Sometimes people ask for my stances on economics, so here they are:
Firstly, I don’t particularly care about economics, so my thoughts on this matter are relatively simplistic. It is obvious that the most pressing issues of our age are cultural, and that the problem of technology, in general, is far more expansive and complex than quibbling over production and consumption.
Nevertheless, my idealized economic system would be a cozy agrarian society with minimal industrialization, similar to how things were in the West before the First World War and the rise of the mass society. As things stand today, geopolitically and technologically, my idealized vision is a completely unimplementable, utopian fantasy. Such an economic system will never exist in my lifetime and, perhaps, never again in all of human history. In the words of Otto von Bismarck: “Politics is the art of the possible.”
When viewing economics realistically, based upon the most successful* societies of the past, I support private property and mostly free enterprise. All of mankind’s great advancements were born of individual genius and the works of great men. Of course, the vision of these great men is implemented by their supporting collectives, but the collective mass does not create the vision, visionaries do. Totalizing state centralization or collectivization (i.e. socialism) stifles the organic creativity of a people. However, a totally free market simply results in monopolization at the hands of international vultures with no loyalty to the ethnic collective. This eventually crystalizes into the same form of centralized totalitarianism, as we see today, whereby the various corporate and financial elites of the world have, essentially, formed a new ComIntern.
There will always be rulers and ruled, there will always be rich and poor, hierarchy is good and natural. The problem today is that those at the top of the hierarchy are not only physically and culturally repulsive, but unduly rich, attaining their wealth through economic parasitism that exclusively takes from the nation and gives nothing in return but slavery and misery. Our current “aristocracy” are unworthy of rule. Noblesse oblige is dead.
The solution is then simply to have a nationalistic government that supports the ethnic interests of the nation by punishing any businesses that violate these ethnic interests — e.g. by promoting anti-family ideology, open borders, undermining ethnic culture, supporting and financing the nation’s geopolitical enemies, general cruelty towards workers (causing class conflicts and destabilizing the nation), and so on.
As proven by the left today, ideological hegemony is a thousand times more important than economic central planning. Once your side has attained ideological hegemony, you have essentially achieved economic central planning anyway; everyone is on the same page, working towards the same ideological goals.
The end objective is a natural, healthy, organic society that operates as one human body. The question of how to reach that end goal is far more complex, and I won’t get into it here because this post is already too long, but it will obviously involve a lot of trust busting.
Hopefully this clears things up for those who were curious.
* By “successful” I mean healthy, prosperous, and powerful, not “big GDP.”
Here’s a political compass thing I did recently. Apparently I’m an economic centrist.
And here’s the average economic stances of American Right-Wingers. Most are economic centrists.