The Greatness of Political Music

                A note to the reader

This small article that I have written about political music is mainly focusing on the positive messaging, the problems of modern pop, and what dissident music in the modern music should try to convey. Note I am no musician or singer, I just simply understand the importance’s of music when it comes to influencing people views and culture. I am also aware that a certain section of FARC particularly Dissident FARC engages in shady activities, but I do not see this as problem that originates with their ideology or music but rather desperation to keep their insurgency afloat, which I do not endorse such activities. It should also be noted however that Commons, a political party made up FARC members who demobilized does not engage in shady activities unlike its insurgent counterpart.  With that out of the way, we can now jump into the article.

Political music is largely an underrated music genre in the United States. This genre of music is very different compared to what music is now popular in America today like Rap, Rock, Country etc. Political music whether it be from a socialist, nationalist, fascist, communist, anarchist, or even early liberal music from the American revolution or civil war has in terms of substances or lyrics a sense of honor and chivalry to it. The music has sense of duty to achieving a higher ideal than oneself and achieving a greater society and moral order for one’s people.  And many times, as well conveys continuing the ideals of those who came before them.  For example, the Columbian FARC and the Nicaraguan Sandinistas in their anthems say they are continuing the ideas of the revolutionaries who came before them, who did everything in their power to achieve national liberation of they’re countries. In the case of the FARC its Simon Bolivar and for the Sandinistas its Augusto Cesar Sandino.

Even when political music is not singing about revolution it sings of putting one effort into the betterment of the society. In the Spanish Falange song “Himmo Del Trabajo” the song sings of one using one’s labor and creative energies for the betterment of the nation. Along with using one’s energy to bring justice and overcome evil. This type of music in the end promotes a culture of duty, and heroism within the group, remembering the struggles and scarifies that were made along the way to reach for higher values and betterment of the nation. Even when these songs speak of liberation or freedom, they sing of national liberation for one’s own people or in the case of the American Unionist song “Battle Cry of Freedom” preserving the unity of the country. This liberation requires scarifies, duty and responsibility to the nation to never forget those who came before and gave everything for the cause or to continue the struggle of national determination where the old hero’s left off.

Pop music is very different beast, especially the pop music that is popular in America. Now of course pop music is a vague term, there is a lot of different genres of music that are popular in America. However, as writer for the Intellectual Takeout Jon Henschen and researcher Joan Serra have pointed out that modern pop music has gone down in quality due to many of the songs sounding the same, meaning a lack creativity on the modern writers of music. In fact, as Henschen notes that many modern popular singers have their songs written by the same two people, Max Martin, and Lukasz Gottwald. Along with the fact that most pop music is written to sell not inspire as the capitalist systems promotes profit as the highest value even at the price quality of goods or in this case a quality of music. Political music is inspiring because is sings of creating a better society and giving oneself to the cause. Political music is also written by people who truly believe in things their writing about especially when it written by political dissidents who run the risk of being ostracize or even killed for their beliefs.

Despite social critic Christopher Lasch not writing about music in his book Culture of Narcissism. Lasch does give a critique of American consumer society that relates to modern pop music, that modern consumer capitalism and capitalism use of technology has made people to develop the mindset of going after individual short-term pleasures and gratifications instead a planning for long-term stability and happiness. This not only applies to the production and reasoning behind modern pop music, which like stated is made to sell quick and fast but not to inspire. This also applies to the lyrics to many of these songs that sing of short-term material, sexual, drug, or alcohol related pleasures. Especially if we look at Rap or Hip-Hop related music.  

One does not have to look far to see what I am talking about from rapper rapping about taking drugs like Lean in their music such as DJ Screw, Future, Big Moe, Juice Wrld, and Lil Nas X. Rapping about living sexual deviant lifestyles such as Lizzo and Cardi B. This list just goes on and on about singing or rapping about similar topics or other self-destructive activities. Drugs and sleeping around cannot lead to long term stability or happiness but rather one’s own destruction. Some of these singers have died of overdoes such as Juice Wrld and DJ Screw. And many others have had failed relationships and having to raises their kids in broken households. It makes one wonder on how many of these people’s fans have gone down these destructive paths because of these singers.  In many ways this consumerist mindset of trying to fill the void of meaninglessness that was once filled by religion and community. Even when they’re just singing of other material things like nice cars and fantasy clothes it is the same mindset. The capitalist system and its music industry only know one way of trying fill this void. More products and continuing break down of traditional norms that once provide that meaning and stability in one’s life. Many these singers like Lil Nas X not only attack these norms because they simply do not like them but also because it creates controversy meaning receives more views and more profit.  This of course is not inspiring or lead to a positive future for society.

Political music on the other hands sings of planning for the long-term future of not just for oneself but for one society and of grand ideals responsibility, and honor that is needed to reach this destination.  With a lack of creativity and support of self-destructive behavior inside the mainstream music industry gives dissident and non-mainstream political elements the chance to start brainstorming ideas to influence culture. Music is a key part of culture and is needed for any successful movement to create a culture that conveys its ideas and values. Looking at the old political music of the past is placed to start for looking at how older movements achieved successes or maintained cultural hegemony. This of course cannot be copy and paste of old or foreign music. its needs to be organic to the society with our own heroes and problems along with conveying grand ideals and a sense of responsibility and honor to reach a better society. As the problems of modern society continues to grow the more powerful dissident political music will be.

              Work Cited 

           The Culture of Narcissism by Christopher Lasch

Why Pop Music Is So Bad These Days by Jon Henschen Why Pop Music Is So Bad These Days ~ The Imaginative Conservative

Sandinistas Anthem  “Himno a la Unidad Sandinista” – Nicaraguan Socialist Song – YouTube

Farc Anthem Colombian Guerrilla Anthems – YouTube

Falange song “Himno Del Trabajo” “Himno Del Trabajo” – Spanish Falangist Song – YouTube 

American Unionist Song “Battle Cry of Freedom”  Civil War Song: Battle Cry of Freedom – YouTube

 Nikolay Ustryalov on The End of the Russian Civil War

Russian Version can be found here

A Note To The Reader

This article comes from Ustryalov book called “Under the sign of the revolution,” a collection of Ustrayalov articles, published in 1927. This article here originally called Fractured was the first one in the book. an exact date of when it was written is unknown but it is safe to say it was probably written right after the ending of the Russian Civil War, with Ustryalov putting his hopes with the new Bolshevik government. Without further delay, here’s Nikolay Ustryalov on the end of the Russian Civil War.

It is necessary to give a clear account of the latest events of our civil war. It takes courage to face the truth, whatever it may be.

The fall of the government of Admiral Kolchak ended the epilogue of the Omsk tragedy, the sad story of the “eastern statehood” that opposed itself to the revolutionary center of Russia was told to the end.

We all pinned a lot of hopes on this movement. It was believed that he was really destined to recreate the country, to provide it with a healthy law and order on the basis of national democracy. It seemed that the revolution, which had brought the state to disintegration and complete impotence, would be defeated by the armed hand of the people themselves, who had risen in the name of patriotism, in the name of the great and united Russia…

We remember all phases, all stages of this tragic internecine struggle. In the moment of the result and the result, they are remembered with special vivacity, they burn the memory, excite the soul.

Rostov, Yekaterinodar, Yaroslavl, Samara, Simbirsk, Kazan, Arkhangelsk, Pskov, Odessa, Perm, Omsk, Irkutsk, all these geographical definitions seem to be filled with a kind of historical content, turning into living symbols of the great civil war.

And here is the finale. Let the struggle continue, dying down, but let’s not be cowardly, let’s say openly and directly: in essence, its outcome is already a foregone conclusion. We are defeated and defeated on an all-Russian scale, and not only locally. The fall of western and central Siberia against the background of the collapse of the western army of General Yudenich, the withering of the northern and the failures of the southern takes on a much more formidable and definite meaning than it might seem at first glance.

Of course, it would be naive to think that the fall of the Irkutsk government is in any degree the triumph of the Socialist-Revolutionaries. No, everyone knows perfectly well that this is the triumph of the Bolsheviks, the victory of the Russian revolution in its final and extreme expression. The fate of Irkutsk was decided not on the Angara and Ushakovka, but on Tobol and Ishim, in the same place as the fate of Omsk.

True, we politicians, who until the very last moment did not want to come to terms with the collapse of the cause, which we considered a national Russian cause, it is true, we hoped that the fall of Omsk had not yet said the last word in favor of the revolution.

I wanted to believe that it would be possible here, in central and eastern Siberia, to organize a bridgehead on which forces could once again deploy, capable of continuing, together with the south, the struggle for the national revival and unification of Russia.

And we were ready to accept any government, as long as it satisfied our basic idea. For there could be no doubt that a revived Russia, a united Russia, was not afraid of any reaction, that no foreign dominance was dangerous.

However, our hopes were dashed. The Irkutsk events are not only the collapse of the “Omsk combination”, but also the discovery of the fatal weakness of the “East Siberian factor”: the decisive failure of the Semenov troops near Irkutsk, as well as the latest events in the Far East, are clear evidence of this.

It becomes clear with merciless certainty that the path of armed struggle against the revolution is a fruitless, unsuccessful path. Life rejected him, and now, after the fall of Irkutsk in the east and Kyiv, Kharkov, Tsaritsyn and Rostov in the south, this must be recognized. It is all the more obligatory for me to state this because I actively went through it to the end with all faith, with all conviction in its salvation for my native country.

It is in vain to say that “the Omsk government perished as a result of the reactionary nature of its policy.” This is not the point at all. In terms of management methods, the Bolsheviks are much more “reactionary” than the fallen government. And in addition, this government fell precisely at the moment when it renounced its “reactionary nature” and was ready to accept almost Mr. Kolosov into its bosom.

No, the causes of the catastrophe lie incomparably deeper. Apparently, they need to be sought in two planes. First, the events convince us that Russia has not yet outlived the revolution; Bolshevism, and truly there is something fatal in the victories of the Soviet power – as if such is the will of history. Secondly, the anti-Bolshevik movement, by the force of events, has too much connected itself with foreign elements and therefore involuntarily surrounded Bolshevism with a certain national halo, essentially alien to its nature. The bizarre dialectic of history has unexpectedly brought Soviet power with its ideology of the international into the role of a national factor in modern Russian life – while our nationalism, while remaining unshakable in principle, has faded and faded in practice due to its chronic alliances and compromises with the so-called “allies”.

Be that as it may, the armed struggle against the Bolsheviks failed. It may seem paradoxical, but the unification of Russia is under the sign of Bolshevism, which has become imperialist and centralist, almost to a greater extent than P.N. Milyukov.

Consequently, the ideology of armed struggle against Bolshevism must also be left before the inexorable arguments of life. To defend it under present conditions would be doctrinairism, unforgivable for a real politician.

Of course, all this does not mean unconditional acceptance of Bolshevism or complete reconciliation with it. The methods of approach to it and its evaluation should only change significantly. He could not be defeated by force of arms in the civil struggle – he will evolutionarily outlive himself in the atmosphere of the civil world. Either the Soviet system will be forced to make the greatest compromises in the economic sphere, or the very foundation of its existence will be threatened by danger. Obviously, the economic Brest of Bolshevism is coming.

The process of internal organic degeneration of Soviet power is undoubtedly already beginning, no matter what its representatives themselves may say. And our common next task is to promote this process. First and foremost – the gathering, the restoration of Russia as a great and united state. Everything else will follow.

And if we have to state with sadness the collapse of the political paths along which we have been following so far, then our great consolation is that our cherished goal – the unification, the revival of the motherland, its strength in the international field – is nevertheless being realized and fatally realized.

Intervention 1

I positively find it difficult to understand how a Russian patriot can be at the present time a supporter of any kind of foreign intervention in Russian affairs.

After all, it is clear as God’s day that Russia is reborn. It is clear that the worst days have passed, that the revolution is transforming spontaneously from a force of disintegration and disintegration into a creative and upbuilding national force. Contrary to expectations, Russia coped with the hard times on its own, without any outside “help” and even in spite of it. Anyone who has not been completely blinded by the dark days of the past can already see that Russian prestige abroad is rising day by day. Let at the same time hatred grow among the ruling circles of the West towards that external form of the national Russian revival, which whimsical history has chosen. But, really, this hatred is much better than the condescending contempt with which Messrs. Clemenceau and Lloyd-Georgie treated last year the Paris delegates of the now fallen Russian government …

Nature takes over. The great people remained great even in the grave vicissitudes of fate – “so heavy mlat, crushing glass, forges damask steel.” Let us believe in a different way of national reconstruction. We made a mistake – our path is condemned, and by the bitter irony of fate, unexpectedly for ourselves, we suddenly turned into almost “emigrants of reaction.” But now, when our ultimate dream – the revival of the motherland – is nevertheless being realized, will we stubbornly persist in defending the ruins of our collapsed positions? .. After all, now such persistence would be direct harm to the national cause, it would only artificially delay the process of uniting the country and restoring her strength.

