Many alt-Righters have the delusion that socialism could work in an all-White society. The experience of New Zealand from the 1930's to the 1980's says otherwise. Revolution is an interesting examination of what happens when European societies adopt broken economics.

Revolution and the Myth of White Socialism
4.0Overall Score
Reader Rating: (29 Votes)

The biggest problem when political movements become popular is that they attract people who aren’t committed to the core ideology and just want to be one of the cool kids. So it is with the alternative Right, increasingly infested by normies who cling to their Leftist delusions like Linus to his security blanket. One of the most popular wrong-headed ideas in the alt-Right is that Whites can magically make socialism work if we just kick out everyone with melanin in their skin.

Saying that Whites can defy the laws of economics is like saying that some men can pass for women. Sure, a virgin with rage can flambé his private parts, get breast implants and blow his monthly tugboat on Dollar Store makeup, but that doesn’t change the fact that he’s a biological male with an overpriced sexual fetish. Similarly, while an all-White nation won’t collapse under socialist policies as quickly as an African cesspool, that doesn’t make socialism desirable or viable as an economic system.

Christopher Cantwell hammers this point on his radio show frequently, and it’s the truth: good economics is an integral part of building a healthy society. You can’t have a patriarchal, family-focused nation if bugchasers are running around pozzing each others’ negholes, and you can’t breed a nation of strong men and women with an economic system that encourages sloth and degeneracy.

Fortunately, I don’t need to rely on conjecture, because the White socialist experiment has already been tried. I recently watched Revolution, a 1996 four-part documentary series on New Zealand’s transition from welfare state socialism to capitalism in the 1980’s. Revolution is a must-watch for anyone who thinks that socialism can be decoupled from the Leftist hydra. New Zealanders thought they could ignore basic economics, and they nearly paid for it with total social and economic collapse.

It’s not surprising that few know Revolution’s story, since New Zealand is one of those countries that you don’t think about unless you have to: it’s the Canada to Australia’s U.S. Remote and isolated, New Zealand subsisted for decades on its links to the U.K. and the Commonwealth of Nations (Aussies derisively refer to Kiwis as “South Sea poms” for their comparatively cozy relationship with the motherland), sustaining its economy with agricultural exports. New Zealanders were also primarily of British stock, with the only non-Whites being the indigenous Maori. In other words, socialism should have worked out perfectly for the Kiwis… right?

Starting in the 1930’s, New Zealand built a sprawling welfare state designed to insulate its citizens from the devastation wrought by the Great Depression. Said state kept growing to the point where by the 80’s, New Zealand arguably had more in common with communist states than with other Western democracies. State-owned corporations controlled large chunks of the economy, from forestry to manufacturing. Government regulations dictated everything, from what prices shops were allowed to charge, to how many products factories were allowed to manufacture, to how far truckers were allowed to transport goods. The top marginal tax rate was 66 percent.

While New Zealand prospered in the 1950’s and 60’s, the seed corn always runs out. By the time the 70’s rolled around, New Zealand was one of the poorest countries in the West, deeply in debt and borrowing like mad to keep the lights on. Exports to the U.K. collapsed following that country’s entry into the European Economic Community, worsened by the New Zealand dollar being artificially pegged to the U.S. dollar. Innovation died out, as businesses focused on appeasing the country’s all-powerful bureaucracy rather than improving the quality of their products or services. Emigration to Australia and other countries skyrocketed, along with the unemployment rate.

At the center of New Zealand’s economic dysfunction was Prime Minister Rob Muldoon. Much like other Right-wing parties in the West after World War II, Muldoon’s National Party had long given up on being conservative and instead tried to out-Left the Left at every election. Muldoon came to power in 1975 after promising to replace the incumbent Labour government’s superannuation (pension) scheme with one that paid out sooner and to more people. Combined with his status as Minister of Finance, he held a dictatorial level of control over the New Zealand economy, and he intended to use it to prop up the welfare state as reality closed in.

Muldoon’s tenure was defined by his failed attempts to bail water out of New Zealand’s sinking ship, from a series of grotesquely expensive public works projects (known as “Think Big”) to a total freeze on wages and prices in 1982. After a National backbencher refused to support the government’s policy on nuclear weapons in 1984, Muldoon got drunk on live television and called a snap election, losing decisively to David Lange’s Labour Party. Despite being a Left-wing party on paper, Labour had fallen under the influence of Roger Douglas, a reformer who sought to restructure the New Zealand economy along free market lines.

The next six years saw New Zealand radically reshaped. Under Douglas’ tenure as Minister of Finance, the government streamlined inefficient state-owned corporations, eliminated unnecessary regulation, and removed subsidies for many industries. Lange’s government also slashed tax rates, removed controls on foreign exchange, and allowed the value of the New Zealand dollar to float (Muldoon’s refusal to devalue the dollar nearly led to an economic collapse in 1984).

The rapidity with which the government rewrote New Zealand’s economic landscape was somewhat masked by Lange’s progressive social policies, which included making the country a nuclear-free zone (splintering the ANZUS alliance with Australia and the U.S.) and ameliorating relations with the Maori. In the short-term, Rogernomics (the term for Douglas’ reforms, akin to Reaganomics in the U.S.) caused massive social upheaval. For example, removing agricultural subsidies caused severe hardship for many Kiwi farmers, while whole rural towns that were dependent on state-owned enterprises were wrecked by mass layoffs.

