← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Texas Dissident
Thread ID: 20751 | Posts: 4 | Started: 2005-10-25
2005-10-25 20:03 | User Profile
from Revolution from the Middle by Sam Francis:
If 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.
Simple question: Do Sam Francis' Middle American Radicals still even exist? If so, how do you flesh out the above recommended agenda?
2005-10-25 22:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Simple question: Do Sam Francis' Middle American Radicals still even exist? If so, how do you flesh out the above recommended agenda?[/QUOTE] Simple question...Tough to Answer, Tex. Maybe the "turnaround" on the immigration issue is the beginning. Just as any serious debate over immigration reform was instantly stifled with a single claim of ââ¬Åracistââ¬Â or ââ¬Åanti-immigrantââ¬Â many pols are now seeming to take the issue seriously. No doubt only because the focus on the issue is so intense that they fear for their job if they fail to address it. Can this new liberated thinking outside of the politically correct box translate into other cultural areas where many long for the traditional America, but have been afraid to be labeled a racist, nationalist, or xenophobe? Maybe. Having the entire media, the ACLU, the SPLC, and 99% of the elected officals against you does pose a formidable challange however. I do like to think that this wave is just starting to build, not cresting.
2005-10-25 23:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]from Revolution from the Middle by Sam Francis:
Simple question: Do Sam Francis' Middle American Radicals still even exist? If so, how do you flesh out the above recommended agenda?[/QUOTE]
This quote from an article I'd posted a long time ago and disapeared and which I'd just reposted provides a suggestion
[QUOTE]A key issue cementing the various conservative strands after 1964 was anticommunism. Today, however, this cause has evaporated, and many wonder whether a new issue can give rise to a countercultural conservative movement that rejects both the materialism of modem American life and the power structures that support and direct it. Conservatives must choose a different tactic. As Wendell Berry has noted, modernization can only be defeated in those areas where it cannot effectively function-in rural towns, small neighborhoods, even inner cities. In such locales, strong families, communities, and religious organizations can at least restrain the power of large institutions.
Who can lead and organize such a movement? Certainly, nobody who is invested in the Washington-Wall Street-Hollywood power triangle, as the neoconservatives are. The Christian Right cannot, because it is intellectually inept. The scattered and battered remnants of the Old Right are still the best qualified to articulate a defense against an inherently liberal mass society. But only by convincing Middle America that the status quo is not to their advantage can any countermovement be successful. The populist element may yet hold the key to an authentic conservative resurgence. Conservatives were given a choice in 1964, but the only options then were political-and true conservatives have always known that cultural problems cannot be solved by purely political means.
[URL="http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?p=134033#post134033"]This Is Conservatism?[/URL][/QUOTE]
Of course my signature discusses MAR's also.
2005-10-26 02:50 | User Profile
I think one of the things noted here is the potential of a genuinely populist movement rooted in sectors of the country wich have resisted modernization. [QUOTE=okiereddust]Conservatives must choose a different tactic. [B]As Wendell Berry has noted, modernization can only be defeated in those areas where it cannot effectively function-in rural towns, small neighborhoods, even inner cities. In such locales, strong families, communities, and religious organizations can at least restrain the power of large institutions.[/B]
Who can lead and organize such a movement? Certainly, nobody who is invested in the Washington-Wall Street-Hollywood power triangle, as the neoconservatives are. The Christian Right cannot, because it is intellectually inept. The scattered and battered remnants of the Old Right are still the best qualified to articulate a defense against an inherently liberal mass society. But only by convincing Middle America that the status quo is not to their advantage can any countermovement be successful. [B]The populist element may yet hold the key to an authentic conservative resurgence. [/B]Conservatives were given a choice in 1964, but the only options then were political-and true conservatives have always known that cultural problems cannot be solved by purely political means.[/QUOTE]
One of the obstacles to of course to any such populist movement is the elitist, ENR-type attitude that tends to creep into movements like ours as Hillac Noted
[QUOTE=Hilaire Belloc ]I would say the ENR does live in its own little world of "Aryan mysticism" and whatnot, which reflects their general sense of elitism(another aspect of academia). That is, their obession with hierarchies and aristocracies dont really seem to stem from a desire for a stable society [B]but rather a contempt for the common man, hence why they seem to look down upon populism.[/B]
[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=133991&postcount=38[/url] [/QUOTE]
I'd say obviously such an attitude is poison in developing an effective movement, in a number of ways. That's why I think so little effective political work has been done from hard-paleo or WN forums.
It almost seems more appropriate to neo-conism, which may explain the close similarituy oin some ways between the ENR and neo-contype approaches. as I've noted.