It naturally seemed to us that the national flag and “Kol is Glorious” were more befitting the style of a revived country than the red banner and “Internationale”. But it turned out differently. Over the Winter Palace, which has regained the proud appearance of a truly great-power greatness, the red banner is boldly fluttering, and over the Spassky Gates, which still represent the deepest historical and national holiness, the ancient chimes play the “Internationale”. Let it be strange and painful for the eye, for the ear, let it jar, – but, in the end, in the depths of the soul, the question involuntarily arises:

“Does a red banner disgrace the Winter Palace, or, on the contrary, does the Winter Palace paint a red banner with itself?” Does the “International” desecrate the Spassky Gates with unholy sounds, or does the Spassky Gates put a new meaning into the “International” by the Kremlin trend? ..


All powers renounced active struggle against the Russian revolution. Not, of course, because the governments of all powers liked the Russian revolution, but because they realized their complete impotence to crush it. They have already tried that terrible, decisive means by which the British boa constrictor strangled Napoleon in its time, strangled Wilhelm – the blockade. It was tried – and did not help: as a result, it even turned out somehow that it became difficult to figure out for yourself – who is being blocked and mortified, and who is blocking and mortifying, who is strangling whom. And the arrogant queen of the seas, through the mouth of her new Wellington, suddenly declared to the whole world:

– Europe cannot be brought back to normal without Russian reserves. The only solution to the question is to make peace with the Bolsheviks…

Of all the allies, another Japan holds itself somewhat more indefinitely, mysteriously. And it is to her, to Japan, as to the last refuge, that the eyes of those Russian politicians who are still enchanted by Omsk with their posthumous charms are now directed.

But after all, the Omsk combination is dead, and it is useless to galvanize its corpse with foreign currents – it will not come to life anyway. If foreign assistance did not help last year, when Russian armies in the hundreds of thousands were advancing on Moscow from all sides, then what can she do now, when only fragments of fragments are left of all these armies? .. Well, and only foreign bayonets national revival will not be achieved. And most importantly, those who are looking for a national revival with a lantern in the daytime when it is already coming – only by a different path …

The power of Admiral Kolchak was supported by elements of a twofold kind: firstly, it was, of course, seized upon by people of the classes offended by the revolution, who dreamed under the slogan of “order” to regain their lost peace, taken away property and advantageous social position; secondly, groups of the national-democratic intelligentsia stood under its banner, seeing in Bolshevism a force hostile to the state and homeland, a nationally corrupting force. It was these last groups that represented the true ideology of the Omsk government, while elements of the first kind systematically spoiled and compromised its work.

Now that the government has fallen, and Soviet power has risen to a major international factor and has clearly overcome the chaos to which it owed its birth, the national foundations for the continuation of the civil war are vanishing. Only group, class foundations remain, but they, of course, can by no means have significance and weight in the minds of the national intelligentsia. Thus, the continuation of the internecine struggle, the creation of marginal “bridgeheads” and foreign intervention are necessary and beneficial only to the narrow class elements directly affected by the revolution. Russia’s interests have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Let the gentlemen, the ideologists of bridgeheads, arrange those away from the Russian border. Let them prepare their Louis XVIII there, until the fiery breath of the Russian Renaissance touches them one way or another.

My interview with a Russian National Bolshevik

A note to the reader

When one of my contacts first found the writings of Nikolay Ustryalov, we put out an announcement on our Telegram channels asking for help on translating these texts. It just so happened that a Russian National Bolshevik found our channels and offered to help and answer any questions on Russian National Bolshevism. I asked him for an interview and he agreed but wanted to go by Tim instead of his real name, which I agree too. Without any more delay here is my interview with Tim the Russian National Bolshevik.

Tim: Hi I’m nazbol from Russia my name is Tim

interviewer aka CSD/Albino Squirrel : Nice to met you, it’s a pleasure meeting an actual Russian National Bolshevik. Are you apart of any group in Russia like Other Russia Party?

Tim: Mutually! Legally – yes, I myself have long been inactive in OR, and once I was the “head” of the department. To be honest, I am not satisfied with many things in OR, from the emblem to the ideology. despite the fact that my views somehow intersect with the views of Other Russia. I am aimed at developing the ideology of NB.

Interviewer: How would you define National Bolshevism?

Tim: a revolutionary ideology of national and social transformation.

Interviewer: Did you know Limonov?

Tim: Personally? Unfortunately no. And so, of course I know, It’s a shame not to know him. Limonov in the last years of his life was practically not busy with the party but I have enough information about Limonov, if you want to know.

Interviewer: What are your disagreements with the Other Russia party ideologically speaking

Tim: modern National Bolsheviks lack more ideological elaboration with a bias in their roots, and not in the nonsense that became popular in the 2000s

Interviewer: Ah I see that what hear from a lot people outside of Russia but it good to hear it from an actual member of the group

Tim: heh, you can’t be a real National Bolshevik, you can only try to become and try to become one. in general, the ideological position led, later, to my disagreements with the ideology of the NB, and adhering to other political ideologies, but it doesn’t matter I am ashamed of those times, especially to myself. it was a big stupidity. now I call myself a national bolshevik, a left nationalist, or a national revolutionary, whatever you like. I can also call myself a “national-communist”, but that’s an extremely conventional designation. since my political maturation came mainly from the works of right-wing and left-radical philosophers, my views could not but represent a complex worldview I would like to emphasize that every young national-bolshevik should understand that national-bolshevism is an ideology of progress, not stagnation. you, in the west, among the near-political hangouts, I observe memes about the national bolsheviks, “anarcho-national bolsheviks”, “right” and “left” “national bolsheviks” in fact, such divisions may correspond to reality, because there are many opinions among the National Bolsheviks, but they are all built around common ideas and concepts, a single system of national Bolshevism – constant revolution and nationalism. Unfortunately, as a result of the devastating events in the 2000s, the National Bolshevik movement was in a state of split do not misunderstand, but this should not force you to give up in the development of National Bolshevism.

Interviewer: I understand what your saying. I got 2 questions what where the reasons for the splits and what right and left wing intellectuals influenced you personally?

Tim: The first split occurred with the departure of Dugin from the NBP in connection with personal contradictions between him and Limonov. the second split occurred due to the fact that Limonov entered into a coalition with Russian liberals to fight Putin (an NBP opposition organization NBP appeared. the third split was due to the fact that a huge number of “important people” in the NBP began to be expelled due to accusations of factionalism. I take influence from Julius Evola, Theodor Kaczhinski, new left, Mao Zedong, Lenin and some others.

Interviewer: Do you take influence from people like Ernst Niekish, Heinrich Laufenberg, Ernst Junger or Karl Otto Pateal?

Tim: In Russia, the second and fourth are practically unknown. I like Petel, I read about it not so long ago. Ernst Junger – of course, also influenced me. As for Niekish… To be honest, I don’t remember his ideas, I only know that he was a German Nazbol. I don’t know who is Laufenberg.

Interviewer: What about Dugin and Nikolay Ustryalov?

Tim: yes, they also influenced me, especially Dugin. I believe that the best solution for the National Bolsheviks today is not just to masturbate to the NB classics, but to develop its current performance, according to the precepts of Lenin

Interviewer: If you don’t mind could you go in a little more detail about the split between Dugin and Limonov?

Tim: In the 90s of the last century, Dugin accused Limonov of shocking and unwillingness to engage in theory, they insulted each other and decided to disperse on that.

Interviewer: What did you do in your time as a member of the Other Russia Party?

Tim: Search for supporters in other regions and in my own city; campaign propaganda (on the Internet and in real time); attempts to somehow regulate the activities of the organization in my city (and I made a number of major mistakes)

Interviewer: Have the relations between all the different National Bolshevik groups in Russia gotten better?

Tim: Today, the largest NB-organization is Other Russia. Other bands that emerged from splits in the 2000s are long dead. Also, a few years ago, in some regions of Russia, there was an organization of a strasserist type (mainly on the Internet), but I don’t take them seriously, because they are still fools. An “organization” has also been created on the Internet with an ideology similar to the NB, but their leader is a young Estonian who supports the regime of Vladimir Putin, and this is unacceptable.

Interviewer: What is your views on race?

Tim: Most of the National Bolsheviks have never been supporters of the racial hierarchy; what about my views? I have never seriously felt hatred for other races, despite the fact that some groups (in which I was a member) – not associated with the NB – tried to impose this hatred on me. Racism, for me, is a very destructive ideology if it is understood as “hatred of other races”; instead of hatred, you can always go towards each other for solidarity in the fight against a common enemy for all of us. On the other hand, I do not think that racial mixing is cool, but I have the same attitude towards mestizos as I do towards other people.

Interviewer: What are the biggest problems facing Russia today?

Tim: The lack of a coherent domestic policy in the field of culture has led to the fact that the younger generation today, in general, is an opponent of Putin. Which, of course, is good. But the minds of young people are captured by left-liberal, Western propaganda, and this, of course, is bad. I have recently observed the growth of nationalist views among men in Russia. There are serious economic problems in Russia that could really be solved only by radical measures against today’s Putin’s oligarchs. But, the “president” of Russia will never solve this issue. In Russia, there is a serious crisis of the traditional institutions of the family, the traditional relationships of people with each other. Today they are trying to spiritually sterilize men and women all over the world, including our country.

Interviewer: What your ideal economic system?

Tim: National Bolsheviks support a mixed economic system. I also support mixed economies. I do not like a rigid planned economy, and I think that self-organization in Siberia is better than the plan that is sent out of Moscow. Today I am also interested in various currents, such as mutualism

Interviewer: Views on the conflict in Ukraine?

Tim: National Bolsheviks in Russia, in principle, support Russia in this conflict.
I have a negative attitude towards this conflict only because I feel that this bloody and dirty war is needed by a third party, and not by fraternal peoples.

Interviewer: Is their still hostility between Dugin Eurasian Youth Movement and Limonov Other Russia Party?

Tim: You know, I haven’t noticed any outright hostility between these two organizations lately, but it seems to me that they don’t plan to work with each other (EYM are pro-Putin), and also, I would like to emphasize that EYM today, as far as I understand, already almost dead, and moved to the Internet. At least the number of their shares has become much smaller…

Interviewer: What are your views on America?

Tim: I have a positive attitude towards ordinary Americans, they seem to me to be very passionate people! The USA (state) for me, today, is nothing more than a world gendarme, something like the Russian Empire in the middle of the 19th century. I have a bad attitude towards the gendarmes.

Interviewer: Are their any group outside of Nazbols that you consider to be allies?

Tim: If I understand you correctly, then, you know, I don’t want to single out separate political communities (parties and others), but I definitely like various leftist and national revolutionary movements, for example: the maoists (and their variant in the form of nazi-maoists) ; national-anarchists (who, as far as I know, no longer exist in Russia); eurasianist (as a political ideology, not an organization)

Interviewer: The future of the free world i What’s your opinions on the Russian Constitutional Crisis of 1993?

Tim: I am on the side of the House of Soviets, I am against Yeltsin.

Interviewer: What’s your thoughts on Russian Neo Nazi groups such as Russian National Unity and Russian Imperial Movement?

Tim: I think nothing. The RNU split long ago into two organizations that are no longer active. And I did not notice RIM at all for any real actions on the territory of the Russian Federation.

Interviewer: Your thoughts on Fascism and Communism?

Tim: The fascists were right when they talked about ethnic solidarity, and the communists were right about fighting the bourgeoisie, who are mosquitoes on the body of the proletariat. The fascists were wrong when they spoke of a totalitarian state and cooperation with the capitalists; the communists shed too much human blood.

Interviewer: What’s your views on the ethnic and racial minorities that call Russia home?

Tim: How can I treat them? If they are friendly to Russia, there is nothing wrong with them.

Interviewer: Does Religion play a role in your and nazbol politics?

Tim: Most National Bolsheviks are very secular. For me, religion is not of great importance, I communicate well with both Christians and paganists and atheists.

Interviewer: Thoughts on Futurism?

Tim: I have an ambivalent attitude towards futurism. On the one hand, I like the revolutionary arrogance of Mayakovsky and Marinetti, their glorification of dynamics and strength, but, at the same time, I have absolutely no reverence for the development of technological progress, and I see in it only ways of totalitarian control of peoples and individuals.

Interviewer: Thoughts on Otto Strasser?

