Tulsi will be the first 'American National Socialist'

It took about all of 5 minutes for me to be kicked out of the newly formed American Fascist Party.  The details of my ouster were that I had allegiance to Hinduism first and therefore I was not an American patriot.  I have to admit they are partially right, while I am pro-America and want what is best for this country, my ultimate loyalty is to Hinduism and obviously I have made no secret of this.  However my time in this Fascist circle opened my eyes to the new horizons of American politics.  The American Fascist Party was unique in its presentation in that it wanted to be truly "American".  They were accepting of all races, even Jews (so long as they rejected Zionism and the Talmud); their website’s description specifically states they are not trying to "Europeanize" America; it would seem they have no obvious... obvious intention of creating a White nation state, however they do wish to impose "traditionalist" morals, whatever than means. They do not heil Hitler but Mussolini, the Italian Fascist who invented the ideology and whose reign was marked by less racism and anti-Semitism as well as a focus on self-reliance rather than conquest and imperialism. Whatever their true intentions are, the Fascist movement in American is obviously evolving. 

But what is Fascism and how does it differ from the term "National Socialism" which was coined and promulgated by Adolph Hitler?  Some say there is little difference between the two and that National Socialism was just the German form of Fascism, which is true, but National Socialism was certainly more defined. "Fascism" in its purist form is more elementary, especially in it economic definition; it basically relies upon the simple principle of “dirigisme” which is nothing more than a direct and authoritarian control of the economy by the state.  Under a Fascist autocratic dictatorship the leader basically assesses the economy and makes decisions based upon his/her own logical directives, this can be eclectic and can incorporate different elements from Communism, Capitalism and other economic theories, it's basically up to the dictator to decide. Now "National Socialism" as defined by Adolph Hitler did have a strong element of dirigisme as Hitler had a great deal of direct influence over the economy, however the name National Socialism implies that it is socialism implemented on the national rather than international level. National Socialism has a strong tendency to lean toward the Socialization of major utility companies and the provisions of state welfare such as free education and healthcare, however there is room for corporations and private businesses to grow and flourish. National Socialism is simply a more structured and defined form of Fascism... or does it even need to be Fascist at all?

The United States has a long history of anti-Socialism in all of its forms, however National Socialism has always been admired by the Right more so than International Socialism or Communism. America has always been a self-proclaimed Capitalist country, even though we had to introduce social welfare programs during WWI and WWII to keep the nation afloat.  Today most people will admit that America has a mixed economy with Capitalism feeding a strong welfare state, and few people believe that we need to abandon mixed economics for either one extreme or the other. But there is an element missing from our economy and that is nationalism because corporations are free to move overseas and export their products to America with low tariffs and trade agreements, companies can abandon America and leave her incapable up holding her vital social programs due to lack of taxable income, not to mention unemployment. While Donald Trump has made some feeble attempts to revive the economy by giving tax breaks to USA based companies he is unable to implement a strong national economic program because of America's liberal Capitalist culture, it is very difficult to give corporations incentive to stay in America when they can get cheap labor and low overhead costs overseas, and thus many see Trump's tax and tariff plans as inevitably failing, and this consensus is growing in America especially among the youth. 

Let's talk about Bernie Sanders, but first let me tell you a story which played out a few times in my life during the 2016 election cycle and was also experienced by many many other people.  I had a co-worker who was White, male and lower middle class as it seems are most younger White males these days.  He was a total Berniecrat, enthusiastic, fanatical, he had Bernie bumper stickers all over his car.  While he was totally pro-Bernie he did not seem to have the hatred for Trump that most people in the alt-Left displayed.  When Hillary obviously stole the primaries from Bernie he went very quiet, unless he was hating Hillary.  On Election Day when he came into the plant I asked him who he voted for and he said Trump.  You would be surprised how many radical Bernie supported voted for Trump over Hillary, and this is partially the reason why Trump won. There is another thing I and others have noticed and that was the fact that even though Bernie Sanders was Jewish and an obvious Socialist, there was little venom for him from the alt-Right, even when he was at the height of his popularity and could have easily won the election over Trump, but why?

