← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Okiereddust
Thread ID: 10772 | Posts: 14 | Started: 2003-10-27
2003-10-27 05:59 | User Profile
[url=http://www.ulsternation.org.uk/mars_in_revolt.htm]ulsternation.org.uk[/url]
Samuel Francis, PhD. Middle American Press, P O Box 17088, Raleigh, NC 27619, USA. ISBN 1-887898-0-8. US$6.96.
This book is refreshingly free of the paranoid fantasies of an omnipotent all-embracing Jewish, Masonic or Papistical conspiracy which is all too common a feature of much American ââ¬Ëpatrioticââ¬â¢ literature. A larger number of ââ¬Ëpatrioticââ¬â¢ books and articles give out the despairing subliminal message that all resistance is futile to the growing ââ¬ËNew World Orderââ¬â¢ leviathan. Their undeclared line is that although we know whatââ¬â¢s really going on, our enemies are all-powerful and thereââ¬â¢s nothing that we can do about it. We can only watch in helpless impotence as they fulfil their dastardly designs.
Dr Samuel Francis will have none of this counsel of despair. He is, alongside Pat Buchanan, one of the most prominent commentators around today in what Americans call ââ¬Ëconservativeââ¬â¢ circles. In fact he is anything but conservative. He would describe himself as a ââ¬ËMiddle American Radicalââ¬â¢. As this book shows, that is an appropriate label.
Revolution from the Middle is a collection of columns and articles which appeared from 1989 - 1996 in the American cultural conservative magazine, Chronicles. I especially liked the chapter entitled ââ¬ËAmerica Firstââ¬â¢. This was written at the height of George Bushââ¬â¢s foreign adventures in Iraq and Somalia. It is a devastating indictment of ââ¬Ëglobalismââ¬â¢ with its agenda of US intervention in and management of foreign events while at the same time abolishing the US itself as a distinctive culture, a sovereign nation and an autonomous economy. As Dr Francis points out, none of the Establishment apologists for the globalist crusade, ââ¬Ëhas so far offered any compelling reasons why Americans should continue to spend their time, their money, or their lives solving the problems of other peoples, paying for their errors, or fighting their wars.ââ¬â¢ By contrast, an America Fist policy would recognise that Americans owe duties to themselves as American citizens before they owe anything to any other peoples. Restrictions on immigration, free trade, foreign relations etc., would be debated in terms of Americaââ¬â¢s national identity and interests rather than as is the case today, in terms of so-called ââ¬Ëhuman rightsââ¬â¢ or the fictitious ââ¬Ëglobal communityââ¬â¢.
How can Middle Americans regain control of their own country? Dr Francis argues that ââ¬ËMiddle Americansââ¬â¢ of European descent and culture have been largely abandoned by the globalist political establishment of left and right. The left is increasingly mobilising for the ââ¬Ërightsââ¬â¢ of vocal ethnic minority interests whilst the right is too busy defending international exploitation and money-making to care about the fate of ordinary decent folk. The traditional political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, are just like Labour and the Tories in Great Britain. They are dominated by those ââ¬Ëwho share a common globalist outlook in pursuit of free trade, open immigration, and the dismantling of the Westââ¬â¢s distinct cultural identity.ââ¬â¢ The only challenge to this liberal political and corporate establishment is the phenomenon which the author calls the ââ¬ËMiddle American Revolutionââ¬â¢.
This is the backlash of the MARs, the folk who once backed George Wallace, later became the so-called ââ¬ËReagan Democratsââ¬â¢ and more recently have given backing to political outsiders such as David Duke, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader. Today they are most associated with the candidacy of Pat Buchanan whose ââ¬ËNew Nationalismââ¬â¢ most closely reflects their opinions. They are the people who follow what was once termed by Newsweek magazine, ââ¬Ëthe Radical Middleââ¬â¢ - a term dear to the heart of Third Way readers.
Dr Francis is critical of the traditional American conservative defensive strategy. He argues that it is time for Middle American Radicals, the one-time conservatives, to go on the offensive - to adopt an insurgent strategy, the Middle American Revolution. The idea is not merely to restrain the power of the US Federal leviathan but for MARs to gain power themselves. This is not to be done alone by gaining control of the existing state apparatus through winning elections or taking jobs in the bureaucracy. Such formal ââ¬Ëcontrolââ¬â¢ will not yield social and cultural power - what Gramsci called ââ¬Ëcultural hegemonyââ¬â¢. In 1980, conservative Republicans won control of both the White House and the US Senate, yet in six years did virtually nothing to reverse or even check the growth of the leviathan.
