The Law of Reciprocity and the Con of Corporate Socialism

For a society to function in a way that benefits those involved in it, there must be some form of reciprocity that is based on voluntary exchange. In Modern society, this reciprocation is fundamentally based on the exchange of labour for capital, and so money is given to workers usually on the basis of how many hours are worked. The employer gains capital for himself by charging more for the goods or services provided by employees than is actually paid to them. This monetary gain is his ‘profit’, and the pursuit of profit is what is known as capitalism.

In some cases, profit is honestly earned by an artisan who charges more for a product than it cost them to produce, as the extra charge represents the extra labour that went into putting materials together into a finished product. This becomes a form of exploitation when extended to getting other people to do the work for you. However, there is nothing wrong with this if the decision to do so is voluntary. Someone who would rather work for somebody else to gain their capital rather than than through their own ideas and efforts is perfectly suited to acting as an employee.

Unfortunately, this is many times not the case in Modern society, as labour is often given reluctantly, and is usually driven out of necessity This may even be because even if one wishes to become their own employer, the need to make ends meet forces many talented people to work for others, often in selling goods that they are not interested in promoting themselves. This is a result of corporatism, where a small number of successful multinational corporations have created a monopoly through out-competing small businesses and dominating the market. This has only been possible through subsidies given by the state. As governments collect money through taxation, this means that they are using public funds to support private enterprise. This should give you the first hint that our governments are corrupt (from the local Scottish parliament, through the old imperial UK parliament to the EU superstate), since on what basis do they have the right to prioritize certain businesses over others?

The answer is that it is purely out of self interest at the expense of the public, as politicians benefit from the support of corporate donors to fund their political campaigns, and so in turn they give out subsidies and look the other way when those same corporations mislead the public or damage the environment. The common man is not considered in this exchange, other than a means of gaining either taxes or profit. The reason given for government subsidies is that certain businesses act in the interest of the common good, and so should be given support to fund their projects. However, businesses cannot be trusted to act in this way, as their only responsibility is to deliver a profit to their shareholders, and so their financial gain will always come at the expense of other concerns. This is simply the way of business, it only becomes a problem when said businesses become so powerful that have influence over governments that choose to support them.

Many who can see through this charade advocate socialism as the answer, since this is seen as a way to redistribute the wealth that is earned by the workers through the state, and thus ending the cycle of exploitation. The absurdity of this idea becomes apparent when you consider that wealthy billionaires are usually the ones who fund left-wing organizations. They use their capital gained through exploitation and usury to fund groups which pose no real threat to their interests. The reason for this is that, in order to achieve the ideals that utopian socialists wish for (specifically equality, a concept based on nonsense, as humans are all born with different capabilities and so can never be equal), they must empower the state to enforce their wishes. The same state that colludes with corporations in order to maintain the current order.

While left-wing organizations, such as the Labour Party, claim to advocate for the interests of the workers (or ‘labourers’), the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats support the ‘capitalist’ banks and corporations. In reality, nobody supports the small businesses that are based on garnering wealth through honest capitalism. They are also disadvantaged by the partnership between big business and the state, as they are consistently crushed through excessive regulations that favour wealthy corporations that can afford to pay the fees that accompany such regulation.

This balancing act maintains the power structure between exploiter and exploited, with no option in between and where human worth is gauged by how much money one can make, not through inherent worth based on talents that do not involve the manipulation of capital. The Left continues to encourage the common man to act as if he is ‘oppressed’ (and so becomes an eternal victim, always blaming others and never bettering his situation through his own efforts), while the Centre tries to convince us that our current situation is good for us (the Right has no real influence in Modern politics, and will never be allowed to by those who benefit from the demise of nationalism and conservatism).

There is no choice and there is no ‘people power’ within this system. Corporate socialism is the political game that suits the elites best, as they can continue to find excuses to employ Soviet-lite mass surveillance and suppression of free speech, while still allowing a measure of private enterprise so that people are fooled into believing that we still live in a capitalist society. A man who gives his labour unwillingly is by definition a slave, and this is the position that many of us have been forced into through globalization, as decisions which affect our conditions are made by people far away and whom we have nothing in common with.

The corporate state has managed to elevate itself above the people by bribing us with material goods and by employing mind-numbing media such as newspapers, television and cinema to enforce their world-view and to convince us that it is what we want. Through the proliferation of consumer goods meant to satiate our desires, they have scientifically perfected their psychological manipulation of our minds in order to assure us that the exchange is voluntary, and that our freedom and dignity are a price worth paying for commodities and comfort.

