Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Category: Nationalism

The Victims Of American-Backed Revolutions

The Revolution ends by devouring its own children.

”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793

There might be no truer words ever spoken than that by the French royalist who managed to escape the carnage wrought by the Reign of Terror. Revolutions release an incredible amount of violence and anarchy pent up in a nation and these forces are hard to tame once they are released from their black pit. They linger on after the blood of the old lords have been cleansed from the scaffolds and the bestial lust of the revolution continues to desire for more to die in order to create a new society.

After the initial wave of violence that sweeps away most of the old order, it’s bound to happen that some of the staunchest supporters will eventually find themselves headless after the next rounds of bloodshed. In past revolutions, such as in France and Russia, it was the moderates who found themselves devoured by the violence that was unleashed by the political upheaval. The Girondins were killed off by the Jacobins and the Mensheviks were killed off by the Bolsheviks.

But when the US State Department sponsors your revolution, it seems to be the extremists who get devoured by their creation instead.

Revolutions, state department-sponsored or not, require mass support to succeed and they have to rely on a large swath of interest groups to achieve their goals of overthrowing the previous regime. The ones with the most discipline, the most fervor, and the most fanatical followers typically gain the edge. The moderates attempt to peacefully navigate the treacherous waters of the new realignment, while the extremists offer the masses red meat and radical solutions to the problems besetting their nation.

When you throw in American involvement into the mix though, the moderates are favored with international aid, promises of greater integration into the global economy, and military advisers for the country’s armed forces. That’s also including the fact that the US helped form and support the forces that took part in the initial stages of the unrest.

And they didn’t do that in order to create a fascist order – they did it to spread American economic and cultural power. They are not keen on allowing traditionally-minded radicals to sow the seeds they gave and our state department will do everything they can to further their goals and the original purpose of the revolution they planted.

The two obvious examples that are testing this hypothesis right now are Ukraine and Egypt. While the blood spilled in these two cases haven’t matched the abattoir levels of the Jacobins and the Bolsheviks, they have made it clear that no longer useful extremists will be dumped and removed from avenues of power.

Last week, the interim government in Ukraine demanded that all armed groups disarm immediately and seized Right Sector’s headquarters in Kiev. This development comes after the police killed Oleksandr Muzychko, a notorious leader of the nationalist paramilitary group, and Right Sector stormed Ukriane’s parliament in response to the slaying.

Russian state media has reported that Ukrainian officials are planning on arresting many leaders of the paramilitary groups that popped up all over the country in response to the increasing violence and instability.

And it’s not just Right Sector and other paramilitary groups who are feeling the clampdown. The Svoboda party member who was originally appointed as defense minister stepped down after elements in the government pressured him to do so. Another Svoboda party member and journalist was tortured, murdered and dumped in a forest outside of Kiev by unknown assailants last weekend.

Needless to say, it looks like the new government in Kiev has had their share of the nationalist groups that were at the forefront in toppling Yanukovych and fighting his riot police. With billions of dollars from the US at stake and international disapproval of “neo-fascist” elements in the government, this is an obvious move on the part of Arseniy Yatsenyuk and his cabinet to placate their Western backers.

This is occurring in spite of the major role nationalist groups played in toppling Yanukovych. It was the nationalists who fought the police, took the bullets and baton swings, and occupied government buildings to create the conditions to delegitimize Yanukovych’s rule. The pro-EU crowd, liberals, and other “peaceful” marchers posed no threat to the existing order and were easily smashed by the Berkut. Enter in the right-wing elements to fight back against the state and things quickly change to favor the Euromaidan side.

While the Western media did its best to portray the protests as an outpouring of a desire to be Westernized — with the protestors representing a diverse spectrum of society — the fact is the men in balaclavas were not throwing Molotov cocktails on behalf of same-sex marriage and mass immigration.

But now the US needs fighters in the Ukrainian army and not on the street. They also want politicians who will quickly sign onto integration with the EU and won’t hassle them about the stipulations that comes with accepting a bailout from the IMF. The nationalists are not those people — now they are simply a nuisance to US interests. And with Washington controlling the purse strings, there’s little that the paramilitary groups and right-wing parties can do.

A similar situation has occurred when the “Arab Spring” swept over Egypt. Like the Maidan protests, a diverse spectrum of Egyptian society took to the streets of Cairo in 2011 to protest the corruption and incompetence of the ruling regime. Once again, the police and military attacked the protestors in an attempt to suppress the unrest. That was largely due to the fact that a militant, well-organized, and highly devoted segment within the protests was there and was willing to fight back against both the police and the pro-Mubarak counter-protestors.

That segment was the Muslim Brotherhood and they eventually toppled Mubarak through cutting a deal with the military and was able to assume authority over Egypt.

There was just one problem – this didn’t go according to state department plans. While our media portrayed the protests as composed of brown-skinned hipsters and enthusiastic liberals, the real winners of the revolution were anti-Western Mohammedans who were intent on turning Egypt into a theocratic state. That wasn’t the future that the US had in mind for the Mediterranean land where economic liberalism could swoop in and the leadership would cause no problems for Israel.

As the Arab Spring spread and turned into an embarrassment for American foreign policy by empowering Islamic radicals, Egypt looked like it could be chalked up as another failure of America’s naivety. But since Egypt was heavily dependent on aid provided by the West and the military was growing weary of the new government that imperiled that flow, America saw an opportunity to eliminate the radical element that came to dominate the revolution. Turning a blind eye as the military launched a coup amidst new protests, Egypt’s armed forces swiftly deposed Mohammed Morsi and violently crushed the opposition of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The crackdown in Ukraine looks far tamer when compared with the way Egypt’s new military junta brutally put down the Muslim Brotherhood.

Over 600 people were killed when the military toppled Morsi’s Islamic regime and cracked down on protestors who dispute the takeover in 2013. This was despite the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood, the primary victims of the violence, were largely responsible for the successful revolution in 2011 that overthrew the previous Hosni Mubarak’s government that had fallen out of favor with the West.

Like the right-wing militants in Kiev, the Muslim Brotherhood was the key factor in toppling Mubarak’s government. They were willing to give back the violence that the police and military were giving them in spades and had the discipline and fervor to maintain their opposition through brutal suppression and times of doubt.

Unlike the Ukrainian nationalists, they were able to assume power, for a short time at least, immediately after the downfall of Mubarak. But their policies of implementing Islamic law, cracking down on Western dress and culture, belligerence in the face of international requests, and hostile relations with Israel made them unwanted rulers in the eyes of the State department.

Thus, when mass protests assembled again in Cairo, the US saw a chance to rectify their mistake in letting the Brotherhood attain power and quietly backed the military coup that deposed Morsi and slaughtered hundreds of Brotherhood supporters all across Egypt. The Brotherhood was no longer useful to American interests and were becoming a nuisance. Thus, they were taken down with brute force.

What both of these cases articulate is how the US government uses radical forces to dispose of foreign governments they don’t like – and then later dumps the radicals when they serve no more useful purpose.

The US is capable of keeping the new governments in their pockets with money and promises of assistance and the new holders of power are more than willing to sell out their previous comrades to keep the cash flowing. Ukraine is now dependent on an International Monetary Fund loan to avoid bankruptcy and Egypt was dependent on Western aid to support its population. Having Nationalists and Islamic extremists in charge jeopardizes that stream when both groups want to maintain traditionalism and reject the cultural liberalism that the revolutionary benefactors seek to transmit to their respective country.

Previously, revolutionaries killed their brothers-in-arms over ideological disputes and a desire for purge the state of traces of the ancien regime. Now the stamping out is done simply over American dollars.

This is troubling in Ukraine where individuals with our mindset and with good intentions participated in the Euromaidan protests to free their country of foreign influence and promote identitarian goals. Several of these nationalists were appointed to prominent positions in the government and looked poised to gain even more power. Many within our sphere saw an opportunity in the growing power of far-right, nationalist elements in Ukraine, myself included.