Francis spells it out. ââ¬ËIf the Buchanan movement or the Middle American Revolution or the New Nationalism or whatever it is going to be called itself is to survive and develop as a serious force in American politics , it needs to do more than merely raise more money, build a national political organisation, or expand its list of voters. It needs to create a counter-culture that can sustain its political leaders once they hold office and develop the cultural and intellectual underframe that legitimises political efforts. It must construct its cultural base not on the metropolitan elites of the dominant culture but on emerging forces rooted in Middle American culture itself. It is exactly that kind of cultural permeation that sets the stage for successful political revolution... Instead of grabbing the shadow of political power and desperately hoping that the incumbent elites will be fooled into letting it have the substance of power, it creates and develops a social and political force independent of the dominant culture, and when that force is sufficiently mature, the snake will shed its skin. The new, emerging force will find the acquisition of formal political power and the winning of elections relatively easy as the old elite loses legitimacy and the new one not only acquires but also defines legitimacy.ââ¬â¢
As observed above, the author is not a pessimistic merchant of doom and gloom. He tells us that, yes, things are bad but not beyond redemption. There is good reason to hope that things will turn around. He likens MARs to the character Sherman McCoy in Tom Wolfeââ¬â¢s novel, Bonfire of the Vanities. McCoy has lost his wealth and status, his home, his wife, his mistress, his children, his friends and his freedom. Only then does he begin to fight. ââ¬ËExplaining what happened to him, he draws an analogy with a house pet thatââ¬â¢s been turned into a a vicious watchdog. "They donââ¬â¢t alter that dogââ¬â¢s personality with dog biscuits or pills" he says. "They chain it up, and they beat it, and they bait it, and they taunt it, and they beat it some more, until it turns and bares its fangs and is ready for the final fight every time it hears a sound. ... The dog doesnââ¬â¢t cling to the notion that heââ¬â¢s a fabulous house pet in some terrific dog show... The dog gets the idea. The dog knows when itââ¬â¢s time to turn into an animal and fight." ââ¬Ë When folk have nothing to lose but their chains they will fight - to win!
David Kerr
V.O.: I am open to hearing what Dr. Francis has to say, outside of his popular articles, but I do have some real reservations about the man. So please do put up a thread that you think would address my concerns expressed about him based upon his writings. In part this goes back to his shutting down SFOL which seemed very cowardly although I have no interest in going over that again. I was more then a little disturbed by the AmRen article he wrote in which he rejected separatism. Also, while rejects globalism, which is obviously good, he has not come out in favour of any real alternative to capitalism which obviously gives rise to it and destroys societal cohesion within an advanced, industrial context which is what's been the rule for the at least 2 generations.
[url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?p=63714#post63714]Zionism - A Defense[/url]
2003-10-28 03:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]...Also, while rejects globalism, which is obviously good, he has not come out in favour of any real alternative to capitalism which obviously gives rise to it and destroys societal cohesion within an advanced, industrial context which is what's been the rule for the at least 2 generations. [/QUOTE]
First, I'll state my interest clearly: I'm one of the people who bought bulk copies of this book when it came out and placed them in strategic places. It is still a good standard for nationalist writing. How good? I subscribed to Chronicles an extra four years simply because at the time his articles were available nowhere else. Francis is not "Canny", he is an educator who knows certain facts must sink in before action is taken or the action will lead to disaster.
As to the comment quoted, I've long since realized that capitalism is the pons asinorum of the right. To young conservatives, capitalism seems tough, manly, natural, and when you try to point out it is none of these things -- that even Ayn Rand was aware that a hefty percentage of "capitalists" are political influence-peddlers -- they will tune you out.
No argument from history seems to matter and the free market mania will have to run its course. Not one great civilization started with anything resembling a profit system and the higher the culture, the higher the disdain for peddlers and merchants. Most conservatives will remember all this when the ceiling comes down because they won't even discuss it now.
Francis must have customers and as long as he's selling to right-wingers in America, he has to tailor his message at least somewhat to their prejudices. So he has not made a frontal assault on capitalism-as-the-deluded-know-it. His articles contain enough as it is, there's really no point in cutting off his sponsors. We keep forgetting columnists need them, but the recent example of John Kaminski going online with a begging-bowl shows otherwise.
2003-10-29 05:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]It is really unfortunate that in the US the terms "conservatism" and "rightwing" are invariably linked to Wall Street fetishism and a knee-jerk defense of the interests of the international investor classes. Along the same lines, "socialism," "anti-capitalism" and "populism" carry Marxist connotations here that they simply don't carry in Europe (i.e. the Christian Socialists, National Socialists, and various Popular Fronts are acknowledged by most as rightwing movements).
Sam Francis is one of the few paleoconservatives who has acknowledged that the systemic problems in the private sector are as great a threat to the authentic right as those in the public sector. This prescience puts him (as far as political realism is concerned) in a league far above the daydreaming Chronicles boys who often sound like watered down Randites minus the internal consistency. However, Francis still lives and works in these circles, so he often pays lip service to libertarian and Constitutionalist rhetoric, and as Ragnar notes fails to articulate a coherent alternative to international capitalism. Even so, it's good to see somebody on the (almost) mainstream right pen articles like "Capitalism the Enemy" and "Corporate Giants Enforce Thought Control." Along with naming the Jew, naming the plutocrat (insofar as the two are not interchangeable) should be the authentic Right's first priority.
[/QUOTE]
This sounds vaguely like something I remember from Free Republic. ;)
If one looks at the "intellectual" leaders of the Conservative movement, the professional spokesmen and pundits of the new and increasingly watered down Right, from Rush Limbaugh to Arianna Huffington, the first thing one notices is their complete inability (or lack of desire) to tackle controversial issues of vital importance. They may quibble with the Democrats over school uniforms, but when it comes to issues of race relations, immigration policy, and foreign policy, the pundits on the Right are very often indistinguishable from their "Leftist" counterparts. Both praise the virtues of essentially unlimited immigration (the neo- Cons for economic reasons, the Left for social (multiculturalist) reasons. Both Left and new Right gasp with awe over annointed saints such as Martin Luther King and gush over equality of the sexes.