Tim: Once upon a time I read Otto Strasser… I won’t lie, I decided to check my memory for accuracy, whether Otto really was a supporter of class solidarity, and, as it turned out, my memory does not lie. I don’t like his reverence for solidarity, but I support his critique of capitalism. I can’t say too much about Otto because I don’t see him (at least for now) as a significant figure. I also like, in one way or another, any national revolutionary views.

Interviewer: What left wing groups do you support?

Tim: I support Maoists and Trotskyists to a certain extent, and I also have respect for anarchist groups.

Interviewer: What is the reason behind many National Bolsheviks being against Putin?

Tim: Not just “many”. It is the SACRED OBLIGATION of every National-Bolshevik to oppose that anti-people system that destroys his people – in this case Russian. Any Russian person of national-revolutionary views, be it national-bolshevism, left-wing nationalism, or something like that, must understand that in Putin’s state-capitalist regime, which is in syndicate with a group of big bandits and oligarchs-“businessmen”, one can find the cause of Russia’s economic, political and social ills. In the 1994 program, we – the national-bolsheviks – (and every real National-Bolshevik is “we”) wrote that the essence of national-bolshevism is “a sizzling hatred for the anti-human trinity system: liberalism / democracy / capitalism.” Putin is a full-fledged liberal, but unlike his Western colleagues, he does not hide his craving for individual despotism, which he covers up with slogans about “democracy” (of course, a liberal model), and which is based on state-monopoly capitalism. This does not mean that NBs do not see other problems than Putin, do not use him as a scapegoat, but, nevertheless, all of the above is real. As I wrote earlier, do not believe when you – in the Western media – are told about the “nationalist” Putin. It’s a lie. And in the end, the Russian people have a proverb: “The fish rots from the head.” I don’t think I need to explain what it means.

Interviewer: what are your thoughts on Nicolae Ceausescu Romania and Kim Jong Un North Korea?

Tim: I heard that Nicolae Ceausescu is called almost a Romanian national communist, but I really didn’t delve into the history of Romania and Ceausescu specifically to say certain things about him. The only thing is, if he was a national communist, why did a huge number of people come out against him during the Romanian revolution? As far as I know, Kim Jong-un, compared to his father and grandfather, is more aimed at reforming the structure of North Korea than his forefathers mentioned above.
Kim Jong Un is opposed to the capitalist world, but I think the Korean people feel terrible. It seems to me that if the people decide to overthrow the “Kim dynasty” – this will be a justified desire. I don’t want to sound like an “opportunist” or supporter of bourgeois revolutions, but I really don’t feel piety towards most modern dictatorships. I think that often positive judgments about dictatorships are based on the belief that bad relations with the Western world are an indicator of “good”

Do you have positive views on Assad and Gaddafi?

Tim: I don’t know much about Bashar al-Assad, and I haven’t delved into the theory of Ba’athism so much to have a clear idea about this ideology, except that it has an Arab-nationalist and socialist orientation. I was waiting for a question about Gaddafi.
You know, I was once interested in his concept of the Jamahiriya and the Third International Theory, I once started reading the Green Book, but abandoned it.
Recently, I want to devote myself to this cause again. In general terms, I like Gaddafi and his “Jamahiriya”, it seems to me that he really was unjustly killed by the American special services.

Interviewer: What are your views on the socialist movements in Venezuela and Nicaragua?

Tim: Regarding Nicaragua and Venezuela, no comment. I have not delved into the study of the Sandinistas, and, to my regret, this is the first time I hear about them (I only know that Venezuela has bad relations with the USA.)

Interviewer: Is Anarcho-Nazbol a real ideology?

Tim: “Anarcho-Natsbol” is just another name for the “left current” of national-bolshevism, singled out by Alexander Dugin. Of course there is. But the national-bolsheviks are different, the national-bolsheviks have a huge number of different opinions. (I myself am a left nazbol)

Interviewer: What are the differences between a left and a right nazbol?

Tim: Hmm, I can later send an article by Alexander Dugin explaining the differences (in fact, this is just a review of one work by a Soviet-Jewish historian who wrote about the NB – Mikhail Agursky) Mainly – in the roots and ideas about the revolution. If right-wing National Bolshevism, whose apologist was Nikolai Ustryalov, considered the ideology of the NB as overcoming Bolshevism and transferring Bolshevik Russia to the old, conservative paths (by the way, it was Stalin who was most cultivated by right-wing national-bolsheviks, if we refer to the article), then the left the national-bolsheviks were supporters of the revolution themselves, they saw in it the renewal of Russia, progress (Leo Trotsky was associated with the left NB, if you refer to the article)

Interviewer: Any advice for comrades inside the west?

Tim: I was waiting for this question! I want to advise Western comrades that they constantly, steadily develop physically and spiritually, intellectually; so that they are not afraid to express their opinion, which may not be accepted by the rest of society; that they should always be sincere with friends, and merciless with their enemies; so that they do not believe when they say that Putin (put any other modern “far-right” politician) is the leader of a conservative, “white-nationalist” movement capable of resisting Globalization; rely only on yourself – and no one else. The future of the free world is yours, go for it!!

N.V. Ustryalov letter to Pyotr.P. Suvchinsky (1926)

Russian version can be found here

Dear P.P. (Unfortunately, I do not know your name and patronymic).

Yesterday I received the books sent by you: “Milestones” (No. 1), “About the Church” by A.S. Khomyakov, “The Legacy of Genghis Khan” by I.R., “Fundamentals of Marxism” by S.L. Frank and “Manning the Red Army” …

Thank you very much for the books. I would like to see in this parcel the beginning of a more regular exchange of books, letters and thoughts between us. For my part, at the same time as this letter, I am sending you my books and reprints of articles published over the years in Harbin: “In the struggle for Russia”, “Under the sign of revolution”, “Russia”, “The political doctrine of Slavophilism” and “On the foundation ethics”, as well as pamphlets by Zinoviev and Bukharin (“Philosophy of the Epoch” and “Caesarism…”) for a proper perspective. It would be interesting to receive your feedback (quite frank, of course) on the position I have taken, especially in Essays on the Philosophy of the Epoch.

For a long time I have been closely looking at Eurasianism. I have read all your collections. I feel a lot in common with them. Having a reputation as a Smenovekhite, I am actually closer to Eurasianism than to the bad memory of European Smenovekhism. Recently, in an article by PB Struve (Vozrozhdenie, October 7) I read that left-wing Eurasianism is identical to “National Bolshevism.” It seems Struve is right to a certain extent.

Yes, National Bolshevism is undoubtedly in contact with Eurasianism. But the difference between us is that fate has made me more of a political publicist than a philosopher of national culture. You Eurasians are far from the immediate and current issues of the day. You forge a great ideology, located far from political battles, bazaars and fuss. You are in exile and are guided at best by tomorrow. And in your own way you are right and doing the right thing.

I had to take a different path. From the very first days of the revolution, having fallen into the very thick of practical politics, I was primarily concerned with the means of political struggle. The “great ideology” was left behind… In political and even newspaper articles, there is always inevitably a lot of “tactics”, joyless but necessary compromises. And only after reading these articles as a whole, as Bukharin and Zinoviev did, can one come across “ideology.” I will also add that I have long been no longer an emigrant, but an “internal Russian intellectual”, although now living abroad.

I return to the Eurasians. Already in the first collection they posed the problem of the Russian revolution with extreme sharpness. Sharp and deep enough. The second and third collections made a lesser impression: as if under the influence of the old generation of teachers and fathers, the “youth” leaned back and was frightened of its own courage. The fourth collection is again more interesting. But still, in a number of shades one can feel the dangerous environment of emigration, isolation from real Russia.

When I came out with the first “conciliatory” articles (“In the Struggle for Russia”), it was also very difficult. I had to rethink and rethink a lot. For a long time I was completely alone. But then I still found both friends and “environment”. Now I am no longer afraid of scolding or praise. And, I confess, if in the politics of the day and the current era I know what I want and have thought out my “system”, then in the field of a large cultural-historical and cultural-philosophical ideology, I still need a lot, a lot of intuition … In some important On points I will probably disagree with Eurasianism. I cannot, for example, accept the entire interpretation of Peter and the entire St. Petersburg period by I.R. (“The legacy of Genghis Khan”). Here the leaven of struvism is strong in me. And, most importantly,

I very much welcome, in particular, some of your (personal) ideas. I am ready to fully join the conclusion (p. 142 “Mile”) of your article “Two Renaissance”. It just seems to me that Eurasianism should clearly and to the end think through and think out the topic of the “new Bolshevik people.” It is on them that you need to focus and, therefore, try to establish a common language with them. That is why it would be bad if Eurasianism became just a school of our neo-Slavophilism and neo-romanticism (Berdyaev, Bulgakov, and others), a new edition of the New Religious Consciousness. Need more flexibility. It is more useful to “transform”, “convert” one member of the Komsomol or a university student than to win the sympathy of a dozen young men from the émigré “patriotic woman”. The Komsomol members do not understand Orthodox esotericism, but Marx’s beard and Bukharin’s dogma are already clearly starting to become boring. But the youth will turn away with bewilderment and laughter from the formulas of your Eurasian maximalism, since they will not be transformed accordingly. She will immediately be frightened off by the epithets with which you reward Bolshevism and the Bolshevik revolution. We need to develop some new approaches, build new bridges. with which you reward Bolshevism and the Bolshevik revolution. 

If you like, let’s try to establish some mutual understanding. My closest friends and I (E.E. Yashnov and N.A. Setnitsky) would like this very much. Having established some mutual understanding, off the record, we could then speak publicly about each other. Under current circumstances, for a number of reasons, it is perhaps more convenient for us to go separately – until the time is right, but it would be good to find a common “setting” and, more importantly, a common goal.

Sincere hello.

Bread and Faith By Nikolay V. Ustryalov

The orginal edition can be found here

“Meal’n’Real!” shouted the Roman crowds. “Bread and faith!” at least at the cost of new types of slavery, – all the peoples of Europe will soon cry.

 – Konstantin Leontiev


Not long ago, in 1930, the well-known Spanish author F. Cambo , while studying modern European dictatorships, came to the conclusion that this painful form of government is the lot of only backward, poorly developed peoples. There are two Europes: one, glorious and enlightened, rushes forward on various kinds of improved engines, the other, devoted to nature more than to civilization, still plods along on an old-world living horse. Take the tables of literacy of the population: in the last place you will find Romania, Russia, Serbia, Italy, Greece, Spain in them. The same countries will take the first places in the tables of mortality percentage. Tables of trade, postage (per capital), etc. confirm your profile: Russia, Turkey, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Poland, Lithuania, Romania, Portugal, Spain, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia invariably flaunt in the last places. All these are states of dictatorships or ghostly constitutionalism. Dictatorship is found in illiterate, poor, predominantly agrarian, roadless countries among the least cultured European peoples. Enlightened countries are freely governed: where there are factories, literacy, chemical fertilizers and ancient universities, there is democracy.

Germany in the tables cited by the author is everywhere listed in the most advantageous places, among the states of the first, advanced Europe: a country of universal literacy, the highest, all-round culture. Therefore, it is quite clear that “the broad mass of the German people has finally assimilated the regime of freedom” and that “Germany does not face the slightest danger of seeing a regime of dictatorship in itself.”

Three years have passed, and what remains of these calculations and forecasts? Events in Germany have amply refuted superficial rationalistic ideas about the sources of modern dictatorship. In particular, I think, the bacchanalia of racist pogroms should now wean the Europeans from the arrogant habit of attributing the excesses of the Russian revolution to “impenetrable Russian lack of culture.” No, the point here, apparently, is not backwardness and lack of culture, but something completely different. “Democracy is the regime of peoples of full age” – said the school truth of the old state law. After the German incident with Hitler, this truth should be reconsidered: it is hardly possible to deny the German people the age of majority.

What’s the matter? Judging by many signs, it is a matter of a serious and deep general crisis that has befallen “civilized mankind” in our era. The shaking of minds and hearts testifies to the exhaustion of a certain system of life and thought that has dominated until now. The passionate and selfless appeal of these minds and hearts to authority, to enterprising, strong and courageous power, reveals the ability and willingness of people to accept some new system, more suitable, more appropriate to the conditions and needs of our time. The will to faith, to creative love, to order, to work and obedience has not dried up in humanity. The question is in the specific organization, the embodiment of this will and its objects.

Our time is the era of “a thousand crises” ( Spann ). State scholars talk about a state-political crisis, economists about an economic one, philosophers about a crisis of culture. Within each of these three areas, the critical states of individual historical complexes and specific ideas are constructed and discussed. They talk about the twilight of individualism, humanism, democracy, capitalism, Marxism, the idea of ​​progress, etc., you can’t count everything. The question is also raised about the crisis of Christianity, the cultural and historical basis of our civilization.