Revolution emphasizes in its interviews that New Zealanders—even those who were adversely impacted by Rogernomics—agreed that change had to happen. Muldoon’s New Zealand was well on its way to becoming what Greece is today: bankrupted by bureaucratic mismanagement and having its finances controlled by the IMF or other unaccountable international organizations. As Geoffrey Palmer (Lange’s successor as Prime Minister) puts it in the film, “You can’t have social justice if you’ve got no economy.”

The scope of New Zealand’s economic breakdown was so severe that Jim Bolger’s National Party, elected in 1990 on the promise of halting Douglas’ reforms, was forced to continue them through Finance Minister Ruth Richardson and her cuts to welfare benefits. Rogernomics and Ruthanasia bore fruit in New Zealand’s comparatively free, prosperous economy today; New Zealand ranks #3 on the 2016 Index of Economic Freedom while the U.S. isn’t even in the top ten.

While dry at times due to its mid-90’s visuals and aesthetic, Revolution is propelled forward by candid interviews with many of the major players in New Zealand’s economic renaissance. David Lange steals the show as a jolly, witty fat man playing good cop to Roger Douglas, whose blunted affect and chomo mustache make him the movie’s obvious heel. The film ends with the 1996 election, in which New Zealanders, disgusted with both National and Labour, vote in a series of minor parties with the aid of proportional representation.

My takeaway from Revolution is that socialism corrupts White people as assuredly as it corrupts everyone else. Five decades of a cradle-to-grave welfare state made New Zealanders lazy and complacent. As r/K selection theory shows us, free resources inevitably breed a nation of sexually deviant layabouts. A society where success is determined not by your intelligence or ingenuity but by how well you can game the bureaucracy is one that will inevitably fall apart, regardless of its racial composition.

While far from the most riveting series, Revolution is worth a look as an examination of a White society degraded by generations of gimmedats. Alt-Right proponents of a controlled economy would do well to study how well it worked in New Zealand.

About The Author

Profile photo of Matt Forney

Matt Forney is a Chicago-based author and journalist. He blogs at and is the author of several books, including Confessions of an Online Hustler. Matt's work has also been featured at Return of Kings, Taki's Magazine, Alternative Right and many other sites, and he also served as the editor of Reaxxion, a gaming website for men.

  • BooBoo65

    Not that I’m a fan of “socialism” because I’m not, but most of the “isms” have little hard definition.

    More intelligent societies can get a little more evasive on their rules before unintended consequences hit back too hard, at least when compared to less intelligent societies. This allows for a bit more micromanagement that some societies can get away with and thus what we tend to define as more like “socialism”.

  • Thank you for this. I’m sick of people who claim to be on the “alt-right”, but who promote socialism, or homosexuality, or abortion, or any other leftist bullshit. Protip: To be on the right, “alt-” or otherwise, you have to believe rightist things. If you don’t, then you’re just a leftist who doesn’t want to live around Mexicans or black people.

    • WhilesSkiles

      I don’t give a shit about homosexuals either way. If guys choose to be faggots that’s less competition. If they want to be some protected class that’s where the problem starts.

      • You make a good point. I suggest leaving homosexuals alone, but in the closet. That is: driving them to pretend to be breeders will undoubtedly have deleterious genetic effects, and any pogroms formal or tacitly accepted will cause them to go undercover. Better to accept them, in certain areas of certain port cities, and let them do their thing there. This is the natural tendency of gays anyway, to set up a neighborhood where they know everyone is gay and therefore open to sexual or romantic advances.

        • ϟϟ Meine Ehre heißt Treue ϟϟ

          I just want them dead so they can’t spread their disease by molesting the minds of the young… but then again, I’m a real German National Socialist who sees all non Aryans as untermensch.

        • WhilesSkiles

          The only problem I have is if the people who are homosexual are superior genetically and we lose out on them not having offspring. I don’t think there’s a solution though because it’s biological and a certain portion of the population with always be homosexual. Encouraging it and making it a protected class is the problem. I don’t think they can really encourage it any more than making a heterosexual gay though.

          • ϟϟ Meine Ehre heißt Treue ϟϟ

            born gay = birth defect

            Homosexuals spread their disease by molesting the minds of the young, it is filthy Jewish behavior…

            The only difference between kosher and halal is that in kosher slaughter, the rabbi must first fellatíate all the male animals, this has a calming affect… for the rabbi…

      • ϟϟ Meine Ehre heißt Treue ϟϟ

        Der Muslimen, der Juden, und der Schwulen, alle antichrist…

        Sie Leute dummerweise denken, dass die Germanen nur in Deutschland zu finden sind… Ich habe Neuigkeiten für Sie!

        Sobald die NATO Besatzer vertrieben werden, werden wir eine weitere Nacht der langen Messer haben, merk dir meine Worte!

      • Oc.Va.

        It is an irrelevant issue. That so many people are getting worked up about it shows how wrong their priorities are.

    • Ted Jones

      I’ll stick with National Socialism which actually did work.

      • Worked at doing what? Lasting precisely twelve years of its promised “1000-Year Reich”? Ending up with the country that practiced it reduced to rubble? Getting its women raped by Cossacks? I’ll pass, thanks.

        • MagnaEuropa

          Fuck off, mischling.

          • Not an argument.

