JAMES GONNE

It is not an intellectual enterprise to be a socialist. To be a socialist is to, despite everything, maintain the utmost concern for our brethren, both of our race and also generally for all men. Now some, a certain group of cynics who willfully misunderstand the Christian perspective, will hear this, and say that Christians do not care for their own race. These men are liars, fools, miscreants, and not deserving of any trust. There is an order in which a Christian cares. First, for his God, then for his family, then for his extended family, that is to say his race, and then for the welfare of all men. The socialist is concerned with that third group principally, his race. He is concerned with them as he may be concerned with those whom he would quite gladly lay down his life, the same way he would feel for his own children, his own wife, his own closest brother. To be concerned with the welfare of all men is to be concerned with sovereignty. Each race is given by God an inheritance, that inheritance being land and self-governance. We can certainly look out at other nations and say they must need our help, for they have not even the basic necessities which we consider absolutely vital to our standard of life. It must be understood that these people are different. They do not require our assistance in building civilization. They are never going to build civilization the way we do, because as stated, they are not the same. Interventionism is entirely contrary to the socialist and nationalist mindsets. 

Socialism in Practice

Perhaps to clarify the role of socialism, an example should be employed. To use something simple and well understood, we will discuss the humble loaf of bread. This loaf begins its journey as an individual seed; and that seed has already undergone a careful selection process by the farmer. That farmer, in selecting this seed, was considering not how much he might sell his crop for at the end of year, nor what risks might be incurred by choosing a seed which is less drought resistant, less disease resistant, less profitable. His thought when choosing that seed was toward the health and well-being of the people who would be consuming it at the end of harvest. His sole concern was producing the best possible grain for those in his community who he cares for deeply, and on a personal level which is rarely seen today. So he takes the seed and sows it in his field, and it grows free from adulterants, pesticides, and other harmful poisons which have been foisted upon us, the American people, by international conglomerates which financially blackmail the small farmer into playing the game their way, rather than the moral way. When it comes time to harvest this crop he does not go out seeking the cheapest labor, nor does he seek to work entirely on his own, for it is obvious to the socialist that no man is an island. Soon, a multitude of his friends, family, neighbors, whoever can be found, and whoever will benefit from the careful harvest of this precious good, descends upon the fields to reap with honest labor that beneficial grain. None of this is done in the hopes of financial gain, but out of gratitude for the social fabric which makes safe, healthy food the established norm, instead of the exception. Even today, should you walk into a grocery store, and read a list of ingredients, you will find hundreds of adulterants which serve no real purpose besides to poison our food supply. We are the least healthy we have ever been, despite having the greatest abundance of food.

A Sick Nation

The socialist attitude towards those suffering is to fix the root issue, rather than whatever the stated problem is. Though a man may say he is hungry, we will not feed him if it is not the healthy thing to do. The majority of Americans are obese: clearly, we do not need more food. Our concern is not for the emotional distress of the people, because these emotions are passing, and often irrational influences. Our aim is the welfare, the health, and the future of our people, and that is frequently at odds with the desires of the people. It is obvious that many among us are perfectly content to waste away their entire lives, knowing full well just how pathetic it is to do so. These people do not benefit from self-determination, and as such must be deprived of it. As a mother prevents her child from touching a hot pan, so must we establish the guardrails of civilization to protect those most influenced by wicked and pernicious peoples. 

Socialism as Law

Now, a brief statement on the socialist conception of the legal system. It is not beneficial to have many laws. It is in fact, a tool meant to obfuscate true justice. What is necessary is deep communal and social concern with the moral on-goings of this nation at large, and more importantly with their local areas. The idea that any of our laws ought to be devoted towards anything outside of moral concerns is laughable. It has been said many times that the purpose of the law is not to enforce morality, but if we are not concerned with morality, then what, if anything, can we be concerned with? Theft is wrong. The punishment for theft ought to be the inverse of what was desired in the heart of the criminal. The thief steals not out of necessity, but out of laziness. He steals because he considers his time to be that much more valuable than those from whom he steals. As such, the only suitable punishment is labor. Should a man be caught with $2,000 worth of goods, he is to be put to work building railroads, cutting timber, or some other useful job, until he might pay back $4,000 to the man from whom he stole. Should a man take a life, out of greed, out of jealousy, or for any reason other than perhaps the temporary insanity induced by certain very intense emotional situations, he already has forfeited his own life. There are some crimes which are in truth honest mistakes, though they are not common. The point of any trial is to determine not whether or not murder is wrong and the just punishment for it, but rather to determine whether what has transpired is in fact murder, or some other situation which appears very similar.

Passing Judgement

It is the difference between ticketing a man for driving through a red light, and forgiving a man for sliding through a red light on ice. That is the purpose of the judicial system, it is not to pass moral judgment, but rather to discern what has happened. The punishments for crime are intuitive, and need not much debate at all. In most instances the beneficial thing is public humiliation, as most crimes are not serious enough to incur true physical harm as punishment, so a lesser but equally effective tool must be employed. What this looks like will be plain to each community on its own, at any given time. In days of old we would strip a man naked, coat him in tar, and then feather him before running that scoundrel through the town in an act of sublime humiliation as retribution for some petty crime, wherein he betrayed the trust of the people whom he was meant to be serving. This is the appropriate and Godly way to deal with those who step outside of the basic moral bounding of civilized society. The correct thing is to give them a taste of an uncivilized response to their crime.

In Closing

This has been a short exposition of the socialist way of thinking, and while there is a great deal more to be said,  these are the basics. Hopefully it has inspired some curiosity with the concept as a whole, and even perhaps some desire to do better in the present moment. After all, socialism remains an individual choice. We cannot enforce an ethical heart within men, but only penalize those who choose to abandon morality, and harm us all.