In these conditions of universal crossroads and disturbing vibrations of the soil, the thirst for an anchor grows stronger, the longing for a worldview. The legal state of freedom and self-determination of the individual with its noble formalism is not suitable, “does not sound” in such times: instead of bread and faith, it offers a stone of boundless choice. It is neither cold nor hot, it rubbed. It is an organized doubt , and people demand saving evidence. And a characteristic feature of modern dictatorships, facing the youth, is their ” ideocraticpathos. They carry or, at least, want to carry a holistic worldview, a system of complete dogma, and the selection of the ruling layer in them takes place precisely on a worldview ideological basis. “Give me direct answers to damned questions!” – the new person demands, and the state of the new man hurries to fulfill this demand, it seeks to proclaim and put into practice a certain idea, which it considers true, worthy, righteous, and in the spirit of this concrete, positive idea strengthens itself and forms its citizens. knights in the ruling party, certainly “one and only” in the state. Its members, stepping over formal freedom, find freedom – in their favorite idea: they know their truth, and the truth makes them free.They are mutually bound by a common faith and a vow of fidelity: this is a party-order, a militant church of an idea.

Hence the cruel, harsh, selfless intolerance of ideocratic states: human faith is burning and human love is jealous. As if history is again ruled by passionate ideas embodied in flesh and blood, as if history again is their helpless, fatal competition in the face of the whole and final, true Idea given to humanity and comprehended by it “in infinity”. As if old Hegel was right: world history is a world court…

The intolerance and cruelty of ideocracies , fascinated by their one-sided truths, their imaginary evidence, makes us remember the barbaric times. It is no coincidence that the current dictators are the offspring of the stirred up elements raised by the Acherontes . A well-aimed prophecy about “internal barbarians” who will pour into modern society not from the outside, but from its own bowels, is coming true. A general change of elites is taking place through a general uprising of the masses, a change of large cultural and social systems through a cycle of great upheavals.

Such processes are always extremely complex. They are least of all amenable to any general, summary assessment; labels, labels bounce off them as soon as you approach them without the preconceived notions of a practical-political struggle. They mix diverse trends; it can be said that destruction, lies, and death are closely intertwined with creativity, truth, and life. They are motley, striped, they are multicolored, like the dawn. They are “dialectical” to the fullest.

Faith requires dogma , and love creates its object (or “sees through its ideal essence”). The rebellion of the elements is internally exhausted when its sources are realized, its motives are fixed, its energy is assimilated. The will becomes – an idea, the impulse turns – into a system, the revolution turns into a state. The aspirations of the crowds are fixed – by the program of the authorities. Then the meaning of what is happening is more clearly indicated.

The characteristic offspring of our epoch are both ideocracies , brought to life by the movements of the masses: the Bolshevik and the fascist. Both of them, first of all, are a symptom of the disease, of that huge socio-historical phenomenon that is called “capitalism”, the bourgeois-capitalist system. Of course, any such notation is necessarily approximate and schematic. But it’s hard to do without it.

It is rightly asserted that the modern “capitalist” economy, which has lost its automatism and its autonomy, bears little resemblance to the “capitalist” economy of the last century. Evolution is constantly taking place within the system. And yet, recognizing the schematic, conditional nature of such characteristics, one can speak of the beginning of degeneration, of the “decline of the bourgeois-capitalist era”, the fundamental feature of which was precisely the “holy spirit of free economy” and the principle of “sacred private property”. The world is now going through a phase of “late”, bound, “organized” capitalism. The halo of “sacredness” flies off the bourgeois institutions, and this means that they are in danger. It is no coincidence that there is an ebb of selective human material “from the economy to the state.” System evolution, having reached a certain point, it overturns, destroys this system, displaces its fundamental installation. As if history is not far from this critical point in relation to the “categories of the 19th century.” In different ways and different gaits, reform and revolution, peaceful conspiracies and outbreaks of wars, evolution of democracies and establishment of dictatorships, change of institutions and changes in souls – in different ways the “old world” gives way to the “new”.

All three demotic-ideocratic dictatorships in Europe came into being in the heavy spasms of the existing social system. The world war gave birth to the Russian revolution and the Soviet state. The Treaty of Versailles gave birth to Italian fascism. And the current world crisis turned out to be the legitimate father of German National Socialism. People’s revolutions are inspired by disasters and crowned by dictatorships. And, of course, J. de Maistre is right : a revolution is not only an event; this is an era.

The most radical and majestic revolutionary theme sounds, of course, in Bolshevism. The Russian revolution was destined, with hitherto unheard-of effective sharpness, to oppose the old values of capitalism and nationalism with new world-historical principles: the socialist system and the international. At the same time, it is precisely this that is an attempt at a consistent and irreconcilably revolutionary solution of the basic social problems of our time on the basis of the class struggle, which has been turned into an idea, a dogma, a myth. The Russian experience, throughout its dramatic history, reveals the positive and negative aspects of this radical, extremist path. By its harsh solidity, fearless Jacobin determination, reckless strong-willed emphasis, the Soviet ideocracy It seems, undoubtedly, the most significant and significant phenomenon of our era. Behind the materialistic appearance of its leading idea lies a complex, material, spiritually intense depth of life impulse. Chaadaev comes to mind: we are called to give the world some important lesson.

Fascism and related National Socialism, like Bolshevism, arose on the basis of mass movements, owe their victory to the elements and are oriented to the younger generation par excellence. You can’t look at them as random episodes, just fleeting misunderstandings. They are provided with sufficiently deep roots, and if there is something painful, ugly in them, then this is already the “guilt” of the era that gave birth to them and is reflected in them. Blind is he who does not see their vices, but deaf is he who does not hear the historical wind that rustles in them, the “spirit of music” that sounds in them. The impulse of life spurts into them too, despite all the flaws in their political façade, with all the intoxicating motley of their outer shell, their marketplace day-to-day slogans. And behind them – the surf of a new feeling of life , the dull hum of the emerging world.

The so-called “crisis of democracy”, caused by the general ill-being of bourgeois society and fueled by the disintegration of liberal and mechanistic thought, has a two-sided social nature. On the one hand, the ruling stratum is disappointed in democracy: in difficult times it does not always and everywhere prove to be a convenient and reliable support in the struggle against social revolutionary upheavals. On the other hand, the broad masses cease to appreciate it: here and there they come to the conclusion that it does not provide them with either bread or faith. Kelsen called modern democracy “a system of political relativism.” Pareto saw in it a “demagogic plutocracy.” Relativism is not capable of giving people faith. The plutocracy will not give them bread. There are reasons to assert that if modern democracies continue to be the same as they are now, they will perish from the moral and political malaria that is shaking them before our eyes. They are strongest now in the Anglo-Saxon world with its primordial individualism and enviable plasticity. Will the Pisa bell tower of British statehood retain its style this time as well?

The bilateral nature of fascism largely determines its political essence. Both sides fill it with their own intentions and feed their hopes on it. Contradictory and mezheumochny – it becomes a document of the ailments of the old world and the will to live of the new. A way, a symbol of the transitional time.

In the sense of its “pure” ideology, fascism strives to become an organic and relatively “peaceful” means of a great social transformation. He wants to gradually, taking into account stubborn economic realities, to transfer society to new tracks – from automatic to planned economy, from free competition to organized cooperation, – “from capitalism to socialism.”He wants to maintain, as it were, a kind of “middle line”, to carry out, in the words of Proudhon, “mutual plagiarism between capitalism and communism.” From here he allows coexistence, a combination of different economic tendencies, using a strong and, as he believes, independent state power to direct the process towards the desired goal. At the same time, by switching the energies of social struggle into a burst of national unity, he is trying to save society in this way from civil war and catastrophe.

It is quite obvious that the old ruling classes wanted and want to use the fascist revolutions in their own interests. So far, they have mostly succeeded in this: they have both the means of production and the distribution system in their hands. But the last word has not yet been said here. First, these “ruling classes” themselves are already on the descending line of their historical development. Secondly, fascism is a crafty, ambiguous weapon capable of turning against those who are trying to master it. It is possible that he is still fraught with curious surprises. It is not for nothing that the leading forces of capitalism treat him with such cautious suspicion: there are two souls in him.

Russian Bolshevism is characterized by the desire to speed up, whip up the course of history (” we ‘ll drive history to hell!”). He stubbornly adheres to the rule that one can serve one’s time only by being ahead of it . Imbued with his revolutionary socialist voluntarism, he is not embarrassed by the relative vitality of the bourgeois-capitalist elements of modern society and firmly takes a course towards the immediate transition of this society to socialism. Hence, Soviet policy has to run into painful obstacles, the most stubbornresistance of social materials that are not prepared for the task that is assigned to them. And the redemptive sacrifices of the struggle against the inertia of time multiply, the old world breaks through the front here and there, and the doctrine, in words denying faith in the name of bread, in reality often sacrifices bread in the name of faith. “You can go either forward or backward,” and Bolshevism is all – in moving forward, all in its idea, in its faith, called upon not to bargain with reality, but to remake it at all costs. And moving forward is bought at a high price . But progress is undeniable

Fascism consciously chooses a different path, desiring to soberly take into account the hierarchy of neighborhoods and the logic of realities. “We do not hopelessly cling to the old, like the last straw, but we also do not rush headlong into the seductive mirages of the future,” says Mussolini. It sounds bad in words, but in reality it turns out much worse. If Bolshevism, in its global claims, faces the danger of breaking away from the inexhaustible social reality of yesterday and today, then fascism runs the risk of finding itself in its captivity. If the Bolshevik pan-revolutionary concept is threatened by the difficulties of maximalism, then the fascist one can easily turn into opportunism in the odious sense of the word. Bolshevism is heroic in its transformative impulse, intoxicated with the future and “progressive” in its social goals. The passionate will of fascism is exhausted on the paths of compromise and splits between yesterday and tomorrow. The strong power of the fascist state, for all its “totalitarianism”, is in danger of losing touch with the idea that it undertook to serve. Thus history follows different paths, and each great path knows its advantages and its vices. History is the dialectic of all these paths. Each of them is tested by life, tested by spirit, fire and iron. Their syntheses are the fruit of an organic struggle, and not of rational calculations and conclusions.

Mussolini told his followers in 1924:

“We had the good fortune to live through two great historical experiences: Russian and Italian. Try to study whether it is possible to extract a synthesis from them. synthesis of political life?”

It is difficult to deny the reasonableness of this remark, which so advantageously distinguishes the Italian dictator from Hitler with his truly “corporal” philosophy of the Russian revolution. And yet one has to doubt the effectiveness of Mussolini’s recipe, if one understands his words as a recipe. Perhaps now it is really impossible not to take into account the problem of a parallel, two-sided process – the “Bolshevization of fascism and the fascistization of Bolshevism.” But it would be naive to count on the peaceful nature of this process and its evolutionary, painless assurance. Unfortunately, historical dialectics achieves great syntheses not by the method of conscious comparisons and reconciling combinations of ideas-forces, but by their competitions, life, and death. Only then and only then will fruitful organic syntheses arise, and not meager and miserable mechanical compromises. Obviously, only in this “dialectical” sense can we talk about the future “synthesis” of Bolshevism and fascism.

Both systems – both Bolshevism and Fascism – are ” barbaric ” adventurous, asserting themselves not only by persuasion, but also by coercion, force, violence. This, as we have seen, is in the order of things of our time, in the spirit of the transitional epoch. But, of course, not their form, but their inner content, the essence of their ideas and deeds, will determine the place of both in history. Violence is powerless to save a dying idea, but it can render an invaluable service to an ascending idea.

Bolshevism is fundamentally internationalist , and in this respect, undoubtedly, it is in tune with the great “universal” idea of the coming historical period. Fascism is defiantly chauvinistic , and in this capacity it is ” reactionary “, it belongs to the era of the outgoing. In the very combination of “nationalism” and “socialism” lies a contradiction, though very vital in terms of today’s historical day, when even the Bolsheviks are forced to “build socialism in one country,” but which must be overcome on the scale of the epoch. Humanity is now sick and suffocating from political and economic ultra-nationalism . The national idea is alive and will live for a long time, but those forms of its embodiment, which are defended by fascism, internally dilapidated, for all their historical vitality, are no longer compatible either with technology or with the economy of our time, fraught with universalism. In this respect, the consciousness of peoples seems to lag behind the existence of mankind, and fascism, deifying the nation, is full of a lagging consciousness, and not a being running forward. “The current orgy of nationalistic passions,” Thomas Mann aptly writes about it, “is nothing more than a late flash of a fire that has already burned out, the last flash that mistakenly considers itself a new flame of life.”

