← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Hilaire Belloc

Thread 7973

Thread ID: 7973 | Posts: 15 | Started: 2003-07-08

Wayback Archive

Hilaire Belloc [OP]

2003-07-08 05:58 | User Profile

**http://www.barnesreview.org/May_2003/Populist/populist.html

Populist Nationalism Developing Across the Western World

By Kenneth J. Schmidt

This article is the text of a speech given by Ken Schmidt at the Third Annual Conference on Authentic History and the First Amendment, held in June of 2002. His basic notions are that, first, revolution, not politics, is the only option for nationalists in America. Second, that the circumstances of nationalist movements and parties in Europe are looking very hopeful and, third, that capitalism and the rancid ideological baggage of modern conservatism need to be jettisoned if nationalism is to present itself as a viable alternative to the vapid “left/right” distinctions in America.

There is a spectre haunting Europe, the spectre of nationalism. In Europe, Australia and the United States, nationalism is the new political force that the establishmentarians have begun to fear. In Europe, these days particularly, nationalism has replaced communism as the threat which unites the center-right and the center-left. In recent days all one needs to do is pick up a newspaper and the names jump out at you: LePen, Fortuyn, Haider, Kajarrlstad.

What are the reasons for the rise of a populist-tinged nationalism? In the so-called western world, a great rift has developed between the ordinary people and the elites that rule over them.

The fact that elites and the common people have always had different worldviews is a given. I contend, however, that never in the history of European civilization has there been such a large gap in the way our elites see the world and how the common folk see the world. The historian and social thinker Christopher Lasch had a term for this, he called it a “Revolt of the Elites.” The people that rule over us—the big business managerial elite, the media barons, the Zionists and the Manhattan intelligencia—adhere to values that are strongly at variance with those of working and middle-class whites.

The elites do not believe in concepts like national sovereignty and divine providence, but the common folk do. It should be noted that the establishment often exploits the beliefs of the American people by twisting them for the sake of their own nefarious ends. For example, the Bush Administration shamelessly exploited the notion of patriotism after September 11th, even though George Jr. is a strong believer in one world government.

Another example is the way the establishment’s minions often use religious arguments to buttress new world order projects. Religious-based arguments against things like sex education and abortion are mocked to scorn, but religion is invoked in advocating civil rights for minorities, open immigration and other government policies that put European-Americans at a disadvantage. Ensconced in their gated communities, the elites have no allegiance or identification with the common people. The elites, like the Jews, are a people apart.

Let us look at some historical trends and changes that effect the environment in which these elites operate. In Europe, nationalist groups are replacing the far-left and not the center-right. I think this is a good thing. In France, for example, during the recent presidential elections, Jean-Marie LePen’s National Front has seen the beginning of a shift away from its former core constituency in the south of France, which was mainly composed of white ex-colonial settlers from the empire, to the former “Red Belt” in the working-class suburbs of Paris. Blue-collar ex-communists are now pulling the lever for the National Front because it is slowly dawning on the white working class that nationalists have their interests in mind.

It is interesting to note that many former leftists are now showing up in the ranks of nationalist groups. The most notable of these is Horst Mahler, who is for all intents and purposes the second most important man in the National Democratic Party (NPD) in Germany. In the 1970s, Mahler was a leftist terrorist with the Red Army Faction. He now spends most of his time as the NPD’s lawyer and marching side-by-side with skinheads in giant marches by nationalist groups in German cities.

The 1980s and 1990s saw the rise of a new type of left-wing socialist politician in Europe (and to a certain extent in America) called the third-way. The leaders of the third-way have been people like Tony Blair in England, Gerhard Schroeder in Germany and Bill Clinton in the United States. These men have sold their souls to the capitalists in ex change for power. These leftists have abandoned the fight against capitalism while still seeking to implement the left’s social agenda. This leaves nationalists as the only major force on the political spectrum that dares to criticize the excesses of lazzez-faire capitalism.