Unfortunately, all of this is symptomatic of the degree to which truly dissenting opinion in mainstream politics. However, we are fortunate to have voices of sanity occupying sufficiently high mountaintops in the Wilderness to be heard. First and foremost among these voices of dissenting reason is Dr. Samuel Francis. To many here, I hope that he needs no introduction. However, here is a brief synopsis of his achievements:
After earning his PhD in history from the University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill), Francis went on to work for the Heritage foundation. As a young man, he gained renown for his analysis of the Soviet/Communist role in International and Domestic terrorism, and was praised by all circles of the Right for his writings on the subject.
After the Cold War and the disappearance of the common foe that united the disparate elements of the post-Nixon and Reagan Right, however, like many paleoconservatives, Francis discovered that he was no longer wanted on the mainstream right. It seemed that Dr. Francis was no longer welcomed among the respectable circles of The National Review by the likes of consumate Country Club Republican William F. Buckley Jr. Thus, Francis went on to apply his talents elsewhere, founding the Middle American News and becoming active in the much-maligned (by Left and neo-Cons alike) Council of Conservative Citizens.
What were the reasons for his split with the mainstream Right? Quite simple. With the Soviet threat vanished, Francis, like many paleoconservatives, came to realise that there was an enemy that had to be fought right here at home. "Conservatives" entrenched in powerful positions don't like to be told that they are the enemy, or that they are enablers of the enemy. The managerial elites had too much to lose by tolerating an articulate, outspoken polemicist who dared to mention the rather obvious facts that in many cases, the interests of big business and big government were one and the same, and that the growth of megacorporations had disenfranchised and uprooted small landowners and business owners as surely as would have a Communist revolution. Nor did government elites with vested interests in the enpowerment of transnational organisations (or corporations with key assetts abroad) like being told that the interests of their "home" nation should override their political and economic interests abroad. Certainly, asking a "loyalty" test of our government and corporate leaders was asking too much!
Most of all, the neo-Conservative and mainstream GOP (exemplified by the Weekly Standard crowd and the multiculturalist ambitions of Jack Kemp), who had worked so hard to prove that they too, were politically correct and not "racist, sexist, etc," could not stomach being reminded that there was a good reason why the Old Right opposed feminism, multiculturalism, and miscegenation while the Communists and the left at large embraced them. In other words, Francis, in his Chronicles essays and elsewhere, basically told the mainstream Conservative movement that it was certainly mainstream, but neither Conservative nor a movement. In other words a fraud. Hence, note that his old friend Bill Buckley chose to distance himself as surely as GOP Congressmen disavowed the grassroots CofCC, while the pundits on the mainstream Right, from Will to Huffington to Kristol, decided that Francis, Sobran, and Buchanan were greater foes than the Left. Quite understandable that they would, for nobody likes being exposed as a fraud.
Here are a few passages taken from Francis's writings in Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture:
On the complacency of the American public:"What is really amazing about American society today is not that there is so much violence and resistance to authority but that there is so little, that there has not long since been a full-scale violent revolution in this country against the domination and exploitation of the mass of the population by its rulers. A people who once shot government officials because they taxed tea and stamps now recieves the intrustions of the IRS politely, a society that once declared its independence on the grounds of state's right now passively tolerates federal judges...who redraw the lines of electoral districts, decide where children will go to school, let hardened criminals out of jail without punishment, and overturn local laws...
It is all very well to blame the politicians, managers, and media wizards who profit from this system, but the truth is that it's the citizens themselves who let it fluorish. It is a universal characteristic of modern mass organizations that they encourage dependency and passivity, that most individuals who are members of these organisations cannot possibly acquire the technical skills that enable the organisations to exist, and that the role of most of their members is entirely passive and subordinate while power and responsibility is centered in an elite that does understand and perform these technical operations. Lacking real power or responsibility, the masses have no choice but to do their jobs, obey, and behave.
On Economic Nationalism and its Opponents:"It should be entirely appropriate that ownership of a local baseball team should be the immediate reason for Seattle's love affair with Tokyo. The chairman of Nintendo no doubt understands what a lot of Americans in the New World economic order want is not...the protection of national economic interest and identity but fun.
On the real agenda behind Federal "Law Enforcement"
"Thus, for the last couple of years, a federal Crime Control Bill has bounced around Congress that promises to inflict capital punishment for at least 51 stated offenses. By voting for it and bragging about it, the congressment can boast to their constituents of how draconian they are on criminals, though when you examine the bill's provisions you will find that the crimes for which a convict can be hailed to the scaffold included offenses as treason, espionage, and genocide. Death is a reasonable penalty for all these, but executing those convicted of them does nothing to control the sorts of crimes most Americans have reason to fear. Truth be told, one does not fear being mugged by Julius Rosenberg or being raped by Pol Pot in the parking lot. In fact, most of the bill's sanguinary language merely protects federal bureaucrats and congressmen, not the common citizen, by inflicting death on the killers of just about every professional political parasite from the visiting dignitaries of foreign countries to egg inspectors in the Department of Agriculture...Whenever using more force in punishment is discussed these days, it is almost always in terms of how to enhance power of the mega-state itself and strip Americans of what little power they have to protect themselves...
On the demography of 2050 America
The absence of shock from whites themselves at their imminent demographic demotion is perhaps not all that surprising. A population, ethnic group, culture or race that allows itself to be taxed without consent or understanding, runs off to fight wars for causes against countries for reasons it can't explain, and tolerates the level of criminal lawlessness and political corruption that American's have come to expect from their politicians probably doesn't care whether it exists or not, let alone remains a core group of the nation and civilization. Moreover, so permeated are our minds with the fantasy that cultures, races, and ethnic groups are the same, thata member of one group can as easily doff his culture and put on a new one as he can strip off a T- shirt..."
