Design a site like this with
Get started

The National-European Communitarian Party (NCP-PCN) Political Manifesto

The Original Version Can be found here

A brief introduction

The National European Communitarian Party was a pan European National Bolshevik party founded by Luc Michel in 1984 based in Belgium. The party is based largely on the ideas of Pan European Nationalist and Geo Political theorist Jean Francois Thiriart. Like Thiriart the party advocated for united Europe that would the Unified from Ireland all the way to Russia. The party was made up activist from both fascist and Marxist backgrounds abandon both labels and their dogmas for national communitarianism. Party also supported many third world nationalist leaders such as Saddam Hussein in Iraqi and Muammar Al-Gaddafi in Libya. The party website does not give an exact date on when the manifesto was written but it is safe to assume that it was probably written in the 1980s around the founding of the party. The Party has mostly been inactive since 2010 with there leader Michel has been more active in the Eurasian Observatory for Democracy and Elections. A Russian Non Government Organization that monitored the Crimean referendum in 2014. Michel has also written a few articles on National Bolshevism and on his friend/ mentor Jean Francios Thiriart. Along with trying organize both left and right wing activist in Europe with at one point support from Gaddafi to rebel against liberalism and American influence in the continent.



European countries remain attached to the greatness of a civilization which they believe still exits : there is however a gap between reality and its representation since the only crisis of civilization that we know is presently that of the European countries.
At the top, a wealthy ruling class which after 30 years in power is only capable of perpetuating illusions.

The regimist Europe was able to prolong its existence thanks to  its obedient submission to that corrupted ruling class. But this class has no freedom of action, it is only a hostage and a toy in the hands of the American super power. As things stand the ruling class naturally imposes myths and models alien to the European Mind particularly the so called “Consumer society” or more precisely the “Production Society”; a social organization “massified” to the extreme and in which popular community has been completely eliminated to the benefit of machines, money and crass consumerism.
Given that state of affair it is logical that our society  becomes more and more dehumanized, that our press no longer plays role and that nothing ever stands in the way of power and profit.

To remediate the present situation one must first discover the primary causes of the European Bankruptcy. This is important to give Europe the Moral, the ethics and the aesthetics which have been so much lacking to this day. The question is simple to put : we only have to be masters in our  land. Contrary to what imperialist ideology claims we say that the US have their own life which has nothing in common with that of Europe since our political and cultural heritage represents a fracture in the process of uniformization accomplished so far. Societies do not escape to historical significations or those that emerge by the analysis of reality. Freedom can only be guaranteed by force.
Europe must be in europan hands.


Europe’s liberation implies a global withdrawal of the US. The end of American domination must intervene at the military level (disbandment of NATO) as well as at the economical level (nationalization of European based American companies and financial assets).

The liberation of Europe is the indispensable prelude to any attempt of European unification. There cannot be unification as long as Europe remains under the influence of the US. To be independent Europe must be liberated from the malevolent dominance of its American “ally”.

The unification of Europe will be possible if its revolves around several axis : mystic -The European Nation -, political – The European STATE – indispensable to exert power and force and  a state making device : a united political party with a genuine European dimension.


At the end of this century we are witnessing the making of Big International Blocks, there no longer are small independent nations. This fact is the result of the law of “political physics”, it is a  question of DIMENSION. It is no longer possible to rely on France, Germany or Italy alone. If we aspire to freedom, we must be strong and to be strong we must build Europe. The EUROPEAN NATION or FUTURE NATION is radically opposed to “nostalgism” of ancient little  nations.
Therefore  we condemn :

  • Left and Right nationalism which divide Europe and are thus consciously or not anti European. Present national borders must cease to exist to allow the supranationalism to comfort political independence.
  • We reject micro-regional nationalism which are chimerical and noxious to the European cause. If we can understand the motivations of the Basque, Corsican movements we must also understand that the more Europe will be divided the weaker it will be and the weaker it will be the more it will remain under the dominance of “protectors” weather Americans or other.

We are however favorable to regionalist movements which are capable of getting integrated within the framework of the European Nation.


Our EUROPEAN COMMUNITARIANISM is an aspiration to liberation in stark opposition with bellicose expansionism. It is the will of men who share a common destiny. The framework in which that  will can be expressed and achieved is Europe.

  • The EUROPEAN COMMUNITARIANISM in itself summarizes our originality, it is a political project socially global and total. Europeans want freedom for Europe, therefore its economical and political independence and a common justice. In order to reach those goals communitarianism integrates the socialist dimension.
  • Our EUROPEAN COMMUNITARIANISM is a PROGRESSISM since far from negating the rich cultural heritage of the various European nations it combines them in a constructive synergy to face the great socio-economical mutations of this ending century.

Such is the project that we must seek to propagate throughout Europe. That project would be vain without the political will to build a European STATE and a European SOCIALISM.


The question is to know if the European peoples want to be free or if they will accept to live in the year 2000 in political and economical slavery. To master their own destiny, they must conquer their liberty, they must be the founders of a United Europe and a European STATE this implies :

  • A European Government, one sole legislative and executive Body. The United Government will be in charge of defense, foreign affairs, finance and large portions of the economy (nationalization will be required) and Justice.
  • The State will be organized in provinces and regions (economical criterium will be used to divide the regional competence) which will enjoy a large autonomy in economical management and cultural affairs.

European Socialism in order to protect economical independence and social justice presupposes the primacy of the policy over the economy. But, the unification of Europe remains over all a political problem and the Eurocrats of Brussels and Strasbourg have shown to the world the extent of their incompetence in the realization of the political unification of Europe. The creation of a political power is a prerequisite to any attempt of economical, political and social unification. The Common Market is the perfect illustration of that idea, exempt of any political substance it is merely a vehicle for the economical penetration of American goods and services in the European continent.
The liberation of Europe from the yoke of capitalism and the power of transnational trusts will be achieved thanks to European socialism but most of all thanks to the creation of A EUROPEAN STATE.


The creation of a European State,  the liberation of the European Nation and the realization of the EUROPEAN COMMUNITARIANISM imply changes of such magnitude that in our project can be seen as a REVOLUTION EUROPEAN. The sole revolutionary agent capable of achieving these goals is the National-European Communitarian Party.
The National-European Communitarian Party (NCP-PCN), which is still in the making today, must place itself in a situation where it will be able to lead a continental action against the servants of US imperialism. We must therefore confront the European puppets who have chosen to betray the European Nation to further the interests of the  American ruling class. The National-European Communitarian Party is the AVANT-GARDE of the European liberation struggle and will tomorrow be the crossroad where the builder of the 21st century  will meet.


The Problem with 1950s Nostalgia

It has often been said that the Right and social conservatives are very nostalgic for the past. This is especially true for the those who are apart of Generation Z who have nostalgia for the 1950s. In fact, some like Gen Z conservative political commentator John Doyle has adopted 1950s aesthetics into his YouTube videos.  Other right wingers have also incorporated 1950s art into their aesthetics to help spread their message. Many see the 1950s as a time where there were still strong family bonds, a strong middle class, religious morality, nationalism, and less crime. In other words, a more orderly society compared to today world that is socially dysfunctional with broken families and community, less religion, extreme class, race, and gender divides. Along with an extremely toxic consumer culture.  This idea is strengthened amongst social conservative when feminist, liberals, and other progressives talk about the 1950s in their view as a time of extreme patriarchy, sexism, racism, authoritarianism, reactionary, and many more buzz words that the liberals like to negatively throw at the past.

This all causes many social conservatives especially American social conservatives to wish for a return to the 1950s and its social values. Seeing the 1950s as the peak of American and Western Civilization. However, this nostalgia for the 1950s has blinded the Right. While it is true that society was more culturally conservative than it is today but many of the problems we have today originate well before the 1950s in facts some of these problems originated decades before hand. Only starting to get out of control completely after the 1950s. This article will be a brief overview of many of these problems along with what Conservative thinkers at the time positions on where the United States was heading.

Globalization In The 1950s and Prior 

Globalization the process of integrating of countries and expansion of corporations and government organizations to an international level had already begun on an economic, government, and was already a popular ideological idea amongst the American and Western ruling class well before the supposed “conservative golden age” of the 1950s.