The old categories of left and right of conservative and liberal really do not make much sense anymore. Both conservatives and liberals in this country are pro-capitalist and they are essentially cosmopolitan and internationalist. Both believe in global free trade and the end of the sovereign nation state. This means that neither side takes a dissenting view on the most important issues of the day. George Wallace’s famous quip that there was not “a dime’s worth of difference” between the two parties was perhaps unintentionally prophetic.

Under the influence of the Frankfurt school and the new left, liberals ceased to defend the interests of the white working class. The labor unions still support the Democratic party, but this is true simply because they feel that they have nowhere else to go. Jimmy Hoffa’s brief flirtation with Pat Buchanan is perhaps a portent of things to come. I remember a startling statistic from the last presidential election, where both sides had roughly equal contributions from corporate America.

The whole liberal/conservative paradigm is entirely obsolete. It died at the end of the Cold War; it’s just that opinion leaders have not had the sense to throw dirt on its rotting corpse. Political ideologies have a tendency to hang on long after they have outlived their usefulness. Communism is an excellent example. It actually died the day Khrushchev gave his cult of personality speech, but it took another 30 years for the structure that supported it to collapse.

The Cold War died in 1989 with the breakup of the Soviet Union. During the 40 years of the Cold War, the center-right, both in Europe and America, deferred serious ideological debate in the interests of unity in the face of a looming enemy. Conservatism in the United States lost its dynamism for three reasons (1) the red menace disappeared; (2) The left made peace with capitalism; and, (3) like all weakened institutions, it was taken over by Jews who then turned it into a bizarre Zionist club.

The end of the Cold War left the United States with a huge military machine with no apparent mission. The military-industrial complex could not let that happen. The American military now serves as a kind of New World Order mercenary corps to enforce the dictates of big oil and the Zionist lobby.

The end of the Cold War gave many thoughtful people a chance to think about the many changes that have occurred in western society, chief among them the problems of third-world immigration, free trade and the fading away of national sovereignty. This has led to a rise of nationalist and semi-nationalist ideas in Europe.

Without a doubt the most significant historical fact of our times is the victory of global capitalism. Multinational corporations and international banks now have more political power than sovereign national governments by far. I tend to giggle a little when some well-intentioned nationalist or “right-winger” seeks to warn us of the coming danger of one world government. With the exception of a few brave nations that still hold out like North Korea, Iran, Iraq and Libya, we already have one world government, a neat little power-sharing arrangement between the European and American capitalist elite and the Zionists. The use of the term “rogue nation” by politicians and the media is very instructive. If nations were independent and had sovereign power, how could they be described in any sense as “rogue”? Rogue from what? It can only mean rebellion from the one-world system.

There is an anecdote going around which illustrates the power of big business. In the 1980s, Slobodan Milosevic was at a Manhattan diplomatic reception with then Assistant Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleberger and David Rockefeller. Slobo was in a conversation with Eagleberger when Rockefeller came across the room to say hello. Eagleberger stammered like a schoolgirl and gave Rockefeller the “Yes sir, no sir” routine. After the banker walked away Milosevic asked Eagleberger why he, a high government official should be so afraid of a “mere businessman.” Poor Slobo was to learn the full nature of this lesson in 1996, when he himself ran afoul of the New World Order.

I do not think I need to tell anyone in this room about the utter worthlessness of that ideology known as conservatism. The fact that it was taken over by the Jewish ex-Trotskyite neo-conservatives in the 1970s is a mystery to no one. It was a relatively simple conquest for the Jews. In the ’70s and ’80s the conservative movement was ripe for a hostile takeover. Its leaders, who took refuge either in airy fairy nostalgia for the past or an Ayn Rand-style worship of heartless capitalism, were ripe for change. All Nor man Podhoeretz and company had to do was follow the money and take over the foundations that supplied conservatives with what they like best of all.

In the ’80s and ’90s, when the left completely finished its long march into the arms of the capitalists, any distinction between the center-left and the center-right became very blurry indeed. With the formerly feisty conservative movement marginalized, the establishment could relax. It could be said that there is now no distinction between the right and left in America and Europe now. What remains is a single belief system, a one party regime. When the capital gains tax is the hottest issue on Capitol Hill, we know that real politics as we once knew it is dead.