But as the weeks pass by, this promise is beginning to look like a false hope.

If the cases of Egypt and Ukraine can teach us one thing, it is that the rules of revolutions are changing. It is increasingly difficult for countries to make their own path in their world independent of the old powers in their quest to free themselves. When US dollars and intelligence assistance come into play, that possibility becomes impossible. There is no way that America will invest millions of dollars and place a stake in their geopolitical scheme into a country, and then let that country be overtaken by anti-liberal forces.

They will do everything in their power to prevent that occurrence and when they control the money and the military, it becomes easier for them to eliminate nuisances.

The US has a solid footing in Ukraine and it does not want Svoboda or Right Sector taking power. Believing that these groups can take over and forge a “third position” is an unrealistic view of the situation on the ground.

America supports revolutions to further their own interests – not the interests of groups hostile to liberal ideas.

And that is why the new victims of revolution are the hard-line extremists who engineered the revolution’s success. Washington has no problem with manipulating these elements when they are useful for their cause, but once that usefulness is gone, then they are eliminated.

That is why identitarians should always be skeptical of any revolution that Western governments support. We should not be taken in by protestors draped in runes and shouting slogans that appeal to our sensibilities if they are earning the support of the European Union and other bodies we despise.

For the real enemy to identitarianism is American global hegemony. It wants to eliminate tradition and force man into the monoculture. Anything it backs is done to further this agenda and it will crack down on any elements that would hinder that achievement.

If the nationalists in Ukraine accept this fact, they could one day forge a new paradigm for whites to emulate and embrace. But that is unlikely to happen in the short-term with Russia threatening Ukraine’s border and the only ally the country has is America (however piss poor of an ally that is).

For it is now true, to paraphrase du Pan, that the Revolution that’s backed by America ends by devouring its own radicals.

No Comments on The Victims Of American-Backed Revolutions

Jobbik Makes Gains In 2014 Hungarian Election

Yesterday (Sunday, April 6), the national parliamentary elections, which are held every four years, took place in Hungary.

Yesterday (Sunday, April 6), the national parliamentary elections, which are held every four years, took place in Hungary. This election was particularly notable in that it was the first time that those of Hungarian ethnicity who reside in other countries were allowed to participate – a significant change considering how many Hungarians live outside of Hungary’s borders at the present time, most especially in those territories which it lost following its defeat in the First World War.

The Hungarian parliamentary elections work in a somewhat unorthodox manner, with voters having to choose both from a list of candidates from each particular party on the national level, as well as for deputies from those parties for their own specific county or district.

No one seriously expected that the popular Center-Right party Fidesz, which has governed Hungary continuously since 1998, would not be victorious again, and sure enough, Fidesz, in a coalition with the Christian Democratic People’s Party, won over 44% of the vote, giving it 133 out of 199 seats in parliament, and securing a two-thirds supermajority in representatives, which means it can continue to make changes to the national constitution without the consent of the opposition.

Nevertheless, Jobbik, the more radical contender on the Right in Hungary whose success has been inspirational to nationalist movements across Europe, made significant gains. Having been founded just over a decade ago in 2003, Jobbik polled at less than 2% of the total vote when it fought its first election in 2006. It surprised the world by placing third among Hungary’s parties and garnering over 16% of the vote in 2010. Yesterday, Jobbik won over 20% of the vote and 23 parliamentary seats, again placing third, and making gains even in the highly liberal capital city, Budapest. This was quite an extraordinary feat for a party that has been branded as “extremist” and “fascist” both at home and abroad, and whose message reflects an uncompromising commitment to a genuinely Right-wing perspective and traditionalist values. Jobbik is known for its defense of the Hungarian people, both within and outside Hungary, and particularly as against Hungary’s Roma population; opposition to liberalism and globalization; opposition to Zionism; and opposition to the European Union, the United States and NATO (part of its party program is to take Hungary out of the EU), which it says treats smaller countries like Hungary as nothing more than a cheap labor force to be exploited.

I was fortunate enough to watch the election returns as a guest of Jobbik at their campaign headquarters yesterday evening, and I had the opportunity to speak with Márton Gyöngyösi, Jobbik’s International Secretary, about what the party’s hopes had been going into the election and their reaction to the results. He told me that Jobbik’s primary goals in this year’s election were to displace Unity, the Leftist coalition, for the number two spot among the parties; to prevent Fidesz from securing another supermajority; to capture the deputy positions in as many counties and districts as possible; and to increase their general numbers among the national electorate. It was only in the last point that Jobbik was ultimately successful.

Unity is not itself a party, but rather a coalition of five socialist/Leftist parties who joined together simply for the purposes of fighting in the election, given the severe loss in support suffered in the 2010 elections by the previous number-two party in Hungary, the Hungarian Socialist Party (which regards itself as the successor to the Communist party which ruled Hungary between 1956 and 1989). Jobbik does not see Unity as serious political rivals, however, since the parties involved have little history of working together outside of the election campaign. Nevertheless, Unity was successful in securing nearly 26% of the vote and 38 seats in parliament, and won the deputy races in two counties, as well as in the deputy races in many districts of Budapest.

It should be noted that the fourth-place party after Jobbik was the Lehet Más a Politika (“Politics Can Be Different”), a Green party, which garnered less than 6% of the vote, and only 5 parliamentary seats. This was just barely sufficient to enable the party to enter parliament at all (5% being the minimum required). This is a clear indication that Jobbik has handily established itself as one of the only serious contenders for national leadership.

During the early phases of the election returns, it seemed as if Jobbik would win the deputy slot in Miskolc, the fourth-largest city in Hungary and a long-time stronghold of Fidesz, but once all the returns were in Fidesz managed to maintain a razor-thin majority. As a result, Jobbik did not win in any of Hungary’s deputy races.

Despite these setbacks, the fact that Jobbik is an actual party, as opposed to Unity, which is merely an alliance of many parties that are unlikely to work together in parliament, means that Jobbik stands as the second-most powerful political party in the Hungarian parliament today.

Márton Gyöngyösi noted that the balance of power between Hungary’s parties was largely unchanged from the 2010 election, which was disappointing for Jobbik. Nevertheless, he was pleased to see the increase in the number of voters who supported them, indicating that their message is beginning to resonate more and more with Hungarian voters.

When asked what Jobbik needed to do to position itself as a serious challenger to Fidesz’s domination, Gyöngyösi said that the party needs to find a way to appeal to voters in historically liberal Budapest. A look at the numbers shows that Jobbik is already the second-most popular party in many of the rural regions of the country, which are traditionally, and unsurprisingly, the most Right-leaning sector of the nation. While Jobbik increased its numbers in Budapest as well, it still received only slightly more than 10% of the votes there. With a population of two million out of a nation of nearly ten million people, a party’s success in the capital city is crucial to achieving victory. But as of now, Jobbik hasn’t succeeded in finding a way to attract significant support there, which Gyöngyösi said would be a top priority for the party moving forward.

Several Jobbik members also suggested to me that Fidesz’s popularity largely hinges upon that of its charismatic leader, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, and that his eventual departure from the party could greatly reduce their appeal. Several Hungarians I have spoken with have also indicated that many voters who once supported Fidesz unconditionally have grown more skeptical about it, and their support for Fidesz was more reserved and hesitant this time around given Hungary’s persistent economic troubles. This is supported by the numbers, as Fidesz, while it remained dominant, saw its numbers drop significantly from what they were in 2010.

Gyöngyösi sees hope for his party’s future in the fact that Jobbik has attracted a great deal of popularity among Hungary’s youth, and most especially among university students. Opinion polls have indicated that Jobbik is the most popular party among approximately one-third of students. If present trends continue, as these young people grow older and become more active, Jobbik could be well-positioned to surpass its rivals in 2018 or 2022, barring any unforeseen changes to Hungary’s political landscape.