There was a time when America was an isolationist and a country that was largely made up of small independent farms and shops that were mostly run by families. This is true for the late 18th and 19th century. However, this was already coming undone with the second industrial revolution in the 1870 which brought about the first modern American corporations and mass production that centralized production. Along with completely obliterating the small family farms and craftsmen.  These corporations would grow to national level and eventually to an international levels  after the second world war with the signing of America first free trade agreement in 1947 called the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade or GATT. Which removed tariff and economic boundaries so that American corporations could grow more easily.  The GATT would be a predecessor to the world trade organization and is arguably the start of modern economic globalization. That would lead to outsourcing of jobs, material shortages, mass migration, and economic dependence on other countries that we have to this day. Even prior to the free trade agreement American corporation were already trying to expand globally such as United Fruit Company who had immense influence in Latin America and Ford Motor Company who helped illegally to industrialize the Soviet Union.

While American isolation lasted all the way up to 1941 with the bombing of Pearl Harbor which led to America joining World War 2 and becoming a superpower due to destruction of both European and Asian great powers. Unlike the first world war where America went back into isolation, America started to take a more direct part in world affairs taking a part in foreign conflicts such as Korean war and Guatemalan coup of 1954. The founding of international organizations such as NATO and the UN. NATO being used as way of expanding US influence globally and its values of universal human rights, capitalism, democracy, and liberalism. Making American liberalism a global ideology that should be adopted by everyone. This international liberalism that America began to espouse went hand and hand with global market expansion that America promoted along with foreign wars and conflicts that America became involved with. Same can be said for the promotion of social progressivism that came with market breaking down traditional barriers and Americas support for universal rights.

This international liberalism did not come out of nowhere. In fact, had already started to come to prominence in the American ruling class as late as 1918 with American President Woodrow Wilson advocating for his 14 points speech which advocated for a league of nations and expansion of liberal capitalism globally and open borders. This reason why America did not start taking part in global before 1941 was because of push back from America population over becoming too involved with foreign affairs. This vague notion of universal humans’ rights was also promoted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt or FDR who worked under Wilson as Secretary of the Navy. During FDR state of the union of January of 1941, FDR gave the four-freedom speech. The four freedoms being freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. This speech on the 4 freedoms especially the last 2 are extremely vague and can mean many contradictory things to many people. However, this mark the unofficial beginning of America abandoning of isolation. Isolationism fate would be completely sealed with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor later that year. The speech was also an inspiration to FDR wife Elanor Roosevelt who wrote for United Nations the “Declaration of Universal Human Rights” in 1948. Which furthered expanded upon the US and UN doctrine of universal liberal rights at the coast of other forms of governments and people’s traditional way of life both domestically and internationally. Such as the removal of religion from government, mass migration, promotion of nontraditional sexual norms, and the advancement of abortion.

Of course, one can argue that international organizations like NATO are justified due to the expansion of the Soviet Union and its very own universal ideology of communism. However, if we look at  current and former communist countries and their allies. We find that many of them our autarkic, nationalist, and far more conservative than those who sided with US during Cold War with few exceptions like Saudi Arabia.  Some of them like Cuba have only recently moved in the cultural direction of the US, while many others like Russia, North Korea, Hungry, China, Nicaragua, and Syria are moving in the opposite direction. The Conservative Historian Paul Gottfried believes that the reason why America became such as breeding ground for social progressivism is because of America adoption of universal rights and freedoms that the liberal order used to ideologically justify the breakdown of cultural norms. While the Soviets and many of their allies did persecute religion they did not go after other social norms like the family and in fact in some cases promoted families to have kids. Not to mention many of these societies were very militaristic, while not conservative necessarily but did help promote a strong sense of duty and responsibility amongst their people to their nations. It should also be noted that the Soviet Union and its allies abstained from voting on making the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the official document of the United Nations.  It’s also debatable on whether the founders of NATO even wanted to disband NATO after the Cold War with the organization still existing and still playing a major role in global affairs to this day. With NATO having objective of establishing liberalism across the globe regardless of what the people want.

Family Life

Family life is the most nostalgic aspect of the 1950s to many American Social Conservatives who see it as the peak family values and moral discipline. However, this is also extremely misguided and in fact the American Family has been under attack by the growth of corporate and government power since the industrial revolution according to historian Christopher Lasch.  The industrial revolution according to Lasch took economic production out of the family household and put into the factories.  Then later into other large corporate firms. Which forced first the father then of course later the mother to leave the children for work. Along with making the family more reliant on corporations for their basic needs.

What also came with the industrial revolutions was also the advancements of technologies in ways that the world had never seen before. That gave rise to things like mass media and birth control. Which furtherer undermined parental authority of children in case mass media like television and radio which was already prevalent in the 1950s. Birth control help to separate sex from its traditional understanding of procreation to now being more about personal pleasure and satisfaction.  Which gave the Sexual Revolution a technological advantage over traditional social norm. It was not just birth control that gave rise to the culture of seeking personal satisfaction over moral responsibilities but also as capitalists started to see workers as not as just workers but as consumers. Along with the rise of mass advertisement like radio and tv gave rise to this culture of self-seeking personal gratification over everything else. This new mass media and advertising even opening challenged traditional norms such as women not smoking in the case of the Torches of Freedom march which was backed by the American Tabaco Company which was already mass advertising to women to pick up the habit of smoking. This of course appleade to many feminists at time. Flappers were also another trend picked up by mass media and capitalist that also challenge traditional social norms like encouraging women buy and wear revealing clothing, wearing makeup, sex outside marriage, drinking alcohol, and smoking cigarettes. At the time this was viewed negatively by more conservative elements of society and in case of drinking illegal. To paraphrase Lasch the propaganda of commodities became one of the agencies of social reproduction. It undermined traditional morality, pitting fights between women and men and children against parents. Often allying with women and youths in a common struggle against traditional social norms.

I know some conservatives would try to argue that things like divorce rates and non-traditional sexual norms were still low and not the norm in 1950s. This is somewhat true however even by 1924 one out of seven marriages ended in divorce. Birth rates were also already dropping in decades leading up to the 1950s other than briefly going back up after the second world war with the baby boom. Along with housing and other basic materials were already becoming expensive making couples put off having kids. Not to mention women started entering the work force because of these economic conditions. It should also be mentioned that first wave feminism which started up in the early 20th century was also encouraging this trend of women entering the work force.  In the fringes of the feminist movements, they were already criticizing monogamy, patriarchy, and condemned inference of sexual life by church, state, and community. Even when it comes to progressive reformist and academics such as Emile Durkheim were already advocating for society and its institutions like schools to take on more of the responsibilities that the family once did. Many of these reformers also had low expectations for parents to raise kids properly without state interference such as Ben B. Lindsey one of the pioneers of American juvenile court.

Even though arguably the trends of feminism, divorce, and low birth rates were still not as prevalent as they are now. The fact of matter is that many of the corporate and government bureaucracy along with the technological advances that help to lead to decline of the family and still presently were already there well before the 1950s. In fact, many feminists in the 1920s particularly the flappers understood that technologies advances like cars and birth control would furtherer advance their goals of “women liberations.” Seeing these technologies as way of having more control of their own lives. However, this was simply a fantasy. In reality corporations have more control over not only women lives but even men’s lives too, through money power and mass media that influences and manipulates public opinion in corporations’ favor. I highly recommend the reader to read “Haven in Heartless World The Family Besieged” by Christopher Lasch for those who want a more in-depth explanation.  

The Conservative Intellectuals take on the 1950s

What about conservative and traditionalist intellectuals of the time such Richard Weaver, Russell Kirk, Robert Nisbet, William F Buckley, Donald Davidson, James Burnham, and many others’ views on the 1950s? While many of these intellectuals had many differences with one another on a variety of issues and subjects, none of them saw the 1950s as peak of traditional values or  traditional ways of life. Some like Donald Davidson and his literary group called the Southern Agrarians were already very critical of the direction that American society was heading in the 1930s.  The Southern Agrarians were critical of the Industrialization of the country that uprooted traditional agrarian communities, destroyed the family farms and traditional morality.  Industrialism had centralized wealth and power in ways not seen before which was another core criticism of the Southern Agrarians. Davidson in particular also criticized industrialism for its commodification of art and its mass production of lower quality art and media. Whereas Agrarian society at least to Davidson had created the conditions to make quality art.  Many of these ideas of loss of community, traditional morality, and criticism of corporate and government power were also shared by many influential   conservatives who wrote in or around the 1950s such as Richard Weaver, Russell Kirk, William F Buckley, James Burnham, and Robert Nisbet. In fact, many of problems they discussed in their books are still problem today or even much worse problems.