          • WP

            America is responsible for the German women being raped by Cossacks. If our greatest generation had been smart enough to fight on the side of the Righteous (of course this means a certain cripple would have been disposed of in 1940), the jews would not have won their war.

          • Nope.

            85% of German combat casualties in that war were caused by the Red Army. That leaves 15% caused by everybody else. American participation in WWII in Europe (Asia is a different story) was a sideshow of no particular significance, no matter what Hollywood and the government schools told you.

          • WP

            You are in denial. And you deserve your fate.

          • You totally missed my point, which was that the effect of American participation in the war was minimal and wouldn’t really have made much of a difference no matter which side they took.

          • ϟϟ Meine Ehre heißt Treue ϟϟ

            These illegitimate NATO occupiers of the German Fatherland are clueless… They accept everything fed to them by their Zíonist masters…

            How does a Jew get to Heaven from dry humping the Wailing Wall?

            Deutsche Christen… der Muslimen, der Juden, und der Schwulen, alle antichrist!

            Съ нами Богъ = Gott mit uns

          • Smash Islamophobia

            1. Hardly a sideshow. Communist apologists like you like to cite the combat death figures. That stat is distorted, for a simple reason– it was largely a fight to the death. How likely were German soldiers to surrender to the Red Army, as compared to the Americans or the British? How many were captured by each side?

            2. The American role in fighting the War of Communist Expansion was hardly limited to direct military action. The Soviets would not have survived without US supplies– arms, trucks, aircraft, boots, entire factories… They simply did not have the industrial capacity to support the war effort they were able to maintain with US help.

            3. What would have happened to the Soviets in the East if the US was not fighting Japan? How many divisions did Stalin need to keep in the East in 1942? Would that number have been different in the absence of US involvement? Do you really think the Japanese would have attacked Pearl Harbor in the absence of the embargo (FDR’s last desperate attempt to get the US into the war, as repeated attacks on German subs and ships had failed)?

        • This is a good point also. National Socialism looked great, but it unleashed an even more devastating war on Europeans than the previous war, which is no small bungling. In my view, its hybrid nature as leftist methods for conservative goals — the inversion of neocons, who are conservative methods for leftist goals — created too much internal instability for the NSDAP to make anything but impulsive, emotional decisions.

          • WP

            The war unleashed on Europe to crush National Socialism was a war by the jews to crush a goyim rebellion, using the loyal goyim slaves of the Anglosphere. And the goyim of the Anglosphere remain happily enslaved.

          • ϟϟ Meine Ehre heißt Treue ϟϟ

            Fúck off Jew.

    • I heartily concur. Anything based in the idea of egalitarianism is Leftist, solidly and thoroughly. Its opposite, or hierarchy and a system of reward for performance, is the basis of conservative methods. Too many of the nu-righters distill the alt-right to white nationalism, and then figure they can re-create national socialism, despite the many problems that unstable regime ran into.

      • ϟϟ Meine Ehre heißt Treue ϟϟ

        Fúck you and die… Heil Hitler!

    • Oc.Va.

      This is utterly funny for a guy sporting an avatar with the symbol of Falange, an anti-Marxist but also anti-capitalist movement.

      “Homosexuality” is not “leftist”, you silly. It has been packaged to you as such by corporate media. In fact, the flamboyance, narcissism and radical individualism of many gay people are the exact opposite of the working class ethos. The Sparta the Nazis admired was a non-stop foam party, while homosexuals were not liked in former socialist countries.

      As E. Michael Jones has said, capitalists are delighted with this development. No good blue collar job anymore, no life prospects? No worries! Go amuse yourself at the gay disco instead!

      The New Left, from its very inception as the animator of arguably the
      first “color revolution” in 1968 to topple De Gaulle, is the perfect partner of contemporary capitalism, going after “soft” cultural causes which are ultimately irrelevant (gay numbers aren’t going to grow and people don’t abort for fun) and preventing the real Left from ever talking seriously about politics and economics again.

      Full disclaimer: I am not Alt-Right proper, more like Alt-Left or Old Left, although with a heavy nationalist streak and worried about the current trends going on in the West.

      At this point what matters is nationalist vs globalist, not right vs left. The true “far right” in my opinion is the Ayn Rand cult, this idea that only the strong will survive in a dog-eat-dog world of deracinated individuals. If you are Identitarian you will always introduce some degree of “socialism”, because the capitalist logic unfailingly leads towards cosmopolitism.

  • Christopher Cantwell

    Nice piece, and thanks for the plug!

  • WhilesSkiles

    There was nothing wrong with the social safety net in any European country until they were overwhelmed by immigrants. They were to a greater or lesser extent socialistic and the quality of life in most European countries makes the US look like a third world country. But this neoliberal bunk seems to argue that “socialism” always fails even in homogenous societies. Everybody who’s ever been to a European country even now can see how false that is. Immigration was used as a tool of internationalist neo-liberals to undermine the gains made by native workers. Having a surplus of desperate labor makes it easier to undermine native labor. Of course it’s the stupidity of leftist parties in those countries to put up with this.

    People have to have the same expectations as far as using public programs and the social safety net. A European citizen and an immigrant abusing it doesn’t. It’s a high level of immigration that overburdens it.