Those of a Rightist inclination should not be disappointed that Fidesz remains in power, however. While I find the policies and general political philosophy of Jobbik to be much more compatible with a “true Right” (to use Evola’s term) perspective, it cannot be questioned that Fidesz has done a great deal of good for the country, and would itself be considered “extremist” by Western European or North American standards. (I have been told that articles by the French “New Right” gurus, Alain de Benoist and Guillaume Faye, have been published in Fidesz’s party newspaper, for example.) Given that Jobbik and Fidesz combined accounted for 65% of the votes cast, this would seem to indicate that Leftist parties simply lack appeal for the vast majority of Hungarians and are unlikely to reestablish themselves in the immediate future. I suppose this is unsurprising in a country that had Communist rule forced upon it for nearly half a century, something that is still fresh in the memories of many Hungarians.

What is certain is that Jobbik is not a passing phenomenon, nor a force that can be ignored, and it is likely to remain a significant factor in Hungarian, and European, politics for years to come. This poses a serious counterargument against those who hold that the only way that Rightist parties can succeed is by moderating, since Jobbik has little history of watering down its messages, which are quite bold, to assuage the complaints of its critics. Given Jobbik’s highly innovative geopolitical stance (which favors an alliance of Hungary with Russia, Turkey and Germany as a bulwark against the EU and the United States), its critique of capitalism, and its adoption of some of the perspectives of traditionalists such as René Guénon and Julius Evola, this also suggests that many people are looking for new and innovative ideas on the Right as opposed to the recycling and repackaging of the same, tired conservative slogans of the past. The Right of the future, if it is to achieve anything, will be a very different Right (and may scarcely be “Right-wing” at all, in conventional terms).

Given the sudden increase in popularity of “radical” Right-wing parties across Europe in recent years, most notably in France, Jobbik seems to be only a part of a growing trend. Europeans, and young people in particular, have awakened to the fact that liberalism has and is continuing to fail to meet the needs and desires of our people. If we want to see where the vigor and innovation lies in the European political scene today, we must look to the Right. Tomorrow belongs to us.

John Morgan is Editor-in-Chief of Arktos Media. He currently resides in Budapest.

No Comments on Jobbik Makes Gains In 2014 Hungarian Election

Another “Defective Western Altruism” Data Point…

Now there is further proof that the West’s pathological altruism is not being universally interpreted as a desire for global equalism…or whatever. But as was always suspected… As weakness.

All white nations are subject to the same threats: Nominally, inexorable demographic shifts as a function of invading battalions of high TFR Third World Uruk-Hai, reinforced with medieval era religious extremists from the Middle East for good measure, for one.

Geographical location, however does provide variation with how these threats are encountered.

Australia is protected by large expanses of ocean, against what are euphemistically called “irregular maritime arrivals” – which only provides a marginal deterrent at any rate, as tens of thousands are mobilized, despite the fact that circa 1400 have drowned since 2001 in the attempt, lured no doubt by the siren song of the welfare on-tap largesse of the Australian Taxpayer, in the land of, er, rape and honey.

Under the mandate of what the leftist press calls xenophobia, but what the superior minds at Radix would no doubt, consider to be merely popular opinion and rational reasoning, the newly tenured government has introduced measures to reduce the number of these arrivals.

The policy now being that the Australian Navy intercepts these boats and returns the passengers back from whence they came – such as Muslim Indonesia to the north, which is used as a staging ground by the ‘fugees. Of course, there was always going to be altercations between the Navy personnel and the invaders, and inevitably, with modern electronic devices being so ubiquitous, even amongst supposedly starving refugees(?), it was only a matter of time before a smart phone recording was made of alleged mistreatment of these international itinerants at the hands of the Navy, during the reversing procedure.

Only in this instance, it is difficult for the diversity apologists in the MSM to reconcile the actions of the refugees, with the image of hard working, benevolent victims they try oh-so hard to perpetuate. Not only are threats to kill navy personnel made, as well as a cheerful round of bird flipping “F$%k Australia”. But alarmingly,references to the 9/11 terror attacksare mentioned. Now, I’ll concede that it is conceivable that these comments were made in the heat of the moment. Due to a resultant epinephrine release, preparing the body for great physical exertion, at the expense of higher order reasoning.

Nevertheless, what makes this event of particular of note for those with Nationalist leanings, is that this footage was submitted to a news agency by the refugees themselves, some weeks after the footage was filmed, presumably in order to gain public support. As columnist Andrew Bolt pointed out, surely, this is an example of the “cultural disconnect” and social mis-calibration of these individuals that they thought this was a sound strategy to curry favour with the public. However, no-one likes being threatened (at least that is somewhat universal) thus the only way to balance this equation,in that there was some semblance of rationality to their actions, is to assume that public support wasn’t the anticipated goal of the video, and the intent was actually to frighten the Australian public into accepting them and their ilk. The salient point being, because now there is further proof that the West’s pathological altruism is not being universally interpreted as a desire for global equalism…or whatever. But as was always suspected… As weakness.

Ultimately, this is a faux victory for Nationalists, as whilst the back door has been squeezed shut, the front door has been left wide open, as a “virtue” of being a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention, with the aggregate intake remaining the same.The only dubious improvement being that the illusion of choice has been given, over whom the government can select for the humanitarian program.

References / Acknowledgements:

No Comments on Another “Defective Western Altruism” Data Point…

One Small Step For Marine, One Giant Leap to Nowhere

Several American and British friends asked me to comment on this “earthquake” that no less than shattered the foundations of La République. That such an insignificant event can make the headlines of the Western media tells you much about how increasingly insecure our ruling class is, however wrongly so. 

This article was originally published in October 2013.


Being the House Frog of this august assembly, I’m often asked what I think of France’s Front National, despite the fact that I made quite clear, in my debut article here, how negative my opinion of that party is (if it has changed in a year, it’s not for the better). 

Last week-end’s by-election was no exception to the rule: several American and British friends asked me to comment on this earthquake that no less than shattered the foundations of La République. My real surprise was that people outside France would have heard of it at all. Not only was it a by-election, but what was at stake was merely one seaton a département‘s council (the département is the French equivalent of the county in the U.S. or the borough in Britain, though it is directly controlled by Paris).

That such an insignificant event can make the headlines of the Western media tells you much about how increasingly insecure our ruling class is, however wrongly so. 

Jim Goad, who forgot writing a few months ago that he wouldn’t mind if all French people died overnight (suffocated with freedom fries, maybe), saw Front National’s “victory” as “a step in the right direction.” I’m heartened to see that Jim came back to his senses, but what if Goad wasn’t  one of us? And what if these “victories” were not good news for those who genuinely want our race and civilization to have a future?

I’m not sure words are sufficient to make people understand how terrible this party is. I have written many times against stato-nationalism. I have argued numerous times how any organization that places the “nation” above the race and civilization is as much an enemy as any mainstream party. Yet even people with whom I have exchanged hundreds of emails and met with in real life continue to define Front National‘s Marine Le Pen as a “white nationalist.”

Two factors explain why even people with whom I agree on so much else get this wrong:  

  1. We rely on (liberal) national media from our country to know what’s happening in other Western countries. In France, right-wing people I know look at America with envy because you have… Sarah Palin (!). Since many right-wingers merely invert the liberal worlview to define theirs, the fact that liberal journalists depict Palin as the new Eva Braun is enough for them to like her. As a Swiss friend of mine says, leftists would just need to state publicly how they hate excrement for righties to stuff their nose into a pile of turds at once.  
  2. Relatedly, many in our circles believe that if a politician is hated by “the Left,” who of course is our only enemy,“he must be doing something right.” By this idiotic standard, Dubya was doing something right when he made up the WMDs thing to justify his invasion of Iraq, right?

If words are not enough, will pictures suffice? Here are two campaign posters and a press picture of three candidates, the first one for the general elections in 2012, the two others for the municipal elections next year.

Elie Taieb: 

“For a Real National Assembly!”

Mungo Shematsi:

Mungo Shematsi is the one on the left.