It is enough to read at least Hitler’s “political testament” to see this clearly. It is the language of the past, entirely woven from the categories of Machiavelli and Bodin , Palmerston and Bismarck. After the great war, even statesmen cease to speak such a language. Perhaps there is some advantage of sincerity in him over the pacifist formulas of the League of Nations. But there is not in it a grain of a new world, tomorrow of history.

As regards the sphere of social politics, here, too, the differences between the two ideocratic systems are striking. Bolshevism is revolutionary not only in words but also in deeds. Albeit at a high price , – but, undoubtedly, it opens up a panorama of a truly new era. The former ruling classes of Russia have been crushed by him both politically and economically. The means of production are fully state -owned ; etatized and trade. Capitalism is seriously overthrown in the state of soviets, and thus the moral and political postulate of a new “classless” society receives real economic support in this state. At the same time, real prerequisites for a planned economy are also being created. The question is a big one! – in the ability to organize this economy, in the selection, in training, in the alteration of people and the transformation of economic incentives.

Fascism organizes its economic foundation in a fundamentally different way . He rebuilds the form of the old state, but is careful not to change its socio-economic essence anew. He announces the reorganization of capitalism, but hitherto retains intact the basic institutions of the capitalist economy. His economic policy is cautious and shuns revolutionary upheavals; this, if you like, is her dignity, but this is also the source of his vices. The fascist slogan of “cooperation between classes” is not new: it is well known to the bourgeois democratic state and is not sufficient in itself to radically save society from interclass antagonisms. To “tame” classes, to conjure their self-interest, their egoism with the power of the idea – an honorable, but completely exceptionaltask difficulty. It must be noted that Bolshevism, in its attempt to destroy the very sources of class contradictions, is incomparably more effective and consistent in its anti-class orientation. In the same way, the planned economy, which after the Soviet five-year plan is so keenly interested in the bourgeois states, is hardly capable of fully triumphing without the nationalization of the means of production and the destruction of the independent financial and economic strength of the bourgeoisie. The fascist principle of an active and omnipotent state is embodied to a much greater extent in the USSR than in Italy or Germany.

Yet it would be a mistake to deny that Mussolini’s corporate state is an instructive experience dictated by the prevailing historical situation. In it one can hear both the spontaneous onslaught of the masses, combined with the maneuvers of the capitalists, and the genuine upsurge of national feeling, and the lively work of modern social thought, looking for such ways of transition to a new order that would save the European peoples from the explosion of the communist revolution: in Europe, say the enlightened Europeans – this explosion would be immeasurably more amazing and destructive than in peasant and ” untraditional ” Russia.Hence the tireless efforts to create an atmosphere of “order and trust” in the state, to raise the authority of the authorities, to instill in the bourgeoisie the dogma of “functional property” and to the whole people the idea of ​​social service, to organize in the present society a super -class national arbitration of the state, not only leading politics, but also controlling the economy and shepherding people’s souls. A number of objective signs testify that these efforts have brought tangible results in today’s Italy.

But at the same time, one cannot fail to recognize that the significance of the Italian experience is tempered by the relative modesty of Italy’s world position and the uniqueness of its social structure. Much more complicated and disturbing for fascism, but on the other hand, more indicative of its nature, the situation is in Germany, where Hitler, already losing the charm of demagogic novelty, twists and turns between the powerful power of monopoly capital and the diverse pressure of his motley masses. There are more and more grounds for asserting that present-day German National Socialism threatens to turn out to be a pseudomorphosis.

Be that as it may, the ideocratic revolutions of our era must be viewed and evaluated in the light of world-historical. Their significance transcends the political judgments and assessments of today. At the turn of the eras, peoples are excited by passionate ideas, myths, calling for action and struggle. Here the new is born in pain, there the dead grabs the living. Here and there, the fires of various ideas and values are lit, intertwined with living feelings, saturated with vital interests. These separate, partial, often poor, sometimes naive, inevitably flawed and false in their flawedness, but at the same time creative ideas and values, assert themselves, dialectically displace each other, each claim to be complete and wholly true, disappear in syntheses to again arise in a new way at different stages of development. Man is wrong as long as he strives. But the mistakes of searching are the rays of the clever sun of truth and goodness, they shine – the highest destination, the lofty destiny of man. Thus, in the “fatal moments” of this world, a panorama of history, a landscape of catastrophic progress, awaits in all its unique concreteness and inescapable inconsistency…

Faith and love move life above all. There are pauses, intermezzos in time and space. But truly creative, inspired epochs are always epochs of faith and love.

“The unbelieving 18th century,” Carlyle once wrote , “ is in the end an exceptional phenomenon, which happens in general from time to time in history. I predict that the world will once again become a sincere, believing world, that there will be many heroes in it, that it will be a heroic world! Then it will become a victorious world. Only then and under such conditions.”

Probably Carlyle is not quite right about the 18th century: and he knew his faith and his love, passionate ideas trembled in him too. But isn’t the very thought of a believing and heroic world not sharp-sighted, objective? You involuntarily think about it these days.

The peoples yearn for bread: the world economic crisis. But this crisis is not a caprice of irresistible superhuman forces, not the callous ferocity of nature or the fruit of an accidental disaster. No, it is the result of the disease of man himself, peoples, humanity, losing vital contact, living connection with the economy. This is a crisis of organization, a crisis of power, a crisis of trust. In the end, this is a crisis of faith, worldview.

And the people feel it. And they are seized with greedy quests, prophetic convulsions, obsessed with passionate ideas. In an atmosphere of vacillation, misfortune and decline, at the crossroads of epochs, we are convinced that the stock of creative passion invested in humanity is far from exhausted. One can speak of an unhappy and dead-ended world, but at the same time one can also speak of a “believing and heroic world”!


The final chapter of the book “German National Socialism” (1933), revised and supplemented before the printing of this book.

F.cambo . “Les dictatures “, 1930, p . 29-46.

“The state, conscious of its mission and representing the people in its development, continuously transforms this people, even physically,” says Mussolini. “The state must say great things to its people . To put forward great ideas and problems, and not engage only in ordinary affairs of government” ( speech in the Chamber of Deputies on May 13, 1929).

One involuntarily wants to quote the well-known words of A. Blok: “The barbarian masses turn out to be the guardians of culture, owning nothing but the spirit of music, in those eras when a civilization that has lost its wings and has ceased to sound becomes an enemy of culture, despite the fact that it has all the factors of progress at its disposal – science, technology, law, etc. Civilization is dying, a new movement is born, growing from the same musical element, and this movement is already distinguished by new features, it is not like the previous ones “(article” The collapse of humanism “, 1919).

It must be resolutely emphasized that the anatomy of nationalism and universalism is the most vital, the most substantive in our day. One might get the impression that nationalist intuition is organic, grounded , while internationalism is nothing more than a construction, an abstraction, a mechanical scheme. For this historical moment, such an impression is natural. But you shouldn’t give in to it. A scheme, an abstraction, a plan, a project can become heralds of new “organisms”.

The world unification of peoples is now quite clearly and completely “positively” hurting history; such are the results of the “organic” development of science, technology, and economics. The next historical stage draws “a national whole on national foundations.” Mankind organically approaches the problem of universality . But its subject matter is opposed by “organic” strivings of a different order and of tremendous intensity. “Organism” does not mean continuity and peace. Organism allows both discontinuity and antinomies (complex organisms). The body is a unity of opposites. This huge philosophical and philosophical-historical topic is becoming one of the main ones in our time. Here we can only state it.

Reconsidering Part 2 on Russell Kirk


It’s no surprise to most of my readers that the American mainstream right and to some degrees even the dissident right is intellectually bankrupt. Having no understanding of the intellectual history of the right. With many of these people believing that politicians, news commentators, and internet political celebrities are the true brains behind these groups, when this is hardly the case in fact all 3 of these groups usually embodies and espouses the worse elements of the right such as anti-intellectualism, outlandish conspiracy theories like Q anon, lacking any critiques on capitalism and American foreign policy. Not to mention many of them have loyalties to the Republican party even after harshly attacking the party for failing to preserve anything. This is not to say the left is any better, in some ways their worse but is to say that the right or dissident right has a long way to go before it can truly get off the ground and create serious change. 

Ever since I started this blog, I’ve believed that the first step in the right direction is for the right to learn who their intellectuals are. Of course, not everyone is going to read these thinkers, but they should at least know who they are and why they are important. This leads us to ask where should we start? I believe we should start with a native-born thinker to America. Someone who is not too radical nor too moderate nor to foreign. Someone who has influences the moderate right and dissident right. A thinker who does not hold modern right-wing dogmas about capitalism, or the Republican party. The thinker I am talking about is none other than Russell Kirk, one of the intellectual founders of post-World War 2 American Conservatism.

Now of course there is a lot of things to criticize about Russell Kirk that will be discussed here. At the same time however, Kirk gives us valuable insight on past right-wing thinkers and give us basic set of principles that we should always keep in mind when it comes to not only political goals but even to live our own lives. Another valuable aspect of Kirk is how his Conservatism is different from that of Modern American Conservatism and how it lost many of Kirks valuable insights about the world. The objective of this article is to be critical of Russell Kirk but at the same showing the value in Kirk ideas and to use his ideas to break the modern conservative dogmas that has infected right wing thought.  

What is Conservatism to Kirk?

To Russell Kirk Conservatism was not a set of government policies or even ideology for that matter. To Kirk it was a set of principles that could be applied to any system whether it be a democratic, aristocratic, authoritarian, libertarian, etc.  To quote Kirk on the matter

“Perhaps it would be well, most of the time, to use this word conservative” as an adjective chiefly. For there exists no Model Conservative, and conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order. The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.”

Kirk does give 10 basic principles that conservatives tend to believe in.

1. that the individual and society needs a moral order for oneself and society to function properly. In other words, individuals and society needs to have a strong convention of what is right and wrong. These moral orders can be religious but not always.

2. the conservative is a strong believer in customs, conventions, and continuity because customs are what allows people to live together peacefully and harmony with one another. when these old customs are destroyed it takes a long time to build new ones. Continuity to Kirk means linking of generation to generation which helps to link society together.

3. the principle of prescription. Prescription to conservatives is the belief that where we are today is because of our ancestors and that there is a lot to learn from the past.  To quote kirk again “Therefore conservatives very often emphasize the importance of prescription—that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary. There exist rights of which the chief sanction is their antiquity—including rights to property, often. Similarly, our morals are prescriptive in great part. Conservatives argue that we are unlikely, we moderns, to make any brave new discoveries in morals or politics or taste. It is perilous to weigh every passing issue on the basis of private judgment and private rationality. The individual is foolish, but the species is wise, Burke declared. In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality.”

4.  The principle of prudence. Any policy or public or personal measure should be judged by its long term consequences not by its popularity or short successes. The conservative believes for real positive change to happen is after reflection and weighting the consequences. Not enacting change in a hurry or fast but rather slow and steady change.

5.  The principle of variety.  A strong admiration for older institutions and modes of life against radical equalitarianism and radical systems. In other words, society needs to have a diversity of classes, hierarchies, and institutions to not have stagnations. When it comes to equality Kirk states “The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at levelling must lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society requires honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality.”

6.  The principle of imperfections. To conservatives and Kirk man will always be imperfect and will never reach a paradise on earth. This is not to say that we cannot improve are order or society but rather to say to not expect things to be perfect. Along with being weary of idealogues who say the world can and will be perfect because they will usually create greater errors.

7.  Freedom and property are closely linked. The more that property is widespread, the more stable and productive society is. Property can also teach men and women responsibility and integrity. An economic base around the family and commonwealth is much desired to conservatives like Kirk.

8. Conservatives are strong believers in local community but it most voluntary and not forced.

9. Conservatives believes there is need to be restraint on power and centralization. Power needs to be limited and balanced.  Constitutional restrictions and enforcement of these laws are needed.

10. The understands that change and social improvement is needed, and change is not inherently bad. At the same time the conservative does not believe in the progress of history or that we will ever be perfect.  To the conservative not everything new is inherently better than the old.

This is the basic run down of Kirk conservative 10 principles. Not all conservative follows all these principles as Kirk notes, but they do follow many of them. Now we can go onto other aspects of Kirks own brand of Conservatism and some of Kirks own intellectual influences. Kirk was not economist or state crafter, and like stated earlier he did not see conservatism as an ideology but rather a state of mind and principles.  Kirk did give some basic ideas on what he wanted, or thought was a tolerable society to live in.