In Richard Weaver 1948 book “Ideas Have Consequences” Weaver writes on the harmful effects of Nominalism and moral relativism on Western Civilization since the late Middle Ages. Weaver also discusses media manipulation that is accelerating or at least prolonging conflicts inside the West. Along with critiques of the egoism or radical individualism that has engulf America.  At the end of Russell kirk 1954 book called “The Conservative Mind” Kirk was extremely concerned about the direction that America was heading in, such as the growth of consumerism that devalued quality and America corporate and government bureaucracy negative effects on the traditional cultures of not the only America but also other countries. Along with America liberal expansion ideology that the US openly embraced after the second world war. Which was destroying many of the traditional cultures throughout the world and had made many these people side with the Soviets out of spite. Kirk even briefly mentions that divorce rate was going up at the time. Kirk even went as far to say that Americans more than any other people have come to the worship of Mammon or the demon of greed.

In William F. Buckley 1951 book “God and Man at Yale” Buckley criticizes American universities particularly Yale for their promotion of Atheism and social progressivism. James Burnham 1941 book “The Managerial Revolution” goes over the rise of bureaucracy and how bureaucrats had become the new ruling class. Along with how world power has become more consolidated to a few nations. While Burnham book was not giving a moral judgement on managerialism, he did become more hostile to it as he became more conservative. And finally, Robert S. Nisbet 1953 book “The Quest for Community” went over the decline of local community and institutions such as the Church, the family, neighborhoods, and guilds which  is happening due to radical individualism and the rise of modern state that began in the Middle Ages. This according Nisbet has produced alienated, isolated and spiritually depleted people.

In short none of the major conservative thinkers were happy with the direction that the United States was heading in. The only thing that the conservatives at least would be happy about in the 1950s was Conservative intellectual resurgence and the founding of many major conservative magazines such as National Review and Modern Age. That said they would be completely horrified if they saw modern America compared to the 1950s America.

         A Future with Limits

It is understandable why so many Americans have nostalgia for 1950s because even if the problems we face today started way before the 50s.  The 50s was still a time that was a lot more sane compared to the present day. Like stated earlier however many of the problems that we face today had already started way before the 1950s.

What does free markets, human rights, consumerism, and free love all have in common? It not only that there all apart of neo liberalism but none of these concepts respect limits. All of these concepts want to constantly expand. The free markets want to constantly expand the market to other areas such as other countries and into private life at the expense of tradition and national autonomy.  Human rights want to constantly expand what are rights at the expense of responsibility and duty. Consumerism and Free love advocates preach that we should buy and sleep with as many people or buy as many products as we want too regardless of how unhealthy, wasteful, and personally destructive that it can be.  None of these concepts or their advocates plan for the long-term problems that this can cause. They are always about living in the moment and in the case of free markets the fastest way to make money.  These concepts that make up neo liberalism have all become possible due to the growth of technology and capitalism use of technology.  It is hard to underestimate the power of technology on modern society. Technology has made all of this possible at the expense of the old spiritual and traditional values.

America and the West are truly governed by the Faustian spirit as German Conservative Oswald Spengler pointed out. Spengler pointed out in his book “Man and Technics” that it would also be the Western World destruction. One of the ways Spengler pointed out how technology was going to destroy the Western world was through the outsourcing of technologies and industries to other countries that would come rival the West. This is definitionally true now when it comes to countries like China and Russia.

Of course, it also true that the Western world use of technology is not only cultural destructive as it’s been shown throughout this article but is also wasteful. Think of how many useless consumer products are out there and how those resource could be better used on other projects.  We could also argue that Western use of technology is also mentally destructive just look at how social media like TikTok and Twitter has errored attention spans and has caused mental illness.

One of the biggest reasons why technology will be our destruction is because there are limited resources. We have relied on technology like computers, robots, nonrenewable resource-based technology so much that many have forgotten how live life without them or never did to begin with.  But the liberal order never seriously thought about limited resources and how to deal with resource depilation or more particularly peak oil. Even with the devolvement of technologies such as solar and electricity still rely heavily on oil. Now we are still far from peak oil but we have begun see for first time in America how some resources have become scarce or at least more expensive due to limits of resources and reliant on resources from other countries that have become more difficult to rely on due to pandemic and war in Ukraine that has probably destroyed liberal economic globalism for good.  Due to short-term thinking of the international market that thought it would be better to make and buy products and resources from other countries because it was cheaper.

I am not saying that all technology is bad or that we should abandon technology. After all many of you will be reading this on some type of technological device. Not to mention I typed this out on my computer and did some of my research on this subject through the internet. What I am saying though is that we need use technology more wisely and understand limits. Not just limits on resources but their limits on life and time, and we need use that time and resources more wisely so that it can benefit future generations. We should also understand that we should limit our own personal desires in exchange for commitment and responsibilities that will build not only pollical movements but also families and communities. In other words, we should use technology and economic resources in ways that will benefit families and traditional values in the long term. Along with to find ways to be able sustain society when we finally reach peak oil and began to suffer technological decline. One of these ways is through the return of local production of things such as food and clothes.  Along with the revival of local community institutions that has help with resources and spiritual guidance when the community has fallen on hard times such as the Church.

What also stop this change from happening is of course is that it is radically different from the modern global liberal order and the corporations and liberals would be ones to loss out. Having their ideology and organizational structure completely thrown out. So, the Liberal order has every reason to be against this change. When it comes to the average person, we see they maybe have sympathy to some of our ideas but for most part they do not pay attention to them at all due the abundance of material wealth. This bought off the working class and has made them complacent or in state of comfortism as Marxist Ernst Niekisch calls it, which was probably began in the 1950s when Niekisch wrote on the matter. However, as class and cultural divides has continued to grow and more recently with the Covid Pandemic and Russian Ukraine War has made for the first time were resources and supplies are becoming scarce. Not to mention these last 3 years has accelerated the class and cultural divides that had been growing for decades. This has now finally started to shake Americans out of their state of Comfortism and look for alternatives to the modern world. What the American working-class needs is not nostalgia for some past time but the lessons and the positive values of the past so that we do not fall down a similar hole in the future.


Globalization In The 1950s and Prior 

Strange Death of Marxism by Paul Gottfried

Declaration of Universal Human Rights by Elanor Roosevelt

Free Trade Fallacy by Michael Lind

Family Life

Haven in Heartless World The Family Besieged by Christopher Lasch

The Conservative Intellectuals take on the 1950s

Ill Take My Stand by the Southern Agrarians

Ideas Have Consequences by Richard Weaver

The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk

God and Man at Yale by William F. Buckley

The Managerial Revolution by James Burnham \

The Quest For Community by Robert Nisbet

A Future with Limits

Living in the Long Emergency by James Howard Kunstler

Man and Technics by Oswald Spengler

Americanism and Comfortism by Ernst Niekisch

The spirit of autocracy in the commissars (Genealogy of Russian National Bolshevism) By Alexander Dugin

The Original Russian Version can be found here:

“Killer of the red saint of the chalice!”

Nikolai Klyuev

The most complete and interesting (to date) study of Russian National Bolshevism is the book of Mikhail Agursky. Agursky was a dissident, he emigrated from the USSR to Israel in the 1970s, but at the same time, his attitude towards Soviet National Bolshevism remains extremely objective, and in some cases deep sympathy comes through in his assessments. In our opinion, Agursky’s work is the most serious work dedicated to the Soviet period of Russian history, helping to understand its deep spiritual meaning.

1. National recognition of Bolshevism

Agursky defines the essence of Russian national Bolshevism as follows: “… From the very beginning of the Bolshevik revolution, Bolshevism and the new Soviet state itself were recognized by various emigration groups and in Russia itself as meeting true Russian national and even religious interests. The number of these groups was relatively small, and these groups were not always influential, but their voice was heard, and their point of view was known to wide circles both outside the party and within it.National recognition of Bolshevism was very diverse.

