Before one can speak of ideology and policy the key terms must be defined in clear, simple terms. The first of which is race which is an aggregate comprised of those that share a highly similar genetic legacy. A past that produced a collective sense of purpose in the form of folkways and aesthetics that provided for internal cohesion over a great number of generations is what I maintain define Tradition. The political expression of racial interests and the Traditionalism of a homogeneous and fully sovereign folk should be what defines a nation rather then merely the perpetuation of coalition disparate interests seeking dominance over society as is currently the case. Such an expression can be either from the state or privately organized by societal interests but what makes such arrangements nationalistic is the extent to which they can be made to maintain and advance Traditionalism rather then simply impose a sectarian will upon the nation, state, or government at large. The means by which the collective affairs of the nation is carried out via a set of institutions that out live their creators is what I refer to as the state. Government is nothing more then a temporary collection of individuals or organizations that control the state. Being a nationalist in part means recognizing the centrality of the fact that the nation is a product of the people that created the Tradition we wish to protect.

Doing so requires a bit of prioritizing in that our efforts must ultimately be based upon the realization that: a) race is a biologic reality b) said reality has profound consequences in all fields of societal life c) that European man is facing extinction in large measure as a result of our socializing institutions being controlled by Jews d) that racial separatism is the only sane/humane means of securing our existence. Anyone that can’t/won’t recognized the previous statements as the over arching priority of political/cultural struggle is ultimately not on our side although varying temporary alliances can and must be made with those that don’t share our ultimate vision.

The unpleasant fact however is that the simple truths above don’t provide the sole basis for a viable movement of national restoration. The reason for this unhappy state of affairs of is that our kinsmen deserve and expect solutions to their problems rather then just a critique of the current establishment and predictions of an apocalyptic future contrasted with some ill defined yet idyllic golden age that we wish to resurrect with no clear image of how to go about such a dramatic transformation.

A commonly bandied about slogan in nationalist circles is “neither left nor right” and our noble cause has a fine history of making that a reality in the form of having an applicable, practical vision of society that holds neither statist collectivism or the “invisible hand of the market” as a panacea to societal problems. While it is all fine and well to talk of the virtues of homogeneity or to applaud the noble endeavors of our forefathers the fact remains that flaws within those bygone eras played as much a part in our current descent into oblivion as did the genius and ruthlessness of the aliens we complain so bitterly about.

Specifically, I refer to the fact that for the most part the history of Occidental nations have been defined by the state serving as a means for effecting control over the nation at the behest of a ruling elite that in modern times is often racially alien. The domestic discord such dominance fosters has often resulted in the disintegrations of our Traditions leading to terrible human suffering which on occasion as resulted in national renewal but more often terminal decline and destruction accompanied by the ascendancy of cosmopolitanism which in turn lead to demographic oblivion for our nations. This path to destruction is as much a certainty arising from the societal nillism implicit in the workings of unrestrained capitalism as it is with or the total destruction of Tradition that defines the various faces of bolshevism and social democracy. All place sectoral interests over nations culminating in totalitarianism and the death of the uniqueness of the families of man that have produced the nations of both the Occident and alien civilizations alike in favour of an anti culture that revels in the transitory, the crass and faddish while destroying all else. Our tasks as defenders of the Occident and inheritors of the obligation of existence bequeathed to us by the sacrifices of countless generations is to find a societal system rooted in our specific traditions that preservers our genetic legacy for our descendants via the creation of nationalist states and governments.

The reason why I as a racial nationalist object to both statist collectivism in it’s various forms (bolshevism, communtarianism, social democracy etc.) and the atomistic nature of unrestrained capitalism is that both represent the primacy of crass materialism and econometrics over Tradition and the biologic base from which the values we treasure spring from. The various manifestations of Bolshevism and capitalism both have globalism as an inherent consequence as both have society ordered entirely around one’s relationship to the means of production which are structured to serve centralized producers whose interests are, by nature, cosmopolitan rather then racially or nationally specific. Both give rise to imperialism be it in the form of mercantilism (often cloaked under the guise of “comparative advantage”, Christianisation or “global strategic interests”) or class war and the universality of the tan every man that exists only in the minds of the anti human advocates of diversity, the wish lists of marketing consultants and professional anti Europeans.

What racial nationalism entails from the standpoint of societal ordering, beyond the homogeneity that makes our survival as a people possible, is the creation of a framework in which individuals are not seen as atomistic entities driven by gut & groin as is the case with cosmopolitan capitalism or as mere tools of statist or communal production divorced from Tradition as is the case with the various forms of bolshevism.  Instead, nationalism views individuals within a national/communal context as an expression of the will of providence that provides continuity from one generation to the next. This continuity comes in the  form of an identity that is biologically, culturally, spiritually and economially defined so as to grant common meaning in the form of a shared set of  folkways that provide balance between the nation as a whole, it’s various constituent groups and the individual.