America’s new belief system is libertarian in its economic views and left-wing multiculturalist in its social policies. Left and right are united on the issue of third-world immigration. Liberal ism’s Zionist-inspired hatred of white people and the desire of big business to push down wages dovetail nicely.

Just as the right has shifted left under the influence of movements like neo-conservatism, the left has been heading toward the right. Ever since the beginning of the Frankfurt school of Marxist theoreticians in the 1920s the Left has made a slow, but gradual move toward abandoning the white working class. Men like Theodore Adorno and Herbert Marcuse never explicitly declared themselves enemies of the blue-collar class, but they ceased to see it as a revolutionary tool.

The new left American thinkers of the 1960s went a step further. Inspired by the civil rights movement, they glorified blacks and expressed hatred toward working-class whites. Men like Collier and Horowitz of Ramparts magazine made themselves allies of the Black Panthers and they saw blue collar whites in places like Boston, who were fighting busing, as the primary enemy.

The old Rooseveltian left made the white working-class and —in particular—white ethnics as a key partner in their coalition. FDR was loyal to his class, but realized that in order to hang onto power he needed working class whites. That is why so much in the way of pro-union and pro-labor reforms made such headway in the ’30s and ’40s. This is certainly not true with the center-left today.

The task of the modern day nationalist activist is essentially subversive. I do not mean this in any jocular sense; nor do I say it as a means of spouting false bravado. We must fight against the whole rotten system that rules over us. We must not just take control of a government; we must take control of a culture. Our job is essentially revolutionary and not conservative. There is virtually nothing worth preserving in modern American culture. While there is much that is usable from the past, we must never get lost in the twisting roads of nostalgia. Nostalgia is a loser’s game. For example, we must not defend the Confederate flag simply because it invokes a warm fuzzy feeling about the past. We must defend the flag because it represents the best aspirations of our people and yes, because that flag drives the Zionists and their black lackeys into a state of crazed and irrational distraction.

Our objective must be to divorce ourselves completely from the general culture and the political culture of this thoroughly rotten administrative unit of the New World Order we live in. When we hear journalists and politicians talk about the “west,” this has absolutely nothing to do with the now effectively dead Euro-American culture which existed in days gone by. We must begin the difficult task of creating the new American man out of the ashes of the old. If we are to be honest with ourselves we must realize that all major institutions of what used to be called western civilization have been captured either by the neo-Marxist left or their brothers under the skin, the New World Order capitalists. Of the two, of course, the capitalists are the most dangerous.

It is the big business magnates who are flooding our land with alien peoples in order to destroy the white middle and working classes. It is the Fortune 500 that brought us feminism so that millions of pliable, easily-controlled females could enter the workforce and bring down wages. It was that Pepsico lawyer, Richard Nixon, who brought us affirmative action and not some silly leftist like Johnson or Kennedy.

The first thing that many racially conscious people must begin to do is to stop voting for the center-right. George W. Bush and the rest of the Republican/Rush Limbaugh establishment are blithering idiots who hate middle and working class white people and show it in every government policy they administer. To vote for a Republican or Democrat, indeed, to vote for anyone at all, adds to the legitimacy of this so-called “democratic” system; an anti-white regime that rules over us.

We must issue a new declaration of independence, this time not divorcing ourselves from England, but from a corrupt political process that stacks the deck against any new ideas. There is no longer any option of defending a culture. Even the handful of New York Kosher scribblers that constitutes the pitiful remains of mainstream conservatism knows this. Our paradigm should be countercultural because it should seek to destroy the dominant culture and replace it with a new one.

One may well ask how the overthrow of the dominant regime can be accomplished. A hard and difficult task to be sure, but we have a great bunch of teachers, not on the right, but on the multicultural neo-Marxist left. They, after all, began their work of destroying the old republic and European civilization years ago in the wake of the First World War. We should look to the Frankfurt school and Antonio Grams as technicians of the revolutionary art. Not that we should copy these fellows’ ideological orientation, but we must copy their technique of subverting a hostile culture.

