sweden Democrats. But they wouldn’t exist if the other 7 parties were any good.

            Me a Socialist, who wants to work Socialism through the Alt-Right and Nationalism?

            Get real.

          • Larouche movement, thats what its called. I think you are one of those. They always go on and on about the Seagel act. Are you an ethnic swede btw? And do you have a swedish identity? And if you have been involved with the Larouche movement, dont you think you should put that in your bio?

          • Well, Lyndon LaRouche was a nutcase of the first water. Ideologically, I don’t know how you would fit his bill, but nutcase-wise, you are birds of a feather.

          • So i guess you did not want to answer my questions. You do make a very shifty impression.

          • I am an ethnic Swede, trust me, as Swedish as they come.

            The totality of my involvement with LaRouche’s nitwits amounts to me getting a good laugh whenever I walked by any one of their dumbass street rallies. LaRouche invested heavily in Sweden for some reason, lots of these rallies, stickers and other outreach stuff. Ridiculous is just the first name. He never even got the drunks on the park benches to participate.

          • Well, part of the reason for that is that 30 years ago, things that are considered radically nationalist nowadays were just common sense (i.e. don’t date outside your race, etc).

        • It is probably missing many. I am a completely uninteresting person, in every capacity except as a writer and possibly as an instrument for the struggle and the cause.

          • I think you are Jewish because you are so comfortable being accused of it, whether partial of your dad’s side there is a way to claim you aren’t but the question is are you loyal to them

    • The alt-right is Jewish at it’s core. Does that answer that and is masonic. What I mean by masonic is, ignoring the real causes of problems and arguing over moving deck chairs

  • White countries must become nationalistic or they will perish, it’s as simple as that. And the anti-whites that tried to marginalize and breed us out of existence must pay for their crimes, or else they’ll just try to do it again.

    • They must not just become nationalistic, they must become White Nationalistic. Our White nations are in our DNA Code more than they are in land. We carry our White Nations with us no matter where we are and we make the whole planet better wherever we are in great White numbers.

    • Jews are trying to breed us out of existence. Anti-whites are just taking advantage of opportunities Jews make available in that area

  • Central banks are a wholly unnecessary evil. If most of us insist on fractional banking, then the power to issue money must reside in national treasuries. Capital should serve the nation, not the other way around.
    Also, banksters and the directors (not the minions) of the Deep State need to meet the hangman. If you insist on show trials, that’s fine and dandy. It will provide entertainment, as will the public executions.

    • As I have mentioned, I beg to differ. Fractional banking is a necessary evil in order to get the economy’s wheels rolling, and in effect just an extension of the idea of a corporation which risks only its equity capital. (Whichever came first of these two, I am not really sure).

      As I have also mentioned, central banks must be brought back under political control in that their officers must be politically appointed but independent after their appointment and during their tenure.

      Historically, having a banking sector without a central bank has been Mom’s best recipe for catastrophe, for which reason all countries with a banking sector have a central bank.

        • I am not a scholar of Economic History, but were the Babylonian banks practitioners of fractional banking? Farmers borrowed against their upcoming harvests – didn’t they borrow actual, hard money? You tell me, I wouldn’t know but I would love to know.

          • It wouldn’t be banking if it wasn’t fractional reserve. How could a bank make money and cover its losses, if it had to keep 100% of its deposits on reserve in its vault?

            The origins of money itself are ancient, and no one knows for sure how money came into use. Prayer or religious tokens, shiny jewelry, or as you mention baskets of food?

          • There is no reason to doubt that you are more knowledgeable than I as far as these matters. That is nothing other than a cue for me to educate myself further on the finer details. Thanks.

          • I’m sure they still practice forms of primitive communism in much of Africa.

          • That’s why paper money, checks and credit cards all have become popular as technology advanced over the ages.