Ladies and gentlemen, you won't hear such commentary from the punditocracy. Dr. Samuel Francis, who popularised the term "Middle American Radicalism," stands at the forefront of thinkers committed to the true meaning of conservatism: the preservation of our identity as a nation, a culture, a language, and a people. The mainstream GOP cares only for enhancing its own power at all costs. It cares not for the future of the Republic (what remains of it), nor for our heritage. They try to dismiss Francis as a gadfly, when in fact he is reminding us all of the betrayal and failure of those who purport to carry the banner of Conservatism.
I strongly recommend all Buchanan supporters, Nationalists, and Paleo-Conservatives to consult the works of Francis and others in "Chronicles," as well as his compilation of essays in Revolution from the Middle. It is required reading to remind us that the movement we stand for is not about a leader or a messenger, but about a cause that will go on with or without any particular candidate.
[url]http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a395150cf532b.htm[/url]
2003-10-29 06:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Of course, the rhetoric is the easy part. The more difficult part comes when you've already convinced your rightwing-populist constituency that international finance does not serve their interests. Then one needs to propose a workable alternative that does, and one that goes beyond slogans in formulating concrete policies and programs. This requires the sort of analysis that the "beautiful losers" who specialize in nostalgia and flowery rhetoric routinely shy away from.[/QUOTE]
Good post AY, and one that got me thinking on this for most of the day, especially on how a "rightwing-populist" might target "intl finance" and "the plutocracy" most effectively. It seems to me that given what we have to work with right now, calculated overtures to, and perhaps even determined infiltration of certain divisions of 'the Left' would give the most bang for the buck. Specifically, I'm thinking of the anti-corporate organizations and the environmentalists. A key issue that can be utilized to tie all this together is immigration, which is supported and maintained via the political donations of multi-nationals to a large extent, and disastrously affects our local environment through urban population sprawl, deforestation, increased smog and pollution, etc.
Please consider that I'm only throwing out ideas here, concerning your proposed difficulty in moving from mere rhetoric to practical gains. One thing I'm fairly sure of is that politically or culturally speaking, a strict racialist campaign is not going to see any tangible gains on any front. Whether we like it or not, the mainstream media is the filter we must all view the world through, and of course as we all know it is largely comprised of traditional Leftists. Therefore, the anti-corporate groups and environmentalists already have a sympathetic partner in the media that generally grants them favor on their pet issues.
Racial nationalism may be one's ultimate goal, or it may be simply a return to constitutional republicanism. Whichever is the case, the overriding concern has to be tactical and the logistics of getting from here to where you want to be. We all know and have catalogued here how the marxist Left and jewish interests have infiltrated key areas to realize the prominence they enjoy today. It only makes sense that a counter-revolutionary movement would employ the same strategy. And if you look at the two Leftists movements of anti-corporations and environmentalism, they really aren't so at odds with what I see as the rightwing populist movement you classify. As you state, the key first step is to make concrete the divorce between the common man America and the plutocracy that rules him, making it crystal clear that one's ultimate interests are diametrically opposed to the other's. Once this kind of disunity is achieved, then folks may be more readily disposed to take real efforts to right the scales.
Again, just thinking out loud. It is an interesting subject.
2003-10-30 03:42 | User Profile
Well, AntiYuppie, your thread is still up, along with annalex's companion thread. They serve as a sad reminder of what FreeRepublic used to be.
The great question in the wake of the Buchanan debacle is, what will it take to mobilize the MARs? Francis, as I'm sure you all know, has decided that economic issues are not enough; race has to be put on the table. It is, despite the Republicans' denials, an issue on which they count on -- white men in the South voted 70-80% for Bush. How do we wake them up to the fact that the GOP is betraying them?
At this point, I think Louis Calabro of the European-American Issues Forum has the right approach -- treat whites as one ethnic group among many in this country, with the same rights to act in their collective interest as any other. The rabid hostility aimed at something as innocuous as a high school Caucasian Club tells me they're doing the right thing.
2003-10-30 07:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Stanley]At this point, I think Louis Calabro of the European-American Issues Forum has the right approach -- treat whites as one ethnic group among many in this country, with the same rights to act in their collective interest as any other. The rabid hostility aimed at something as innocuous as a high school Caucasian Club tells me they're doing the right thing.[/QUOTE]
I agree, Stanley. White conservatives who refuse to 'make race an issue' are just like doctrinaire libertarians who doggedly stick to their 'enlightened' libertarian rights and principles while being wiped out by masses of folks who don't share those same principles. It makes no sense to me.
2003-10-31 00:17 | User Profile
Before I address the issues of this thread I first feel the need to warn everyone here about the source of the review that O.D. posted. Ulster Nation is a website run by Third Way which is run by quite possibly the least respected self described nationalist in the UK outside of the truly vile sodomite Martin Webster. Basically, Third Way is 100% is opposed to raising the jewish problem and has Rabbi Schiller (yes, the same fellow from the fraud case in New York city) as one of it's most prominent promoters. Pat Harrington is a terribly problematic person in terms of personal conduct so that anyone stupid enough to involve themselves with him deserves what ever misfortune befalls him. I won't go into detail because the TW is totally irrelevant as it's website get almost no hits, the organization seems to do nothing publicly (in large measure because of the unsavory conduct of Rabbi Schiller and Harrington) and the TW it self has no membership to speak of. The O.D. readership has been warned and those that involve themselves with those people are in for some trouble so I won't bother talking about them any more.