He was considered a Russian national phenomenon by both left and right, humanitarians and engineers, civilians and military men, clergy and sectarians, poets, writers, artists. The greatest success was marked by the so-called. Smenovekhovism, which arose relatively late in the circles of the right-wing Russian emigration. It was within its framework that National Bolshevism was first formulated, although almost all early forms of national recognition of Bolshevism, including Scythianism, can rightfully be attributed to it.

The central figure of emigrant national Bolshevism in the early 20s. turned out to be Ustryalov, and the internal Russian – Lezhnev.

If all this remained within the framework of non-Bolshevik circles, it would be of very limited interest. But that didn’t happen…”

2. “Change milestones”

For the first time, the theses of Russian National Bolshevism appeared among the extremist Cadets, to some extent connected with Nikolai Ustryalov. However, Ustryalov himself was pointed out to the possibility of a radical transition from “white” to “red” nationalism by another cadet, Y. Klyuchnikov. Having understood at some point the inevitability of the defeat of the Whites and proceeding from their largely populist philosophy of history, which asserts that history is created precisely by the “people’s spirit”, sometimes expressed paradoxically and using at certain moments the most unexpected ideologies and socio-political instruments, these Cadets-nationalists came to a radical revision of their anti-Bolshevik positions and put forward the thesis that the most consistent nationalist-statists at the moment in Russia are the Bolsheviks. Of course, this idea did not take shape in such radical terms right away, but its main features are already clearly visible in the first National Bolshevik texts, combined in the collection “Change of milestones”, published in Prague in early 1921.  The authors of the collection were Y. Klyuchnikov, Y. Potekhin, S. Chakhotin, A. Bobrischev-Pushkin, the former prosecutor of the Holy Synod S. Lukyanov, and others. “Smenovekhovism” was enthusiastically accepted by the Bolsheviks themselves, especially Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, since they saw in it the possibility of some intermediating ideology capable of attracting “specialists” and significant sections of the civilian population to the side of the new government, who are not yet ready to accept communism in its purest form. It was through the ideology of “smenovekhovstvo” that the practical connection of the Bolshevik government with broad social strata took place. But the power of ideas is such that it is almost never possible to use them for purely pragmatic purposes, since ideas always have the opposite effect. Parallel to how the Bolsheviks used “Smenovekhism” for their own purposes, “Smenovekhism” itself actively influenced the evolution of the Bolshevik ideology. Agursky shows that the most pure Marxist orthodoxies, and especially Zinoviev, were perfectly aware of this and from the very beginning fought against National Bolshevism, despite the practical benefits

In parallel with “Smenovekhovism,” another trend, quite close to it, developed – Eurasianism, or at least its left wing. Both the “Smenovekhites” and the “Left Eurasianists” ended up completely siding with the Bolsheviks and the vast majority of them returned to Soviet Russia and integrated into socialist society. All the authors who have made such an evolution – Klyuchnikov, Bobrischev-Pushkin, Kirdetsov, Lukyanov, Lvov, etc. Agursky classifies them among the “left National Bolsheviks”, whom he distinguishes from the “right National Bolsheviks”, whose undisputed leader and highest spiritual authority was Ustryalov, who remained outside Russia in Harbin until the mid-30s and until the end kept a certain distance from the Soviet system despite all their sympathy for it.dual phenomenon. Although Agursky nowhere speaks of this directly, his interpretation of National Bolshevism is divided into two components, which correspond to its two ideological aspects. In principle, we are talking about the duality of the ideology of the Conservative Revolution as such, namely, the historical Russian National Bolshevism was its expression. It is significant that in the National Bolshevik context, as Agursky recalls, the term “revolutionary conservatism” (first used by the Slavophile Samarin and adopted by German national ideologists) was adopted by Isai Lezhnev, the pillar of Soviet “left National Bolshevism”.

3. Left National Bolshevism

Any revolution has a “conservative” background, which is expressed in opposition to the current state of affairs – the System – an archaic paradigm, long forgotten and lost in ordinary, non-revolutionary and non-radical conservatism. Outwardly, this trend is often so “nihilistic” and “destructive” that it is extremely difficult to see its “conservative”, “archaic” beginning. It is this aspect that should be called “left national Bolshevism.”

Agursky shows that such “left national Bolshevism” historically goes back to Russian eschatological sectarianism, Old Believers, folk apocalypticism. At first, some of the “Slavophiles” became its more modern carriers – the most extreme representatives of whom (unlike the moderate conservatives) hated with fierce hatred the entire Romanov “Petersburg period”, which they considered a retreat from the truly national, truly Orthodox system – and then the “populists “- Herzen, Ogarev, etc. down to Bakunin, Tkachev and Nechaev, as well as the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries. In this direction, “mystical nihilism” dominates, the idea that “salvation” (read social good, building a just society, etc.) in the present conditions cannot be achieved by traditional, conventional, established way, irretrievably lost its legitimacy and effectiveness. Only the paradoxical path of “holiness through sin” or “creation through destruction, overthrow” remains.

Left National Bolshevism begins with the self-immolations of the Old Believers, with the radical movements of the Bespopovites, such as the “netovtsy” (or “Spasovo consent”), as well as with the “spiritual Christians” who came out of this milieu, known as whips. In this milieu, the idea was widespread that the “antichrist” had already come into the world and that the Russian statehood and the official church had completely fallen under his influence. Against such a desacralized statehood and a church that had become graceless, the sectarians put forward the idea of ​​an “invisible city” and a “community of the elect” who, following terrible paths, gain deliverance through protest, destruction, a special path of “blasphemous (at least from the usual point of view) holiness” .

Narodnik terrorists, and Nechaev in particular, should be understood precisely from this “religious nihilism” inherent in the Russian national element, as some kind of informal, parallel ideology, rarely clearly expressed, but still potentially present in the broad masses of the people.

The echo of the same idea, but already in a different, purely intellectual environment, is, according to Agursky, the Russian mystical renaissance, the so-called. “new religious consciousness”, associated with Vladimir Solovyov and the whole course of Russian symbolism, which he highly influenced. Solovyov approached the same mystical-nihilistic reality from the other side – through Western mysticism, Hegelianism, interest in Gnostic and Kabbalistic doctrines. Solovyov also clearly distinguishes the mechanism by which the Gnostic idea, akin to the Anabaptists, Cathars, Albigenses, etc., is embodied with the modernist theory of “progress”. Agursky calls Solovyov’s concept “optimistic eschatology”, according to which the social and technical development of society proceeds in the direction of a return to the “golden age” . Agursky writes: “In order to reconcile the fact of the undeniable progress of the end of the 19th century, which seemed to be a convincing argument in favor of optimistic eschatology, with the no less undeniable fact of the fall of Christianity both among the people and among the intelligentsia, the bearer of this progress, Solovyov comes to the paradoxical conclusion that that now the Spirit of God rests not on believers, but on unbelievers.” In principle, practically the same was asserted by the most radical Old Believers “netovtsy”, who generally denied the very possibility of salvation through any kind of external rituals and believed that from now on the exceptional possibility of this salvation can only be granted by the super-reasonable and incomprehensible will of Christ, completely regardless of merit. believer – in the limit, even regardless of the presence or absence of faith itself. Of course, “

“Left National Bolshevism” refers to the most extremist variants of this ideology, which are associated with the theoretical justification of the most terrible and bloody aspects of the revolution. Most of all, it is characteristic of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, and especially for that part of them that went down in history under the name “Scythians”. In a sense, the very term “Scythianism” can be seen as synonymous with left-wing National Bolshevism.

4. “Scythianism”

Under the title “Scythians” in late 1917 – early 1918 two collections were published, in which the ideology of “left national Bolshevism” found its first reflection. The meaning of this ideology was reduced to the consideration of the October Revolution as a mystical, messianic, eschatological and deeply national phenomenon. The main ideologists of “Scythianism” were the Left Socialist-Revolutionary Ivanov-Razumnik, a member of the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee S. Mstislavsky, and the poet and writer Andrei Bely (Bugaev). Famous poets and writers who became classics of Soviet literature also grouped around them: Alexander Blok, Sergei Yesenin, Nikolai Klyuev, Alexei Remizov, Evgeny Zamyatin, Olga Forsh, Alexei Chapygin, Konstantin Erberg, Evgeny Lundberg, etc.