Mungo Shematsi is the one on the left.

Sofiane Ghoubali: 

Now, has this appeasement been fruitful? Besides this totally unimportant by-election last Sunday, Marine Le Pen got 17.9 percent of the vote in the last presidential election. Which obviously means that 82.1 percent of the electorate didn’t vote for her, without taking into account the 22 percent who didn’t vote (I was one of them, of course) at all.

One can wonder what the next step in this normalization process is before Front National can not only have a candidate in the second round, like Jean-Marie Le Pen in 2002, but in the presidential palace, and whether the party will still be remotely national when it happens (if it does).

That, of course, is if one believes that actual power lies in public office. Ironically, right-wingers seem to be the last democrats. Only on the Right can one still find this naive belief that the President, or Prime Minister, has a kind of control panel in his office where from everything bad in the country can be solved with a simple tap of the finger.

But let’s be serious with politics, will we? When syndicated columnists define the American president as “the most powerful man in the world,” only eunuchs and morons can be impressed with that phrase. Who with a three-digit IQ seriously thinks that Barack Obama is more powerful than, say, George Soros? Or Lloyd Blankfein?

Even if nationalist politicians managed to get elected at “top” positions in the Potemkin political system, it wouldn’t change a thing since there’s nothing at the other end of the wheel. Yet even that is impossible since the real rulers (bankers, bureaucrats, CEOs, media owners) need the democratic fiction to go on, as the victory of a nationalist party, even one as castrated as Front National is, would prove that no actual power is in the ballot.

And this would make their situation sensibly more precarious than what it is now. 

The predictable outcome is as follows: Front National will gain votes in the years to come, and what is taboo on the mainstream Right for now (an alliance with the “Far Right”) will become possible, with a victory of this awkward coalition in the process.

Marine will get a ministry, which of course won’t help her in any way to fix France’s problems, in the unlikely hypothesis that she still knows what they are and how to fix them. I’m not sure if Mungo Shematsi or Sofiane Ghoubali wouldn’t be a better choice than her.

No Comments on One Small Step For Marine, One Giant Leap to Nowhere

A Warning On Nationalism

Today, Ukraine is where methods of exerting influence from either side are put to the test. As propaganda becomes more sophisticated, the ways in which competing powers confront each other evolve as well. This much is certain: the protests on Kiev’s *Maidan* cannot be taken for face value.

Originally published at The Soul of the East

Three years ago I met Oleg Kalugin, the ex-KGB general whose well-known case of defection earned him the ire of the Russian authorities. In an interview, Kalugin once stated his belief that Vladimir Putin was “a temporary twist in history”, and perhaps this belief is why he found so much support among his American associates. I personally spoke with Kalugin on the future of Russia and its people, he told me it would be inevitable that Russia would collapse and break apart. Knowing the consternation that Americans often come to when dealing with the New Russia, is this the implicit goal of the Atlantic powers?

Even with the experience that Mr. Kalugin acquired in his time working for Soviet intelligence, he could not have not predicted Putin’s rise to power, describing the President as “a mere operative, one of the 3,000 who walked along our corridors”. It was twelve years ago that General Kalugin was found guilty in absentia for high treason. A known critic of the Putin administration, he became a naturalized citizen of the US and has remained there since. It seems like US government officials and turncoats alike are betting on the collapse of Russia, and it’s not uncommon to hear about a “crumbling” Russia from media commentary. But why does this mentality remain, and why are so many hopeful for the demise of the Russian state?

At the time of my meeting with Kalugin, before Ukraine and before Syria, I found no credence in spy’s forecast. Today the world has set its sights on Kiev as the cornerstone in determining who will take the lead in defining the century. Lines are being drawn and the terms of the game are being set. Make no mistake, a contest for hegemony is underway, and actions take precedence over ideology. Russia is not surrendering, and it is prepared to challenge the West in a way that perhaps only China has also done.

Today, Ukraine is where methods of exerting influence from either side are put to the test. As propaganda becomes more sophisticated, the ways in which competing powers confront each other evolve as well. This much is certain: the protests on Kiev’s Maidan cannot be taken for face value.

What can be said of the nationalists of Ukraine, whose employment of Nordic symbols and rhetoric runs directly opposed to some of the stated goals of the country’s new leadership? Although the Maidan riots began as the result of many groups participating, the breakthrough of Pravy Sektor (Right Sector) as the face of the Ukrainian uprising has attracted political fanatics of the right from other parts of the continent to join the protests. This was a deliberate move on the part of outside elements to lend them exposure and resources, knowing that European nationalists are usually on the side of Russia against the West. The matter is currently one of the most divisive topics among reactionary and nationalist political circles at the moment, and it has almost succeeded in undermining Putin’s most profound forms of overseas support. For all of the Russian media’s claims that the Ukrainian nationalists are the Wahhabists of Europe, the conclusion has solid premises, as unfortunate as that may sound. How is inviting foreign elements to fight in Kiev different from radical Islamists from the UK and US joining their brothers in Syria?

There is also the testimony of a former activist from Pravy Sektor, who admits the group’s cooperation with American military officials in (allegedly) trading looted documents for money, or the presence of Chechen militants side-by-side with the Pravy Sektor protestors on the Maidan. From a diplomatic perspective, even the Pravy Sektor’s meeting with Israeli officials wouldn’t have seemed so suspiscious if it wasn’t announced with enthusiasm from the group’s leadership. Respectable far-right organizations from other countries, such as Hungary’s Jobbik, have condemned them. But this is a sidenote in a time of soft power. Political extremists are now convenient tools of geopolitical influence, regardless of what they themselves might think.

The amount of attention vested in the situation in Ukraine, especially from the US government itself, suggests that there are more interests at stake than merely allowing Ukraine access to the European Union. In December, US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland bragged that America invested five billion dollars over two decades toward a “democratic Ukraine” while urging the government to “listen to its people,” all while standing in front of the logos of Chevron and Exxonmobil. Her flagrant disregard for EU interests in relation to Ukraine, revealed in her now-notorious phone conversation with the US Ambassador in Kiev, confirms Washington’s own less-than-altruistic ambitions for the country.

But the US and its economic assets could never gain leverage in Ukraine simply on their own; even John Kerry’s promise of billions in future investments cannot happen immediately. This is why men like Oleg Kalugin are so highly valued – their use of politics as a tool of subversion is an alternative to outright war. Indeed, the predictions that Russia’s involvement in Crimea would not lead to war are so far correct, but the potential is building. The division of Ukraine shows what political factionalism is capable of: the coordinated efforts of Leftists, gay activists, EU businessmen, ultra-nationalists, Jewish organizations, various churches, Chechens, Tatars, and still others demonstrate how external forces manipulate affairs of state.

None of the aforementioned groups would normally have anything to do with each other, and while some of them may be conscious of their role as pawns in a global game of influence, they can do little about it but fight on. I am reminded about another former Soviet spy I knew of, one based at the University of California, Berkeley during the 1960s, whose efforts to agitate radical college students into social unrest enjoyed some success. He too, eventually defected. Nevertheless, the methodology was effective.

I once stood on the Maidan nearly half a decade before it became what it is today, before outside players were involved to the degree they are now. It’s sufficiently clear that the unrest in Kiev is an engineered uprising, the likes of which have been seen as recently as Syria and as far back as Guatemala. For all of the manufactured regime changes across the world since the Second World War, the US has relied on a single factor to achieve these revolutions – the uncertainty and desperation of a people faced with adjusting to a rapidly-changing market and global environment. But viewing the masses gathered in Odessa, Simferopol, Kharkov, Donetsk, Sevastopol, and elsewhere, we see this is not the case in Ukraine. As some journalists have remarked, it was the people, not the police, who took back government buildings from the Kiev-based opposition. These are not pro-government “titushki,” as the opposition would label them, but the people, and they have spoken. These are the citizens who believe the Russian and Ukrainian people are one, a more genuine assertion of identity as opposed to the arbitrary goals of a political party.