Assuming that the book review is accurate, I am rather surprised at the lack of substance found in the serious writings of Dr. Francis although I continue to like his editorials as they serve a good purpose. I have often heard talk about "the radical middle" and find the notion to be basically a popular fiction among the political fringes who are comforted by the illusion that the populace actually agrees with them while showing indications totally to the contrary. The reality is that the "common man" in fact is a product of his socialization as are the elites and the "lumpen proletarian" and given that the means of socialization are controlled by those that are actively seeking the destruction of what remains of the Occident "the masses" are hostile to anything popularly portrayed as social unacceptable. Of course during systemic crises people that are passive supporters of "mainstream opinion" have spontaneously sought out political solutions outside the bounds of establishment ordained discourse.
Within the American context various charismatic populists have taken those sentiments and created populist personality vehicles that became regionally significant. The examples that spring to mind are people like Father Caughlin (and a contemporary Louisiana governor whose name slips my mind), Strom Thurman, William Jennings Bryant and George Wallace. Looking at those examples it's clearly obviously that they failed, as do all populist personality vehicles, because they had no comprehensive ideology and a result they had no success in creating parties or organizations that outlived them which meant that they lost all their regional influence when the leader left politics. What institutional influence they did hold was limited (again because their movements were strictly based upon charisma and not a well defined ideology) did not result in any long term public policy gains but rather a simple holding action which fell apart when they lost prominence.
Certainly to portray populists within the American context as radical is incorrect as they never wanted any systemic transformation of any aspect of American life but instead simply hoped to reverse certain trends like integration, activist judiciaries and expansionist foreign policies in the hopes of having the nation be more like they recalled as youths. None of America's populists had any real understanding of Gramcian doctrine (I doubt that any of them read him or his successors) or elite degeneration theories of the likes of Sorel or Mosca so they had no real understanding of the dynamics of why the old order was able to be subverted in the first place nor why they lost the culture wars. That flaw persists when one looks over Liberty Lobby literature about cultural Bolshevism only in terms of what our enemies did to advance the destruction of the old order but no mention is ever made about the flaws inherent within the original republic. One also sees it in the segregationists of the ââ¬Ë50s and ââ¬Ë60s that wrongly thought that regionalism and their societal position could be preserved inspite of negative demographic trends that preceded immigration reform and the rise of consumerism which is a product of the individualism and capitalism they so perversely championed (and still do). I feel that paleo -cons actively resist thinking about the inherent weaknesses in the old order because that goes against the nostalgia that defines the paleo scene and would require painful reconsideration of ideologies that are genuinely revolutionary and a recognition that what they have been doing for all of living memory has been a spectacular failure.
I noted that Dr. Francis makes some mention of Gramsci but if his notions on that topic have substance no mention is made of such in the review. While it's all fine and well and well to say that one should replicate the methods of Gramsci and the Frankfurt School to serve something better doing so is hardly a strategy for gaining power. I am reminded of a debate between my American cousin and Irmin on Gramcian tactics. Basically, what Irmin said, and my cousin latter conceded, is that the Liberalism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were far more amenable to the forces of degeneration because they both had some foundational commonalities that allowed the latter to infiltrate the institutions of the former without great resistance. Anyone genuinely opposed to the currently order lacks that luxury. Our enemies had a very well developed ideological world view to work for and the internal discipline needed to implement a Gramcian strategy for several decades. Again, paleos lack both of those elements and they, like the American racist scene, absolutely refuse to recognize that if they intend to go anywhere they need to seriously reconsider their foundationalism, abandon their fatalism and get serious about public activism. Lastly, Irmin correctly pointed out that those that wish to see a halt to the destruction of the Occident have a limited time frame as a result of demographic decline so our side lacks the time needed for another long march.
Instead, I'd recommend a series of simpler measures conceived by others that have shown some success. Namely, having an ideology that actually addresses the needs of our people and using the positive, folkish basis of conservatism as means of co-opting left as I have described else where on numerous occasions. When such "marketing" (for lack of better phrase off hand) is combined with a decent counter power strategy (again I refer all to DeBenoist, Sunic etc.) the possibility of creating a real activist cadre becomes tenable ( and often reality) and that is the first step to creating a regional basis of support that can outlive the political career of a single person. Those steps are prerequisites for being able to offer a valid alternative to the current order during times of systemic crisis (as is dealt with in great detail by the ENR and "vitalist" types I frequently mention in my writings.). As I reject determinism I'll not claim inevitable victory for the methods promoted by those that inspired me (anyone that does is a fraud that doesn't understand the folkish weltanschauung) but it has shown far more promise then dismal failures of the American "right". Although I harbor no illusion that such a radical re-evaluation of the struggle for Traditionalism is likely to take place in the states.
Instead, it's much easier to entertain delusions that the constitutional republic of 1789-1860 has relevance when the societal context that created it can only exist when one has comparable demographics, elites and a technological basis. In this way, American paleos remind me of the "National" Anarchists who idealize people like Bakunin, the old CNT and Nestor Makhno while failing to note that the communal autonomy they promoted when placed into practice resulted in very short lived regimes that were quite authoritarian towards non Anarchists. In a similar fashion American paleo - cons pretend that "turning back the clock" is an option, that institutional/constitutional framework created by their ancestors somehow is timeless rather then contextual. Listening to paleos I see the same mentality in Leland Gaunt who viewed the Third Reich as a utopia, wanted to turn back the clock to 1900 and thinks that such sentiment is a reasonable basis for confronting our current challenges. Pointing out that mimicking the DAP of the Drexler or the NSDAP of Hitler circa ââ¬Ë27 has gone nowhere for 60 years will be actively resisted by such people in the same way that "neo - confederates" and paleo - cons will positively refuse to consider that a love of Traditionalism expressed as nostalgia is not a valid ideological construct. That the manifestations of Permanency and Order are not a product of simple legalisms, harkening back to some halcion era, adjusting tax codes or an ill founded mysticism in "free enterprise" sans globalism.
