Originally published by the White-Papers Policy Institute, 2022-03-10
Welcome to the sixth instalment of our latest project, published first on Telegram, and syndicated on the Hyphen-Report. We are reviewing the policies and political platforms of White Nationalist, Ethno-Nationalist and Pro-White political parties. And we are looking for practical answers to the broad question:
“How could our Nations actually be reformed? How could any of this be done”
But we believe it is helpful to re-state this question in more concrete and particular terms. In parts two and four of the series we narrowed our focus to the United States of America, and asked:
“How could the United States of America be reformed according to the principles of White Nationalism? How could this be done, politically?”
In this series we have set strict limits on our political imagination – we are exploring ways in which the action plans of the organisations under review could be put to work within the current legal frameworks of their respective nations. In looking at what can be feasibly done within the American system, we took as our model of political action the manifesto of a viable contemporary organisation – the National Justice Party (NJP), led by Michael Peinovich. The NJP is one of the few organisations in the United States advocating for White Americans. And of these few, it is unique in being an organised political party with a large following.
Party Chairman Mike “Enoch” Peinovich addressing a large crowd at a National Justice Party event
Point Three of the National Justice Party platform is as follows:
- We support the nationalization and strategic break ups of banks, mass media, and monopolistic corporations in order to create public accountability and guarantee that they serve the nation first.
Given the staggering hegemonic power enjoyed by finance, the mass media and the multi-national corporations, and the synergistic way in which they move to shape public opinion and stamp out dissent, it can be tempting to throw up one’s hands and declare that this is an unfortunate state of affairs with no remedy. In fact, it is very common for those who crowd under the “there is no political solution” banner to conceptualise the ‘media-finance hegemon’ as a sort of ever-present and invincible natural phenomenon, against which mere politics cannot hope to contend. This pessimism is understandable. But is it justified? Is there just nothing that can be done about unaccountable monopoly corporations who use their enormous wealth and influence to pervert and poison the body politic rather than serving it?
A careful study of the American political system reveals a familiar story: all of the political power and State authority to break up large corporations already exists in the hands of the Federal and States’ governments, and in the court systems which hear the antitrust cases brought under existing legislation. The missing ingredient is political will.
With their proposal to nationalise and break-up the most offending corporations, the National Justice Party are NOT indulging in pie-in-the-sky politics – rather they, almost alone in contemporary American radicalism, are demonstrating the most sober political realism, as well as fidelity to the precepts and precedents of American political tradition.
The rest of this discussion will be concerned with ways in which a future National Justice Party government could use the various instruments of the American State to bring the corporations to heel.
The Federal Trade Commission(FTC)
The FTC is already empowered to restrict corporate mergers and anti-competitive acquisitions by and between corporate entities. But the Federal government has refused to exercise this power in any significant way for over a quarter of a century. In July 2021 the current neoliberal regime made one of its periodic performative announcements, proclaiming that it intended to once again make use of the power of the FTC: so far nothing has happened. It will require the advent of a new political class to take decisive action and use the tools that the American State has at its disposal. A National Justice Party government could, on ‘Day One’ in office, use the powers of the FTC to immediately prevent and postpone ongoing mergers of large corporations, and to cancel any mergers which have already been approved but which are not yet completed.
But other measures will be required to deal with the older and well-established large monopolistic interests – interests which dominate huge sections of the American economy to such an extent that the monopolisation carried out by the Standard Oil company in the 19th century seems amateurish in comparison.
In the United States, monopolisation has been slowly and steadily strangling the purchasing power of the American consumer for decades, and reducing the American economy to little more than a collection of oligopolies. We can see the fruits of this process everywhere: from mobile data plans which cost twice as much as those in the rest of the developed world to the decline of the family farm.
This economic process was not inevitable, and it could have been halted with timely government action. But the consolidation of the economy in fewer and fewer hands has gone completely unchallenged by the United States government for over twenty years. The last major anti-trust suit by the Federal government that resulted in a divestiture and corporate break up was the 1984 anti-trust action against AT&T. Subsequently the only other attempt at breaking up an obvious monopoly was the case brought by the Federal government against Microsoft: a saga half-a-decade long which ended in 2001 when Microsoft emerged victorious on the back of an appeals court ruling that the Federal government elected not to challenge. There have been no significant anti-trust actions taken by the Federal government since, nor any indication that they are the least bit interested in doing so.
What can be done? Plenty – if the will is present. A comprehensive multi-vectored approach would be called for: a National Justice Party government could direct the Justice Department, acting with the authority of the Sherman Antitrust Act and various Title 3 provisions, to initiate a large-scale series of anti-trust lawsuits against the firms enjoying unacceptable monopolies. This action could be accompanied by further civil suits, class action suits and suits initiated by the respective States’ governments under anti-trust provisions. More ambitious acts of trust-busting, involving unilateral action by the Federal government, would require a revision of the existing laws by an act of Congress, but there is much that can be done within the laws as they presently stand.
Banco Nación, the national full-service bank of Argentina
And finally, a note on the National Justice Party’s (seemingly) more radical plans: the nationalisation of industries and the creation of a State banking institution. The authority to nationalise corporations is a power held in reserve by Congress, except in exceptional circumstances; a notable exceptional circumstance being the Obama Administration’s nationalisation, though the bankruptcy courts, of the large automobile interests GMC and Chrysler. The power to change the structures of government – to reorganize the Federal government, to create new agencies, to create State-owned corporations and disestablish others – lies with Congress; though it can be extended to the executive, and has been on numerous occasions, with the last administration to be given this authority being that of the idol of the ‘small-government’ conservatives: Ronald Reagan.
We are now accustomed to the dismal spectacle of the media-finance hegemon using its vast powers to deny Americans their traditional rights and to strangle free speech, all the while acting from an position of complete unaccountability But it is also clear that an American government which actually desired to serve the American people and their interests would have ample powers to attack the powerful interests that hold such unacceptable power over American life.