Look, Kai Murros is wise in many subjects, and I agree with him in his attack of the concept of the "middle class," but he is no expert on economics.
For example, he believes that growth can only end because there is no more "frontier" and the frontier is the foundation of American thought. His view on growth is wrong. Growth was exponential partly because of new natural resources coming into the equation, but that was only a fraction of it. Growth is a function of natural resources, human resources, and technology. Europe at this time was also growing rapidly at this time because of the latter two; Germany had little growth in the domain of natural resources but excelled due to a booming, literate population which by natural intelligence innovated rapidly. Even now, even as the West is squeezed for resources by an expanding state and various parasitic populations, and is stagnant in white populations, it is still growing economically due to technological innovation. This is why, even discounting the possibility of a space "frontier," the West could grow endlessly so long as the quality of its people could at least remain the same. Technology is not about using new resources (except when it demands elements not already used), but about using those already present more efficiently.
>middle class this, middle class that
"Middle class" is an arbitrary stratum propagandized by politicians to appeal to the greatest number of people. Obviously saying "upper class" is right out and saying "working class" alienates those who are already moderately comfortable, as they fear what they do have will be taken away. By saying "middle class" you appeal to everyone: working class as it implies reaching the middle class will be easier for them, middle class as they can remain comfortably where they are, and upper class (to a lesser extent) as it implies at least nominally pro-business programs that would not harm them. People like to equal themselves to the middle class at least because it is taking refuge in the average.
Also, I'm saddened to hear that he's eaten up the post-enlightenment rhetoric that if you're working class your interests are against the rich. This is demonstrably false. So long as the rich do not take others' money (corporate welfare) they are not economically harming anyone. The rich are a valuable class to everyone because they build the factories, stores, and centers where people work, thus raising the overall wealth of society. By working for the rich even the poor are better off, as they voluntarily trade their labor for money which they can spend or save as they wish. People think the rich are "wasteful" because they generally have more luxury goods, but they also give a larger proportion of their money to charity and thereby benefit society even outside the market. What is bad is when a (((certain tribe))) becomes a disproportionate number of the rich and can coordinate their money to subvert society.
A revolution always changes out an old elite for a new one. Always. Rather than saying "hang all the rich people" you should hang the "thieves" and allow the producers to become a new non-coercive elite.
Also, he posits that it is because of "big corporations" that "big government" and corruption results. It's a chicken and egg problem. If you have a coercive body, especially one that has a monopoly on power (the government) then individuals will scheme to use this to their advantage. In old monarchies this was often certain nobles; in democracies it is special interest groups. In any setting the rich will be a disproportionate source of corruption because they have the resources to trade wealth (which they have) for political power. Obviously Kai Murros is not an anarchist and so he doesn't want to abolish the State, which is the only way besides "hang the rich" that you can get rid of corruption. You cannot get rid of competition, which he correctly identifies as the goal of companies, if you cannot use force against them.
I agree that economics is not everything and "blood and soil" is imperative for civilization. It is important that America return to its ethnic foundation and root itself as a people as the Europeans did (ironically, Dixie did try something like this). I also agree that America must be split into ever smaller subdivisions in order to have ethnic harmony and the Empire must end. I can disagree only where he says that economic freedom effectively does not matter. It very much does matter. Although it is not crucial to the survival of a people, as the Poles and Russians can attest (both of whom I admire), it is because of economic freedom that you can have growth. Ceteris paribus
, if my people are secure in a homeland I would rather they have more wealth than if they do not. The key is to figure out how to not let them become soft.
Kai Murros falls into the faulty economic thinking of Adolf Hitler, who believed that Germany was doomed to misery if it did not open up a frontier in the East. Hitler disparaged "internal improvements," thinking they were finite, but they are finite only in regards to present technology.>>202912>>203199
Spencer might as well also have said "Better to wear a Red Army helmet than subsist on beer in Munich," or "Better to wear a Red Army helmet than subsist on a diet of pasta in Turin." It's an irrational wish for hardship rather than enjoying any facet that your culture did produce.