    Also the author may want to go and tell some of the workers I knew in Germany and Ireland how soft and lazy they are because they have worker protections and decent wages and vacation times. Please film this if you do. I’d really like to see how that works out. I’d personally like to see those workers overthrow their globalist governments but that doesn’t mean you should get rid of everything they fought for because some ass that works for the Wall Street Journal and Mitt Romney says so. How much did contempt for workers work out for Mitt?

    Socialism to neo-con tools means anything other than Friedmanite free markets. The Right in the US is finally over this stupid orthodoxy. Was this written by somebody who needs a job now that Jeb and Romney got the boot? 30 years of Neo-Liberalism have destroyed Americans’ lives and economic security and thank god they finally have a chance in Trump fro sane immigration and trade policies and we may be free of this laissez -faire, free market absolutism garbage

    By the way I believe more in Social Credit than conventional socialism, but what they call “socialism” is actually an organic part of these societies. Immigrants cynically take advantage of this.

    • There was nothing wrong with the social safety net in any European country until they were overwhelmed by immigrants.

      The countries that are crazy in debt? Yeah, nothing wrong there. Europe has been rotting for awhile.

      Also, you miss the point of Rightism, which is the egalitarianism in any form wrecks our people from within. This applies to socialism as well.

      • ϟϟ Meine Ehre heißt Treue ϟϟ

        Lying Jéw…

      • WhilesSkiles

        Who are they “in debt” to? Are the people they are “in debt” to inherently superior because they have figured out a way to indebt people? You are assuming any opposition to this is egalitarian when it’s actually against dysgenics.

        What’s wrong with healthy workers and protections for those workers in their own countries and the ability for them to thrive? Or are the IMF and the people who work on Wall St. somehow superior? The idea that anyone who hordes money in inherently superior to someone without money is an idea that badly afflicted the “right” and apparently the author and the old style Neo-Liberal thinkers want it to continue to. Trump and the resistance people label the “Alt-Right” are rejecting this finally.

  • aragorn

    A little bit of socialism doesn’t hurt in my opinion. Nothing wrong with a welfare state per se, but you need to couple it with hard discipline through the schools, to prevent the gimmedats. On a global scale, socialism is needed to oppose neo-liberal capitalism and globalism. I dont see anything wrong with some leftism on the alt-right (which is a very broad term), as long as you’re right on the social scale. We can’t be totally to the right economically as that would make us globalists, libertarians, extreme individualists and so on. The alt-right is both individualist (capitalist) and collectivist (socialist) imo.

    • We can’t be totally to the right economically as that would make us globalists, libertarians, extreme individualists and so on.

      This does not follow. Individualism is most thoroughly expressed in socialism (the State must pay me to ensure my social equality). The Leftists always ramble on about the worker-owned state, but what they really mean is that everyone gets free money, under the guise of worker ownership. That makes people something worse than lazy, which is parasitic and generally useless.

      That in turn shows us the real problem with socialism, which was the point of the article: it does not work, and also, it destroys white populations by making them parasitic.

      People are afraid to solidly reject socialism because they all want their bennies. The young are especially bad for this.

      • ϟϟ Meine Ehre heißt Treue ϟϟ

        Filthy lying kíke

      • aragorn

        It doesn’t matter. We need a fourth position, which is beyond liberalism and the economic man – manifested by extreme individualism both from the left and right. We ought to strive for a authoritarian meritocracy which is also beyond individualism with a strong emphasis on the collective concsioussness of nations – hence implementing a degree of socialism. It’s not true socialism wrecked the scandinavian societies. Globalism did, along with the complete emasculation of the men. Nationalist socialism (mildly leftist economy) with proper rightist discipline and social values implemented though the state upon its people is possible to withhold at least in the Nordic countries and som other European countries. The US is a different case though, and one should never glaze at Europe with American glasses. Europe needs socialism in one way or the other, wheter you like it or not – Mr Alt Frighter.

  • K R Bolton

    The free market has reduced NZ to a shambles. NZ economic foundations were built on broadly social credit theories about state credit, and provided work, not loafing, during the Depression in manners similar to that of Germany, Italy and Japan in regard to banking policy. It worked, but was soon scuttled by both National and Labour.

    Muldoon tried to make NZ energy independent through think big schemes, but borrowed and these schemes were sold off (privatized) along with most of NZ’s other assets to pay off the debt, so now we’ve got no assets but still have debt.

    If the Right does not have a social ethos and the aim of creating an organic state, then what is it other than Whiggery? That is not “Right”? Marx supported Free Trade due to its subversive dialectic, just as Evola, Spengler, et al opposed it. If the Right does not have a social ethos what is left – atomised individuals devoid of organic bonds – precisely what is wanted by Marxism and plutocracy alike.

    Whatever economic system is enacted should be the servant of the community, not the master, nor predciated on eocnomic reductionism.

    • If they hadn’t screwed around with the currency, the market never would have allowed Muldoon’s government to distort the economy the way that they did. The currency would have fallen when things started to get out of hand, and NZ wouldn’t have had the money to subsidize all the schemes. They wouldn’t have been able to borrow it either, because as soon as they started the currency would have dropped more.

      The pain would have come early and quickly, stopping all the nonsense it its tracks.

      The same dynamic would have played out here in the U.S. decades ago – if the U.S. didn’t have the printing press for the world’s reserve currency.