A consequence of the primacy of identity to nationalism is that the institutions established by a nationalist state and society recognize the constituent socio - economic classes with the goal of minimizing societal discord and fostering a sense of common purpose and dedication to one’s ancestors and descendants. Such a goal requires the end of class based exploitation be it by a globalist, cosmopolitan capitalist class or by an equally globalist and cosmopolitan collectivist state that supercedes nations and traditions.
 

To me, one such practical expression of the conceptual framework detailed above is somewhat akin to Hirst's Associative Democracy which is a more recent expression Guild Socialism as portrayed by authors Harold Laski and GDH Cole. What they term Associative Democracy is a societal system in which the so called “negative rights”* perspective of liberty is meet by having as many activities of society as possible managed by voluntary, self-governing associations of citizens with considerable influence over and ownership of the enterprises they work for. A very good description of such arrangements in modern setting can be found here:  http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/personal/wkpaps/gildf/gildpref.html

Obviously, no reasonable person would suggest that a return to pre - industrial societal norms is possible but an advocation of modern guildism presumes an economy based upon complex and interconnected industries, large populations and the continuation of international trade at lower then current levels which is defined in part by cooperative production and consumption. As the economy and the work place is federated and democratic they could have what the corporatists** of old referred to as “horizontally integration” (different industries within a location) and “vertically integration” (different enterprises within an industry) at various levels. Vertically integrated democratic federations have been be commonly referred to as "guilds” in the past but I feel "Labor-Managed-Labor Owned Enterprises," (LM-LOE's for short) seems more appropriate . What is most vital to remember is the exchange and distribution of products would be settled by some combination of markets and state planing, with the understanding that the plan would be created by agreement among the M-LOE's, other federations, and their member enterprises, not handed down from some governmental decree or the transitory fancy of some sort lived electoral coalition. In essence, Guildism and traditional Corporatism advocate popular control of the economy to the largest extent practical rather then economic centralization under massive conglomerates or state direction for the purpose of granting the populace the maximal control over their own professional lives.

Purchases of goods a services between the various LM-LOE's and the consumers would be via market transactions. The transition to such a system should, to my mind, be gradual so as to minimize economic disruptions via a system of tax and investment credits with joint resolution of disputes handled via elected representatives of the state, consumer unions and  LM-LOEs. International trade, as I see it, would have to walk a fine line between free trade which brings market efficiencies as well as globalization and low wages and the security offered by Listian*** inspired protectionism which has tendencies towards inefficiency and compliancy that a lack of competition can encourage. To a large extent, such negative incentives can be negated if foreign competition is used as a means to force the LM-LOEs to higher levels of productivity. Additional incentives for high productivity could come from genuine and sizable tax credits for capitol, R & D and retraining investments provided they are meet by objective increases in productivity.

The good news is that economic democracy need not equal the economic incompetence one sees in state directed enterprises or the primitivism that accompanied pre-industrial efforts at worker control. To the contrary, modern instances of worker-directed companies compare favourable with capitalist enterprises and far better then state controlled ones. For evidence to support this, see "Cooperation: The Proper Study of Economics, "International Journal of Social Economics, 1993, v. 20, no. 10, pp.55-78.

All of this stuff about economics was raised because the production and distribution of wealth is something that we as Eurocentrics must address. We are obligated to provide our kinsmen with a viable alternative to state based collectivism and the monstrosity that capitalism was bound to transform into. Nationalism must be based upon biologic reality and preservation but it must also address the reasons why statist economics and capitalism are by nature hostile to our vision of a salubrious, Traditionalistic and stable folkish way of life and how we intend to achieve it. The democratization of the economy does just that. What interests me is having input from the economically and culturally oriented readers advancing a practical form of an economic democratization that does not require a state controlled system of production and distribution, laissez-faire dogma or some pre-industrial utopianism.

* Negative rights theory is Von Hayek’s concept that liberty is defined by what may not be done by citizens or governments. This notion of liberty requires governments to refrain from violating rights/freedom/liberty; when they do not initiate or threaten aggression towards others. Negative rights theory is distinguished from the leftist notion of rights as entitlements/privileges/transfers of wealth granted by the state to various favored segments of society.

** Corporatism at it’s most basic refers to various economic interest groups (ex. labour unions, manufacturers, consumers etc.) being formally recognized and represented by or within the state.  It’s purpose is to provide a means of minimizing class conflict and national deline which are products of unrestrained capitalism without recourse to leftist variants of socialism. Corporatism has a very long history in almost all nationalist circles dating back to the Napoleonic era and has always been a major element of Fascism, National Socialism and other forms of revolutionary nationalism.

*** This refers to the famous economist Friedrich Von List who was major figure in the Prussian led unification of Germany via a Zollverein which brought about the unification of free trade customs unions in 1834. Von List is still a major source of inspiration for opponents of libertarian notions of free trade.