Scythianism was characterized by “an apology for barbarism” (against the civilization of the West), an appeal to the archaic element of the nation, and the glorification of destructive spontaneity that creates a “new world”. Some authors were marked by the Christian idea (in its Old Believer – like Klyuev – or simply unorthodox, non-conformist form – like Blok and Yesenin). The following statement by Blok of that period, which directly anticipates Spengler’s theses, is characteristic: “… civilized people have become exhausted and have lost cultural values. In such times, the more recent barbarian masses turn out to be the unconscious guardians of culture.” The program of “Scythianism” can be recognized as Blok’s poem “12”, in which Bolshevism and revolution are frankly associated with Christ.

Some purely religious phenomena can also be attributed to “left national Bolshevism” – such as “renovationism” and the “Living Church” project, which were actively promoted by supporters of “Christian socialism” and who saw in the revolution the realization of true Christian ideals. The pagan version of the same eschatological complex was developed by Valery Bryusov, who connected the Revolution not with the Christian, but with the magico-pantheistic renewal, with a return to the theurgy of the ancient pre-Christian cults.

Among the leaders of the young Soviet regime, Isai Lezhnev, who was the main ideologist of National Bolshevism in Russia and the main conductor of the “Smenovekhi” tendencies of the emigrant National Bolsheviks, stood out in particular. Lezhnev proceeded from the principles of the absoluteness of the “folk spirit”, which for him was the highest measure and the main axis of history. If a people comes to a revolution, then this corresponds to its internal needs, although it can use any ideological, conceptual and socio-political tools to fulfill its will. For Lezhnev, revolutionary destruction and upheavals were justified precisely by national necessity and, therefore, carried the highest providential meaning hidden behind external barbarism. The same idea was succinctly expressed by another National Bolshevik, Professor N. Gredeskul, one of the founders of the Cadets Party, who independently came to “Smenovekhovism” independently of Ustryalov. He wrote: “Either Soviet Russia is some kind of degenerate, and then the blame for this falls on the Russian people, and there is no excuse for it, because a whole people should not voluntarily surrender to a gang of robbers, or Soviet Russia is an embryo – the embryo of a new humanity, an attempt by the working people to realize their age-old aspirations.” Lezhnev had no doubt that “Soviet Russia is the germ of a new humanity.”

Another manifestation of “left national Bolshevism” can be called the literature of the so-called “fellow travelers” – B. Pilnyak, K. Fedin, A. Tolstoy, L. Leonov, Vs. Ivanov, V. Lidin, etc. In their work, one can easily find all the motifs characteristic of this phenomenon. For example, here is an excerpt from Boris Pilnyak’s novel. – “Now after the revolution, Russia’s way of life, disposition, cities – went to the 17th century. There was no joy in Russia, but now it is … The revolution, the revolt of the people, did not need – someone else’s. they create the truth – truly Russians truly Russian.” Fellow travelers glorified the national element of rebellion, seeing in Bolshevism the “new Pugachevism”, a primordially Russian, largely archaic phenomenon.

In a sense, Maxim Gorky could also be attributed to the “left national Bolsheviks”, who tried to create a special populist religion, certain aspects of which are almost identical to the ideas of radical German nationalists.

Gorky wrote: “Narodushko is immortal, I believe in his spirit, I confess his strength; he is the beginning of life, one and undoubted: he is the father of all gods, past and future.” Something similar could be found among the theorists of the German Conservative Revolution and even among the Nazis. Gorky is drawn to them by Nietzsche’s fascination…

5. Right National Bolshevism

The second principled side of National Bolshevism can be called “right”, “conservative”. “Right National Bolshevism” proceeds from this logic. – The life of a nation, state, people is a kind of organic process that always keeps its center intact. In all dynamic transformations – including crises, revolutions, rebellions – the dialectic of the “people’s spirit” emerges, which leads to providential goals, regardless of the desires and will of the direct participants in the events themselves. A nation remains equal to itself – like a living organism – at various stages of its existence, and even its illness is sometimes a renewal syndrome, a path to strengthening. The existence of a people is deeper and more absolute than its socio-political history.

Consequently, all changes within the framework of a nation are conservative phenomena , regardless of what external forms they are embodied in. This concept of “right national Bolshevism” was consistently and fully formulated by Nikolai Ustryalov. For Ustryalov, Bolshevism and the revolution were only stages in the history of the Russian nation, moreover, dialectically aimed at overcoming the crisis that alone made the revolution possible. In other words, Ustryalov and other “right-wing National Bolsheviks” saw the “conservative” element not in the very theory of revolution, not in the very essence of “nihilistic gnosticism” (as “leftists”), but only in the constancy of the national context, subordinating the entire social political tools – up to the revolution.

Such Ustryalovsky national-bolshevism was in tune with some “white” ideologists, the left wing of the Cadets, a certain part of the monarchists (Shulgin is the most prominent representative of this trend), and especially the Eurasians, who, in analyzing the revolution, came to almost the same conclusions as the right-wing nationalists. Bolsheviks.

“Right National Bolshevism” differs from “left” (with which it still has many common features) in that it does not consider “revolution”, “barbarism”, “destruction” a self-sufficient value. The element of religious negation – so essential for “Left National Bolshevism” and for its root Gnostic impulse – is alien to the “Right National Bolsheviks”, who saw in the revolution only a temporary transient evil, immediately overcome by the positive of a new national affirmation. It is significant that the “right-wing National Bolsheviks” most often, at the time of the revolution itself and in the civil war, took the side of the “whites”, leaving the “old order” while it was still possible, but as soon as the “white cause” finally lost,, even if it’s new. The “Left National Bolsheviks”, for their part, welcomed in the Bolshevik government not that it was “order”, but precisely that it was essentially ” newunder the influence of the Russian national element and under the pressure of the geopolitical and historical scale of the state, it will turn into “fascist Caesarism”, i.e. into a totalitarian system, focused on upholding Russian national interests in both the political and economic spheres.

“Right National Bolshevism” neglected the most radical aspects of communist ideology, believed that the best thing for Russia would be a return to the market and to the peasant system. But in general, the attitude towards the economy was purely pragmatic (like that of the Nazis): what kind of economic structure is beneficial for the nation, this should be accepted. Ustryalov considered the petty-bourgeois regime to be the most effective, and therefore he enthusiastically welcomed the NEP, which ideologically substantiated and, perhaps, brought it closer, since many party leaders, including Lenin himself, reckoned with Ustryalov’s opinion. Many communist critics of this direction – Zinoviev, Kamenev, later Bukharin – especially emphasized the “NEP” orientation of the Ustryalov ideology, and based their attacks on National Bolshevism precisely on this,

If the most non-conformist elements from non-Bolshevik environments were attracted to the “Left National Bolshevism” – terrorists, neo-populists, Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, extreme sectarians, etc. – then, on the contrary, many hyperconformist types – specialists gravitated towards the “Right National Bolsheviks”. , military personnel (Brusilov, Altfater, Polivanov, etc.), and – oddly enough! – reactionary circles of the clergy and even the Black Hundreds. All of them were united by sympathy for a “strong hand”, “centralism”, an authoritarian regime that was clearly established in the process of strengthening the power of the Bolsheviks. Among the common people, as Agursky emphasizes, there was even a formula: “Who are you for – for the Bolsheviks or for the Communists?” “Bolsheviks” were associated with representatives of the radical Great Russian statehood, with spokesmen for the people’s element, while “communists” were considered, on the contrary, the dogmatists of internationalism and “Westerners”. Many Eurasians joined the extreme right flank of National Bolshevism, keeping their distance from the full and unconditional acceptance of Bolshevism, mainly for religious and ethical reasons.