This is why, in a political sense at least, there is no true or effective opposition to the Modern order, as the system sustains itself through itself. No party manifesto filled with dubious promises can ever address the real problems which plague our society, as this would require the dismantling of the whole structure to its foundations in an effort to start again. What has happened is that we have set our expectations too high, and that in order to maintain the perpetual economic growth (which is, by the way, impossible) we have had to coerce people, by hook or by crook, into maintaining the monster that has been created.

This means that people in general go to work and pay their taxes unwillingly, as many of us (particularly in the younger generations) have lost the will to work towards a system that only abuses us and expects us to provide for the needs of the older generations, when we know we will not receive the same treatment in the future due to corruption and overpopulation. Once the trust has been lost, there can be no willing exchange, and holding society together becomes a game of coercion and manipulation in order to get people to work towards a common goal, because there is no incentive for people to willingly work towards filling the pockets of the rich and little else.

It is for this reason that Modern society is doomed. The ‘American Dream’ that has been exported to the rest of the world now rings hollow, and there is no way that the mess that has been created can ever be fixed. Modernity gives us nothing truly fulfilling, it simply takes and takes and takes, as its benefactors are constantly trying to convince us that it is what we want, and they are consistently failing because we can see the results, or lack thereof. It is not only we humans who are having the life sucked out of us, but also Mother Nature, who is constantly having to pay the price in order to prop up our society’s ridiculously high demands for convenience and material abundance.

There will come a point when she will have nothing left to give, and presumably will begin to take from us what we owe her in order for balance to be restored. Learning to give and take in equal measure is necessary for order and survival. Do not give to parasites that will never give anything back, and this includes uncaring employers and abusive partners; as well as what can be considered ‘corporate charities’, where money that is not donated for a specific cause cannot be trusted not to be misused as a means of earning profit.

This is not to say that one should not be charitable, in fact, the cosmic law of reciprocation means that goodwill is repaid with good luck. However, we should never feel compelled to give out of guilt or hoping for a reward, but rather out of recognising mutual benefit and shared interest. This process is not merely a human construct, but is based on cosmic law (known in Sanskrit as rita, from which we derive the word ‘right’) and is the basis on which we give offerings to the gods in mutual trust. This awareness is something that Modern society has lost, but it is essential to us to learn in order to survive as part of a tribe in the hard times to come.

Wulf Willelmson

Folkish Tribalism: Beyond ‘Right-Wing’

In a time when expressing pride in one’s ancestry and heritage is looked upon with suspicion because it conflicts with the concept of all races being ‘equal’, the world of politics can seem like a frustrating and hopeless place. While leftists and centrists seem to harbour feelings of at best apathy and at worst hostility towards their own people, the so-called ‘right-wing’ sphere of the spectrum offers only an older, ‘laissez-fare’ attitude towards capitalism and a vague, ‘civic nationalist’ populism that still unquestionably supports Israeli interests, modernity and statism. The term ‘far-right’ is now more of a catch-all term for unpopular political opinions and is associated mainly with fascism or White supremacy, but can also be used against folk who oppose multiculturalism, support racial nationalism, or who simply hold contempt for the current order of things, and is avoided by most people for fear of the dreaded ‘R’ word. The banks and states of the world have supported each other to ensure their complete domination of the planet. The systems that they use to administer their control are focused on sowing division and mutual hatred between peoples, to ensure that they remain focused on fighting each other and not those that consider themselves ‘elites’.

The state in particular has become bloated by bureaucracy, especially when extra layers of government are added to administer a larger region, such as within the EU or the US. Taxes are unreasonably high in order to continue supporting expensive military projects, such as nuclear stockpiling, development of drone weaponry or selling weapons to countries that fund ISIS like Saudi Arabia. Huge sums of money are given as subsidies to wealthy energy companies to continue with the destruction of the environment and holding back the development of technology to reduce energy consumption, as opposed to the expensive and intrusive ‘green’ or ‘sustainable’ energy, such as windfarms and huge hydroelectric schemes. We also waste so much on economically unproductive and patronising ‘foreign aid’ to countries which have such corrupt political systems themselves, that the money invested simply enriches the wealthiest in those countries. The only useful things that the state could exist for would be to fund public transport and provide an actual living wage to folk (as in a regular allowance given to a citizen); two ideas which are completely alien to most politicians who prefer to privatize essential public institutions and waste money on ‘welfare’, which keeps people completely dependent on the state when they are unemployed, while corporations offer most of the jobs available.