There is, however, an almost unanimous agreement on the corruption of Yanukovych’s presidency, something which is undisputed even by the Russian government. Why would the people of Ukraine ask to join the European Union now, anyway? The East has shown itself to be a formidable player in international politics while the other side faces endless scandals and crises. Furthermore, the relationship between many Ukrainians with Russia goes beyond short-term economic goals; it is cultural. Insult is added when the West supports the ultra-nationalists behind the violence and mends their reputation, considering the emphatic efforts of elites to ‘fight hate’ in their own countries while simultaneously supporting it elsewhere.

A genuine cause for concern must arise when two global superpowers are so closely opposed to each other. Recall that the presence of Russian soldiers securing key infrastructure in Crimea echoes the events of 1999 in Pristina, when Russian paratroopers took control of an airport, resulting in a standoff with NATO. But a war is too costly. Defeated presidential candidates Clinton, McCain, and Kerry (among other politicians) have spoken harshly about the Kremlin’s involvement in Ukraine, at times making stale and hypocritical comparisons to past historical events. Critics, meanwhile, have noted Washington’s relative impotence as a global leader and Obama’s inability to seriously confront Putin’s actions.

Should we be afraid? If my experiences with spies, defectors or otherwise say anything, then yes, we should be. The situation can be described as the Man in Berkeley’s activities on a grand scale. Consider how both the government and media outlets played to the liberal sentiment of the American people during the Sochi Olympics, to the point that any semblance of failure or shortcoming at the events was desperately sought after while violent illiberal political groups have been receiving support and aid from the West in Ukraine and elsewhere. Nothing is as it seems. Action trumps ideology, and in this instance, the critical mass of the Maidan was wielded by the Western powers. Military threats are a last resort for NATO and the US; the true goal of their designs is subversion.

Speaking on the events of the Maidan, Dmitry Dyomushkin, leader of the ethnopolitical movement ‘Russians’ and a noted supporter of Chechen independence, has urged other nationalists in Russia to support the Maidan protestors and encouraged the distancing of Ukraine from Russian affairs. This would seem odd for a man that stands behind the Russian Imperial flag, but his sentiment is shared by other figures in the nationalist sphere. Nationalism is a historic facet of the Russian mind, an inescapable fact, and today’s nationalists want their country to take an even more conservative turn than it already has. Yet this can be exploited, much as ethnic sentiment in Ukraine has been used against Ukrainians.

The nationalists are already willing to come out and stand with Leftists and Communists against Putin, as was the case in 2012. If proper scrutiny is not given to the development of nationalism in Russia, the politics of pride, once used to advance the interests of the state, will be used against it.
Radical Islam has been used against Islamic states, so it cannot be excluded that subversion in Russia will arise with the face of fierce nationalism or religious fanaticism, and in the case of Doku Umarov and Dmitro Yarosh, it already has.

At this point, it is necessary to understand how propaganda has changed over the last century, because many approach the concept with 20th-century conceptions. We should look beyond the flags and shields and try to ascertain the true ideology of the people actually running the uprising.
Mr. Kalugin knows things I do not, and was his prediction of Russian balkanization an informed warning or an angst-ridden reaction to his conviction for treason back in Moscow? The resurgence of Russia is a “temporary twist” perhaps in the eyes of the West, whose drive to exert influence across the entire globe is now impeded by this counterbalance. The example of how Pravy Sektor has been used for harmful ends is an unwelcome warning to many of its would-be supporters, but it is a warning nonetheless.

No Comments on A Warning On Nationalism

Ukraine, Russia, and “Westernia”

There are Ukrainians and Western Ukrainians. These are two different social, national, ethnic, and cultural groups. Ukrainians are a West Russian *ethnos* which recognizes its historic unity with Eastern Slavs and *Velikorossy* (a historic term meaning “Great Russes,” often translated as “Great Russians”) as the core of the Eastern Slavs and the creators of an autonomous and powerful Eastern Slavic Orthodox State. Thus, Ukrainians are not simply “our people,” they are a part of us and, ultimately, they are we ourselves. They are not different, they are the same.

// Photo: The Washington Post

There are Ukrainians and Western Ukrainians. These are two different social, national, ethnic, and cultural groups. Ukrainians are a West Russian ethnos which recognizes its historic unity with Eastern Slavs and Velikorossy (a historic term meaning “Great Russes,” often translated as “Great Russians”) as the core of the Eastern Slavs and the creators of an autonomous and powerful Eastern Slavic Orthodox State. Thus, Ukrainians are not simply “our people,” they are a part of us and, ultimately, they are we ourselves. They are not different, they are the same.

Western Ukrainians are a sub-ethnos, which historically separated itself from the Western Russian population, formed in Volhynia and Galicia, having experienced significant Polonization and the influence of Catholicism (in the form of the Uniate—Eastern Catholic—Church). Western Ukrainians consider themselves an autonomous group, opposing themselves to other Eastern Slavs (first and foremost, these are Velikorossy, “moskali” (a derogatory term that means “Russians”)), Orthodox peoples, but also Poles and Austrians. Therefore, they have never had (and will never have) statehood, since it is impossible to build a State on the basis of hatred toward all surrounding peoples.

Modern-day Ukraine houses people with a Ukrainian identity and a Western Ukrainian identity. Making peace between them was the goal of the Ukrainian state that existed between 1991 and 2014. Ukraine’s political elite failed to do so. The Western Ukrainian minority insisted that the entire modern-day Ukraine must possess a single—Western—identity, thereby opposing the rest of the Ukrainians. Thus, it was they who ultimately destroyed contemporary Ukraine. Thanks to them, that Ukraine is already dead. And the more they scream that it has not died, the faster and more irreversibly it continues to die.

Ahead of us is the final schism of the Ukrainian space into two halves: the Western part headed by Kiev (Pravoberezhie, the Right River Bank) and the South-East, which is dominated by the Ukrainian (Orthodox East Slavic) identity. Crimea has been reunited with Russia, so what is left is the appearance of a new essentially Ukrainian (but not Western Ukrainian) State—Novorossiya (literally, “New Russia”). It will both be independent and friendly toward Russia.

This State may, indeed, form, but this is not a guarantee. It is over this area that the real struggle begins.

What is left for Western Ukrainians is the construction of their Galician-Volhynian State, “Westernia,” on the Right River Bank. Most likely, this project is doomed to failure. The reasons are as follows:

First of all, Western Ukrainians will never abandon their claims to control South-Eastern Ukraine (Novorossiya). Therefore, this is where the conflict lines will be drawn.

Second, the Western Ukrainian identity is strictly anti-Polish, whereas Poland considers its former possessions in the Volhynia region to be historically justified, nor have the Poles forgotten about the ethnic cleansing of their ancestors by the so-called Ukrainian Insurgent Army.

Third, “Westernia” is exclusively oriented toward the U.S., not continental Europe, which will create tensions with the European Union.

Fourth, Galician ultra-nationalism will become obvious to the West sooner or later, and it is doubtful that anyone would want to deal with this kind of a regime on serious terms.

And, finally, this kind of ultra-nationalism will create tensions with Rusyns in the South-West (Carpathian Rus), Hungarians, and other ethnic minorities.

Therefore, the Right River Bank State will collapse, proving one truth: that which was never part of history cannot last for long.

It is obvious that there will be no dialogue between Russia and Western Ukrainians. Each time they crawl out, they will strictly and deservingly get “kicked in the teeth.” In contrast, history and fate themselves dictate not only a dialogue but brotherly unity between Ukrainians and Russians. And here we face a very important moment: Russia must act not as an enemy, but as a friend and patron of the Ukrainian identity. The Ukrainian ethnos, language, culture are all part of our spiritual and historic wealth. If Western Ukrainians, with their current negative identity, only deserve a “kick in the jaw” from us, then Ukrainians are worthy of love, friendship, and the most gentle and attentive kind of a relationship. We must not insist on the Russification of Ukrainians, but instead act as the guarantors of safekeeping and developing their culture, language, and identity.

