Wishful Thinking?

Yes, I’m afraid so, but the article is still worth reading:

… the single possible alternative to the bourgeois world can only occur through the sacred union of reactionaries and progressives. A union of reactionaries, whether monarchists, Catholics, Hellenists, Muslims, but all attached to a certain classical order, with the progressives, all enemies of the bourgeois world, whether they come from the PCF of Marchais, today’s Worker’s Party, the Serbian resistance, or Venezuelan Chavismo. A union of reactionaries who are often right and progressives who have often been screwed over, against the liberals who dominate the world today and who have always divided in order to rule. Against this empire engaged headlong in the destruction of our human societies and nature. Against this world singularly devoted to the cult of Mammon and increasingly causing problems of overproduction, pollution, inequalities, which lead to catastrophe. – Alain Soral What Alternative to the Bourgeois World?

More on all of this is coming up soon…. I promise.

(Thanks to the Institute for National Revolutionary Studies for the translation of the 2007 speech which appeared on Soral’s website Egalite et Reconciliation.)

Meanwhile, Across the Ocean…

The divide is not between the left and right anymore but between patriots and globalistsMarine Le Pen

The news here at home has been so engaging that one (or at least this one) is tempted to ignore events nidroitenigauche1in the rest of the world. However, with the first round of the French presidential elections approaching, with hopes raised by Trump’s victory in the US and Brexit’s in the UK, with Marine Le Pen and the FN running stronger than ever, our attention inevitably turns to France.

It seems clear at this point that Marine will win the first round and will probably confront – and lose to – centrist candidate Emmanuel Macron in the second.  Still, hope springs eternal and there are frequent references to Trump’s improbable victory in discussions of the elections.  Thus, for example:

The counties that voted for Trump have the same sociological profiles as districts voting for Marine Le Pen — deindustrialized, rather lost, very socially vulnerable…. Paris and Lyon vote for the left, because they’re wealthy. Guys from Hayange vote for the far right, because they feel forgotten. The only one who’s taking up their cause is Marine Le Pen. – Stéphane Wahnich quoted in How Leftists Learned to Love Le Pen – Foreign Policy.

And if anything will allow Marine to repeat the Trump miracle, it will be outbreaks like the rioting which began early this month in the almost entirely immigrant banlieues (and which brought back memories of the massive disorders of 2005), although apparently some of the usual ultra-left types apparently got into the act as well. Combined with the memory of 2015 and 2016’s numerous Islamist terrorist attacks, such disorders will doubtlessly swell the ranks of FN supporters, just as the cycle of violence and disorder seen in this country in the years since Fergusson undoubtedly pushed some (probably significant) number of whites into the Trump camp.

(And, yes, it would be a bit cynical to say “worse is better,” but at least such events have the virtue of opening the eyes of some to things as they really are.)

Note:  In looking around the web for more on the rioting I came across an excellent blog – GalliaWatch – devoted to covering events in France. The author – Tiberge – seems to be a conservative Catholic who is generally (but not blindly) sympathetic to the FN.  I suspect that I will be relying on her a lot over the coming months for her invaluable coverage of French developments.

Trump – Old Wine?

There’s an interesting piece on our new president, Trump Revives the Fordist-Keynesian Pact at the Spanish blogs La Torre de Marfil and Hispaniainfo.

In it the author, Gabriel Garcia, asserts that Trump is no revolutionary, explaining that he is merely attempting to re-establish the economic-political order that reigned in the US from the end of World War 2 until roughly 1973, while arguing unpersuasively that Trump’s motivation stems directly from the fact that his own businesses (casinos and hotels) require a relatively well-paid population of consumers in order to prosper.

There’s no question that Trump’s economic populism aims to recreate something like the prosperous post-war years of increasing working class incomes and stable employment. However, Mr Garcia misses the national elements at work in the Trump movement. Explicitly, Trump espouses a civic nationalism deeply at odds with the otherwise-prevailing elite globalist discourse from both left and right. Implicitly, Trump’s movement and sub-texts represent the beginnings of an identitarian/national awakening on the part of middle America.  In the current world these elements are profoundly subversive in essence even if not in form since:

– The ruling class is globalist in its basic nature; nationalism in its ethno- or even its civic form is in fundamental opposition to the logic of capitalist development.
– The Fordist-Keynesian form was in the interests of the ruling class at the time – now it is not.
– Trump’s nationalism, while not revolutionary on its face, calls into question the current neo-liberal system itself – like “Peace, Land and Bread” did to the existing order in 1917.
– Neo-liberal globalism includes an assault against the prosperity and even the being of middle America.
– The demonization of middle American whites as racists, homophobes, misogynists, etc works to paralyze resistance on our part, while mobilizing various minority communities as troops in the struggle against us.
– While Trump is no revolutionary himself, his refusal to accept the political limits of the dominant discourse opens the door to much more radical movements.
– As Garcia acknowledges, these revived nationalist projects are taking place in the US – the center of the globalist system – rather than in some relatively peripheral country.

None of this is to argue that we will be building barricades any time soon (or even ever) or that Trump will really attempt to push his agenda a significant distance toward its logical conclusions (although the evidence of the past couple of weeks gives one hope). Rather, he represents a least the possible opening of a new political age.

Notes: Mr. Garcia’s post is centered on an extensive quote from a recent book by Laureano Luna – La lucha obrera en la era del capitalismo global.  Luna is an interesting figure who originated the term “autonomia historica,” expressing a recognition that the Spanish anti-system right needed to break with its addiction to LARPing the 1930s.  He was involved in the formation of what seemed to be a very promising enterprise, a party called the National Left in 2010 or 2011, which unfortunately seems to have gone nowhere. The book sounds like something worth reading if I can actually put my hands on a copy.

Talking about Mr. Luna’s book, I was once again reminded of how irritatingly expensive all of those interesting-sounding Spanish magazines seem to be – things like Nihil Obstat (at 20€ for the latest copy) or Revista de Historia del Fascismo (at 18€) – and when you add in shipping… How about some e-versions?!