The limitations of such notions in terms of ruling class dynamics have been spelled out very ably by Mosca, Pareto and Sorel. Like wise the means by which the old American Order was destroyed by the vary economic and ethics so loved by paleos has been very capably addressed by DeBenoist, Sunic and the ENR types who along with Heidegger and the "vitalisitic" wing Fascist and NS schools that also dealt with the roll of technology in the undermining of Traditionalism and possible strategies for addressing that aspect of national decay.
In short, when another systemic crisis occurs in the states the paleo response will fail just as it has so often in the past. I say this because "Middle American Radicalism" always manifests itself as populist. Some times the portrayal is genuine (ex. Thurman or Bryant) but nothing more then a reactionary delaying action driven by the "leadership principle" paleos correctly fault the moribund racist (rather then racialist) scene in the states for slavishly adhering to. Sometimes, the portrayal of populism is bogus such as the privileged establishment insider and multi millionaire Buchanan talking about "peasants with pitchforks". Given that the paleo scene seeks to emulate past failures while lacking a leader with the charisma of their heroes I see no reason to think that what ever "middle American radicalism" that may arise will be suitably exploited.
While someone popular in American paleo circles correctly said "ideas have consequences" the poverty of paleo - con ideology also has consequences which are clearly evident by the current irrelevance and past failure of what passes for conservatism in the states. The same is true of the racist scene in the states as well.
2003-10-31 02:53 | User Profile
Triskelion, your post will take some time to fully digest, but let me offer some first thoughts.
I believe that Samuel Francis is the most intelligent and clear-sighted commentator on the American scene today. The book review is accurate, and Francis does discuss Gramsci at length in one of his essays, Culture and Power: "Winning the Culture War." He also quotes Sunic.
Unlike many paleoconservatives, he does not wish for a return to the status quo ante 1932, 1861 or 1789. He is aware that what he is advocating will be distasteful to many paleos. Buchanan tried to act on his ideas and, despite some early successes, failed miserably. Why he failed is a question that deeply concerns me, as I am sure it does others on this forum.
2003-10-31 03:02 | User Profile
Buchanan tried to act on his ideas and, despite some early successes, failed miserably. Why he failed is a question that deeply concerns me, as I am sure it does others on this forum.
IMHO, Buchanan didn't act on Francis' advice, especially in his later campaigns where he alienated his potential far-right supporters by nominating people like Ezola Foster and going soft on other issues.
2003-10-31 03:29 | User Profile
I should have also mentioned that in light of Dr. Francis's article in AmRen which he stated he rejected separatism I concluded that he has no real solutions to offer and the body of that article reaffirmed that impression. Of course I should have also stated that his managerial state notion (at least as it was described by my old compatriots Prodigal Son and Anti - Yuppie) is contrary to the folkish vision (at least in the current peace time context) and politically unsalable. Again, I have to see any indication that he, or anyone else in the paleo - con scene, has a viable alternative to the current order although he at least has started to develop a critique that goes beyond simply saying what wrong.
Again, the meta-politics of European Revolutionary Conservatives and various NS and Fascist schools could offer a lot to understanding the devolution of the Old Order and what to do about it. American paleos seem to reject consideration of such analysis out of hand to their own detriment. A lot of this is due to misconceptions about NR thought in general expressed by TD that I addressed in another thread but I don't recall any replies to those points so I won't raise the matter again.
2003-10-31 03:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=triskelion]Before I address the issues of this thread I first feel the need to warn everyone here about the source of the review that O.D. posted.
Assuming that the book review is accurate, I am rather surprised at the lack of substance found in the serious writings of Dr. Francis although I continue to like his editorials as they serve a good purpose.
No endorsement of the site implied. I was just looking for a good review on this book and it was the best one I could find. I'm not sure what you're actual critique of Francis re: "lack of substance" but I am sort of surprised myself at the nature Francis's works. Most if not all of his "books" seem to be collections of his essays, and his overall theory seems to based on Burnham. However as Burnham and you, with references to Pareto, Sorels, etc. seem to be amazingly similar, I still am a little surprised at your continually somewhat casual regard for Francis.
[quote=triskelion]I have often heard talk about "the radical middle" and find the notion to be basically a popular fiction among the political fringes who are comforted by the illusion that the populace actually agrees with them while showing indications totally to the contrary. The reality is that the "common man" in fact is a product of his socialization as are the elites and the "lumpen proletarian" and given that the means of socialization are controlled by those that are actively seeking the destruction of what remains of the Occident "the masses" are hostile to anything popularly portrayed as social unacceptable.
Not unsimilar to the critique of this group given in my signature.
[quote=triskelion]I feel that paleo-cons actively resist thinking about the inherent weaknesses in the old order because that goes against the nostalgia that defines the paleo scene and would require painful reconsideration of ideologies that are genuinely revolutionary and a recognition that what they have been doing for all of living memory has been a spectacular failure.....