No Comments on Ukraine, Russia, and “Westernia”

Being Who We Are

Russia is capable of ceasing to be the world’s gas station (there are more suitable candidates for this purpose) and gaining self-respect:

  • If it becomes a Pan-Slavic country ready to defend its brothers in blood, language, and faith even if only against the Euro-bureaucratic pink-Liberal dictatorship, even if only against extreme Islamism;
  • If it becomes a Eurasian country restoring the great continental project, defending its peoples against the West (in its neo-Liberal and “Euro-Communist” versions) and the East (in its Chinese and Saudi-Caliphate versions);
  • If it becomes a nationalist country capable of taking care of millions of Russians left behind the post-Soviet cordon, from Sevastopol in Ukraine to Ust-Kamenogorsk in Kazakhstan, capable of becoming the “Great Bear” ready to tear apart anyone who comes in between her and her cubs.

Is there anything that Russia can offer the world other than oil of the “Ural” brand?

Russian journalist Mikhail Moshkin analyzes the current instability in Ukraine with a special focus on the meaning of traditional Russian identity and statehood. This translation was originally published at The Soul of the East.


The state is the actuality of the ethical Idea. It is ethical mind qua the substantial will manifest and revealed to itself, knowing and thinking itself, accomplishing what it knows and in so far as it knows it.

G. W. F. Hegel

Ukraine: Two Alternatives of Returning to One and the Same

A well-known formula, “the patient is either alive or dead,” encapsulates the Ukrainian situation in its entirety for those looking from the outside (and, most likely, the participants themselves). Either the Maidan finally topples Viktor Yanukovich over, or, a more likely scenario in light of the current events is that Yanukovich will give up everything he possibly can, handing out status positions in the government to the Maidan triumvirate, which is rapidly losing popularity for collaborating with “zlochinna vlada”—“criminal authorities” (offending Oleg Tyagnibok to top it off!). And, considering that it is impossible to return to the pre-Maidan status quo, Yanokovich will become a “lame duck,” with the 2004 Constitution in his beak and the omnipotence of the Verkhovna Rada. In a country that just collapsed into yet another economic and political pit.

Given the prospect of Vitali Klitschko’s presidency (yet how can the boxer become president if Yulia Tymoshenko is released?), the prospect of a “white-and-blue” regional separatism, the secession of Crimea, etc., are all real possibilities. We are seeing the signs thereof already. At the same time, all our political scientists and analysts should not get overly excited about “redrawing the new underdeveloped countries on the map.” The specter of the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Fronde haunted Ukraine as early as 2004 as well, but even then, with Viktor Yushchenko’s victory (does anyone still remember this political figure?), the southeastern autonomous region did not come to fruition, whereas Yevgeniy Kushnarev, the chief ideologue of separatism, got off lightly. Most likely, despite the ever-present antagonism between Galicia and the Southeast, there won’t be a “divorce.”

It looks like we might end up with bad infinity. Either, after the Maidan’svictory, we return to the “orange-ism” of ten years ago, or, after Maidan is pacified, we go back to the status quo from six months ago. The Eternal Return of one and the same, one and the same, one and the same.

In other words, this is obvious.

RussiaLacking Meaningful Alternatives

More central to this question, in response to the challenge of the Maidan—a gauntlet had been thrown down without any doubt—is what Russia can say or, more importantly, do. Let us attempt to be honest with ourselves and answer the following question: why is it that we, as we stand now, have the right to restore the Eurasian space, the triune Slavic union, and so on?

Critics of “gathering the lands of Russia” are, sadly, correct that our “Babylonian” spirit is still strong. And we have yet (do we?) to transform from the New Babylon into the Third Rome. Is it the Russia of mindless celebrities that is the beacon for all those discontent with “Euro-Sodom” and globalist Americanism?

Yes, we can become the focus of hope, but only if we ourselves find meaning in our own existence throughout history.

The author of this text is neither a Communist nor a fan of the USSR, “USSR v. 2.0″ or futuristic modernist projects in general. Therefore, he can only comment distantly: Russia of the 1920-30s (even if it were thrice Soviet and socialist, it remained Russia) was a realized possibility of a different world order and a different future. Antonio Gramsci and Georgi Dimitrov were pro-Soviet Communists not because of grant money, whereas Romain Rolland and Lion Feuchtwanger composed panegyrics without any exchange for thirty pieces of silver.

Being Who We Are

Russia is capable of ceasing to be the world’s gas station (there are more suitable candidates for this purpose) and gaining self-respect:

  • If it becomes a Pan-Slavic country ready to defend its brothers in blood, language, and faith even if only against the Euro-bureaucratic pink-Liberal dictatorship, even if only against extreme Islamism;
  • If it becomes a Eurasian country restoring the great continental project, defending its peoples against the West (in its neo-Liberal and “Euro-Communist” versions) and the East (in its Chinese and Saudi-Caliphate versions);
  • If it becomes a nationalist country capable of taking care of millions of Russians left behind the post-Soviet cordon, from Sevastopol in Ukraine to Ust-Kamenogorsk in Kazakhstan, capable of becoming the “Great Bear” ready to tear apart anyone who comes in between her and her cubs.

Is there anything that Russia can offer the world other than oil of the “Ural” brand?

Something does emerge as a sketch: this is a country that remains the bastion of Right-wing conservative Christian value, and, in general, a sort of a stronghold of the “global Right” force, ready to pick up J.B. Fichte, Alexander Hamilton, and Yamamoto Tsunetomo, ejected from the steamship of Modernity. What remains to be done is small: transferring this from the sphere of declarations (they are very much at odds with reality) into the sphere of political action.

We will also have to examine our recent past, since we were considered a stronghold of the “global Left” in the 20th century. It would be most logical to treat the Soviet era precisely as a period in history. Otherwise, there is the impression that Lenin and Stalin are still alive ruling our lives on a daily basis. It is time to leave necropolitics behind.

The latter will help us stop looking for cravings toward Tradition, faith, and hierarchy in the Communist Party’s congresses and speeches of leaders. We must stop looking for traces of Rurikid and Romanov Empires in the “Red Empire,” or, conversely, we must stop searching for crypto-Communists among the likes of Alexei Kudrin, Oleg Deripaska, and Viktor Yanukovich. Without bias or wrath, we must choose all that will be useful to us (that same socially-oriented economy with, as mentioned hundreds of times, Right-wing politics), leaving Vladimir Ilyich and Iosif Vissarionovich for the historians.

No Comments on Being Who We Are

NAFTA Turns Twenty

NAFTA is another nail in the coffin of the white working class and another reminder to look above and beyond the “Generic American Party.”

The ancient historian Tacitus famously said, “Laws were most numerous when the commonwealth was most corrupt.” In looking over the enormity of the actual document that is NAFTA, one wonders what the honorable Tacitus would have said upon discovering that “Petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons other than: ethylene, propylene, butylene and butadiene, in purities over 50 percent” fell under Annex 603.6 of Chapter Six (Energy and Basic Petrochemicals) in Part Two (Trade In Goods). Annex 603.6 lists exceptions to Article 603, and states that “For only those goods listed below, Mexico may restrict the granting of import and export licenses for the sole purpose of reserving foreign trade in these goods to itself.” Unless my legalese is not as sharp as I would like to think, this means that NAFTA is a guest sign-in book for America, Canada, and Mexico’s greatest lobbyists.