      None of this would have gone very far if the U.S. hadn’t abandoned the gold standard in 1971. That’s when the politicians conjured the ability to implement their social welfare schemes by transferring their cost to the future, and the rest of the world came along for the ride and introduced their own variants, insuring the eventual denouement that we’re all facing soon.

      • K R Bolton

        State credit was issued in 1935 to build the iconic state housing project, which consisted of good quality houses on quarter acre sections. That one measure with its spin-offs provided work for 75% of the unemployed. It was non-inflationary, debt free; now govts. cannot figure out how to deal with NZ’s “housing crisis”, nobody has quarter acre sections, and housing prices for mediocre structures are absurd, thanks to millionaire immigrants and foreign investors driving up house prices. I suppose that is an e.g. of mythic “market forces”?

        NZ didn’t have the money to subsidize the Muldoon schemes. That’s the point; the “money” was borrowed from Warburg London, if i recall correctly. The Free Market, privatization “Revolution” ushered by the Left , wrecked NZ probably beyond redemption. There is no manufacturing infrastructure, there are no national assets, and there is still debt. NZ is the whore for the Asia. Unemployment is said to be low simply by continually redefining the term.

        Perhaps most importantly, the “Revolution” greatly altered the NZ psyche and destroyed any sense of social ethos. If that is considered Right-wing and laudable, then there is a serious problem on defining what is “Right”, and a good dose of Spengler rather than Hayek is in order.

        • Might also look toward Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

          • ϟϟ Meine Ehre heißt Treue ϟϟ

            Filthy Jéw,

      • Untersturmbahnfuhrer

        How do you get food from the future? Or housing, healthcare, etc? The fact of the matter is that America had, and still has, the wealth to keep the welfare programs running. By definition, it does, if it didn’t then those welfare programs couldn’t exist.

        Welfare states are a problem because they breed dependency. They are worse when they are exploited by an alien underclass that has no loyalty to the greater culture. But this idea that they are unsustainable is factually untrue. Food, housing, skilled labor, all of these exist in massive quantities, and that is what is being fed into the incinerator of the lower classes, not your precious greenbacks. If the “market” can be hoodwinked by a couple politicians printing funny money, then it isn’t really all knowing, now is it?

        • If welfare states breed dependency, and make people morally lazy, then they are unsustainable for the simple reason that at some point those two conditions will sabotage the society as a whole.

          • Untersturmbahnfuhrer

            Maybe, but libertarians have been predicting the collapse of the welfare state since it was created.
            Again, I am not arguing for the welfare state, I am arguing for collectivism.

          • ϟϟ Meine Ehre heißt Treue ϟϟ

            He’s a filthy lying jew… this whole “alt-right” bullshít is just another jew trap invented by the kíkes who own the press… it is a propaganda ploy whereby they believe being able to define something gives them power over it…

            If you notice kamerad, this filthy kíke has an answer for supporting every bolshevik jéw depravity.

          • ϟϟ Meine Ehre heißt Treue ϟϟ

            Fück off Jéw

    • That’s very true: the Right needs to aim for the Restoration of pre-modern society, complete with aristocracy, cultural rule, and transcendental goal.

      But those are incompatible with socialism, which is the point being made by the article. We do not want to end up as merely pro-white Democrats or Republicans.

      The only system that is compatible with hierarchy, Darwinism and a transcendental goal is one based in reward for performance, which leads us away from socialism toward capitalism.

      That being said, as your message indicates, any economic system would need to be mediated by culture and ruled by a hierarchy of aristocrats. Without that kind of leadership, nothing we do can succeed.

      This is the only “third way” there is: escape politics — created by egalitarianism and the State it requires — entirely. Have aristocrats rule us, culture enforce quality, reward for performance eliminate free-riders, and keep a transcendental purpose as the absolute core of the endeavor.

      • ϟϟ Meine Ehre heißt Treue ϟϟ

        Lying KÍKE

  • Untersturmbahnfuhrer

    Alright, I’ll defend this, at least I won’t get banned for disagreeing here. New Zealand is an interesting case, but the author neglects to mention at all the Scandinavian countries, which mixed socialism and capitalism as economic systems to relative success (until mass migration, at least.) There’s also the German Second Reich, which led the world in industrialization and scientific research, while maintaining a strong central State and the precursor of what would become ethical socialism.
    Two main issues:
    #1: The Socialism described by the Right (the real Right, not the right of businessmen and financiers) is not the welfare state that free market ideologues want to stereotype it as. It isn’t an economic system (just like big C Capitalism isn’t) but an entire worldview. Capitalism is the worldview/ideology of individualism, while Socialism is the equivalent for collectivism. There is no iron law that says the worldview of individualism is correct and collectivism is incorrect, it’s more accurate to say that a civilization goes through a Capitalistic phase that ultimately passes.
    #2: More fundamentally, I, and a significant portion of the alt-right, object to economics of any kind having primacy in our worldview. If your ideology revolves around free markets or around welfare states, you have a massively flawed view of the human condition (that’s why libertarians are all on the spectrum.)
    The author seems like a relatively bog standard conservative who is willing to engage with the naughty language of the alt-right, but isn’t fully aware of where many of our ideas come from. Check out Francis Parker Yockey.

    • “Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. (Keynes)

      You may decide to ignore economics in your worldview, but be assured that economics will not ignore you.

      • Cobbett

        Quite right…when the world’s economy goes down the shitter we’ll all be fucked.

