If you’re reading this, you probably already know that the Alt-Right is a movement with many different factions, including traditionalists, nationalists, secessionists, populists, conservatives, Austro-libertarians, Hoppean anarcho-capitalists, minarchists, and Kekistanis. From the perspective of those who describe themselves as centrist or apolitical, national socialists are perhaps the most controversial of these factions.
We’re all taught as children to hate Nazi symbolism and accept the leftist narrative that Hitler was worse than Mao, Stalin, or Lenin. When people object to national socialism, they’re usually virtue signaling an exaggerated response to hyperbolic lies they were taught as vulnerable children. Very rarely does one encounter objective criticisms of national socialist public policy positions (though Hoppe’s take is quite instructive).
I offer the following criticism in good faith because I believe many national socialists prescribe economic policies that will result in outcomes that none of us would prefer. To be certain, I am not concerned with the optics of Roman salutes or Swastikas; I am concerned with the economic and political future of white children.
George Lincoln Rockwell was arguably the most notorious American national socialist prior to his assassination and continues to be among the most cited national socialists to this day. Rockwell argued national socialists believe in two concepts: private property and social justice.
I’m not going to counter-signal private property norms, but I do hope to demonstrate that these concepts are mutually exclusive. For the sake of this article, I’ll assume that the reader doesn’t need an in-depth explanation of private property norms. I think it’s enough to say that private property is any scarce, rivalrous resource that was acquired through first use or consensual exchange. In the event of a conflict over the use of some property, the present user is assumed to be its rightful owner unless a latecomer can demonstrate a better, intersubjectively verifiable link to it. This standard allows us to avoid conflict, be productive, and accumulate savings. As savings rise, time preference rates fall, thus facilitating the process of civilization.
If social justice is defined as the prohibition of usury (as I think Rockwell and many national socialists would define it) and usury is defined as the collection of interest, the division of labor between property owners would be a crime, as would all forms of property produced by the cooperation of multiple individuals. If applied consistently, such a standard would result in something like mutualism; not national socialism, as NatSocs would hope.
Interest is a monetary expression of time preference. Labor only gets divided through cooperation when the time preferences of all involved individuals are satisfied. If the collection of interest were prohibited, the ability of individuals to express their time preferences would be muted, and societal time preference rates would subsequently rise. Cooperation obviously happens without a thought to any of this, which means that an effective prohibition of interest is probably less likely than an effective prohibition of cocaine use.
A true ban on interest would necessitate a ban on the expression of time preference rates. How could such a thing even be accomplished without a totalitarian state that enslaves the unborn to dysgenic national debts (i.e. the status quo)? It is not the collection of interest that is the problem. The problem is that the state maintains a monopoly on the circulation of currency and uses it to foist national debts on our children. A zero-interest rate policy (ZIRP) doesn’t solve this problem; it exacerbates it. The lower interest rates are, the more the state prints. The more the state prints, the more debt it passes to our kids. If a ZIRP was going to solve this problem, it would have been solved already given the last ten years of zero percent interest rates.
NatSocs insist they don’t want to talk about economics for the sake of cooperating against globalists but then unironically advocate Keynesianism and Modern Monetary Theory as though that’s not the exact problem. I would advocate that they not do this. I’m all about securing the existence of our people and a future for white children, but more of the economic malpractice that screwed America and Europe over in the first place is NOT going to result in that particular outcome. If we hold interest rates at zero percent, we incent rapid consumption of accrued capital and institutionalize high time preference.
That’s why Democrats are trying to import third world socialists and theocrats with an average birth rate of six children per family. Bribing people for votes is expensive. “Social safety nets” result in massive debts, all of which get passed to the unborn through taxation. Anything you tax, you get less of. Tax the unborn, get less babies. Tax productive people to subsidize the lifestyles of layabouts, you get less productive people and more layabouts.
That’s a huge problem when the state is running multiple pyramid schemes that depend on ever-increasing numbers of new tax cattle. The state is importing non-whites to make up for the falling birth rates of white people. The left’s hatred for white people is ancillary to its welfarism, lust for power, and desperation for access to the property of others.
If you want the left to stop bribing third worlders with the blood money of unborn white children, stop calling for more of what caused this problem in the first place. We could replace all of the Jews at the Federal Reserve with white people but that still wouldn’t solve the problem. We need interest rates to be determined by the consumption decisions of individual consumers; not by unelected bureaucrats who couldn’t possibly anticipate the time preferences of others, let alone satisfy them.
If we want to ensure that our children don’t have to face the issues we’re facing now, we need sound money and a rollback on price controls in money markets.
Less Hitler; more Hoppe