We must never alter our worldview in order to conform ourselves to the politically correct nostrums of our time. We must never change our ideology in order not to offend the weak-willed in our midst. The moment we decide to fit in with the spirit of the age, we seal our doom. It is our task to create a new spirit, not conform ourselves to the rotten dogmas of democratic capitalism. Most people, even the uneducated, have a good instinct for detecting phonies and wafflers, after all, our culture produces so many of them.

It is, as Dickens said in another context, “the best of times and the worst of times.” It is the worst of times because we are embarking upon a time of government repression and the limiting of our civil liberties. It is the best of times because war is often a harbinger for major social change. Who could have guessed in 1914 that a strong and confident tsarist Russia would be an eventual victim of Revolution in 1917? Our leaders have become brutal and careless. George Bush has become one of T.S. Eliot’s “drunken aristocrats braying to the sound of broken glass,” threatening to invade half a dozen countries. The New World Order is scrambling to keep an international empire together and they are not going to be able to make the center hold.

If there is going to be major political and social change in this country, it is up to us to bring it about. We must be real activists and not mere hobbyists. The New World Order must be smashed. It is the sacred duty for all Nationalists and Patriots to dedicate themselves to this task. Some comrades curse the fact that they have been born into so dark a time in U.S. history. I hold a different opinion. I thank God almighty for giving me the opportunity and the honor to defend my people in this most difficult time, however modest my contribution. We must steel ourselves for the giant struggle to the death for the survival of European civilization. **

Texas Dissident

2003-07-08 16:47 | User Profile

Our objective must be to divorce ourselves completely from the general culture and the political culture of this thoroughly rotten administrative unit of the New World Order we live in. When we hear journalists and politicians talk about the “west,” this has absolutely nothing to do with the now effectively dead Euro-American culture which existed in days gone by. We must begin the difficult task of creating the new American man out of the ashes of the old. If we are to be honest with ourselves we must realize that all major institutions of what used to be called western civilization have been captured either by the neo-Marxist left or their brothers under the skin, the New World Order capitalists. Of the two, of course, the capitalists are the most dangerous.

Übeltäter

2003-07-08 17:50 | User Profile

The use of the term “rogue nation” by politicians and the media is very instructive. If nations were independent and had sovereign power, how could they be described in any sense as “rogue”? Rogue from what? It can only mean rebellion from the one-world system.

I like this quote from that great article.

na Gaeil is gile

2003-07-09 15:24 | User Profile

This is a great article to print out and pass around, particularly as it deals cogently with the issue of ‘right’ and ‘left’ alliances. The real political dichotomy has become nationalism versus internationalism. Neo-cons, with their ravings on “red-brown alliances”, can’t deal rationally with this major paradigm shift due to their narrow focus on the only issue that really matters to them: anti-Semitism.

The socially conservative and anti-globalist elements of right and left will likely rally under the nationalist banner while the 'anything goes' cultural Marxists and self-serving plutocrats engineer their NWO distopia.

Lady_America

2003-07-09 15:29 | User Profile

If the UN has supported that nationalism in post-colonialism countries should be recognized and encouraged, then the Europeans should also have the same support. However, there should also be a call for the US Dept of Interior (after finding the Kennewick Man) to admit to the finding of the TRUE indigenous people of the US--the rightful European.

Hilaire Belloc

2003-07-09 16:58 | User Profile

**This is a great article to print out and pass around, particularly as it deals cogently with the issue of ‘right’ and ‘left’ alliances. The real political dichotomy has become nationalism versus internationalism. Neo-cons, with their ravings on “red-brown alliances”, can’t deal rationally with this major paradigm shift due to their narrow focus on the only issue that really matters to them: anti-Semitism.