      • Untersturmbahnfuhrer

        I did not say ignore economics, I said to not give it primacy in our worldview. Libertarians make the free market a moral good and apply its principles to their entire worldview. Leftists do the same thing but replace free market with welfare state. Both ideologies are ridiculous on their face and could only function in a society where humans weren’t humans.

        • The point of the article is exactly that: do not give economics primacy, but realize that we can go only one way on the economics question because socialism in all of its forms is mentally toxic to our people.

          • ϟϟ Meine Ehre heißt Treue ϟϟ

            Fúcking filthy Jew…

          • WhilesSkiles

            What people are you referring to exactly?

    • K R Bolton

      Despite your dopey pseudonym your assessment is spot-on.

    • Jeff

      The success of Scandinavian countries has nothing to do with social democracy. In fact, they’ve been doing worse ever since they’ve had massive welfare states. All the good things of Scandinavia existed before socialism came on the scene, and once it did, things got worse.

      • Smash Islamophobia

        It’s almost as if their success is due to the fact that Scandinavians live there, or something.

    • Scandinavia was savaged by its mixed economic system because it resulted in a massive growth for the Left, and that was massively destructive on a social and cultural level. In addition, it is worth pointing out that when you have five million people in a country and have a few vital industries that are highly profitable, you can make anything work for a century or two, but during that time, it will slowly destroy you from within and so when the party is over, the people who remain will not be of the caliber of the ones you started out with.

      • ϟϟ Meine Ehre heißt Treue ϟϟ

        Filthy lying kíke…

      • WhilesSkiles

        Sweden had no problems until it took too many third world immigrants. It was paradise on freaking earth. Were you ever there?

    • Smash Islamophobia

      1. “until mass migration, at least”
      Demography is destiny.
      2. As far as the Second Reich goes– If I’m not mistaken, that radical Communist, Bismarck, implemented the first widespread social insurance program in Europe.
      3. Yockey is OK, but has a little too much faith in the power of nurture to overcome nature. Gotta give him credit for being one of the earliest to realize the true nature of the postwar American government, and the false narrative of the Cold War, though.

  • If they hadn’t screwed around with the currency, the market never would have allowed Muldoon’s government to distort the economy the way that they did. The currency would have fallen when things started to get out of hand, and NZ wouldn’t have had the money to subsidize all the schemes. They wouldn’t have been able to borrow it either, because as soon as they started the currency would have dropped more.

    The pain would have come early and quickly, stopping all the nonsense it its tracks.

    The same dynamic would have played out here in the U.S. decades ago – if the U.S. didn’t have the printing press for the world’s reserve currency.

    None of this would have gone very far if the U.S. hadn’t abandoned the gold standard in 1971. That’s when the politicians conjured the ability to implement their social welfare schemes by transferring their cost to the future, and the rest of the world came along for the ride and introduced their own variants, insuring the eventual denouement that we’re all facing soon. Very soon.

  • Cobbett

    so – it’s more capitalism then? more open borders…more bankster greed…more outsourcing of jobs…more debt.

    Sure socialism sucks in the present global debt based financial system(the very one that is seeking to destroy the ‘West’)…you cannot borrow your way to prosperity..Not that I favour socialism anyway- Social Credit is the only alternative to the current financial tyranny.

    • K R Bolton

      Bravo! Why are libertarians even defined as “Right,” why is the free market even considered “Right -wing” ?

      It’s reanimated whiggery, and very superficial; something perpetuated by mentally stunted academics and journalists.

      • The Left is egalitarian; the Right is hierarchical. Markets, as a form of competition, maintain hierarchy, where abolishing that competition is an egalitarian ideal.

        • ϟϟ Meine Ehre heißt Treue ϟϟ

          Mammonism and Bolshevism are Jewish stepsisters, lying Jew…

        • WhilesSkiles

          Markets ensure dysgenics.

        • Oc.Va.

          That’s the theory. In practice, “free markets” end up in cartelization and lobbying. Anybody who thinks that a family-owned hardware shop has the same basic interests than a Nasdaq corporation is simply deluded.

          The problem with typical right-wing thought is that it places a lot of importance on abstract ideas and the Carlyle interpretation of history as being moved by “great men”. The classical leftist tradition, prior to the New Left’s SJW madness, is that you have to explore the material and economic conditions to understand how the world works. Other factors may count as well, but they come second. I think this is a sounder explanation.

          For instance, the wave of sexual liberation that started in the ’60s succeded not due to the genius of the Frankfurt School Jews, but due to the availability of birth control and a conscious capitalist strategy aimed at getting women to work so that they would spend more. It is as simple as that. Capitalists don’t want traditonal families who make do and mend, living modestly, but DINKs who indulge in every luxury possible. And to sustain that you open the borders.
          Now, for some cultural/religious/psychological reason such as Kevin MacDonald explains, some Jews might like that a lot and encourage it, but such thing comes after the economic dynamics of capitalism. Without trashy TV, gay rights, feminism, etc. you would still have a completely devastated Middle America due to free trade and globalization. Removing the Jews from the equation does not solve the problem.

          This Forney piece reeks of Social Darwinism all along, but the best is at the end: “A society where success is determined not by your intelligence or
          ingenuity but by how well you can game the bureaucracy is one that will
          inevitably fall apart, regardless of its racial composition.”

