Czech translation here
The New Right must not be afraid to pick up the banner of formerly “Left-wing” causes. It should be clear that Left and Right are irrelevant to the post-Cold War political situation. Fighting the Reds is no longer a convincing argument when it is America that leads the world into an abyss of atomized consumerist society devoid of higher spiritual values.
Furthermore the Cold War paradigm was false when it was relevant. American liberalism and Leninism were both materialist, internationalist ideologies that had no use for tradition. Indeed, no less a figure than Julius Evola believed Americanism was the worse of the two.
Some time ago I wrote that of the two great dangers confronting Europe — Americanism and Communism — the first is the more insidious. Communism cannot be a danger other than in the brutal and catastrophic form of a direct seizure of power by communists. On the other hand Americanization gains ground by a process of gradual infiltration, effecting modifications of mentalities and customs which seem inoffensive in themselves but which end in a fundamental perversion and degradation against which it is impossible to fight other than within oneself.
Communism is dead; there is no more to be said about it. However Americanism marches on, in Libya and Iraq, in the media and the workings of the global economy. Its opponents, those in the non-aligned or Eastern blocs, and those in the working class have been disowned by their former supporters on the Left. The New Right, championing rooted historical identity against the forces of liberal modernity, must become their champion as well. The enemies of liberalism must join together, regardless of whose side they were on in 1991.
It is fairly obvious that the Left, or its modern, Atlanticist, remnants, have abandoned several major concerns of the Cold War Left. The class struggle has been deemed passé by all but the most rigid Marxist groups, who now wallow in obscurity. Major Left-wing parties in the Euro-Atlantic sphere have abandoned socialism, protectionism, and dirigisme. The major social democratic parties in the West accept the basics of neo-liberalism and free trade. The formerly socialist Labour Party has accepted the results of Thatcherism under the guide of “New Labour.” Furthermore, Labour under Blair aided and abetted the United States’ imperial project in Iraq. The symbol of worker’s revolution, the Red Flag, was discarded in favor of the inoffensive Red Rose. Alain de Benoist waggishly remarked on the current state of the French Left, “The Amiens Charter (1906) proposed to abolish ‘the wage-system and big business’. That goal has also been abandoned. When will the hammer and sickle, tools of the proletariat, be replaced by a sex toy and a TV remote-control?”
Did the end of the Cold War make class politics irrelevant? Did it mean that free market absolutism and international corporate domination was triumphant? Was the struggle against colonial domination complete? Certainly not, it is simply the case that the Left has abandoned the idea of society as whole with a collective identity, including the individual’s responsibility to the norms of a society. It has replaced it with the absolute right of a person to construct himself according to his personal desires, without concern for duty to country. What results is the perfect alignment of social deviance with mass consumerism, as you can be anything you want, so long as you can buy it.
While Leftist financiers have advanced their global agenda, the “Right” has been mired in petty concerns. The lingering effects of the Cold War have shackled most “conservatives” in the Anglosphere with a fundamentalist free market ideology. Hence “conservatives” in the United States will vote against limiting the bonuses of financiers who have received generous taxpayer funded bailouts. For the most part the supporters of free markets have insulated the socialist financiers from any popular outrage. It will suffice to say that “liberal conservatism” is a dead end.
However, more serious variants of rightism have their own flaws. In many ways the myopic nationalism of many “extreme right” movements is used by the internationalists to turn nations against each other, and use the resulting chaos to support western invention in some form, ranging from financial restructuring to full scale military enforced nation building. Today we see troops from the Ukrainian Social National Assembly dying for a pro-EU liberal junta that stands for the exact opposite of their national vision, simply to spite the Russians, all the while cheered on by US Secretary of State John Kerry and French Jewish liberal Bernard-Henri Lévy.
Moreover, liberals use the petty racial and religious bigotries of nationalists to justify their agenda in the name of combating the Islamification of Europe. Hence we see “right wingers” supporting feminism and Zionism in the Netherlands. I do not mean to mitigate the crimes committed against the native populations of Europe by Islamic immigrants, however the root of the problem is the mass immigration and free market policies of the Europeans. It is puerile to rail against the veil, while ignoring western treason and decadence. The root causes of mass Islamic immigration are ignored and their supporters are freed from culpability. The western liberal class manages to deflect criticism onto some distant amorphous threat of “Islam” while at the same time funding Wahhabi fundamentalist Saudi Arabia and demonizing the relatively moderate, but anti-Zionist, anti-liberal nation of Iran. In many regards the threat of fundamentalist Islam in modern times is entirely a product of English and later US support for the House of Saud. Indeed, the US had no qualms about siding with mujahedin in Afghanistan, Bosnia, or Syria.
