Their economic principles aren’t considered static gospel, they are records and thoughts of their time, and have shown an extreme amount of modern-day relevance to the current system today, making predictions and understanding the darker sides of this system better than its own advocates. Mises himself did have a heavily influential position among modern-day economic circles, though he was late, he still very much did get his principles followed by people like Reagan or Thatcher.

Fascism on the other hand tries to be the “mix”, though it truly only copied dirigisme-style capitalism, and advancement of government intervention far past the Keynesian thought, instead directing the economy rather than merely regulating it, though they didn’t ever rid themselves of the existence of private property, nor of the relations of the worker and employer which only exist in capitalism. They did not switch economic systems, they merely moved the dial inside the one they already existed in, being on of the single worst forms of capitalism in existence. If anyone doesn’t understand economics, it is the fascist, as their ideology has no economic basis, thought they consistently fall back to the usual corporatized dirigisme capitalism in which the government and the corporations enabled one another, both intentionally ruining the livesof the workers in favor of the profit motive.

The separation of economy and state is not an inherently capitalist ideal either, many leftists are rabidly against the existence or use of government, while the opposite can consistently be true with capitalism. Government intervention isn’t a necessarily left or right thing, it is the purpose by which these movements are done. Usually, the only way for a leftist to move is to start by harnessing the state or by unionizing the economy to change the principles of this current system towards the desired outcome, usually being a chase for equality and democracy in the workplace. You range from a more small-government capitalist side, while I’m more of a socialist advocating for workers using the government from the down-top, while the government responds with top-down assistance to follow the requests of the populace. Currently, this system is what already SORT OF happens, the rich ask for assistance via economic bribery or extortion, then gain government assistance to make their process far faster with more profit.

It doesn’t make it not capitalism for us to currently do this, it just makes it not your ideal form of capitalism. Currently speaking, the far-right of the US and the progressive left are BOTH under attack, as a status quo is generally the favorable position for the current upper class of both government and business, and the creation of a false dichotomy usually makes the American left and right fight one another rather than the actual current system. It’s a distraction, a common one too. I see that distraction and know for a fact that my goals cannot be achieved by electoral means due to every card being stacked against the leftist side. Usually, whenever leftism actually gets somewhere in the US, the current status quo shifts to the right, then advocating for your side of beliefs in response to that rise. This has been historically true, and while I am not calling you a fascist (to be as clear as possible), the United States and most large nations have allied with fascists whose end goal is similar to yours, almost always in response to a leftist uprising. The status quo of our economic system uses fascism as the response to socialist movements, rather than solidly vilifying them as the enemy of America, because they actually match American economic principles in many more terms than you’d expect.

Currently, businesses attempt virtue-signaled support of “inclusion” and “diversity” to shut up the progressive movements in our nation, convincing them that they actually care, or they just end up being considered the “better option” than just completely ignoring social issues, so progressives just conform to these businesses and stop trying to push for change. This is similarly a tactic, affirmative action has been consistently rejected by more hard-left groups because of its clear laziness in tackling systemic social issues. However, the moment DEI regulations drop, companies go right back to not caring about any of it, and then continue to commit to discriminatory policies and practices. That’s what’s happened consistently, most queer people are actually strongly advised not to list their sexuality or gender identity due to the consistency of rejecting their applications for a seemingly nonexistent reason, though trends align commonly with those groups being rejected for the obvious reason of their sexuality or gender identity.

Cultural superiority forms directly from historical support and non-discrimination, the cultures of minorities that continually weaken them have formed by their past conditions, as material conditions will always shape how one’s beliefs and ideals grow. That’s part of why poorer black communities have a hard time leaving poverty, because the culture formed from it keeps them there, making welfare alone almost worthless to help them out. It must be a combination of welfare and cultural change, not by ingraining ours into them, but by giving committed people in those communities a pedestal to allow them to spread their message to their old communities, hopefully to create internal culture changes that will open up opportunities to grow.

I’m aware of a large amount of what youngkin’s done, most of which I’ve disapproved of, but he targets the right things with the wrong methods and principles behind it. I’m against affirmative action, but I want solid uniform legislation to assist in real social justice issues. Much of our legislation in California disgusts me for the same reasons, they have the right reasons, but horrible execution, and they only made it worse. Anti-discrimination policy is necessary, but not by protecting those groups explicitly in the way they do. For clothing policy in schools for example, I don’t support letting people dress however they please, I support uniform standards, no matter the gender, to let people cross dress in a modest form if they so choose. I don’t care if people wish to dress androgynously, heck I’m in support of them doing so for their own happiness and the dissolution of required gendered clothing, I just don’t want them to be grossly immodest in doing so. If a girl dresses immodestly, then I’m going to have issues with it, but I’m going to hold men and all other genders to the same standards, that’s my only true issue.

I am aware of said discrimination issues for white people, it happens sometimes, I get it. However, I don’t care about that issue nearly as much, my focus is to level the playing field, then enforce the same treatment for all once that’s done. In order to fix racial bias, one must address it at its core in every aspect, both by understanding why it happens, and how to stop it. Ignoring it and treating everyone the same without fixing systemic issues will only exacerbate it, which is why my focus is upon where the most discrimination still silently exists. We are still in the stage of fixing the discrimination of minorities, sometimes at the occasional misguided cost of ignoring reversed prejudices, instead of addressing why those reverse prejudices happen. My thoughts on this issue are much more fleshed out than merely understanding culture, it’s about the origins of those cultures and how they continue to be.