For all the talk that NAFTA would be good for everyone and everything involved (Mexican peasants, American workers, the environment, etc.), it was immediately obvious to anyone paying attention that this was not the case. By January 1995 Republican NAFTA cheerleaders Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole were trying to get the U.S. Treasury to issue 40 billion dollars worth of loans to the Mexican government in order to save American corporate investments from the plummeting peso. In building up to its passage, the late libertarian polymath Murray Rothbard wondered why NAFTA was receiving so much attention in libertarian circles, as opposed to equally worthy libertarian causes like ending the Federal Reserve or decriminalizing marijuana. After some investigating, he sarcastically commented that the obsession was likely connected to the Koch Brothers purchasing over a billion dollars worth of gas pipelines in Mexico in 1992. For those of you who think this sounds conspiratorial, consider that all of Mexico’s oil refineries are state-owned, and that Mexico now refines less crude oil than it did in 1994. NAFTA’s incidences of corruption and broken promises are many, but out of all the examples, what could be called the “Subsidized-Crop-Immigration Cycle” is far and away the most illustrative.

The trouble begins, like so many things, with a program that FDR created during the Great Depression. Fearing a collapse of American agriculture, in 1933 the “Agricultural Adjustment Act” was passed which established the “Agricultural Adjustment Administration” which began dispersing large subsidies (also known as taxpayer money) to farmers across the country. The string attached to the money was that farmers had to not grow as many crops as they had been, the idea being that this would create a shortage of crops, causing their prices to go up, allowing farmers to make more profit. Say what you will of the policy’s success at the time, most everyone should be suspect of the fact that a mutated form of this bill is still with us – long after the Dust Bowl’s end, and when American farmers constitute less than 1% of the workforce, not 25%, as was the case in the 1930s.

Estimates vary, but in the last decade American taxpayers have given around 168 billion dollars over to farm subsidies, with another 195 billion estimated for the next decade. Where the money ends up is also an issue, and also not known precisely. The latter of the two sources cited above claims that about one third of subsidies go to the top 4% of farm operators. The former claims 75% go to the top 10%. Either way (or hypothetically, both), America’s largest food producers receive an incredible amount of free money.

To what end is all of this extra money used? Thanks to NAFTA, said money is used to flood Mexican markets with artificially low prices on all different kinds of food. Ten years ago Allan Wall reported that the Mexican pork industry had lost about 30% of its revenues since NAFTA because of importations, and numbers released since then show things only getting worse. Between 1997 and 2005, Mexican prices for corn, pork, poultry, beef, rice, cotton, wheat, and soybeans all fell from 44% to 67%. Unsurprisingly, 2.3 million Mexicans left the field of agriculture during this period.

What happens to these unemployed Mexican farmers? Well, during the same time the above economic study was conducted, the population of illegal immigrants in the US roughly doubled. It is a sad irony that the very same businesses that use corporate welfare to bankrupt farmers in Mexico later hire them here in the US – where one in four farmworkers is an illegal immigrant. With this influx of unemployed Mexicans comes the crime, economic displacement, and cultural change reported on almost every day at Vdare and American Renaissance.

It is worth remembering too, that along with America’s working class, Mexicans are not the real beneficiaries of this cycle either. Since 1994, Mexico’s annual GDP growth has been schizophrenic, one year it will shrink by 6% and the next it will grow by 5%, while in ‘60s and ‘70s, it was steadily growing. Additionally, the supposed benefits of NAFTA have done nothing to help Mexico surpass China as Canada or America’s second largest trading partner. One would also be hard pressed to find a Mexican who would rather pick beans at abysmal wages in the US than run a family farm in his homeland. The small matter of the Zapatistas who declared NAFTA to be death is worth mentioning as well.

The beneficiaries have been given many names – Samuel Huntington called them “Davos Men,” James Burnham called them “Managerial Elites,” and Sam Francis often referred to them more broadly as “cultural and social elites.” Regardless of the name, it is those who prioritize profits and pretension to goodness over any and all cultural, racial, or national loyalties. Understanding the presence of these elites, and what their interests are, is an essential part to navigating and surviving the American political landscape. Though I would recommend reading more on the matter, it should be understood that these elites have taken over the Republican Party: after all, only 10 of the 44 Republican senators who could vote against NAFTA did so; Republican congressmen displayed only marginally more economic nationalism – 43 out of 175.

NAFTA is another nail in the coffin of the white working class and another reminder to look above and beyond the “Generic American Party.” Not long after NAFTA kicked in, Newt Gingrich and company swept the legislative branch and once George W. Bush was elected, passed bill after bill of free-trade agreements. This November, remember NAFTA, and let the Republicans self destruct.

No Comments on NAFTA Turns Twenty

The Children of Oedipus

Generally speaking, the right-wing Baby Boomer is subject to the bourgeois dream, which has been known as the “American dream” since the end of the Second World War: a world of peace, trade, and boredom.

The Generational Problem in Nationalist Movements

The following was delivered as a speech at the second National Policy Institute’s conference, which was held at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, DC, on October 26th.

It is not always easy to tell the difference between destiny and randomness.

I discovered the “Alternative Right” three years ago, by a link posted on a Swiss blog. It was a perfect illustration of a famous line in Simon and Garfunkel’s song “Sound of Silence”: “The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls, and tenement halls.”

I was going through a period of questioning at that time. I had been working for a couple of years for the “conservative movement” in Paris and I couldn’t fail to notice that all my efforts had been invested in a cause that was not really mine, that had never really been mine actually.

Until that fateful day of July 2010, I had always centered my attention on France. My only knowledge of the other Western countries was through history books, movies, or touristic trips.

Regarding politics proper, I wasn’t much interested in what was going on outside France. Though I was involved with the Right, I had always been wary of the American Right. For me, being right-wing in America meant worshipping the Holy Scrap (also known as “the Constitution”), waving a stars and stripes flag in the garden of a generic white-picket-fenced house, and making boring, tired jokes about the French who “always surrender.” I had still not digested my dish of freedom fries.

Discovering the Alternative Right was an epiphany for me, as I think the discovery of the European New Right was for many Americans present in this room today. I’m thinking particularly of Richard Spencer and of John Morgan, the editor-in-chief of Arktos Media.

I discovered that though I wasn’t feeling at home in the French “conservative movement,” there were “people like me” on the Web, all over the Western world, who shared my hopes and concerns.

Ironically enough, I even discovered French authors thanks to American publications like AlternativeRight.com or Counter-Currents.com. Of course, the name “Alain de Benoist” was familiar to me, but he was not very popular, let alone read, in my corner of the Right.

Now, it seems that more and more Western people (White people as you say in America) are aware of the fact that what brings them together is much stronger than what divides them. And I’m not only talking about activists like us here. When this British soldier was beheaded in London by two African Muslims last Spring, I could see many manifestations of solidarity by average Western people. It’s something that would have been unthinkable a mere decade ago. As this example shows, reasons for this growing awareness among Western people are often negative ones: Westerners face the same danger of being displaced in their historic homelands.

There are positive reasons, too, the first of which being the fact that we are the heirs of a great civilization. But although it is important to focus on the positive more than on the negative, it’s about a problem that is remarkable but not often commented on that I want to talk today: the generational divide.

When I say that this problem is not often commented on, it is not quite true. Actually, the liberal narrative about generational relationships is that the Baby Boom generation, thanks to a courageous revolution, managed to put an end to an oppressive, reactionary, boring society.

There is some truth to that liberal narrative. But the generational divide applies differently to nationalist movements, and this is what I want to dedicate my attention to today.

More than a generational divide, there is, first off, a generational gap in right-wing movements. If the generation of my grand-parents (born between the two world wars) was rather conservative in the right sense of the word, the Baby Boom generation is, in my experience, much more liberal in its outlook, hence the lack of right-wing activists from this generation. This is what explains “gerontocracy,” i.e. government of the old, in many right-wing movements, especially in Europe.

Even self-defined right-wingers born during the Baby Boom are liberal in their views.

The most striking thing that I noticed, in France, Europe and America, was the inability of baby-boomers, even when they see themselves as dissidents, to completely break away from the institutions. The desire of recognition, the fear of social rejection ensure that the right-wing Baby Boomer gives legitimacy to the very institutions that are eager to destroy him.