Conflict between nationalists and tradition oriented peoples of different nations is a serious manifestation of the futile and petty inter-tribal bickering which only strengthens the hand of the international liberalism. They have played off religious, ethnic, and national groups against each other since the First World War. It should be known to all Americans that the Nye Committee determined American involvement in First World War was motivated by the greed of banking and military manufacturing sectors. The rootless forces of avarice have played empire against empire, faith against faith, people against people time and time again. Into the wreckage caused by these petty national conflicts step the forces of international finance, alien in nation, race, and religion, promising to rebuild the nation with loans from the IMF and the EU, the collateral of which is the real value of the nation. In the end the final result of these national conflicts is the dominance of internationalist foreign powers. The blindness of the petty nationalists prevents them from seeing that they are merely canon fodder for the colonial agenda of the liberal bloc.
First, we must recognize the real enemy. The enemy is liberalism, which is the global imperial agenda foisted upon the world by the United States and its allies. Their goal is the creation of an atomized, global consumer society, a pleasure dome police state. Our enemy is the totality of the system, the empire, consisting of those who control the government, corporate, media, and academic institutions globally.
This empire is multifaceted. It has economic, religious, ethnic, political, and military dimensions, among many others. Those who wish to reduce the struggle to a single issue, whether it be the Jewish Question, US interventionism, or capitalism fail to grasp the omnipresence of the enemy. The political classifications of the past are obsolete, if you stand in the way of this agenda you will be attacked by it, regardless of what particular perspective you claim to have.
There is merely the system and its enemies, the free peoples of the earth. Recently, dissidents have been realizing that fact. Indeed we have witnessed a veritable uprising across the globe, multiple fronts have opened up. The Dieudonné controversy, the solidarity offered to resistors of US-Israeli sponsored invention in Libya, Syria, and Palestine, the Bolivarian Revolution, Alain Soral’s Égalité et Réconcilation, Dugin’s Fourth Political Theory, and Iran are various currents of global revolt against the empire.
Second, we must distinguish between the agents of the system, and the victims of the system. It is fruitless to criticize immigrants, who have no power, and let the corporations and businessmen who clamor for more cheap labor, and politicians who maintain power from their votes, escape guilt, which is wholly theirs. The Mayan farmer in Chiapas is as much a victim of the system as the unemployed white coal miner in Kentucky.
By no means is this a call to embrace mass immigration and multiculturalism, which are tools of the system used to break the spirit of the people and sow chaos. Rather it is an exhortation for the oppressed across the globe to unite against their common enemy. If the victims of the system maintain resentment against each other, it only strengthens the hand of the enemy.
The internecine warfare and petty bigotries of old nationalist movements must be replaced by a pan-nationalist unity, where people of all nations strive to preserve their identities against internationalism. Nationalists of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains of debt!
Pan-nationalism must be absolutely anti-colonial, as colonialism the dominant foreign policy of the system. Refusal to abide the norms promulgated by the Pentagon will render a nation a “rogue state.” Often the targets of the imperial agenda are nations who refuse to play along with the international financial system, such as Muammar Qaddafi who promulgated a third position ideology in his “Green Book.” Any attempts by these “rogue states” to defend themselves by developing an arsenal of nuclear weapons, like the United States or Israel has, is considered grounds for full scale invasion.
The system’s colonialism can be brazen aggression against a weaker people, as witnessed by the Israeli genocide of the Palestinians, supported by the majority of the international Jewish community and the Western Zionist governments. However, it can take more subtle forms, like IMF restructuring and internationally enforced austerity, where the financial assets of a nation are effectively internationalized, which in practice means they end up in the portfolios of men who live in London and New York.
Also, it can take very devious forms such as staged “popular uprisings” leading to “regime change.” The end result being international NGO- or US-backed politicians instituting their particular form of government in a way pleasing to the larger geopolitical agenda of the financial and political elite in London, New York, and Tel Aviv. We have seen this scenario play out in the “Color Revolutions” in the former Soviet Bloc, and “Arab Spring” uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa.
Colonialism can also take upon a cultural form, the advocacy of Western standards, or lack of thereof, to people who have yet to reach our stage of enlightened progress. Western capitalism exports cultural norms of the west through media and entertainment, the McDonaldization of the globe. In addition to market mechanisms, cultures are often subverted by the governmental sponsorship of anti-traditional movements, such as the CIA funding of abstract expressionist art, or the National Endowment for Democracy’s connections with the feminist, anti-Orthodox, punk collective Pussy Riot. Whether it uses the avant-garde or pop schlock, the ultimate goal is the dissolution of a nation’s unique cultural identity into the wider trends set in Hollywood.
Moreover, for those who thinks colonialism is not a problem people living in the first world have to deal with, the consequences of liberal neo-colonialism do not fall solely on so-called third world nations. Mass immigration is one of the consequences of foreign interventionism. Violent military action creates refugees, while financial manipulation and televised propaganda invite streams of immigrants to industrialized nations to serve as replacements for a native working class. In short, liberal imperialism and immigration go hand in hand in the creation of a rootless world.