          • Unfortunately, if creating money out of thin air is a necessary complement to that and it benefits one small clique who believe they are chosen, that’s a bad trade-off-Ordinary stupid ppl learn not to think through the full implications of what things mean and of course are aided in that by propaganda of these same counterfeiters (though be it legal for they own the politicians)

          • If I owned two cars but sold 4 would I be breaking the law. Follow the law of common sense. Lending something that doesn’t exist is theft

          • It’s only bankers and their agents that believe fractional reserve banking is good, hidden by the fact that the bankers ultimately have control of the media so we don’t ever get notified

        • beyond being addicted to it, fractional reserve banking is privileged robbery. Remove it and most borrowing would disappear as it would be too caustly to lend money at old rates which means ppl will have to live more wisely and in the long run that is goood

          • neighbors would have to help you build your house, sons would have to take care of their familial elders etc

      • The thing is, those “catastrophes” were not catastrophic. Compared to now. You are just a shill for le ancien regime.

      • How do we then protect ourselves from rogue bankers such as we have now? Why should they be independent? I don’t support the independence of the judiciary, why should I support an independent central bank? Don’t you think Andrew Jackson had a point?

        • they aren’t independent and everything is occurring as the ppl at the top of the banking system wish it to occur and those on down have orders to follow

        • We should protect ourselves from them by having them lose all their equity in their failed banks through government confiscation. It has worked in Sweden. If a bank fails through mismanagement or fraud, the Swedish Financial Supervisory knocks on the door, makes the owners sign the tradition papers, and the the government owns the bank until the leaves are green again and the failed bank can be sold for what it has cost the government, plus some.

          Banks need to be private and independent, because otherwise nobody would be interested in the risk and the bother of running a bank. If you don’t support a politically independent judicial system, you are at odds with 200 years of political evolution, basically back in Stalin’s Soviet Union with inquisitorial trials.

          I am old, thank you for reminding me, but I am not so old that I was in business during President Jackson’s time, and I don’t know what point it was that he had, at least not which one you mean.

          • Well congratulations, you got taxpayer to hold the bag! What`s the next step of your master plan?

          • Thanks, but the plan’s already come together. Everybody gets something: the banking sector gets stability with no risk of a chain reaction, the government gets its money back plus more, the former bank owners get zilch, the bank employees get job security (and keep paying taxes), and you get to gun the engine of your almighty Whinemobile.

          • That seems to be in line with what happened in Iceland as well. Most of our disagreement seems to be about the different historical experiences of Europeans and Americans. In America, the political power of the Second Bank of the United Stages was a threat to the young republic. Jackson set out to kill it as fostering a Plutocracy (such as we have at present). This brought about the Bank War in Jackson’s second term.

            Also, our wonderful independent judiciary struck down our freedom of assembly in the name of “civil rights” so we are forced to live, work, and socialize with feral inferiors. Also, an independent judiciary invented a “right to privacy” so that women can unilaterally murder our children. How do we prevent an independent judiciary becoming the home of activists that plot against our people?

            I certainly understand getting older. I don’t have memories of President Jackson either. My earliest memories are from the time of President (Lyndon) Johnson. I joined the US Army just before the collapse of the Soviet Union. That makes me far older than most of my fellow AltRighters.

          • Sweden’s first genuine bank collapsed, too, and ownership was transferred to Parliament, all of which happened as early as in the year 1668. Long roots there.

            The only way to have the judicial system reflect the popular conception of right and justice is for us to nominate and appoint officials from our Nationalist ranks with sufficient formal competence. If we leave these offices to others, these offices will be used against us. Political activism is the only protection from political wackoism.

            I had no recollection of these historical occurrences during President Jackson’s tenure. Bit of education there, thanks.

      • the economy is addicted like an evil drug to fractional reserve banking. Lending money out at a 10 to one ratio is called theft if they hadn’t legalized the behavior

      • I enjoyed your article but disagree with your thoughts on central banking. The calculation problem identified by Mises / Hayek applies to the price of money (i.e. the interest rate) just as it does to every other commodity in a market economy.

      • If you have a moment, I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on deposit insurance and free banking (i.e. banking without a government backstop either in the form of insurance or a central bank with unlimited printing power).