          High IQ people have less children. Turns out they themselves are the great “dysgenicists”. Children are basically pets in a developed society, offering no economic value other than affection, and intelligent people know this. Third World peasants are more prolific because they need the extra hands now and in their old age (and don’t have birth control). Patriarchic culture merely reinforces that.

          In a Libertarian society there would be no Social Security, but you would have private retirement schemes in its place. The problem remains.

          I concede to Forney here that I am not Alt-Right proper, more like
          Alt-Left or Old Left, although with a heavy nationalist streak and
          worried about the current trends going on in the West. And anyways at
          this point, like Marine Le Pen said, what matters is nationalist vs
          globalist, not right vs left.

          • Smash Islamophobia

            “Capitalists don’t want traditonal families who make do and mend, living modestly, but DINKs who indulge in every luxury possible. And to sustain that you open the borders.”

            (((Chomsky))) may be commie scum, but he’s made a few good observations, including this:

            “See, capitalism is not fundamentally racist – it can exploit racism for its purposes, but racism isn’t built into it. Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangeable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super-exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist – just because it is anti-human. And race is in fact a human characteristic – there is no reason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it is a human characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangeable cogs who will purchase all that junk that is produced – that’s their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevant, and usually a nuisance.”

            Of course, sometimes the (((capitalist))) and the (((Communist))) globalist are one man– take a look at the life of Armand Hammer sometime.

      • Cobbett

        Kerry Bolton is that?

        Must have been a reaction the the Cold War/Communism.

    • Oc.Va.

      And in the worst case scenario, it would be preferable to live in a poorer but homogeneous country than a somehow richer but multicultural one. The unavoidable conflicts that would arise in the latter would also offset any economic prosperity.

  • WP

    (I say this a American)
    Everyone should be a little leery of any American talking about socialism. We as a people, as loyal goyim, are brainwashed from birth to love Mammon and his filthy lucre the Almighty Dollar too much to purge the Jews.

    The programmed response of every American is “Socialism is from the Devil !!!”

    A better understanding of socialism is to understand it from a decidedly non-American perspective. Dr Matthew Raphael Johnson has a great podcast over at the Trad Youth site that you should check out -> The Orthodox Nationalist: Neplyuev and the Labor Brotherhood of the Holy Cross

  • Alistair Michaels

    Very well thought out piece. I’ve actually watched Revolution, & as a New Zealander my parents remember this era quite well. However, there are some thoughts I think may help:

    1) Social Credit theory has had some popularity even after the 1st Labour government (1935-49) dumped it. The Social Credit party was our third party from the 1950s all the way into the 1980s, peaking at around 20% in the 70s. However, due to First Past the Post they never won more than 2 seats out of 97. They’re still around, but as a microparty.

    2) The ethic generated by the welfare state is that of laziness. The problem now is intergenerational laziness. I believe that this is a problem which needs an urgent solution, but none of the major political players want to do anything. I read somewhere that NZ pre-1984 was “as close as a democracy could get to communism.” This certainly supports that picture. Now with increased demand (immigration) without increased supply (govt income) NZ is becoming increasingly a Sweden-lite (with Asians instead of Muslims)

    3) I agree that something had to be done in 1984. The country was on the brink of collapse. I just find it a shame that social cohesion was smashed to the extent it did. In that respect, we still haven’t recovered from it.

    4) This is only a small part of the massive accumulation of leftist/socialist/Marxist doctrine that has infested this country. You try talking to a New Zealander about the alt-right & they will call you racist/evil/sexist/homophobic, etc. People here politically range from Jeb Bush/David Cameron-style “right wing” to Sanders/Corbyn-style socialism. I genuinely worry about the future of this country, as people here genuinely suck. I wish the alt-right had a genuine presence here in New Zealand, but I fear we may be too far gone to turn around. I hope not.

    • K R Bolton

      One might as well work with untrained apes than expect an intelligent response from New Zealanders. The other English speaking states do not seem much better, in comparison to the depth of thought in Europe and Russia.

      The NZ I grew up in was a good place. Because of import controls I couldn’t get the exchange for a box of toy soldiers i wanted from the USA, but we made our own cars, steel, tires, shoes, clothes…. At one point the unemployment rate was in single digits – seriously. Muldoon started a process he called ‘rationalization’, whereby NZ industries were opened up to foreign imports , and in a type of social darwinism those industries that could not compete with Asia would be regarded as inefficient and allowed to die. Labour thought this a splendid ideas and continued the process under the Roger Douglas “Revolution.” Oh joy! We are now a giant dung-hole beyond hope.

      If welfarism breeds laziness, then libertarianism breeds selfishness, and while Ayn Rand said that was a virtue I’m yet to see its good side in NZ.

      • Alistair Michaels

        I was never a big fan of Rogernomics. Growing up in provincial NZ I see the damage it caused all around me. At the same time I’ve never been a big fan of libertarianism either. The anti-nanny state side of it I like, but the whole all-about-me nature of it, alongside the creation & encouragement of turning our companies & businesses into economic gladiators to fight the rest of the world creates efficiency in the same respect an arms race creates efficiency in weapons technology (I’m sorry if I’m rambling on a bit).

        On the whole, what I do admire about pre-1984 New Zealand was a focus on economic independence & self-reliance. I don’t know what it would take to pursue that kind of economic independence in today’s world, but unless we do, we’re doomed (or more than we already are).