6. Resonance in the part

National Bolshevik tendencies (both right and left) were the product of the intellectual activity of non-communist theorists. But they had a huge resonance in the CPSU. Moreover, as Agursky convincingly proves, it is precisely the attitude towards National Bolshevism that is the key that helps to understand the “Aesopian” language of intra-party polemics of the entire early Soviet period, which preceded the final strengthening of the sole power in Stalin’s party. If we rely on the formal aspects of the party discussions of those years, then we will find ourselves in an indecipherable chaos of paradoxes and obvious contradictions. Only the selection of National Bolshevism as the main interpretive criterion will allow us to build the whole picture of the ideological struggle of this period. “Left National Bolshevism” impressed Leon Trotsky most of all, and Agursky rightly remarks that it is high time to put the question: “Is Trotsky a lion like that?” It was Trotsky who in his book “Literature and Revolution” speaks very positively about “fellow travelers” and representatives of “Scythianism”, whose pathos fully resonates with the revolutionary spirit of Trotsky himself. In a sense, even the theory of “permanent revolution” and the idea of ​​its “export to the West” is not so contrary to the messianic tendencies of the supporters of “national barbarism”. In addition, purely pragmatically, national Bolshevism allows Trotsky to consolidate his power in the party and in the army, relying on the national spirit and resorting to direct appeals to the patriotic feelings of the Great Russians. Already at this stage, his consistent opponent is Zinoviev, who, however, He does not accept only Great Russian National Bolshevism, but, being the head of the Comintern, he treats German National Bolshevism and even left Nazism with pragmatic sympathy. In addition, Lenin himself took the Smenovekhism extremely positively, although it is difficult to say for sure what was more in this regard – pragmatic Machiavellian calculation or real sympathy for “mystical nihilism.”

“Right National Bolshevism” in turn is associated with the figure of Joseph Stalin, who, as Agursky quite rightly shows, has always been much closer to the pragmatic conservative Ustryalov than to “Scythians” and other revolutionary radicals. And although Stalin, in the inner-party struggle with Trotsky, initially relied on Zinoviev and Bukharin, gradually both of them will be defeated by him precisely by relying on the conservative, right-wing national Bolshevik sector in the party itself, nurtured by Stalin through the “Leninist call” for new national cadres, who retained a connection with the people’s element and a sense of statehood. Stalin took full advantage of the fruits of the Trotskyist-Leninist course towards the acceptance of “Smenovekhovism”, but at the same time managed to destroy his opponents with their own weapons. One gets the impression that through all the stages of Stalin’s career runs this unspoken, but constantly pondered concept – the concept of “right-wing national Bolshevism.” Ustryalov was, as it were, a spokesman for Stalin’s secret thoughts, his confessor in Harbin… Stalin without Ustryalov is simply incomprehensible.

And it is no coincidence that the defeat of the Zinoviev “opposition” was perceived by contemporaries as a complete triumph of Ustryalov’s ideas.

Agursky sees a manifestation of Stalin’s sympathy for the right-wing version of national Bolshevism in Stalin’s especially warm attitude towards Bulgakov and especially his admiration for Bulgakov’s openly national Bolshevik play Days of the Turbins, which he personally visited 15 times. At the end of the play, the white officer Myshlaevsky proves that it is necessary to go over to the Bolsheviks:

Myshlaevsky : I am for the Bolsheviks, but only against the Communists … At least I will know that I will serve in the Russian army. The people are not with us. The people are against us.

Studzinsky : … We had Russia – a great power!

Myshlaevsky : And it will be! And will be!”

This passage contains the quintessence of right-wing national-bolshevik thought.

Agursky also emphasizes that it was Stalin who welcomed the “Sergian” line in Orthodoxy, which compromised with the Soviet regime, and not the renovationist “Christian socialism”, which is closer to “left national Bolshevism”. The definition of renovationism that existed in that era is curious – “church Trotskyism.” In other words, there were also two possibilities in the question of cooperation between the Church and the Bolsheviks – the “revolutionary church” of the Renovationists, trying to embrace and comprehend, “Christianize” “mystical nihilism”, and the strategic compromise of official Orthodoxy, the notes of which can be discerned even before the Metropolitan (later Patriarch) Sergius in the position of Patr. Tikhon after his release from prison.

7. Jewish factor

Agursky considers the problem of the Jews in the context of Bolshevism in a completely unexpected way. From his point of view, the mass participation of Jews in the revolution is explained not so much by their hostility to Orthodox Russia, revenge for the “Pale of Settlement” or groundlessness and Westernism, but by a special eschatological messianic attitude characteristic of the sectarian variety of Judaism (Hasidic or Sabbatist type), which was extremely common among Eastern European Jews. It was precisely the similarity of apocalyptic fanaticism, the commonality of the religious type with the representatives of Russian sectarianism and the intelligentsia’s Gnosticism, that predetermined the role of the Jews in the Bolshevik movement. In addition, Agursky emphasizes that many Jewish Bolsheviks felt themselves to be passionate Great Russian nationalists, for whom the October Revolution destroyed the last barriers to complete merging with the Russian people. Most of them were either baptized and assimilated, or had specific mystical inclinations and belonged to esoteric cabalistic groups.

Of course, this did not apply to everyone. Zinoviev, Kamenev and, in general, almost the entire “Petersburg group” were authentic Western Jews who accepted communism only in its rational, social, dogmatic aspect. In other words, the great-power National Bolshevism of some Jews (Lezhnev, Tan-Bogoraz, Kerdetsev, Pilnyak, and even the early Trotsky, who, by the way, was actively interested in Freemasonry and was a member of the “Great East”) contrasted sharply with the Russophobia of others. But even among the Russian Bolsheviks, this was mirrored in the confrontation between the new Russian leaders of the Stalinist conscription (Molotov, Voroshilov, Kirov, etc.) and Russophobic ethnic Great Russians like Bukharin.

8. National Bolshevism versus National Communism

Agursky reveals an important terminological difference between these two terms. “National Bolshevism” should be called precisely the Great Russian, Eurasian version, which stands for the unification of all the former lands of the Russian Empire into a single centralized socialist state – the USSR. Among the Bolshevik leaders, this unequivocally correlated with the figure of Joseph Stalin.

“National communism”, in turn, was used to designate, on the contrary, the separatist tendencies of the national outskirts of Russia, which sought to use the October Revolution to achieve national independence. Tatar (Sultan-Galiev), Georgian and Ukrainian communists (Skrypnik) were especially strong national communist tendencies. They believed (rightly) that great power imperialist sentiments were too strong in the Bolsheviks, that national Bolshevism in Ustryalov’s formulation was fraught with a new “dictatorship of Moscow.” It is indicative that the most active fighters against separatist national communism were representatives of the same nations, but professing, on the contrary, the Soviet principle of “undividedness” and, accordingly, national Bolshevism. So Stalin and Ordzhonikidze are not for life, and fought to the death against Georgian separatism, etc. Only in Ukraine, in the party, the pro-Moscow line was carried out mainly by ethnic Great Russians, and even more so by assimilated Jews.

This point is very important, since it clearly traces the fundamental difference between the simple adaptation of communist ideas to a specific national context (national communism) and a special universalist line, associated exclusively with Russian eschatologism, messianic and all-human, open to all Eurasian peoples and integration. National Bolshevism thus opens up as a supra-ethnic, imperial, universal reality. This is a fundamental point.

9. Parallel ideology

Agursky ranks many other authors as National Bolshevism – Marietta Shaginyan, Maximilian Voloshin, Osip Mandelstamm, Andrey Platonov, the futurist Rodchenko, Mayakovsky himself, O. Khvolson, M. Prishvin, A. Akhmatova, M. Tsvetaeva, N. Tikhonov, N. .Nikitin, Y.Livshits, K.Chukovsky, etc. If you take a closer look at Soviet literature – right up to Sholokhov, who, however, is not mentioned, however, by Agursky – then almost all it will open up as a variety of national Bolshevik thought, since it is practically impossible to find pure “socialist realism” in culture, with the exception, perhaps, of quite “conditional” works, classified as culture for purely opportunistic reasons. The personality of Marietta Shaginyan, who has become a classic of Soviet literature, should be especially emphasized. Several essential elements of National Bolshevism as a whole come together in her work and intellectual evolution.

