I read on Guy White the other day a quote of a Nazi copping that yes, they’re about racial unity not capitalism and individualism. So I will stick with the term “white socialists” because to me it is the most descriptive.
A belief is a conclusion one has arrived at. Since you can arrive at a destination by different paths different people can believe the same thing for different reasons. White socialists and regular socialists have different, but similar paths to their belief systems.
I think what distinguishes white socialists the most is they really hate Jews. They dislike blacks but don’t hate them, and have no hostility at all to other cultures other than wanting to be separate from them. White socialists see Jews as behind all the bad things that have happened to their people, although I myself am inclined to see white socialism itself as the problem. Regular socialists only hate pro-Israel Jews, and of course many regular socialists are Jews themselves.
Regular socialist look at the world with benign care. We should help, but must not interfere in any way with the myriad cultures and nations of the world, which are in no way inferior to our own. White socialists view the world with benign indifference. We must not interfere in any way with the other cultures and nations, which may be inferior to our own, but love themselves as we love ourselves. White socialists cherish their faux traditionalism and admire societies that assert their own faux traditionalism, such as the Arabs and Chinese.
Israel is a different case. Here the two groups hardly differ at all. They both believe the Jews manipulate the US to support Israel unconditionally to its great detriment in the rest of the world, which explains most of our Middle East problems.
Money is another weird one. White socialists love the idea of a gold standard, because they think the Jews are manipulating fiat currencies for their own benefit. (They may be right- it’s worked out pretty good for George Soros.) But I think if the world was on a gold standard, they would say the Jews were hoarding all the gold, creating chaos for their own profit, and demand we get off it.
Economics is a little more complicated and requires going into history. Let me dispatch with the National Socialists of Germany first. One of their intents was to settle Germans on Eastern European farmland cleared of Slavs. They thought urban living had softened the German people. I don’t know that many people in Berlin or Hamburg liked the idea of moving to a nice little place with a few cows in Poland or the Ukraine but that was the idea.
White socialists in the US on the other hand wanted to keep people in the country, not move them back. Something you heard all the time up to a few years ago was the critical importance to America of the family farm. It was important to keep agriculture in the hands of sturdy, hard-working, decent, land-loving farm folk and out of the hands of the giant corporations.
A caveat- I’m an unread blogger, not a historian, and you get what you pay for. To continue. Most people, throughout most of history, lived on farms, because almost everyone was a farmer. You were rich if you owned a lot of land, and poor if you had none and worked for someone else, probably as a serf or a slave. You grew most of what you ate and made most of what you used, or a neighbor did. Only a few merchants and tradesmen lived in towns or cities full time- and only higher level nobles part time. Few people went more than a few miles from their place of birth. Cities were dirty, nasty places.
Now, in the Mediterranean there was a maritime grain trade that supported large cities but the large scale movement of food- and the replacement of subsistence farming by business farming- wasn’t really practical until the invention of the railroad. Up to that point the only practical way of moving a large, heavy load was in a ship. The Romans had good paved roads but even on those how much can you haul in a wagon drawn by oxen? Not more than a few tons.
In the US after the Civil War you then have people flocking to the Great Plains to start farms, accompanied by railroads to connect them to the cities, which were filling up with immigrants and people who were abandoning subsistence farming for other kinds of work. Farmers were now businessmen, making a product to sell to others.
The first problem that arose was transportation. The only way to sell your product was to move it on a monopoly railroad, which might charge more than you cared to pay. Farmers settled this by demanding and getting government regulation of freight rates. This might well be the first example of white socialism.
Farming like most other businesses has substantial economies of scale, and giant bonanza farms worked by farmhands for wages with steam-powered machinery arose. I don’t know how much this affected the economics and culture of the Midwest. I’m not sure if these farms lasted or went bust in one of the many panics and depressions. However, that brings up the second problem, which is that farming is a highly competitive business with thin profit margins. Farmers were discovering they weren’t living as well as they thought they should while the new class of businessmen and even many average city dwellers were becoming more affluent. Farmers started another effort, which continues to this day in every First World country, of getting government protection to ensure their standard of living relative to the urban population.
The third problem was money and credit. Farmers hated the gold standard because it restricted the money supply and available credit, and farmers are voracious consumers of credit, farming being a very capital intensive business requiring much expensive land and equipment, and a great deal of working capital to fund operations until the crop is sold. Getting off the gold standard was white socialist OG William Jennings Bryant’s big issue, which he expounded in his famous “cross of gold” speech. This is why while white socialists claim to want a gold standard they would probably be screaming bloody murder the day it started.
And it was hardly just a matter of money, it never is. In the farmer/white socialist corner- low church Protestants of old English extraction, joined by a smaller number of Scandinavians and Germans, Lutherans or low church Protestants. In the urban/Wild East capitalist corner- high church English, Catholics and Orthodox from all over Europe, and Jews. The importance of maintaining the purity of rural culture- the racial and religious nature of it is only hinted at- is held up to this day.
Are white socialists and regular then at odds? By no means! (Hehehe I borrow from St. Paul, it drives me nuts the way he does that about three times a chapter in Romans, but perhaps it is an effective rhetorical device. Used moderation of course.) In fact in the state of Minnesota the Democratic Party is officially called the Democratic Farmer Labor Party. The two forces are seamlessly combined. The ethnic homogeneity of Minnesota and much of the rest of the Midwest no doubt helps this. Lacking this the two can still work well together as they have in the New Deal coalition. But they are different things and that cannot be forgotten.
In the end it’s rural interests versus urban interests and the real home of white socialism in the US is the South. In this era the South decided if you can’t beat them, leach off of them. The century long domination of the US congress by Southern Democrats then began. The seniority rule gave the many-times reelected southern congressmen control of key committees and ensured the flow of federal money into their states.
If you use government power to obtain subsidies, the fixing of prices (high for what you receive, low for what you pay) and money spent in your area is that not socialism? If you use it to protect and continue your racial group is it not racial socialism? I don’t think the concept of fascism is even meaningful. It’s all about who gets the goodies, and the battle is substantially if not always openly racial, ethnic and cultural.
I said I would explain why the problem for white socialists was white socialism and not the Jews. The system, at least as it exists in the US, was set up by white Protestants largely of the Southern racialist bent- even Woodrow Wilson was a southern racialist. If you had told a black sharecropper or a Jewish cart peddler in 1870 that his great grandchildren would be twisting arms to fill their pockets he would think you were nuts. But if you set up a system where people logroll, favor swap, arm twist, vote count, propagandize and intimidate for financial gain eventually others are going to want in, and they will get in.