Instead, it's much easier to entertain delusions that the constitutional republic of 1789-1860 has relevance when the societal context that created it can only exist when one has comparable demographics, elites and a technological basis. In this way, American paleos remind me of the "National" Anarchists who idealize people like Bakunin, the old CNT and Nestor Makhno while failing to note that the communal autonomy they promoted when placed into practice resulted in very short lived regimes that were quite authoritarian towards non Anarchists. In a similar fashion American paleo - cons pretend that "turning back the clock" is an option, that institutional/constitutional framework created by their ancestors somehow is timeless rather then contextual. Listening to paleos I see the same mentality in Leland Gaunt who viewed the Third Reich as a utopia, wanted to turn back the clock to 1900 and thinks that such sentiment is a reasonable basis for confronting our current challenges.
Here I am amazed by the similarity of what you wrote to Francis.
Paleoconservatives today, who are virtually defined by their adherence to the Old Republic established by the original and real Constitution, therefore need to make a decision. Their appeals to the old Constitution have now become not only politically and juridically irrelevant but have acquired the stale and arid odor of antiquarianism. Their cause is no longer well served by regurgitation of archaic constitutional niceties and invocations to constitutionalist idols.(my emphasis) The decision paleoconservatives need to make is whether to abandon all appeals to constitutionalism and make use of alternative modes of argumentation for what those appeals have traditionally tried to defend, or whether, acknowledging the death of the old Constitiution, they should begin working for a new constitutional structure that seeks to replicate as many of the positive attributes of the old Constitution as possible, including its guarantees of federalism and local autonomy. Which ever course they choose will be no less radical and revolutionary than the path that led to the destruction of the old Constitution.
[url=http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a19aa2e58d8.htm]Principalities and Powers - The Constitution, R. I. P.(Free Republic thread)[/url]
[quote=triskelion]In short, when another systemic crisis occurs in the states the paleo response will fail just as it has so often in the past. I say this because "Middle American Radicalism" always manifests itself as populist. Some times the portrayal is genuine (ex. Thurman or Bryant) but nothing more then a reactionary delaying action driven by the "leadership principle" paleos correctly fault the moribund racist (rather then racialist) scene in the states for slavishly adhering to. Sometimes, the portrayal of populism is bogus such as the privileged establishment insider and multi millionaire Buchanan talking about "peasants with pitchforks". Given that the paleo scene seeks to emulate past failures while lacking a leader with the charisma of their heroes I see no reason to think that what ever "middle American radicalism" that may arise will be suitably exploited.
While someone popular in American paleo circles correctly said "ideas have consequences" the poverty of paleo - con ideology also has consequences which are clearly evident by the current irrelevance and past failure of what passes for conservatism in the states. The same is true of the racist scene in the states as well.[/QUOTE]
Here you seem stuck in a sort of basic pessimism and negativism. Sure populism has always seemed to fail in the past, so does that mean its always bound to fail in the future?
It may be just my imagination, but do I detect echoes of Spenglerian pessimizmus?
In any sense I'd appreciate your elaborating further on what I see as rather definite similarities between you and Francis. It might be useful also sometimes to go over the some of our old Francis threads.
[url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=3140&highlight=Francis]Polinco Thread on PaleoConservatism[/url]
or
[url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=6210&highlight=Canny]CannySammyGate Continues[/url]
or
[url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=6063&highlight=Canny]The Sam Francis Way or the White Way?[/url]
2003-10-31 05:31 | User Profile
I am finding it hard to believe that you think my ideological disposition is like Dr. Francis's. Clearly, my entire Weltanschauung is based upon the Organic or Folkish perception of history that in turn determines my understanding of the purpose of the state, economy and the balance between individualism and communal roles, rights and obligations. Where as Dr. Francis rejects separatism showing that while he has an understanding of the problems of multi-racialism he does not reject it in totality nor does he understand the implications of doing so which is reflected in his notion of capitalism sans globalism (which is also what Buchanan says) and his failure/disinterest/unwellness to articulate a genuine alternative to the current economic order or an understanding that globalism is a consequence of the evolution of capitalism.
You are right that much of what he writes is a rehashing of Burnham who also rejected the consequences of the destruction of Traditionalism but never explicitly stated an alternative to it as doing so would require an embrace of the Organic world view and that entails risks and unpleasent realizations that most are unwilling to take when personal contentment is at hand. While he makes references to some of the people I do he displays no understanding of them as he makes no effort to apply their methods of analysis to the American scene which is reflected in his notions of populism which are totally divorced from Sorelian theory and the "vitalists" that were influenced by him.
I pointed out at length the short comings of American style populism and his notion of middle American radicalism which is something that Sorel's and Barres's descendants spent a great deal of time addressing in their refutation of parliamentarianism, re-visitation of Boulangism and the Maurrassian traditions. Nothing that Dr. Francis has written has shown to me that he is cognizant of those traditions let alone influenced by them in any way. Again, a vision to work towards requires more then a negation of the present order. What's vital is a societal restoration of the substance of traditionalism rather then it's form. Those seeking inspiration in this matter are to be well served by consulting Manfred Wittich, Franz Diederich and Kurt Heilbutz.
Certainly you are right that he criticizes the American paleos obsession with legalisms but the populism he promotes is no different then that pushed by the scene as a whole for the past three generations. In short, you see a very shallow similarity which leads to radically different meta-political and ideological implications rather then a broad compatibility of vision which we both could adhere to. Once again, I turn you towards the aphorisms of La Tour Du Pin and the work of Jón Ãâgmundarson, Anders Rüsen, Jan Rystrup and Eyðun við Dennstad which I described here at lenght.