For those who followed the rivalry between Hillary and Bernie you may have realized one of the central issues which split the party was Hillary's duplicitous support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership which would have opened up trade agreements which would likely see the flight of more American companies overseas, while Bernie staunchly opposed the TPP because it would cost American workers jobs.  Also, unlike Hillary, at least at the beginning of his campaign, Bernie was against open borders as he said this would lower the wages of Americans.  Sanders was an obvious Socialist promising free college and healthcare, but he was a nationalist and protectionist for America... he was a "National Socialist".  I don't believe that if Bernie Sanders had won the presidency that many people in the alt-Right would be spitting foaming mad, actually other than Trump he would have their first pick.  The reason why many Bernie people voted for Trump after Bernie was swindled by the DNC was because Trump was the next closest thing to a National Socialist, he presented himself as a "National Capitalist" who would entice corporations to stay in the USA and this would at least keep jobs in the economy; Hillary Clinton would have obviously sold our jobs and therefore our Socialism overseas. Thus there was a strong but unspoken Trump-Bernie crossover. Yet notice, even though Bernie was a National Socialist, he was not a Fascist. 

Recently I wrote a post (here) on the phenomena of the alt-Right showing strong initial support for Tulsi Gabbard.  At the moment there is a small conspiracy to have Tulsi elected the DNC candidate in the primaries and to have her run against Trump because the alt-Right believes in that contest they would have a win-win situation.  Now this nascent alt-Right support for Gabbard is not based on any of her domestic policies but her extreme opposition to foreign wars and interventions, Tulsi has built her entire platform on bringing the troops home, not invading Venezuela or Syria and restoring friendly relations with Russia as Trump has ruined this with his negation of the Intermediate-Nuclear Range Force Treaty, revoking America's promise to keep nuclear missiles of certain calibers away from Russia's border, this is sparking a new Cold War. Trump led his base, especially the alt-Right, to believe that he would end useless and corrupt foreign wars, he is instead escalating them and that is the alt-Right’s main contention with him. Even more so than on immigration, the alt-Right is more or less a one issue voting block, no more international wars and secure America's borders; while Tulsi has said she is a dove on war she has made it clear she is a hawk on "radical Islamic terrorism" and with her military background it is unlikely she will leave the southern border porous to radical Islamists who are known to be entering the country through this gateway. 

However there is another side to Tulsi which the alt-Right has not yet fully explored nor have they completely come to appreciate.  While Tulsi is perhaps spending too much time talking about her foreign policy, she also has a domestic policy which is closer to Bernie Sander's and echoes of National Socialism.  Like Bernie, Tulsi is against the Trans-Pacific Partnership and it is likely as her campaign matures she will continue to take more economically nationalist positions. The issue of immigration and the border is tricky and Tulsi will likely have to frame her position on this matter as one of "national security" in order to prevent mass illegal immigration which will overload the system, however at the moment she does support DACA which allows children brought to the US illegally to gain citizenship; she needs to walk a narrow line to capture both sides of the aisle.  Besides this her domestic policy is rather National Socialist like Bernie's was, expansion of Medicare, free college, etc.  She does not talk so much of funding these enterprises with taxes but by redirecting the trillions of dollars spent on wars towards the social programs.  She is not anti-Capitalist but is nationalistic and and environmentalist, she criticizes the pharmaceutical industry of artificially inflating the cost of medicines and the oil industry for land and water pollution, she wants Corporations to stay in America but be responsible to the American people. While she does support things which the alt-Right will not like, such as gun registration, gay rights and abortion rights, these are at least tolerable if Gabbard does end foreign wars and institutes a National Socialist economy. For those interest in the Hindu perspective on abortion (here) and gay rights (here) see my linked articles. 

There is one more thing that needs to be discussed and that is the true Hindu ideal of economy and that is guild economy.  I did write an initial definition and defense of the Hindu guild economy (here) but let me summarize.  In Hinduism a guild is called a "shreni", this is basically a corporation which is not owned by any single person but by a community of people who protect their economic interests behind secrets and steps of educational initiation.  The point of a guild is to create a stable community social system which is intended to employ its members for the long periods of time, hopefully their entire lives, and keep the community valuable to the greater nation by providing a necessary service or product.  The most famous Western counterparts to this shreni system were the old stone mason guilds which held their mathematical and architectural knowledge secret from the outside and trained trusted community members to engage in this trade, eventually allowing them to become independent journey men who could work for governments or religions under the guild's approved auspices.  It is believed that this system standardizes product, stabilizes prices, and provides a comfortable and viable working environment for its community members.  Whether or not this system is appropriate for our time and age or how much of it could be implemented, it should be known that Hinduism does have its own economic theory outside of National Socialism... which cannot actually said to be Hindu at all.