The cycle of debt means that all of the money that is borrowed by people and their government feeds into the banks who are constantly consuming the world’s financial resources. However, they do not simply keep the money that they solicit, they invest heavily in leftist social movements, which merely serve as ineffective opposition to capitalism, because they are funded by the same people. The dichotomy of ‘right-wing and left-wing’ is based on the assumption that economic models are the same as social policies. Capitalism and socialism are not the only options, but since they receive all of the funding, they have each narrowed their differences and become barely distinct from each other. ‘Corporate Socialism’ is probably the best description for the political system in most countries today, especially in the West. This system is an authoritarian expression of centrist politics, akin to Leninism, Stalinism or National Socialism. Like fascism, it is a fusion of capitalist economics with socialist policies, but instead of being focused on the strength of a nation, it exploits their weaknesses and continually strips humans of their civil rights as we are de-humanized and are seen as slaves by those who have the most financial power.

The economic foundations of our political systems are rooted in globalist financial interests. Modern capitalism supports a system of usury practised by the bankers, while modern left-wing politics have become dominated by Marxism, an ideology fermented by the Zionist Karl Marx. His conception of politics was that industrial society was detrimental to the workers who earned a wage because they were being exploited by the European ‘bourgeoisie’ (who would have not existed as a social class had we not an industrial society as a result of capitalism), and should be overthrown to establish a socialist regime, where everything is controlled by the state in order to create a ‘communist’ society where everything is collectively owned. Aside from the obvious flaw that the state will not willingly grant power to it’s citizens if it has control of everything in a society, Marxism is known in sociology as a ‘conflict theory’, which is usually interpreted as theory that addresses conflict within society. However, the effect of such theories (along with feminism) is rather to cause conflict, by creating a dualistic, black-and-white conception of reality where one set of ideas is intended to replace others, and so they simply function as secular religions. However, unlike a religion based in spirituality, this way of thinking sees humans as quantifiable and mechanized, acting like robots instead of children of Nature.

Nothing is more sacred than our bond with Nature, and as we can see when we study her laws, we see that there is no equality. The fate that befalls each organism is based on its inherent capabilities and there are clear winners and losers. Yet each one has its place and the world is less interesting without each of them. Morality is a human concept but also has its place, the only area where equality has any merit is in law, and it is telling that while equality is pushed in areas where people are not (such as in the differences between races and genders), one place that is made completely unequal by capitalism is the legal system. Let me be clear in saying that when applied outside of man-made laws ‘equality’ means ‘the same as’ or ‘equivalent to’. When applied in legal proceedings, it is useful as an abstract concept to make sure that the outcome is fair, but in all other cases its purpose is to enforce uniformity and conformity, where differences of origin are ignored and differences of opinion regarding this are shunned. Even then, the law cannot consistently enforce equality, as it is simply common sense that foreigners have a different set of rights than natives (such as the right to vote) to ensure that the society remains in the hands of the people that created it, though this is now a concept that is increasingly discouraged by our society and seen as ‘xenophobic’.

Racial homogeneity in a society is essential to maintaining stability, as competing cultures will rip a nation apart. We can see that this only causes discord, as it is obvious that ills such as racism only occur when different peoples are forced to coexist within the same society, inevitably leading to conflict of interest. It is not because people are just stubborn and refuse to accept what is supposedly good for them, as our lying media and politicians try to convince us is the case, which is of course try to make us feel guilty for not willingly giving away our land and our right to self-determination. The reason that traditionalist views are often considered ‘right-wing’ is because Marxism is based on being an adversary to a singular view of society, and so the aspects that characterized monistic societies (where society is seen as a complete whole) were cast in opposition to this, such as ideas about cultural and genetic distinctiveness and the sovereignty of individuals belonging to a nation.