The socially conservative and anti-globalist elements of right and left will likely rally under the nationalist banner while the 'anything goes' cultural Marxists and self-serving plutocrats engineer their NWO distopia.**

Even the anti-globalist left is now in many ways glorifying what they call "regionalism" and "localism" to counter globalism. So those elements of the left may become allies. Just like many patriotic socialists joined the nationalist parties of Europe in the 30's and 40's when they realized the fraud that the Marxists were. This also happened in Japan I believed, especially when the theories of Kita Ikki were published.

Chaucer

2003-07-11 01:18 | User Profile

Awesome article. I will have to post that some where else.

Lewis Wetzel

2003-07-11 01:39 | User Profile

The socially conservative and anti-globalist elements of right and left will likely rally under the nationalist banner

I was in Seattle during the WTO riots, and I can tell you there is NO true anti-globalism on the Left. If the Left is against NWO, capitalist globalism, it's only because they want to impose their own form of globalism. As long as your average Turd Worlder is poorer than your average Westerner, they advocate international systems of wealth redistribution. And say goodbye to any controls on immigration.
Furthermore, if the history of the far left teaches us one think, it's NEVER align with the far left. They WILL turn on you.

Hilaire Belloc

2003-07-11 04:09 | User Profile

**I was in Seattle during the WTO riots, and I can tell you there is NO true anti-globalism on the Left. If the Left is against NWO, capitalist globalism, it's only because they want to impose their own form of globalism. As long as your average Turd Worlder is poorer than your average Westerner, they advocate international systems of wealth redistribution. And say goodbye to any controls on immigration. Furthermore, if the history of the far left teaches us one think, it's NEVER align with the far left. They WILL turn on you. **

Yes you are true. But there are some elements of the left that could be persuaded to our side. As I mentioned before this happened in Europe and Japan during the 1920's thru 40's, were many socialists and communists were drawn towards populist nationalist movements.

Madrid burns

2003-07-11 17:58 | User Profile

*Originally posted by perun1201@Jul 9 2003, 18:58 * ** Even the anti-globalist left is now in many ways glorifying what they call "regionalism" and "localism" to counter globalism. So those elements of the left may become allies. Just like many patriotic socialists joined the nationalist parties of Europe in the 30's and 40's when they realized the fraud that the Marxists were. This also happened in Japan I believed, especially when the theories of Kita Ikki were published. **

I disagree with you because that same anti-globalist and particularist far left has the same double standard that loony characters like Abe Foxman have, yes it is true that they may support the regionalism and particularism but they think that is only for non-whites, that is to say, that far-left support for example the kurdish struggle for freedom, the tibetian independentists, the Palestinians, South American indigenists, the ANC, but they never will support Buchanan or to a French nationalist and a real anti-globalist like Le Pen. For them the Europeans and their diaspora in the New world don't have the rigth to the self-determination and to a live free from non-whites and in an non-cosmopolitan place. Conclusion: they are not better than your average neocon or liberal.

PS: Of course, this doesn't mean that we cannot agree with the far-left in some things, like their critique to the Corporate power, their critique to the US globalism, their anti-zionism,etc.

na Gaeil is gile

2003-07-14 16:02 | User Profile

Originally posted by Lewis Wetzel@Jul 10 2003, 19:39 * I was in Seattle during the WTO riots, and I can tell you there is NO true anti-globalism on the Left.  If the Left is against NWO, capitalist globalism, it's only because they want to impose their own form of globalism... ...Furthermore, if the history of the far left teaches us one think, it's NEVER align with the far left.  They WILL turn on you.*

I think you misunderstand me, probably due to my (poor?) choice of words - specifically 'anti-globalism'. I don't advocate alliance with the leftist intellectuals (if that's not an oxymoron), especially those of the far left. The left I refer to is the working man's, purely economic, left; a block that was once particularly prevalent in class ridden Europe. The crux of the article is a unification of those who were once either leftwing or rightwing, the paradigm has changed.

Fascism is often inaccurately described as "revolution from the right", when in fact both Mussolini and Mosley were socialists before embarking with fascism. Fascism rejected the old left-right divide of the times in an effort to confront crisis, the fascist ideologues referred this as The Third Way. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that the majority of the British National Party were at some point Labour supporters.