For instance, right-wing Baby Boomers show a great deal of respect to Academia. They are very proud of their PhDs when they hold them, and when they don’t, they are all the prouder to mention that an author they publish does. They do this at a time when there are PhDs in Queer, Gender, Black, and even Chicano studies in America—and even doctoral students in the hard sciences have been through the PC gauntlet. Is it so important that we focus on degrees? Wouldn’t we be better advised to give as little legitimacy to university degrees as we can, given the circumstances?

This PhD Cult among right-wing Baby Boomers is related to their own rationalistic, scientistic delusions. Since conservatives are outmoded liberals — and many White nationalists are conservatives—they just want to conserve their people as it is, as if it were possible to save said people without becoming a new one in the process — they still believe in the Enlightenment myth that one would just have to show “the truth” to people to gain credibility and support. (And trying — in vain — to gain credibility from an Establishment that despises them is an important trait of right-wing Baby Boomers.)

But this idea that people would just have to know “the truth” to support the cause of saving Western civilization and the White race is fallacious. People have to be inspired rather than convinced, and they won’t be inspired by a set of bell curves, IQ tables, and cranial measurements. Furthermore, it reduces “the truth” to the only things that can be numbered and quantified. The problem with that idea is that our struggle is a qualitative one. We can’t “prove” that architecture has become ugly since the 20th century, for example. Yet it’s something that has to be said.

I mentioned the PhD Cult because it is one of the most obvious problems in right-wing intellectual circles. But this excessive respect of right-wing Baby Boomers is granted to institutions in general, chiefly to the State, the nation-state.

Since I was born in the 1980s, at a time when the main Western countries had already been “enriched” with mass immigration, I understand that it is easier for me to dissociate myself from my own nation-state.

Here, I’m reminded of an American friend I met in Paris a few weeks ago. He was born in the 1960s, and when I mentioned to him the idea of an Ethnostate, he chuckled: for him, up to 10 years ago, he had always considered he was already living in an Ethnostate: the United States.

And in day-to-day life, it remains common to hear people say “we” and “us” when they talk about the state. “We went to Iraq.” “Our troops are bringing democracy there.” “Syria’s chemical weapons threaten us.” I’m using silly examples here to make a point, but if you listen to people around you, you will inevitably notice that they keep saying — and thus thinking — that the state is them. That the state is the nation.

But it’s getting more and more necessary to get rid of this false consciousness. Since the end of the 18th century and the American and French revolutions, the nation-state has monopolized the way Westerners see themselves. This triumph is so complete that even multiculturalists use the nation-state as a comforting reference to impose their dogma to the West. In every Western country, you can hear the same mantra that “Our [national] identity is diversity.”

Some people in our movement suggest that we should likewise use the nation-state as a means to make people aware of our goals. The problem is that we can’t use the same tactic, for two reasons: first, we are obviously not in charge of the state. Second, a strict national consciousness leads to serious errors of interpretation. It is common in countries that used to have colonies and slaves to hear people say that our problems are rooted in colonization and slavery. In my homeland, the troubles with the Algerian community are thus attributed to French colonization and civil war there.

But Sweden, which never had any colony nor slaves, is facing similar, if not graver threats than Britain, America or France. We are not attacked for what our ancestors did, or allegedly did, but for what we are: White, Western people.

From my understanding, it is easier for my generation to see a brother or sister in another Westerner than it is for the former generation, which was born in the aftermath of the Second World War. In France, Front National is still anti-German, as well as it is anti-British and anti-American. But for the young generation, all these grudges are fading into irrelevance. A Briton might dislike the Germans or the French, wrongly or rightly, but those are unlikely to drug and pimp his daughters, behead a soldier in broad daylight, or burn the city down when a drug dealer is killed by the police.

In case you are wondering, I’m talking about things that actually happened in Britain in the last years.

Young Westerners know that they are more and more becoming one nation, the same way that other races, as Jared Taylor had noted in his book White Identity, are more and more seeing themselves as one people when they live in the West.

The right-wing Baby Boomer is not able to fully understand what is happening in other Western countries, since he relies solely on national, liberal media, unlike young right-wingers who get information via alternative, Pan-Western websites. The liberal media gives him a distorted image of reality. As he knows that mainstream journalists are liberal, he basically inverts their depictions of other “far right” movements in other Western countries to make his own opinion of them. Right-wingers, most often, only define themselves in opposition to the Left. What the Left likes, they hate. What the Left loathes, they love. It is thus easy to manipulate them into supporting a controlled opposition, given that their only justification to support is: “Since liberals hate it so much, it must be doing something right.” By this false standard, George W. Bush “was doing something right” when he made up the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to invade this country.

Generally speaking, the right-wing Baby Boomer is subject to the bourgeois dream, which has been known as the “American dream” since the end of the Second World War: a world of peace, trade, and boredom.

Right-wing Baby Boomers share the project of two American politicians (both born before the Baby Boom though), Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, whose similarities are more important than their differences. Their common motto can best be summed up as “Leave us alone!”

Well, we of the New Guard don’t want to be “left alone.” We want to rule.

We want to rule not only because we want actual power to get ourselves out of the present situation, but because we know that the “leave us alone” idea, which was behind the White flight phenomenon, is precisely what has led us to our current dispossession. Baby Boomers wanted to be “left alone,” so they fled to even further suburbs, moving further and further away from their own responsibilities. It is this process, White flight, that guaranteed that the ongoing dispossession could go on without being too painful.

The “good news” is that it is becoming impossible to continue the White flight process. Rising housing costs, growing gas prices, the concentration of jobs in city centers are putting the bourgeois dream to an end. It is now almost impossible for a generation that can only wait tables after a masters degree to keep fleeing. Problems will have to be faced, and dealt with.

At this point, I realize that I might seem unfair to the previous generation, but keep in mind that Baby Boomers did what everyone else would have done if given the choice. This choice no longer exists. The quiet, suburban life has become impossible for the reasons mentioned before.

What is to be done, then? As of now, nobody—including myself, of course—has a genuine solution to offer. Many in our circles claim that it is “five to midnight,” but I would argue that it is “five past midnight.” Not because it is too late, but because it is too soon. A mere decade ago, many people in this room, including, again, the foolish 20-year-old liberal that I was, were not aware of what was going on. Our awakening is too recent to find political solutions to our current problems now. For politics as we would like it to be to become possible, we have to win the intellectual and cultural battles, which right-wing Baby Boomers have never really considered worth fighting. It is time we do so.

What we can thus do in the meantime is to get intellectually prepared as a movement (for the individual and practical aspects of this preparation, Piero San Giorgio and Jack Donovan are more competent than I am). The first task would be to get rid with intellectual debates dating back to the Cold War, with the false dichotomies between libertarianism and socialism, conservatism and progressivism, etc.

This necessity to go beyond these false dichotomies seems obvious to activists like us, but it is still in these terms that politics are debated today.

When I say that we have to go beyond Left and Right, I don’t mean that we have to reject both notions altogether—our ethno-national project obviously belongs on the Right—but the way they have been defined and falsely opposed for these past 70 years. The alternative is not between the kolkhoz and IKEA, the best reason for that being that the kolkhoz and IKEA are two sides of the same materialistic coin. We have to find a way out of here, a way forward and upward, and that implies rising above these irrelevant debates.

As a radical movement, we need to attract intelligent and educated young men, who are the future.

Crime statistics and differences of achievement between races are important, to be sure, but no snowboarding session on the bell curve will attract young men to us. We need to show them a way out, and thus to remind them of the need to gradually withdraw from the prevailing disorder, but we also have to show them a way into, and that is what the Old Guard has been unable to do so far.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not trying to bury the Old Guard, or even to dispute its achievements. We wouldn’t be here today if the Old Guard had not taken the first step in the past. But we can’t keep doing the same things for decades.

It is now clear why we want to found a new society; now comes the harder part: what we want and how we are going to achieve it.

The answer is not sure at this point. What is is that the powers of creation, not only of reaction, will have to be summoned.

No Comments on The Children of Oedipus

Type on the field below and hit Enter/Return to search