        I have considered leaving the country, probably to somewhere in Europe (leading contenders Cyprus, Serbia, Hungary, Poland, maybe even Russia). The problem is not the languages, I pick up languages quickly & I already speak 4 languages. The problem for me is that I feel that if I did leave, I would feel like a deserter.

    • The ethic generated by the welfare state is that of laziness.

      I think it’s worse than that: it generates an ethic of parasitism.

      • WhilesSkiles

        Yes! Yes! Good goyim! That’s exactly it! Anyone who prevents us from sitting on our asses and making money on speculation on Wall St. and collecting rent is a parasite! How can they even think about having healthcare and controlling the borders of their own nations when we import slaves to work for less and displace them??? How dare those parasites defy our will and vote Trump!

        • ϟϟ Meine Ehre heißt Treue ϟϟ

          Their Golden calf has grown up to be a hollow Bronze Bull.

    • There is an alt right Facebook group for New Zealand. Look it up.

  • As an Australian this is very interesting. I knew that NZ’s economy had issues but I never realized that it was to this extent. In the mid-90s I worked in Australia with a lot of Kiwis who had come “across the ditch” to escape the complete lack of opportunities in their home country. NZ had a bit of a reversal in the 2000s with the far-left Helen Clarke government but in the last few years they have gone gangbusters.

    Australia had a $70 billion government surplus in 2007 whereas now it has a $120 billion deficit. We are suffering the same problems described in that documentary – a huge amount of red and green tape, subsidies and high taxes, (fourth highest company tax in the world). Now the government wants to tax mandatory retirement savings as it is running out of money. It is about to raid the retirement piggy-bank.

    Which means that even though we are just “across the ditch” we have not learned anything from watching our closest neighbor go through a 50 year socialist disaster. Oh well, at least the airfare across is cheap.

  • Madison Pinchot

    What an awful article, what an awful writer.
    Forney needs to read some Kerry Bolton, needs to read some Brooks Adams, needs to read some De Benoist & Johnson.
    You cannot have a secure ethnostate and huge corporations, because ultimately they are driven by profit, They want cheap labour.

    • Kell

      The problem is in state socialism the state is the huge corporation.

      The best solution would be to provide financial education to the common man instead of arguing how the elites should rule us

  • Kit Ingoldby

    Unlike all the neo-Nazi freaks commenting on this thread, I actually watched the documentary before making a post. It was fascinating and backs Matt’s observations very well. Socialism doesn’t work, eventually, in even the most orderly and well run of societies, it leads to economic and social stagnation and eventual collapse. We have seen it in New Zealand and we have seen it in Scandinavia. It can take a long time, things can be quite comfortable with problems hidden as debts accumulate but in the end it all ends badly.

    • WhilesSkiles

      Where has social democracy collapsed without mass third world immigration? And I’m not talking about a bunch of Neo-Liberal capitalists like Thatcher and Reagan going after it because it hurt their leech corporate friends. We’ve seen the same people use immigration as a weapon against a people economically. They were smart they brainwashed the Left into going along with this, I’ll give them that. What we need is a nationalist workers movement like Mosely and the National Socialists in the beginning, and what some people see in Trump, which is a huge improvement over what we currently have in any case. Notice the people that hate him are old style Neo-Liberal phonies like Mitt the twit and McInsane.

  • LegioXII

    I’m not convinced that free market capitalism and socialism are our only choices. Both seem to me to be the bastard children of the so-called enlightenment, and in practice neither system seems friendly to ethnic nationalism and localism. Whatever it’s possible flaws, distributism and agrarianism are better starting points for thinking about economics, especially in relation to a family based and family centered society.

    • Kit Ingoldby

      ‘distributism’ sounds like a fancy term for living off someone else’s work. And agrarianism sounds like a fancy term for a society giving up industry and technology. How well is that going to work out? Try asking the Red Indians or the Australian Aboriginals how that worked out for them?

      • K R Bolton

        LegioXII has stated the matter well in regard to origins. As for distributism ‘living off someone’s else’s work’ , that is precisely what it is not. It was often aligned to social credit, and as the word implies is concerned with making private property the norm. In wonderful NZ, our great capitalist revolution is diminishing the chances of private property ownership; precisely what the distributists predict. It seems that the ‘alt.right’ has to reinvent the wheel re. economic and financial issues.

        There are plenty of works on distributism, and it is part of traditional Catholic social doctrine, implied in encyclicals.

        • Kit Ingoldby

          Distributism talks about people being owners but it can only happen through massive government force and control, breaking up people’s business and property to achieve some ‘fair’ distribution. That’s pretty wretched. And the fact that it’s promoted by the bloody RC Church is a major strike against it.

      • LegioXII

        Kit, you can get an idea os what Distributists believe here:

        And Agrarianism:

        Neither of them mean what you’re assuming.

        • Kit Ingoldby

          I have read when they believe. No assumptions. Agrarianism means saying goodbye to science and industry. Distributism means distorting the entire economy through State force.

          • LegioXII

            “I have read when they believe. No assumptions.”

            Er…no, I don’t believe you have. If you had, you would know that agrarian reform has nothing to do with ditching science.

  • Kell

    The best solution would be to provide financial education to the common man instead of arguing how the elites should rule us

    There is a reason why there is no financial education in schools be it a socialist, captialistic or communistic society