I am not however advocating fascism as a cure to our present ills; it merely serves as an example of a movement where left and right ideology unites in a coherent system.

Paleoleftist

2003-07-28 02:33 | User Profile

*Originally posted by na Gaeil is gile@Jul 9 2003, 09:24 * ** The socially conservative and anti-globalist elements of right and left will likely rally under the nationalist banner while the 'anything goes' cultural Marxists and self-serving plutocrats engineer their NWO distopia. **

I hope for the same thing, and agree it is a distinct possibility.

Paleoleftist

2003-07-28 02:45 | User Profile

*Originally posted by Leland Gaunt@Jul 11 2003, 13:02 * ** Traitors and enemys of our cause (left or reactionary right) will be dealt with by the new Gestapo! :sm: Bwaha ha ha hahaha! **

On the other hand, the difficulty of a meaningful left-right alliance is in the Leland Gaunts. :rolleyes:

Your post certainly gives pause not only to me, but also, I presume, to "Reactionaries" who you also invite to look forward to getting "dealt with" harshly.

Thankfully, the victory of "Leland Gauntism" is not likely, because if you rule out not only establishment supporters, but also all "left-wingers" and "reactionaries", there will not much of a base be left for the New Gestapo. :jest:

triskelion

2003-07-29 22:13 | User Profile

This is indeed a very good article by my loyal comrade Mr. Schmidt of the AITP. I would however point out that several of the parties (not all) he refers to as nationalist are merely populist in style, content and long term capabilities. I say this because they are not fundamentally opposed to multi-racialism but rather they simply wish to dramatically reduce the pace of the destruction of Europa because they understand that the current levels are drastically undermining the things that conservatives value without fully realizing the origin of the domestic goods they wish to protect nor the consequences of gradual dispossession of European peoples.

That said I fully support anti-immigration populism because such parties are excellent recruiting grounds for genuine Eurocentrism. Also, the populists have given nationalists much needed breathing space for building our own cadres. As the limitations of avoiding genuine nationalism and the folkish opportunities it provides come to pass we will see populists be forced to embrace a genuine alternative provided that we can prevent it as timely and positive.

With respect to the idea of working with the left we must define which left we are speaking of. Certainly no sensible person would think that the party hacks of leftist parties our complacent trade union bureaucrats are a reasonable prospect for a coalition or recruitment. Equally as futile would be an attempt to co-opt the substantial legions of pathological misfits and cranks that use leftist politics as a means to vent their varied neuroses and personality flaws within a societal context. What we are left with are those that are drawn to the left out of a sensible rejection of the vile by products of modern capitalism (ex crass materialism, an atomized and meaningless existence, the destruction of genuine cultural diversity wrought by globalism etc.) but lacking an understanding of what the folkish alternative is all about.

The way that you reach such people is first and foremost by being a living and public example of the positive, life affirming nature of genuine racialism (no matter one labels it) which in part means having a valid alternative to the anti-Occidental establishment. Doing so means avoiding nostalgia, costume fetishes, purposeful and mindless antagonism and crankish recourse to exotic conspiracies and totalitarian imagery. In practical terms it means presenting a community centered alternative to the twin globalisms of modern capitalism and state centered welfare states or Bolshevist derivatives. Such an alternative is best served to mind with the "neo guildist" notions that I have covered before.

Faust

2003-07-29 22:40 | User Profile

Lewis Wetzel,

Great Post! You are most Right!

I was in Seattle during the WTO riots, and I can tell you there is NO true anti-globalism on the Left. If the Left is against NWO, capitalist globalism, it's only because they want to impose their own form of globalism. As long as your average Turd Worlder is poorer than your average Westerner, they advocate international systems of wealth redistribution. And say goodbye to any controls on immigration. Furthermore, if the history of the far left teaches us one think, it's NEVER align with the far left. They WILL turn on you.

Anti-"Racism" come before everything else in the mind of the Marxist!