Firstly, she was an assimilated Russified Armenian, which fits perfectly into the phenomenon of socialist great power analyzed by Agursky, the carriers of which were most often assimilated foreigners – Georgians, Jews, Armenians, etc. If in the western regions (Ukraine) the Jews were especially active centralists and conductors of promo-Sokovist tendencies in the party, then in the Caucasus – in Azerbaijan and Georgia – it was the Armenians who played an active role. Therefore, the national-Bolshevik choice of Shaginyan is very indicative.

Secondly, before the revolution, Shaginyan was an active member of the religious and philosophical circle of Dmitry Merezhkovsky and Zinaida Gippius, where she got acquainted with the Gnostic worldview, which she became extremely interested in. She begins her spiritual development as a typical representative of the “new religious consciousness.” Shaginyan was one of the first to accept the October Revolution, evaluating it mystically. In the revolution, she saw “the roots of some new Slavophile-Bolshevik consciousness.” After the revolution, she advanced even further along the path of Gnosticism – like the Cainite Gnostics, she began to consider the negative characters of the “Old Testament” – Ham, Cain, Esau, etc. – as carriers of the true spirit and forerunners of Christ, the enemy of the “evil demiurge”-usurper.

Thirdly, Shaginyan was – like Andrey Platonov and academician Vernadsky – a fan of the teachings of Nikolai Fedorov about the “resurrection of the dead”, which is one of the classic themes of operational occultism (1). The same theurgical component of Fedorov’s teaching inspired many Eurasians, especially the “leftists” – Karsavin, Savitsky, the publishers of the Parisian magazine “Eurasia” (Tsvetaeva’s husband, Efron, etc.). Moreover, the heterodox from the Orthodox point of view, but the national and anti-Western doctrine of Fedorov was the ideological focus through which the “right” conservative mystics passed to the acceptance of communism. Fourthly, the writer in her works of art tried to create a “new proletarian mythology”, many moments of which are typical examples of conspiracy consciousness inherent in the traditional mystical-occult way of thinking.

In general, the fate of Marietta Shaginyan is the archetype of national Bolshevik evolution, and in this sense, her figure is paradigmatic for all Soviet National Bolshevism.

Arugsky’s analysis gives rise to such an impressive picture of Soviet society in its deep mythological layers that one gets the feeling that we are in a parallel world, where the entire external boring-dogmatic, pseudo-utilitarian, brutal in its everyday life picture of official Soviet history is resolved in a deep, rich full of metaphysical intuitions and magical incidents of reality. And this “second reality” of Sovietism – from its origins right up to the last days – gives everything meaning, fullness, hermeneutical sharpness. This reality is life-giving, paradoxical, passionate and deep, unlike dry statistics, censored historical reports or shrill dissident criticism, as tedious as Soviet historians listing facts,

Mikhail Agursky is not just a historian with an original scheme. He is a fateful person for Russia. And the symbolism of his path comes through in the fact that he died not in Jerusalem and not in America, but in Moscow, the Third Rome (2) , where he came to the “Congress of Compatriots”. Moreover, the date of death is no less symbolic – August 21, 1991. The last day of the Great Soviet Empire, the last moment when National Bolshevism was still the ruling ideology on the vast Eurasian territory.


(1) On this subject, see A. Dugin’s study “Le complot ideologique du cosmisme russe” in “Politica Hermetica” N 6, Paris, 1992.

(2) The full English version of his book is called “The Third Rome”

A Brief History of The Pro Soviet Right Part 2; The Cold War to Present

After the end of the second world war in 1945, the remaining Italian Fascist, German National Socialist and their allies were in complete disarray. Most of the leadership, and top intellectuals either being dead, in prison, completely disillusioned with Fascism or National Socialism or retired from politics all together. Those who remained who still were nationalist would try to rebuild their movements and rebrand. Some in the Western World still proclaimed to be Fascist or National Socialist, others trying to move on to better lands. Notable neo fascist and nationalist groups being British Union Movement led former leader of the British Union of Fascist and National Socialist Oswald Mosely, the Italian Social Movement founded by Giorgio Almirante, German Socialist Reich Party led by former National Socialist German General Otto Remer, the German Reich Party led by Adolf Von Thadden the Pan European group Jeune Europe led by former Belgian SS soldier Jean Francis Thirart and many more.

Many of these groups advocated for the idea of Pan Europe or United Europe nation that would unite the continent and would serve as a third power that would neither be aligned with the USSR or the USA. These group would go on to form in the early 50s the National Party of Europe being a coalition of several German, Italian, Belgian and British groups. Despite the claims of being for neither Moscow or Washington many of them would end up favoring one or the other. Along with both the Soviet Union and America understanding the use of these groups to sway the tides of the Cold War in Europe. In Soviet dominated East the Right was just as divided amongst former Axis as well as those who were nationalist and anti-capitalist but were opposed to the Axis Powers during the Second World War. Same could be said for the rest of the Nationalist, Conservative, and Fascist scenes across the world. This article like part 1 will go over these Pro Soviet Right, individuals, groups, and the conditions they came about in as much as possible. Of Course, like part one not all of them will be covered but many of them will be. Like Part 1 we will start with the Soviet Union then work our way to Europe then to the Middle East then the Americas.

The Soviet Union 1945 to 1991

Despite the dissolving of Nikolay Ustryalov National Bolsheviks in the late 1930s. Soviet Nationalism was not only tolerated during and after the second world war but was actively encourage by the Soviet Union. World War 2 was not only portrayed as a war between Nazis against Communists but as a war for national survival with World War 2 being called the Great Patriotic War. The Soviets embraced Russian historical figures such as Ivan the Terrible, and Peter the Great, historical symbols and even formed an alliance with the Russian Orthodox Church.  The most extreme part of this new nationalism was the deportation of ethnic groups that were consider disloyal by the Soviet State such as the Tatars and Germans. This was all done under the leadership of Joseph Stalin. Stalin was already moving the Soviet Union in a more national direction in the 1930s with his Socialism in One Country policy. This was all accelerated when National Socialist Germany Invaded the Soviet Union in 1940 with the Soviet Government needing to energize the Soviet People. Weather Stalin was doing this not only out of necessity but a genuine Nationalistic feeling within Stalin is still disputed to this day. However, what is clear is this policy on Nationalism remained after the second world war. Stalin also encourage ethnic Russians to move into other parts of the Soviet Union that were not Russian due to the decline of population in these areas like Ukraine due to the German Invasion. Stalin even made it were the Russian Language was taught in every Soviet school.  Stalin by the end of his life even launched a purge against those he deemed to be cosmopolitan who were mostly Jews. All of this of course made some Russian enemies of the Soviet Union reconsider their opinions such as the leader of the Manchurian based Pro Axis Russian Fascist Party Konstantin Rodzaevsky who even wrote a letter to Stalin about how he was misled about him, and how his group was different from the other axis groups and how Stalin was a true fighter against the “Jewish Threat.” Rodzaevsky would go back to Soviet Union with the government promising that he would be forgiven for all his wrong doings however he would be quickly arrested under charges of terrorism and subversion and later executed along with other White Emigrates leaders in 1946.  

Despite the death of Stalin in 1953 and liberalization/ destalinization period that followed with Stalin successor Nikita Khrushchev. Nationalist elements still existed throughout the Soviet Union especially amongst high-ranking members of the Soviet Military and Government, who were completely hostile to this liberalization that started under Khrushchev. Some notable military personal and government officials who held these Nationalist views our Colonel General Albert Makashov, people’s deputy Sergey Baburin, First Secretary of Komsomol Gennady Zyuganov, and Soviet General Valdislav Achalov. These men would go on to be strong opponents of liberalization and Mikhail Gorbachev the last leader of Soviet Union, who they saw as destabilizing the country. Both Makashov and Achalov would support the 1991 coup against Gorbachev in hopes of turning everything around but failed. Zyuganov was a leading critic of Gorbachev and liberalization at the time and Baburin would vote against the disillusionment of the Soviet Union that same year. All these men would go on to be major players in the post-soviet Russia opposition of the Neo Liberal President Boris Yeltsin.