Kirk was influences by ideas of classical liberalism and republicanism that the United States was founded on. Unlike modern liberals however, Kirk emphasizes responsibility comes first before freedom and was critical of industrialization for its centralization of property, creation of oligarchies that can lead to corporations to be as tyrannical as centralize authoritarian governments. Leaving the masses to have no control of their lives or labor. Industrialization was also to Kirk led to the destruction of local community, traditions, and family way of life. Along with Industrial Capitalism promotion of consumer culture, and destruction of nature. He even described the industrial city of Flint Michigan as “one of the most grim and hideous towns in the whole world.” Kirk even went as far to say that industrialism “turned the world inside out. Personal loyalties gave way to financial relationships….Industrialism was a harder knock to conservatism than the books of the French equalitarians.” Kirk was in many ways was a Disturbitist and localist like G.K Chesterton. Who Kirk admired and wrote about in the Conservative Mind and in a few articles. In the Conservative Mind Kirk wrote “Distributism however involved with individual fallacies, offered more of an answer to the ills of modern life than did the pensions and doles of the Conservative and Liberal and Labour parties” Kirk believed that the economy should be localized and based around the family, church, guild, and union, just like many of the distrubutist intellectuals.

  Kirk was also very sympathetic to Agrarianism and the Agrarian way of life over the industrial city. Taking heavy influence from a southern intellectual circle called the Southern Agrarians. Kirk even called himself a Northern Agrarian as Historian Allan Carlson has pointed out. Kirk lived in the rural areas of Michigan where he would garden and planet trees. Kirk was also very critical of technology for similar reasons for being critical of industrialism. In fact, according to historian Paul Gottfried, Kirk had a vicious hatred for television and technology. When Kirk’s daughter found a portable, he threw it out of their attic window.

Kirk was critical of both capitalist and socialist theorist for being dogmatic and thinking that all problems can be solved slowly by economic changes. Kirk was critical of all ideological dogmas and consider ideology in general to be a downgrade of religion. Along with being very critical of revolution and radical change seeing both to leading to worse evils.  

 Kirk did vote for republicans at times such as Berry Goldwater and Pat Buchanan but in the 70s Kirk voted for Democratic Eugene McCarty and in 1944 voted for his friend Norman Thomas of the American Socialist Party for being anti-war. Kirk did favor America involvement in the Vietnam war but in his earlier and later life was increasingly critical of American foreign policy. Being very critical of George H. Bush for the Gulf War.   

If one couldn’t already tell Kirk, in many ways was not the average American Conservative, not then and not now. Taking a variety of different influences from anti-capitalist Agrarians and Localist like Richard Weaver, Donald Davidson, and G. K Chesterton. Capitalist and libertarian thinkers like Albert Jay Nock, and Murray Rothbard. Along with many others such as Edmund Burke, Brooks Adams, Alexander Hamilton, John Q. Adams, Irving Babbitt, Benjamin Disraeli, and many others.

Relations with National Review and the American Conservative Movement.

Russell Kirk had a complicated history with the American Conservative Movement. Many in the conservative sphere saw Kirk as one of the many intellectuals to help revive Conservatism post World War 2, with his book The Conservative Mind that showed there was an intellectual conservative tradition that existed in America. Along with helping to establish the editorial magazine National Review with William F. Buckley and the Modern Age Magazine. Last one being describe by Conservative Historian George H. Nash as being “the principal quarterly of the intellectual right.”  Kirk would also give lectures at the Heritage Foundation.

With that said Kirk always tried to keep his distance from the National Review strand of conservativism. According to Historian George H. Nash, Russell Kirk told William F. Buckley to take his name off the National Review masthead, not wanting to be seen as responsible for what other writers in the journal wrote. Kirk was also not comfortable with Conservative Libertarian intellectual Frank Meyer, who constantly attacked Kirk and even said that Kirk was not a real conservative. Kirk believed that Meyer was trying to marginalize his influence in the movement. Kirk was also very critical of Meyer Fusionism which combined conservatism with libertarianism, which Kirk saw as contradictory and naïve. Writing several articles attacking this brand of conservatism most notably “Libertarians A Chirping Sectaries.” As time went on however Meyer would try to include Kirk more on Conservative events despite the two still holding major disagreements with each other.

Kirk would also become very critical of neo conservatives for their foreign policy, going on to say that many Neo Conservatives mistook Tel Aviv for being capitol of the United States. Which cause many neo conservatives to accuse Kirk of being an ant-semitic. Kirk also was very critical of the Gulf War and the ever increasing globalize nature of the United States. Kirk would end up siding with Pat Buchanan and the Palo Conservatives against the Neo Conservatives despite never calling himself a Palo Conservative. This endeavor like Kirk endeavor against Meyer Fusionism failed. With Bush being elected president, along with both Fusionist and Neo Conservatives still having sizeable control over the Republican. With this control only be somewhat contested with more populist elements of the right coming to power in  2016, over two decades after Russell Kirk death, who died in 1994.

     Critiques and Conclusion

Of course, like all intellectuals, Kirk ideas and thoughts have many problems. Kirk stance against revolution cannot be compatible today with the right, due to the current liberal regime being nothing more than a giant consumerist oligarchy that has no respect for tradition or order in anyway. A radical change is needed for society to get off this declining track. Kirk agrarianism and anti-technological stances maybe in some way noble but modern society is too integrated with modern technology for us to ever go back to an agrarian society. Not to mention we would be throwing out many positive aspects of technology too like plumbing and computers.

Kirk admiration for the American constitution is also unhelpful to us because of how the constitution has done little to stop the expansion of government and corporate managerialism. Not to mention how the constitution has been used as force against traditional institutions like the family by legalizing pornography, abortion, and gay marriage just to name a few. Kirk did acknowledge how private companies could be a destructive oligarchic and anti-traditional force, but many times spent more effort on attacking big government, not realizing government is a lot more mailable and can be a force for conservative cause. While the corporation will always seek what is profitable first, not what is inherently good.

Kirk also did not create or write about government and economic policy other than a few basic ideas. This allowed others like Frank Meyer and Irving Kristol to overcome Kirk ideas and to infest American Conservatism with Capitalist dogmatism and internationalism. Two things Kirk distasted.

While Kirk is correct that libertarian capitalism is incompatible with conservatism, Kirk is wrong to believe that socialism and conservatism are not compatible. While Kirk is correct that conservatives should not be economic dogmatist, we should not dismiss the many conservative elements within socialism or how some socialist took social conservative directions like Nicaragua and National Communist Romania. Even though Kirk may still dismiss these countries for their authoritarianism we cannot deny the conservative elements, nor can we say that all forms of socialism are authoritarian or anti conservative. As American historian Christopher Lasch notes in his article “Conservatism Against Itself” about the conservative elements of the Guild Socialist and Syndicalist movements, quote “Syndicalists and guild socialists saw that slavery, not poverty, was the real issue, as G. D. H. Cole put it. They saw that the reduction of labor to a commodity—the essence of capitalism—required the elimination of all the social bonds that prevented the free circulation of labor. The destruction of the medieval guilds, the replacement of local government by a centralized bureaucracy, the weakening of family ties, and the emancipation of women amounted to “successive steps in the . . . cheapening of the raw material of labor,” all achieved under the “watchword” of progress. Whereas Marxists accepted the collectivizing logic of capitalism and proposed simply to collectivize production more thoroughly, syndicalists, populists, and guild socialists condemned modern capitalism for profoundly conservative reasons—because it required (in the words of A. R. Orage, editor of New Age) the “progressive shattering to atoms of our social system.” It also should be noted that Conservative thinker James Burnham came to similar conclusion in his book The Machiavellians where he said that mass property was not the only way to preserve freedom but syndicalism as well. Oddly enough Kirk in the Conservative Mind briefly mention a Conservative Trade Unionist thinker Frank Tannenbuam, who believed that Trade Unionism was the greatest conservative force of the age. All be it this probably because Tannenbuam believe that this would become more like a guild system, which like stated earlier Kirk had sympathies for.

While Kirk has many problems at the same time If the Liberal system took some of Kirk’s principles seriously such as a need for a moral order and the imperfection of man, then they would not be facing the problems were facing right now. If they took the idea of a moral order seriously instead of believing liberty is everything, we would not have a decline in social cohesion. If the Liberals had not deluded themselves into thinking that Liberalism is the best form of government and nothing can top it, then liberals would not have had the geopolitical failures in Afghanistan and probably could of recognize that America is in decline.

Kirk’s Ten Principles can be used as principles to remember when governing. To remember the importance of order, not delude oneself on fantasies of utopia and progress. To remember policies and actions should be measure on long term affects. These principles should always be remembered. This is not the only thing that Kirk has to offer Kirk book the Conservative Mind shows that the American/Anglo Conservative tradition is not inherently capitalistic by going over many of the anti-capitalist thinkers of conservatism such as George Santayana, Brooks Adams, G.K Chesterton, and Frank Tannenbuam. Not to mention many of Kirk criticism of capitalism and industrialism are also worth reading and can be away to help break the American Right support of capitalism. Kirk belief that the economy should be based around family and community is also admirable and should be basis of all economic policy.

Kirk did not just write political books; he also wrote horror and science fiction books.  Kirk expressed the need for imagination, that formulas cannot win the war on its own, but myths and stories are also needed. The American Right needs to regain not only its intellectual knowledge but its imagination to influence society and change it for the better. The first steps in this direction can be through Russell Kirk.

                                              Work Cited

The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk

The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America by George H. Nash

Ten Conservative Principles by Russell Kirk Ten Conservative Principles | The Russell Kirk Center

The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham James Burnham – The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom (Full Audiobook) – YouTube

Conservatism Against Itself by Christopher Lasch Conservatism Against Itself by Christopher Lasch | Articles | First Things

Russell Kirk: “Northern” Agrarianism and the Function-Rich Family by Allan Carlson  Russell Kirk: “Northern” Agrarianism and the Function-Rich Family ~ The Imaginative Conservative

Russell Kirk and the Swords of Imagination by Darrin Moore Russell Kirk and the Swords of Imagination ~ The Imaginative Conservative

Encounters: My Life with Nixon, Marcuse, and Other Friends and Teachers

Good Websites That Publish Articles by Russell Kirk

Russell Kirk, Author at The Imaginative Conservative

The Russell Kirk Center | Cultural Renewal

The Bonnot Gang and Individual Freedom

I recently just finished Richard Parry’s book called the Bonnot Gang. The book is of course about the Bonnot gang which was a French anarchist group that robbed banks. The type of anarchism that the group believed in is called illegalism. An ideology that calls for direct action against the state and commenting crimes as not only a means of combating the state but also to please ones own personal desires. Illegalism and the Bonnot gang took heavy influence from German anarchist thinker Max Stirner whose own ideology Egoism espouses very similar ideas on how the individual should do whatever he or she wants to fulfill his or her own personal desires.

Illegalism and Egoism are anti-societal ideas due to both putting the individual own will and desires above everything else like class, nation, family, and religion. Egoism and his son illegalism would agree with this statement after all society and institutions in general always goes up against individuals doing whatever they want to do. Society and institutions require rules, regulation, boundaries and most importantly a moral order that binds society together in common values and understandings that makes societies cohesive and to function properly.

Individuals on their own cannot achieve great things but as collective they can achieve many great things. All of man’s great achievements have happen because of a collective moral discipline. Nothing is achieved by individual will and desire alone. Of course, personal will and desire to play their roles but also discipline and responsibility to themselves and those around them do as well. Along with an authority who directs the project. We cannot build great things if there is not any authority or morale cohesion on what is right and wrong or the common good. The radical individual freedom that illegalism and egoism espouses would lead into conflicts with everyone because everyone would have their own personal morality that conflicts with everyone else. If such an event where to happen it would not last long. People naturally yarn for a sense of belonging and cohesion so would naturally give up certain ideas and take on some responsibilities to be a part of the group. Not to mention force and violence has also been a major way to bind people together out of fear of being destroyed. Violence isn’t against both ideologies either. After all the Bonnot gang used force to get money from the banks they robbed. Not to mention Max Stirner justified stealing, an act that does at times require physical force. In other words, egoism and illegalism could not work on a mass scale.

Another major aspect of illegalism is it calls for individual direct action against the state and all other organizations of society for max individual freedom. If all these organizations were to be destroyed history has shown that other organizations and institutions would take the place of the old or the old institutions would slowly rebuild themselves, if nothing new where to come along. Individual violence cannot destroy a state or institution only another collective organization can like history has shown. Whether it be the French revolutionaries replacing the monarchy or American Industrialist replacing the Agrarian Aristocrats, institutions and organizations have always been responsible for these changes. The Bonnot gang learned this the hard way with their robberies only angering the French establishment and most of the members of the group being killed with the French establishment being unchanged and only cracking down harder on any dissent.