Capitalism is the economic tool of the empire. By capitalism I mean the current corporate, neo-liberal economic system that is standard throughout the United States and Western Europe. The system by which borders blocking the flow of capital and labor are eliminated. The system by which Wall Street and the City extend their dominion over the world.
In the United States, the right has developed an odd mentality where any opposition to the power of Wall Street is equated with endorsement of Stalinism or totalitarian state control. However, the capitalists themselves have no issue with the state per se, so long as it serves their interests. They have little quarrel with taxpayer funded bailouts, government contracts, and easy credit from the central banks. They will gladly use governmental and intergovernmental pressure to force entire nations to “liberalize” or “restructure” their economy so that it can be integrated into their portfolios or used as a location to ship jobs to when the native working class demands living wages.
Capitalism knows no country, no faith, no ideology other than the pursuit of money. The capitalist will gladly abandon whatever roots his corporation has to gain a competitive advantage. Moreover, capitalism will fight any ideology that seeks to impose a limit on the quest for profit, its goal is a world where anything is possible, so long as it gets paid for. The traditions, identity, or beliefs of a society that get in the way of business must be discarded. Thus capitalism calls for open borders, fluid identities, and social liberalism.
Social liberalism and economic liberalism go hand in hand, as we can see in the goals of international organizations like Open Society Foundations. In the United States many major corporations support the legalization of gay marriage, a Forbes article noting that about 70 companies made public statements of support for gay marriage in an 18-month period. Conservatives, blinded by their Cold War fantasy world, are oblivious to the fact that the market seeks to dissolve all that they hold sacred.
The struggle against the empire is a worker’s one. The left has tried to speak for workers, but without understanding their beliefs. Now the left has completely abandoned the workers and joined the empire, aligning with wealthy university professors who are more worried about microaggressions and privilege checking than whether the factory worker has a decent job. Moreover, they have reduced the religious, cultural, and national values of the working class to a case of “false consciousness,” as if they were under some mass delusion.
Now, in the post-Cold War era, Left has undergone what Marxists would call embourgeoisement. They have become bourgeois, stultifyingly academic, disconnected from the lives of men in the factories, mines, and fields, while becoming increasingly concentrated on sexual or racial identity politics. Interestingly enough, liberal concerns with individual whims have erased any idea of collective strike against capitalism.
It is time to stand with the workers, for their values, against the capitalists and their well-funded intelligentsia in academia. American corporations push politically correct policies to silence dissent and atomize society. The seek to fragment the working class with identity politics, social justice, and human rights, where each officially sanctioned victim group can line up to receive its 30 pieces of silver from the capitalists. As Alain Soral noted:
It is also on behalf of Human Rights that are dismantled social solidarities within the Nations and their people – the traditional social solidarities against globalist Capitalism – by substituting workers and middle classes’ social benefits for the social interest of “oppressed” pseudo-minorities (In reality vocal minorities): Gay rights, woman’s rights, youth rights, black people rights. . . . Minorities that are just market segments serving the ideological merchant globalism, as the Italian ex-Trotskyist and now publicist, Mister Toscani, had well illustrated in his excellent adverts “United Colors of Benetton.”
It should come as no surprise that Facebook created 56 varieties of gender. However, while the office has been emasculated, the construction site still remains a bastion of traditionally masculine identity. The codes of censorship composed by the PC elite have no effect on the traditionally masculine working class. No one is going to be fired by a plumbing contractor for opposing gay marriage, unlike Mozilla’s Brendan Eich.
From this core of resistance, a reconquest of the society in general can be launched. We must adopt Alain Soral’s belief that political incorrectness is the ideology of resistance to the system. As academia’s and media’s quest for absolute political correctness approaches self-parody, where the most insignificant and benign forms of inequality between races or sexes are deemed evil, more people will be asking for an end to the absurdity. This will be compounded by the rising inequality of wealth between the politically correct elite and the vast majority of society.
A 2010 poll found that a majority of Americans thought political correctness had gone too far. It is becoming apparent that it is merely a mechanism of censorship used by those in power to silence critics of their agenda. Critics of Jewish internationalism and Zionism are dismissed as “anti-Semites,” critics of gay marriage are dismissed as “homophobes,” those who oppose mass immigration are derided as “racists.” The social consequences of violating the strictures of the systems censors are potentially disastrous, ranging from unemployment to prison sentences in countries with legally binding “hate speech” laws. It is clear, to engage in political incorrectness is a subversive, even revolutionary blow against the empire.
The battle lines are drawn. The forces of the empire, the media, the corporations, academia, Jewish internationalists and Zionists, Western governments and intergovernmental bodies, and those who seek their aid are arrayed in lockstep formation, ready to advance. The rebels across the field are scattered and disorganized, they squabble amongst themselves, they need leadership. Will those who raise the banner of the New Right claim the role they were destined for?