        • My thoughts are that deposit insurance through government guarantees is the only viable option up to deposits of, say, an average yearly pre-tax income (some $ 45.000 in Sweden, if memory serves me). Or, possibly, some more. Two conditions must also be in place: something like the Glass-Steagall Act must exist and be enforced, and banks must contribute yearly money to a dedicated government bank salvation fund, a resolutions reserve, for a truly rainy day, as capital coverage. The latter is implemented in Sweden – rigorously – and in the EU – lackadaisically. The resolutions reserve is a pro mille portion of turnover and set to be proportional to the risk that the contributing institution poses to the credit system.

          Banking without government guarantees is just a high risk type of investment, that can be regulated through something similar to the United States institution of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

  • Yeah, you are right about banks & bankers. They are very sensitive to political pressure. I don’t think any bank would want to have the reputation of being anti-White.

    There’s an old joke about banks in the US. What do you call a Black with a suit & tie, and a briefcase? A branch manager.

    Btw, the American Federal Reserve was not intended to be a central bank, and Federal Reserve members only in the last decade or so have started to refer to the Federal Reserve as a central bank.

    Just like all the anti-White miscegenation propaganda on TV—it needs to be countered. Coke, and Heineken are the latest testing those waters.

  • Excellent article. Well-rounded, pragmatic, and realistic ideas that should be discussed more often. The topics elucidated within this article should be separately addressed and given appropriate deliberation. I have respect for the one who presents the hard unpalatable topics, disregarding potential controversy.

    • Thank you! Many fellow Nationalists have found me to be an uncomfortable presence at times. My hope and conviction is that this has never been due to personal vanity on my own part, but rather concern for our cause and for Europe.

  • If we do not eliminate the establishment the same creatures will worm themselves into power. This soft transition is not possible. At the very least members of the former establishement must lose their protection of property. Otherwise they will just hide their resources and then use them to corrupt any new men some time after.

  • Generic “Nationalism,” is a loser for Whites. “White Nationalism” is a winner and helps us continue to exist as the genetic people we are born to be.

    • I’ll get on your bandwagon as soon as you explain to me how you are going to get White American, Canadian, German, French, Swedish or any other Nationalists to rally around any political cause that transcends their respective national states’ borders. It sounds too much like George Bush Sr.’s intended world government to me.

      • Whites must be educated. When Europe was virtually all White it was evolution’s way to fine tune the type with brother and cousin conflicts and wars. Now, however, we face an external existential enemy–all non-Whites who are flooding our once all White lands.

        These non-Whites are infecting our White gene pool with their non-White genes, and like a sexually transmitted disease they are spreading into the White genome and are destroying White family lines of those who miscegenate.

        We must teach our fellow Whites that if we lose our essential Whiteness we lose everything and are no longer us but are then them.

      • White nationalism doesnt transcend their borders.

        White nationalism tells them to have children so they may defend said borders.

        • I am not contradicting you, I just have to observe that this site is, in the main, a place for exchange of political plans and opinions. It seems like a very politically programmatical outlook on life in general to plan to have children just for the sake of providing manpower in numbers.

          • Whites must have children to ensure our survival and to expand and multiply our White DNA Code. God (or nature, if you prefer) commands this of Whites.

      • In the near future there won’t be enough White American, German, etc to defend their own countries. There will only be mixed populations where only race is clearly identifiable.

        • It is the goal of the blenders to blend all human races, all nations and all religions into a Tan Everyman. They wrongly believe that this will end wars and conflicts. Think, idiot John Lennon’s song Imagine.

          • They don’t believe this at all. They’re not that idiotic, it’s a divide and conquer scheme. Be more cynical please, you’re adorable with this outlook.

        • Not true – with a pro white State and our white tech advantage – they would be chopped meat in 5 weeks…

      • We are fighting a globalist entity with tentacles in most governments so no nationalist focus will work. It must be an international counter-response

      • You do that the way that ALL movements get people on board – you show them that your way gives them a better economic life due to you being in power – RACE WILL NOT GET WHITES 100% ON BOARD. The Khazar’s know this and that is why they WANT you talking Race 24/7… it’s a loser. Sorry

      • If there is anything that transcends petty national politics it is white survival.

        Have you not noticed the solidarity between white nationalists here on the internet? We all have the same problem, we all support the same cause. We are in this together. Worldwide.

        It would be hard to find a better motivator, I don’t even understand where you’re coming from with this comment.

Leave a Reply