People also just simply want order, protections and their basic needs met. Of course, people also desire freedom but before there is freedom, responsibilities are to be met first. So that we cannot only have freedom but to keep society, the community and ourselves functioning. If we do not take on the responsibility of raising our kids or cleaning our yard or educating ourselves and keeping ourselves in shape. We and everything around us will decay and die. We will have no future if we go by freedom alone in fact, we will become slaves to our own desires or to someone else who takes advantage of our own weak state. Order will always be something that most people desire due to order giving a sense of cohesion in one own life and giving one the chance to build something without complete chaos. Even when chaos is all around him or her, they are always building something so that they can be protected from the outside forces of chaos and to have a future for themselves and their descendants.

I do not write this simply as critique of Illegalism but also as a critique of all ideologies and groups that call for individual freedom above everything else. I’m talking about the Capitalist, MGTOW, Feminists, the Fat Acceptance Movement, and others. At least the Illegalist accepted struggle as natural part of life and had a life full of a revolutionary adventure. These groups are simply the establishment or at very least the products of the establishment.

The Fat Acceptance Movement refuses any responsibility to their own health trying to justify being overweight as normal and healthy. The MGTOWS and Feminist refuse on taking any responsibility of raising the next generation. The corporate capitalist is the worse of them all, destroying all the small producers with cutthroat tactics only to outsource the company or flood the job market with foreigners who they will pay less. While throwing out the workers whose families have lived here for generations. Not to mention destroying any sense of culture, identity, nationhood, moral decency, or standards just to gain more profit and have more consumer drones. While these group do have major differences with Illegalist who are pure anarchists, radical individual freedom does play a role all their ideas in one form or another.

It should also be made clear that I do not critique the Illegalist in the name of preservation of modern society. Rather I critique them on basis of their belief on individual violence will overthrow the current order or that what should replace it is absolute freedom. These will never be achieved as history has shown as there always been a need for a moral order and organization. What will replace the modern order is the institutions and organizations that can solve the problems when the current order is at its weakest and is unable to. These institutions will establish a new order and hierarchies that reestablishes discipline and responsibility. A new order that will release new creative energies and bring about a new age in civilization. It will bring about many gifts and consequences that are yet to be seen.


The Bonnot Gang by Richard Parry
Syndicalism and Anarchism by Edouard Berth
Ten Conservative Principles by Russell Kirk
The Machiavellians by James Burnham

Culture War and Class Struggle Part 2 to the Conservative Case for Class Struggle

Despite capitalism march towards unlimited economic growth, at the coast and expense of everything else from community, nation state, religion, mass proprietorship, ethnoreligious identity etc. The capitalist class is not a homogenous group when it comes ideals and visons of what the world should be. In America for example the ruling class divides along predominately among 2 party line. On one side you have the Democratic party that’s tends to be more international and progressive side of the ruling class. On the other side the Republicans who tend to be the more national orientated and slightly more conservative side of the ruling class.

This divide at times seems a lot bigger than what it actually is.  The divide is seen at it worse by the masses when it comes to the culture war. The battle of ideas of what is socially acceptable behavior, “human rights”, and “liberty”. These cultural battles that the ruling class and parties direct is false battle and creates a false dichotomy not just in culture but in political ideas. Along with keeping culture war battles in a liberal framework or in other words inside one of the two political camps.

In the end the social conservatives and the working class are the biggest losers in all of this. Unable to preserve and protect the ideas and community that they want to protect and the working class continuing to be pushed into economic poverty and destruction of themselves by economic and cultural factors that the capitalist promotes. They do not see that both parties are still moving in similar directions but with few different goals and tactics in mind. For any successful and true conservative and working-class movement to gain power they must break this false spectrum amongst the masses. This is what this article will try to achieve.  

    The Anti Covid Lockdowns and the Trucker Revolts

The Covid 19 lockdowns and mandated vaccination has been major issue for the last 2 years especially for the American political scene. The right wing in America position on the matter is that the lockdowns have damage the economy, doing more harm than good, the vaccines ineffective and can cause serious health problems. Along with seeing both the lockdowns and mandated vaccinations as government tyranny. This has all lead to the recent trucker protest which started in Canada and has now come to America.

While Canada is a different country, the politics of the right on these issues are very much the same with both seeing force vaccination and covid lockdowns as oppressive and degrading the economic conditions of the working class. These protest in Canada went on for weeks taking place in Canadian cities such as Ottawa and Toronto. Many of these protests end up being suppressed by the Canadian police, the protestors having their bank accounts frozen, the media demonizing them as extremist and GoFundMe taking away the protestors donations that they received. This has caused many of the supporters of these protest to decry government tyranny.

Conservatives bring up many valid points and legitimate grievances  about the lockdowns, health problem caused by vaccines and government overreach. However, Conservatives never ask the question on how corporations have played in all these events. Instead, the modern conservatives only attack the government or go off into the deep in on how China or Communists controls the establishment. Instead of drawling the conclusion that the government is in the hands corporate interest. Corporations and big pharma like Pfizer, and Johnson and Johnson have had their wealth grow due to the lockdowns, shutting down small businesses and prolonging paranoia about the virus causing the government to buy more vaccines from them.  Not to mention it was corporate media and social media that actively demonized the truckers or anyone skeptical of vaccines and banning any support from their platforms.

While the right is missing pieces of puzzle and ideologically bankrupt. The left is in a very similar if not worse position. The left actively denounced the protest and anyone skeptical of safety of the vaccines or lockdowns as racist, anti-science, fascist or even go as far as accusing the protestors as being agents of the Kremlin. Despite the left at times claiming to be the movement of the workers, the left has completely failed in this task forgetting all the damage that the lockdowns have done to the working class economically and mentally and how big pharma in the past has created health crises like the opioid epidemic. Instead, the left denounces any dissent on the issue and complains about how a minority of protestors for having confederate flags. The left and right is unable to solve these problems because it follows one of the two ruling party lines even when they’re not a part of the two party but still carry their baggage.  

  The Left and Right in America

What do I mean by left and right caring the baggage of the two ruling class parties? If we look at the arguments for their ideals and against each other, we find these ideas are align with the two ruling parties. For instance, the trucker and anti-lockdown protestors accusations of the left establishment of being Communist and Chinses subversives is strongly aligned with the right-wing establishment foreign policy against China and seeing Communism as the biggest threat to American liberal hegemony. While the pro lock down and anti-trucker supporters aligns with the other side of the establishments foreign policy against Russia and seeing Fascism as being a bigger threat.

Then if we look at who are the strongest supporters of the lockdowns and mandatory vaccination in America that being Democrat party, we find that many big pharma companies such as Pfizer and Johnson and Johnson were active donors to the party. Then if we look at the right-wing anti- vaccine mandate lack of a critique of capitalism, we find it aligns very much in line with the right-wing establishments and Republican party support for free market capitalism, were corporations reign supreme.

The right- wing and left-wing establishments are not opposed to each other rather they go about things slightly differently. They both see China and Russia as threats, but one sees China as a bigger threat, while the other see Russia as the bigger threat. Both parties serve the interest of corporations the differences being that the Democrats want a little more government intervention. An of course both factions support international liberalism and immigration just with different ways about these projects.

Even when it comes to social conservatism and other culture war battles the Republican party is only 4 to 8 years behind the Democrat party on many issues. One just can look at things such as gay marriage for example which largely not even question by Republican establishment and even some within this group such as vulture capitalist Paul Singer has actively donated to many LGBTQ organizations. Even when it comes to radical “left” ideas such as open borders the Conservative Libertarian CATO Institution were advocating these ideas years before hand or the time when Republican Senator Mitt Romney supported BLM.  This not even mentioning the fact that capitalism has always been on the side of social progressivism like what was talked about in part 1.

The only real difference between these parties is that the Republicans in recent years due to Donald Trump has become a little more national orientated and the Democrats are still more internationally orientated. Even then however, the Republicans still push supports the forces of globalization such as free market capitalism and support international wars and conflicts against those who dare to challenge liberal hegemony such as China, Iran, Syria, and Venezuela. Despite all the talk of draining the “swamp” and the deep state by Trump and Republicans they are actively apart of this deep state only at best Trump is on the outskirts of this organization. They do not criticize any of the basic principles of liberalism, capitalism, or democracy to the point where they can make a change. The reason why being is that at end of the day both parties are serve corporate over that of national and working-class interest. 

           Cultural Class War

The culture war is not a war between the two parties rather its class war between the international corporate class against everyone else. The blue or progressive corporate class is the most outspoken for globalization and wanting to destroy older social norms, economic independences, regionalism, and ethnoreligious identities, while the red elites are quieter about it and hide it under the guises of patriotism and the free market. Empowering the corporate class to become stronger and confusing the worker class into supporting the expansion of corporate influence and corporate backed wars. Along with slowly moderating the anger of the workers to continue voting for the Republican party instead of finding alternatives. Even among the “socialist” of the democrat party still support the corporate class by advocating for open borders so that the capitalist can have more cheap labor. These reforms that these “democratic socialist” want will only keep corporate class in power by bribing the workers with free healthcare instead of the workers seeking worker control and national liberation from the corporate class. 

The working-classes social conservatism should not be confused with moral puritanism, but rather that private vices should remain private and not be public virtues as progressive capitalist want it to be. This conservatism of course is centered around the family, local community, proprietorship, and order. The working class is finally starting to understand that these things are being rapidly degraded under neo liberal capitalism and are looking beyond the two parties and false divide of left and right, like they did over 150 years ago with the populist party and the farmers alliances. With the failing of the globalized markets due to Covid lockdowns and now the Russia Ukraine war which has caused shortages, inflation, unemployment, and rising prices makes the conditions right for alternative systems to become popular.  It’s up to the people who notice this trend to organize the workers and help build up institutions that will not be absorbed into the two parties and will lead the working class in the liberation of their country. Where the economy will serve the interest of the workers and nation instead of a few corporate interests. If the opportunity is not ceased, then we only have ourselves to blame.

Draft program of the party “The Other Russia E.V. Limonov”

Orginal Russian version can be found here

Moscow, September 26, 2020

“That land is Russian, where they speak Russian. These territories must be reunited.” Eduard Limonov

The party “The Other Russia of E.V. Limonov” intends to carry out transformations that are revolutionary in their scale.

We are National Bolsheviks. Our goal is the Russian world and people’s socialism.

Domestic politics

1. Let’s change the composition of the Supreme Court. We will form the Supreme Court of Russia from honest and independent lawyers. We will rotate judges throughout the country.

2. Let’s establish an atmosphere of freedom in the country. We will annul the “anti-extremist” articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, stop attempts to establish censorship on the Internet, legalize short-barreled firearms, and lower the age of majority.

3. We will create a full-fledged electoral system in the country: the people will form power at all levels, up to judges and precinct officers. Restrictions on participation in politics, including a de facto ban on referendums, are a form of Russophobia.

4. The capital of the country will be moved to Southern Siberia. It is necessary to balance the geographic, economic, infrastructural and political bias of Russia towards the West, as well as to put a barrier in front of Chinese expansion.

5. Let’s carry out a personnel revolution, a radical renewal of the country’s leadership. The monopoly power of both “patriotic” and “liberal” elites, formed as a result of the events of 1991, will be completed.


6. Let’s build popular socialism instead of cannibalistic capitalism. We are for those who work. The economy will work for the benefit of the whole people, and not for the sake of enriching a narrow group of people.

7. Zero out the oligarchs. Let’s revise the results of the privatization of state property, carried out in the 90s, and return what was stolen from the people. Let’s introduce a progressive tax scale, a luxury tax for the rich. For state super-corruptionists, the moratorium on the death penalty will be lifted.

8. Equate environmental crimes with crimes against the nation. We will tighten environmental control, ban single-use plastic, revive the recycling system, and build an advanced recycling and waste disposal system. Respect for one’s land instead of a cult of consumption.

9. Let’s achieve Russia’s economic self-sufficiency: we’ll leave the WTO, break other enslaving international agreements. We need an industrialized country independent of the global financial oligarchy.

Foreign policy

10. Russians are the largest and most divided people in Europe. The territories where the Russian-speaking population lives must return to Russia. The Crimean path should be followed by Donbass and all of New Russia from Kharkov to Odessa, Belarus, Transnistria, Northern Kazakhstan. Further, we will strive to unite all friendly peoples, formerly part of the USSR, around Russia.

11. For this, even today the basis of foreign policy with the countries of the near abroad should be the support of Russian-speaking citizens, Russian culture, history and language throughout the post-Soviet space.

12. Russian is determined not by blood, not by religion. Anyone who considers the Russian language and culture his own, Russian history – his history, who shed and is ready to shed his own and others’ blood in the name of Russia and only for her sake and no other Motherland does not think, is Russian.