You said "Here you seem stuck in a sort of basic pessimism and negativism. Sure populism has always seemed to fail in the past, so does that mean its always bound to fail in the future? It may be just my imagination, but do I detect echoes of Spenglerian pessimizmus?" Yet the fact is that I instead pointed to the reality that American style populism has been an unmitigated flop as well as the reasons why and an alternative.
As to Spengler I am not particularly sympathetic and his pessimizmus is a large part of that. Instead, I embrace Oliver's re-visitation/reconstruction of his understandings of history but even then feel that they are in need of augmentation by the others I mentioned. Of course it should be born in mind that my synthesis is mere repititon of others far more capable and insightful then myself.
Of hand, I see no need for reviewing previous threads or elaboration as this is well trodden ground.
2003-10-31 08:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=triskelion]I am finding it hard to believe that you think my ideological disposition is like Dr. Francis's. Clearly, my entire Weltanschauung is based upon the Organic or Folkish perception of history that in turn determines my understanding of the purpose of the state, economy and the balance between individualism and communal roles, rights and obligations. Where as Dr. Francis rejects separatism showing that while he has an understanding of the problems of multi-racialism he does not reject it in totality nor does he understand the implications of doing so which is reflected in his notion of capitalism sans globalism (which is also what Buchanan says) and his failure/disinterest/unwellness to articulate a genuine alternative to the current economic order or an understanding that globalism is a consequence of the evolution of capitalism.
You are right that much of what he writes is a rehashing of Burnham who also rejected the consequences of the destruction of Traditionalism but never explicitly stated an alternative to it as doing so would require an embrace of the Organic world view and that entails risks and unpleasent realizations that most are unwilling to take when personal contentment is at hand. While he makes references to some of the people I do he displays no understanding of them as he makes no effort to apply their methods of analysis to the American scene which is reflected in his notions of populism which are totally divorced from Sorelian theory and the "vitalists" that were influenced by him.
I pointed out at length the short comings of American style populism and his notion of middle American radicalism which is something that Sorel's and Barres's descendants spent a great deal of time addressing in their refutation of parliamentarianism, re-visitation of Boulangism and the Maurrassian traditions. Nothing that Dr. Francis has written has shown to me that he is cognizant of those traditions let alone influenced by them in any way.
I appreciate your ideological fastidiousness, but I doubt that anyone in the world, other than a couple of librarians picking their nose or some hermits on some deserted island deserted lighthouse properly understand what "the re-visitation of Boulangism and the Maurrassian traditions" means.
When you write at VNN do you take Linder to task for his lack of knowledge of the Boulangiest and Maurrassian traditions?
I wish you would. I'm no Linder fan, but I do suspect he could come up with a humorous aphorism in response better than anything Jón Ãâgmundarson, Anders Rüsen, Jan Rystrup and Eyðun við Dennstad, could come up with. Better yet, it would be in plain english.
Certainly you are right that he criticizes the American paleos obsession with legalisms but the populism he promotes is no different then that pushed by the scene as a whole for the past three generations. In short, you see a very shallow similarity which leads to radically different meta-political and ideological implications rather then a broad compatibility of vision which we both could adhere to. Once again, I turn you towards the aphorisms of La Tour Du Pin and the work of Jón Ãâgmundarson, Anders Rüsen, Jan Rystrup and Eyðun við Dennstad which I described here at lenght.
I must have missed them. Do they write in English, or is it translated? Even if it is, I suspect the aphorisms lose something in translation.
2003-10-31 09:19 | User Profile
O.D.: "I appreciate your ideological fastidiousness, but I doubt that anyone in the world, other than a couple of librarians picking their nose or some hermits on some deserted island deserted lighthouse properly understand what "the re-visitation of Boulangism and the Maurrassian traditions" means."
V.O.: Simply put, your wrong. You could buy Sternhell's "Neither Right Nor Left" which was put out by Princeton University Press and discover that a great may people know a lot about those things within American academic circles as do a great many nationalists in numerous European nations.
O.D.:When you write at VNN do you take Linder to task for his lack of knowledge of the Boulangiest and Maurrassian traditions?
V.O.: Yes, in fact I do as well as anyone else that chooses to ignore major figures in NR thought that achieved massive public prominence within living memory.
O.D.: "I wish you would. I'm no Linder fan..."
V.O.: I'm not either but I respect his honesty, his willingness to let others, like me, that don't agree with him use his site and his openness to criticism.
O.D.:" but I do suspect he could come up with a humorous aphorism in response better than anything Jón Ãâgmundarson, Anders Rüsen, Jan Rystrup and Eyðun við Dennstad, could come up with. Better yet, it would be in plain English."
V.O.: Linder's sense of humor doesn't appeal to me so I wouldn't know. Actually, I recall that he liked what I had to say about those men in the introduction to their school of thought I sent to him some time ago as did a couple of dozen VNN readers that thanked me for giving them a new ideological perspective on what "the struggle" is all about.
O.D.: "I must have missed them. Do they write in English, or is it translated? Even if it is, I suspect the aphorisms lose something in translation."
V.O.: Some of it's in English but most translations have been into German, French and Italian. Everything losses something in translation yet the value of what they have to say comes across quite well in any case which is why people like Du Pin are held highly still today by Revolutionary Conservatives and nationalists of all different sorts in several different nations. If I can find the time I may write an introduction to their thoughts or repost what I, or others, have said about them if the interest exists here.