The state is not something that can be relied on, it has become so tyrannical and hostile that we cannot trust those who uphold it anymore. To try and change the system is fruitless, as its sole purpose is to maintain its existence. Revolution is counter-productive, as the system is based on violence and coercion, so any attempts to violently replace the government will only result in a new tyranny. Troy Southgate’s ‘National Anarchism’ is a good first step towards a more gradual process, as he espouses the concept of autonomous racial communities that govern themselves. This is coupled with the call to grow your own food and think independently, which based on the concept of the ‘anarch’; that is to say, a sovereign individual. Building a tribe can only work if there are individuals who are able to stand on their own two feet and are capable of making their own decisions. This does not necessarily need to apply to everybody in the tribe, for women, children and other dependents would usually fall under the guidance of the family head, who may be a matriarch or patriarch depending on the traditions of each particular tribe.

The main problem with the term ‘nationalism’ is that it implies support for the ‘nation-state’, paving the way for abusive ideologies such as fascism, therefore, we should simply dispense with this outdated concept and focus more on man’s natural state of organization; tribalism. The average human is only capable of knowing around 150 people well enough that they can trust them, and so it makes sense for societies to be organized based on a smaller unit. If millions of people are forced to act as if they are all able to work together, they end up not acting in their own benefit, but that of their rulers. The tribe (or clan) is based on kinship, which is one reason why family organization is so effective; it ensures trust and mutual interests among its members. Ideally, all members are of the same ‘folk’, which means that they share a mutual genetic and cultural heritage and will therefore be more likely to act in each other’s interests voluntarily and have a common understanding with each other.

The reason that ‘racism’ seems so prevalent is because it is often only framed from a negative perspective, which is defined as hatred towards or between different races. This occurs when a state has no racial basis and is defined purely in geographical terms, leading to competing cultures and mutual antipathy within a country. The term ‘racialism’ however, can be used to describe a more neutral or positive idea. ‘Racialism’ used to mean what ‘racism’ means now (a term coined by Trotsky), but can now be used to define something different. It solves the problem with the definition of the term ‘racism’, which, according to most definitions, means that races are considered distinct from each other and can be ranked into a hierarchy based on their attributes. The first part is essentially a correct assumption, but it only results in racism if applied to a state system, because the nation can only consist of one race in order to survive. If the idea of a nation is separated from the idea of the state, it means that no race has priority over another except in their own communities. The practice of racial hierarchy only occurs in societies which are imperialistic, while multiculturalism emerges later as a symptom of a collapsing empire and worsens racial relations, rather than resolving them as the imperial state struggles to maintain itself.

To the state, individual people are simply economic units; to their family, they are considered essential members of each other’s lives, provided that it is a healthy family. This is a system that works for all races and under such a system they will have more agreeable relations. It also closer to the left-wing in other ways, as despite the fact that tribes do own private property, including possessions that have been found or made by an individual; productive land is communally owned by a tribe, while marginal land is common to all people in the area. Though conflict is always inevitable, it is best when there is no threat of one people destroying another through conquest for the sake of extortion. We can see with the existence of ethnic enclaves that peoples do not naturally prefer to be with those of another kind (that is, the natives of the land they have migrated to) more than their own, and to deny this and act against it is only going to worsen the racial problems that we face today.

Unfortunately, because we live in a multicultural society, all of these ideas have been deemed too close to racism to be acceptable, and the conflict simply continues to the benefit of the rich. As a former socialist, I remember thinking such thoughts to be reprehensible myself, because I was deceived into thinking that my race alone was responsible for our society’s problems. All of the peoples of the world are suffering under the heel of selfish materialists, and much of this is caused by them trying to take away our inherent connection to each other and to our land. One reason why the need for racial and gender equality is pushed so hard these days is because they distract from the true, financial and legal inequality between people within all races. Our relationship to each other is horizontal, not vertical. We should not be ranked based on superiority and inferiority based on arbitrary reasons such as wealth or status. Each individual is the centre of a ripple that extends first to their family, then to their folk, then to their species, and then to Nature. We must not see our morality and our identity as being defined by someone else, but as something which is within us and a part of us.

Folkish Tribalism is an idea that favours true diversity by allowing all races to exist within their own space on the planet, and implies voluntary auto-segregation rather than the uneven segregation employed by a state that cannot favour two different groups equally by virtue of automatically belonging to one or the other (or even a separate group altogether that wishes to pit two sides against each other).  The sociopaths that run the world want us all to merge into one homogeneous ‘non-race’ because it means that we will have no reason to resist their control over us. We would have no basis on which to identify our own place in the world, and all of our personal sovereignty that goes with it would disappear. It’s about time we took the responsibility to take control of ourselves as a people and discover our purpose in the world around us through remembering our heritage.

Wulf Willelmson