*The draft program of the Independent Political Party “Another Russia by E.V. Limonov” was proposed for consideration at the Constituent Congress

Beyond the Parliament and Beyond Terror

         A Letter to the ARF

  The American Reformation Front is one of the few groups that I have hope for making a positive influence in their communities. I am honored by the fact your leader Evan Tobia who is a talented man, has allowed me to write this for the group. There are three lessons I want the reader take from this.

One the importances of organization and institutions when it comes to gaining power and making change in society. Two thinking outside the box. Throughout the article the reader will find that I quote and take influence from a variety of authors throughout the political spectrum. From Marxist and Socialist thinkers such as Leon Trotsky and Georges Sorel. Fascist and Nationalist thinkers such as Curzio Malaparte and Derek Holland. Conservative thinkers such as Christopher Lasch, James Burnham, and Brooks Adams which the last two along with Holland I did not name but still had a major influence on this article. Of course, I do not agree with all ideas that these thinkers espouse but rather took what was useful and implied their ideas to our own conditions. In other words, think outside the box and do not be afraid to engage with thinkers that one may have many disagreements with. Third and finally to not engage in activity that could lead to destruction of one group and ideas such as terrorism. With that I hope the reader learns from this article and I wish nothing but the best for the American Reformation Front and Evan Tobia.


Time and time again when elections come around, we hear how it’s going to be our year and that voting can change the direction of the country. Time and time again we see that nothing changes regardless how much of a “nationalist” or “socialist” the candidates are, with the system still staying in the liberal boundaries. Then there those minority of individuals who believe that terrorism will bring down the system. These individuals fail every time and only alienate themselves from the rest of the population. Finally, there are those who believe activism solely is the way forward without understanding why activist groups in past succeed.  A fourth path is needed but first what’s wrong with the other three ways of gaining power?

              The Parliament

The democratic system is the first way many different dissident groups try to get into power. Believing that they can just reform the system from within until they get to the ideal society, now this is very naive for a few reasons. Before we discuss the flaws of reform, we need to discuss the problems of many American groups particularly New Frontier or NF.

NF like many groups believes they will win power by solely running in election as a fringe group. Whether or not there rightfully or wrongly consider a fringe group is a whole another question but, the fact is that most of society perceives NF as fringe organization.  NF running in elections is not going to change that nor will it lead to electoral success. If anything, it will lead to the group disbanding after their first electoral race.

What will change that is community organizing and charity work. This will not make the ruling class to view one’s group differently but will change the perception on a local level. This organizing to help the local community will allow for dissidents’ groups to connect more with the people and gain support. Help to build local infrastructure to help further these groups causes. This must be done regardless of if one views the electoral process as the way forward or not. For any group to succeed they need to have a section of the people on their side and some form of infrastructure or institution that can help further the group cause weather be by spreading ideas or helping local communities. Just look at CasaPound or the Italian Communist Party who gained support from the working classes for providing basics needs like food, living space, and doctor checkups for their local communities. In other words, local organizing and infrastructure is needed before anything else can be done.

With the critique on lack of organizing out the way, we can now begin on a critique of third parties and electoral politics. Third parties in America have a low chance of winning for several reasons. The first being that the two major parties Democrats and Republicans have a strong support base amongst the ruling class meaning that have a lot funding, media support and are able to spread their messages a lot farther than any third party.

Another major problem for third parties is not only a lack of funding and coverage but also the laws such as single seat congressional districting and the Australian Ballot system that allows the two parties to continue to have their hegemony over the electoral system due to both having funding and the popular vote. These laws can be repealed but with both parties having hegemony in all parts of elected government and very few to none of the ruling class being disenfranchise with the 2-party system, makes this task impossible.

The next major stagey is infiltrating the two parties. This has only led to the moderation of these groups and following the mainstream party line with occasional radical outburst that quickly gets absorbed back into the party.  This ends up getting to heart of the problem with electoral politics in general the moderation of the party and compromising with the ruling class.

For any bill to be passed there must be some compromise with the other side. This is true for both moderate and radical parties a like. This compromise however has consequence usually of strengthening of the ruling class. Take for example the social democratic reforms that were passed in late 1880s to early 1900s in France.

These reforms may have increased wages and created better living conditions for the working class but took away the revolutionary aspirations of the working class to own the means of production as French Syndicalist Georges Sorel pointed out. The social democrat followers of Eduard Bernstein believed that they would gradually reform the French state and other states until social democrats around the world achieved socialism. As we can see though no social democrat party anywhere is even close to achieving socialism or worker control but in fact have only strengthen the capitalist system that the social democrat parties once sought to overcome. As the parties stayed in the parliament, they became more moderate and even some of them suppressed revolutionary uprisings like in Germany in 1919 for example.  This moderation process is also true with the right as Jobbik a once radical nationalist party in Hungary has now become a moderate pro Eu party with even the ruling party being more radical.

There will be those who say that compromise is a part of politics and will say “look at once liberal nations turned illiberal like Russia, Turkey, Venezuela, Nicaragua, or 1930s Germany.” Compromising is natural especially amongst ones ingroup but compromising with one’s enemy will only delay the enviable clash or until one abandons one’s principles. When it comes to once liberal now illiberal countries these countries were extremely weak liberal countries who had sections of the military and other institutions of power like universities, unions, churches, private sector, and other parts of government having sympathy to illiberal ideas and movements . America and other western countries our an entirely different situation being the main drive of liberal ideology around the world and almost if not, all major institutions support the liberal capitalist project in one shape or another. That is why there is no compromise and parliamentary politics is almost fruitily.

   The Consequences of Terrorism

Terrorism is the most counterproductive of all 3 techniques to gain power especially that of lone wolf or individual terrorism and when it conducts attacks against civilians which, only alienates the terrorist and non-terrorist dissidents’ goals from the rest of the population. Even when its only acts against government or corporate leaders this will only lead to brief shock until these individuals are replaced and the systems functions as usual. With now only stronger persecution of dissident’s weather they are terrorists or not. No one says it better than revolutionary Leon Trotsky.

“By its very essence terrorist work demands such concentrated energy for “the great moment,” such an overestimation of the significance of individual heroism, and finally, such a “hermetic” conspiracy, that – if not logically, then psychologically – it totally excludes agitational and organizational work among the masses.”

Terrorism has even accelerated the moderation process of major dissident parties like it did in Italy during the Years of Lead with the Italian Communist Party and the Italian Social Movement. With both abandoning many of their ideals to point where they became shells of their former selves and then disbanded by the end of the 20th century. The Italian Social Movement became a center right conservative party and the Italian Communist Party become a democratic socialist party with both parties dissolving in the 90s and the terrorist groups on both the left and right going nowhere. Terrorists are merely engaging in revolutionary theater or guerrilla theater as Christopher Lasch calls it. With the terrorist believing they are like the famous revolutionaries of past eras when they are merely alienating themselves and their cause from the rest of society.

Terrorists fail to understand why the revolutions of the past weather violent or peaceful were able to succeed.  The reason why revolutions in America, Russia, Italy, and Iran succeeded was because one they were connected with the masses. Having a sizeable portion of the population on their side that would support the revolutionaries aims. Two, they had institutions that could willed power on their side such as the military, trade unions, private sector, religious institutions, etc. that carried real wait in those countries. When revolutionaries have the masses on their side and institutions to organizes those said masses, they cannot only have a successful revolution but create a new society.

No lone wolf or small group of terrorists will ever overthrow the liberal system. Whether it be from the left like Red Army Faction or from the right like Atom Waffen Division. Attacks alone do not break a system especially attacks on civilians will not do this. Only dual power structures and popular support can, which is something that these groups will never have. In fact, they create the opposite conditions every terrorist attack only increases Government and Corporate censorship and crackdowns that attacks all groups that can be label as dissidents or radicals. Just look at what happened after 911, The Oklahoma City Bombing, the Christchurch Massacre, or the numerous bombing campaigns of anarchist groups or mass shooting committed by white nationalists. These attacks only strengthened the Liberal security through laws such as the PATRIOT Act using these events to spy on their own civilians and even invade Iraqi in the case of 911, who had nothing to do with the attack. Not to mention alienating the masses with none of these groups or individuals even being close to overthrowing the Liberal order. In fact, just gave the liberal order an excuse to attack other enemies or rivals who had nothing to do with these events. Only undermining more tactical ways of overcoming the liberal order. Attacks and Hate may cause disorder in a social organization for a time, but it cannot build something new, and attacks alone cannot break or replace a system. As George Sorel once said, “Hate is able to provoke disorders, to ruin a social organization, to cast a country into a period of bloody revolutions; but it produces nothing.” What does produces positive changes is having institutions and organizations that can solve the problems that the old older could not.

     Activism and Street Theater

Street theater like guerrilla theater is of a very similar mindset of acting out one’s fantasies of being like a revolutionary of the past and attracting media attention to oneself or group for their dramatic style of protest. Even with some activist or protestors dressing up as revolutionaries of the past. This type of activism becomes nothing more than roleplay. The dramatic ways of protest are more about gaining media attention or pursuing one’s fantasies rather than pursuing the masses. The worse form of street theater is when on the verge of becoming guerrilla theater or other words the rioting of activist, attacking small businesses, and attacking random pedestrians only further alienates the masses from a movement and cause state repression. The 1960s to 70s Civil Rights Movement, Blacks Lives Matter protest of 2020 or the Alt Right in 2017 are the best example of once popular movements and protest that steadily lost support due to violent militancy that came with their protests and only having the most kosher forms of their ideas being supported or enacted. Even with BLM being supported by the corporate establishment this still did not stop their decline. In many ways these styles of protest are ways for people to think there doing something to make change but in reality, they are not or worse becoming further from ones goals. Marching down the street with a 50-member group can only do so much even if it is professional and not causing a disturbance. Like the terrorist they fail to understand the importance of mass organization or institutions when it comes to creating change.  Protest movements if they are to be successful most engage and be connected with the masses and their issues. Not harassing them or destroying there lively hoods.


Now of course there are some positives to running in elections and activism when it comes to spreading ideas across to the masses if its done properly. The real way to achieve power though is a much more complicated task. The power of an elite is contested when its unable to provide for its people basic needs, has lost it creative power that give this ruling class its position of power and a new class or institution has creative energies and is able to provide for the people. Therefore, replacing the older class.

This is how the merchant class in France overthrew the Feudal Lords and in other countries as well. Institutions like trade unions played major roles in the 20th century revolutions in Russia, Italy, and Iran all be it not the sole institution. Worker Unions was one of the most revolutionary institutions throughout the world and still has great potential to this day. In modern day America however, unions are at there lowest point. Only 10 percent of population being in one due to numerous reasons.

This is not to say that Unions cannot make a huge come back especially since there a major economic crisis right now but solely realigning on unions, or one institution is unwise as all successful revolutions had multiple institutions on their side like the military and religious institutions for example. This allows for more resources and can drawl in more people. Of course, most major institutions of power in line with one section of ruling class or another. We must remember as Curzio Malaparte pointed out in his book the Technique of Revolution that unions and strikes can be used to defend the liberal state as it was in Italy in the 1920s or Kappa Putsch in Germany. Strikes and unions like all other tactics and institutions are not always inherently illiberal or revolutionary and can easily be used by the liberal order to also attack their enemies like what happened in the Eastern Bloc in the late 1980s or most recently Ukraine in 2013 and Kazakhstan in 2022.

The way to change this is either by A persuading institutions or groups that are on the outskirts of the ruling class and can be flipped or B create your own institutions that can gain a position amongst the ruling class. Either one that one chooses, he must organize amongst the local communities and persuading local institutions of one’s cause. This can be done by charity work, providing jobs if possible, advocating for more community power etc.

The next thing that is need are the political soldiers. Political soldiers are simply the diehard believers of the cause. They live up to the high ideals of the cause, inspire the masses, and willing to do anything for the cause. In other words, these are the people who set the example and inspire others for a higher cause.

The final major thing is the grand ideal or myth as Georges Sorel calls it. This ideal is not fake but rather is the ideal that will motivate masses to do revolutionary actions and continue to strive for this ideal society. When the grand ideal, institutions, the political soldiers, and the masses are all in one creates the prefect revolutionary transformation. All classes rise and fall but classes and institutions still exist with different creative energies.

   Sources and Inspirations

Reflections on Violence by Georges Sorel

Technique of Revolution by Curzio Malaparte

The Political Solider by Derek Holland

Why Marxist Oppose Individual Terrorism by Leon Trotsky


 The Law of Civilization and Decay: An Essay on History by Brooks Adams

Why Do Third Parties Fail?. We need more political diversity. | by David Shorb | DShorbAuthor

‘Fatally flawed’: Why third parties still fail despite voter anger : Networks Course blog for INFO 2040/CS 2850/Econ 2040/SOC 2090 (

Create your website with
Get started