Riddle me this: What am I?
I disagree with my socialist friends for the obvious reason that socialism, at least in its historical manifestations (when self-conscious socialists have been in power) is a failure, both in practice and in theory. I’ve never heard a Socialist respond to the savage epistemological criticisms leveled against them by Von Mises, for instance. Plus, I don’t believe one needs to be a socialist to be pro-white, nor do I believe Nazi Germany was the highest manifestation of pro-white civilization.
But I disagree with my classical liberal friends because of the critiques of unfettered capitalism leveled against them from my socialist and distributist friends. The classical liberals are naive in many ways when it comes to social organization, believing the magic hand of the free market will fix all ills. It wont and is open to easy abuse, plus, when acting in tandem with a state, it seems to denigrate a society into abject immorality.
I disagree with my anarchist friends because, while I do believe in a form of anarchy, I don’t believe in the “Non-Aggression” principle and think it’s dangerous. We’ll never live in a society where all members agree not to harm each other. Strong principled men willing to bring violence against evil-doers will always be needed. Most anarchists also despise racial loyalties and naively believe arbitrary (usually sinful) group associations will be all the “glue” necessary to foster a self-governing society. Without a strong church and a strong set of honorable social mores, fostered in a bed of racial loyalty, the anarchists of today will never form something as beautiful as the middle ages.
I disagree with my Distributist friends because, while they have good ideas, much of their practical plans seem naive and open to the criticisms of the Austrians and libertarians. Plus, accepting Distributism in its contemporary forms would require both racial and economic egalitarianism. But contrary to Belloc, I think some people ought to be ruled over in a benevolent form of slavery. No sir, my property will *not* be redistributed to a bunch of blacks and white trash vagabonds.
I love the Southern Agrarians, but they strike me as too modern (if that’s possible), and the neo-agrarians (like Allan Carlson) have drunk from the fountain of satanism along with the rest of modernity. After reading them, one is left feeling that “agrarianism” is a system that will work equally well in Nigeria as it did in the South. They’re certainly unwilling to dip into the South’s rich heritage of thought in the area of labor theory (a la Fitzhugh or Henry Hughes). So, no. I don’t think so.
What am I?
I could mention various other popular schools of economic thought in the alternative right but would summarily dismiss them as well. Some of you might answer my question “…what am I?” by saying: “confused” or “contentious” or “a dumb redneck who needs to leave the advanced theorizing to those Yankees with the intellect for the task.”
I think what I am is someone who hates modernity.
Belloc, in “The Servile State” frames his entire economic view around his disdain for slavery. And while he does (surprisingly) admit that slave-based systems solve some of the economic problems he discusses, he rejects them out of hand as un-Christlike. Whatever is wrong with Belloc’s commentary, I think he always does one thing remarkably well: he’s able to paint the scope of his topic in a human way. Or, that is to say: he’s able to frame the discussion personally, to make it comprehensible in an almost narrative-like way.
In the case of the Servile State, Belloc says the world went awry with Henry VIII, who confiscated the property of the Catholic Church, which was then redistributed to an already wealthy, budding Capitalist class. This preceded the “Industrial Revolution” and, on Belloc’s view, is the cause of our current ills. Some, like the Southern Agrarians, blamed the Industrial Revolution itself, but Belloc says no. It was the underlying philosophy of capitalism which made the industrial revolution so destructive. If it had occurred without the backing of a capitalist philosophy, England would have developed its industrial technology in a harmonious and moral way.
One of the Agrarians, Andrew Lytle, took a look back at the Agrarian movement after 80 or so years (I forget the exact reference although I believe it’s in “From Eden to Babylon”) and suggested he ought not have fingered the Industrial Revolution as the culprit after all. Instead, he said he ought to have claimed “materialism” as the major problem.I think he’s on the right track.
The early Agrarians blame industrialism. Belloc blamed capitalism. Now the later Lytle is blaming “materialism.” I say we take one step further and realize even “materialism” is a symptom of the disease.
Our real problem – the problem that caused the death of Christendom – wasn’t the industrial revolution, it wasn’t capitalism, nor was it materialism. It was, in my honest opinion, “rationalism.” The idea that man’s mind is the measure of all things. This is the central tenet to all modernism and it’s the one reason why someone like me finds little acceptance in any modern school of economic thought.
ALL OF THEM ARE MODERNISTS!!!!!
Man is not a machine and must not be treated like one! We cannot tinker with society as if it were a machine, no matter how noble the sentiment or how well-researched the chart. It wont happen. A real economist needs an infinite mind to track an infinite number of complex social and physiological (and natural) processes, choices, and events. That’s why God is the only possible economist.
And when men are Godly, they need no state.
When men have a state, they need no God.