Even among some Soviet intellectuals and writers such as Valentin Rasputin, and Vasily Belov had similar views on Nationalism, anti-capitalism and opposition to Gorbachev and Yeltsin but tended to have a more agrarian, ecological and peasant orientated world view and would adopt more monarchist positions after the end of Soviet Union with the exception Rasputin.  All be it both of them would go on to side with National Communist against Gorbachev and Yeltsin before and after the collapse of USSR with Rasputin and Zyuganov going on to sign an open letter titled “A Word to The People” a deeply nationalist indictment of Gorbachev and Yeltsin policies that was leading to the Soviet Union collapse. The letter was also seen as one of the first calls to arms against Gorbachev with many signers supporting the  August Coup. However, with Gorbachev reforms weaking the power of the Soviet government both geo politically and internally along with the coup failing caused the Soviet Union to collapse later that year.  It should be noted that both the Nationalistic Communist, Conservatives intellectuals and Military personal were also Anti-Zionist and arguably antisemitic with some like Colonel General Makashov believing that Zionist forces had been behind the demonization and destabilization of the Soviet Union and Russia. At the same time Valentin Rasputin has counter these claims made against him sayings his words were taken out of context.

 It should also be noted that Eurasianist Philosopher Lev Gumilyov was also writing around this time. While Gumilyov was considered a dissident in the Soviet Union with his ideas being consider dangerous would go on to influence some within the Pro Soviet anti-Yeltsin opposition after the fall of the Soviet Union most notably Russian Intellectual, founder of the 4th Political Theory and the National Bolshevik Party Alexander Dugin who along with the other founder of party Eduard Limonov was also a dissident in the Soviet Union with Dugin at the time being a National Socialist out of spite for the Soviet Union rather than being a fan of Hitler. Dugin would also take his son to go spite on Vladimir Lenin statue and Limonov was forced to live in exile for a time in America and later France for anti-Soviet activities. Dugin would also leave the Soviet Union in late 80s to France to meet with fellow right-wing intellectuals such as Jean Francois Thiriart and Alain De Benoist. However, both Liminov and Dugin by the end of Soviet Union lifetime realized that Russia would be in far worse and weaker position with the USSR dissolving.

Eastern Bloc and the Cold War

After World War 2 the USSR had expanded its influence throughout Eastern Europe with communist parties taking power almost immediately afterwards. This of course put many nationalists, conservatives, and remnants of the Axis in a very difficult position. Some like the Pro Axis Clerical Fascist of the Romanian Iron Guard, the Croatian Ustasha now going by the name The Crusaders and the Polish resistance group the Cursed Soldiers made up of a mixture of different conservative, nationalist and anti-communist ideologies continued their fight against the communist with some of these insurgencies lasting into the 1960s.  There was also many former Axis and right-wing groups who were willing to work from within Communist governments seeing socialism and collaboration with the Soviet Union as the way forward for a better future for their respective countries. Unlike previous times where communist rejected their support, in many places the communist embraced their former enemies with open arms forming coalitions with these groups and encouraging nationalistic writings. Many of these communist government saw this as a way of swaying more religious and conservative minded people to socialism and making them feel like they had a place in this new society instead of having them drift to anti-communist causes that would be used against the Communist governments.

One notable example is the East German Nationalist and conservative socialist National Democratic Party of Germany founded by former NSADP/SA Wilhelm Adam who fought in the battle of Stalingrad and was captured by Soviet Troops. Adam during his time in Soviet Union became a member of the National Committee of Free Germany a group funded by the Soviet Union to make propaganda against National Socialist Germany and to appeal to captured German soldiers through nationalist, conservative, and anti-western appeals. There are of course other examples of Right-wing parties such as the Christian Democratic Union of East Germany, the Bulgarian Agrarian National Union, and United Peoples Party of Poland. While these parties did exist and had many seats in parliament they would very rarely ever go up against the communist line and many times those who did such as Chairman Jakob Kaiser of the Christian Democratic Union who did support nationalization and land redistribution but was still critical of the communists was forced out of the party and left to West Germany soon after.

Outside of political parties in East Germany some prominent members of the Conservative Revolution and other anti-Hitler elements of nationalist and conservative movements were allowed or invited to live in the country such as National Bolshevik resistances writer Ernst Niekisch, Christian democrat Jakob Kaiser, (before being kicked out), cofounder of West Germany Christian Democratic Union before fleeing  from West Germany Gunther Gereke and Black Front leader Otto Strasser who declined twice.  In other places like Poland some members of Polish Catholic Falange resistance group like their leader Boleslaw Piasecki founded the Catholic PAX association which integrated Catholics into the communist society and controlled the Polish branch of the Caritas Internationalis a development and social service organization. The group also supported the government persecution of suspected anticommunist and subversive catholic clergy men.

In Nicolae Ceausescu Romania some of the influential writers at the time in the country were nationalist such as the anti-Semitic Eugen Barbu and Corneliu Vadim Tudor who would after the fall of communism found the Greater Romania Party. At first a National Communist but later simply a ultra nationalist party that was the second largest party throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. Nicolae  Ceausescu in many was very similar to the National Bolsheviks since he advocated for a heavily nationalistic form of communism along with ending the anti-religious campaign that took place before he came to power and even started to rehabilitate some right wing figures such as the historian and medievalist Nicolae Lorga who was executed by the Iron Guard and historian Eugen Lovinescu all be it there more anticommunist works were still censored.

The reason Ceausescu wanted Romania independent from Moscow so that it would not be a satellite nation but a nation that could be friendly with both the west and east. Ceausescu also did not want Romania to end up like Czechoslovakia did in 1968. This independent foreign policy got him dub as the west favorite communist because of his more friendly ties to Western countries. Ceausescu even met American President Richard Nixon along with other western leaders. That said he still had strong ties with many anti-western governments such as Gaddafi Libya, Fidel Castro Cuba, and Kim Ill Sung North Korea. North Korea ideology of Juche was very similar to Romania National Communism with Ceausescu taking influence from North Korea. One of the most influential National Bolsheviks in Western Europe Jean Francois Thiriart even met Ceausescu at one point, who Thiriart was a great admirer of, which leads us to Western Europe.

Western Europe and the Cold War

In Western Europe the Pro Soviet Right camp can be broken up into two camps the Post World War 2 Fascist/ National Socialist camp who obviously took most of their influence from Italian Fascist and German National Socialist thinkers but also some took influence from other groups like the Conservative Revolution and the Italian Traditionalist Julius Evola for example. This group includes people like Ernst Remer and Francis Parker Yockey. Then the second camp being the New Right or what I dubbed the New Conservative Revolutionaries who took most of their influence from the German Conservative Revolution but also from the Italian Elitist School, French Syndicalist Georges Sorel, and the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci. This Group includes people like Jean Francois Thirart and Alain De Benoist. We will first go over the Fascist/ National Socialists. 

In Germany and Italy there was both Italian Fascist and German National Socialist who took funding from the Soviet Union or by the local communist party. In West Germany this was Socialist Reich Party led by German Wehrmacht Officer Otto Ernst Remer. Remer unlike his east German counter parts who switched sides in World War 2 was a loyal commander to Adolf Hitler and to the ideas of National Socialism. He took part in the invasion of Poland and helped to bring down the July Coup attempt against the NSADP in 1944.

After being released from prison in 1947 Remer founded the Socialist Reich Party in 1949 which gain some seats in local government, in legislative body in Germany and got over 360 thousand votes in lower saxony and Schleswig Heistien. The party espoused the ideas of National Socialism, reuniting Germany and believed that the Holocaust was nothing more than allied propaganda. The party was strongly critical of the USA and Britain and went as far as to say they would side with the Soviets if war broke out.  All of this of course ended up getting the party banned in 1952. However, this is not the end of Remer story. Remer would go on to advise Pan Arab Nationalist/ anti-Zionist Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser. He would also go sell weapons to the Algerian National Liberation Front and to Castro Cuba. All these governments Remer supported aligned with the Soviet Union during the cold war. Remer would return to West Germany still espousing Anti-NATO sentiments, German Reunification, alliance with the Soviet Union, and anti-Semitic ideals. He would be arrested in 1992 for inciting racial hatreds. He would end up fleeing to Spain and died there in 1997.

 Italy just like in Germany both before and after World War 2 had elements of the National Fascist Party and government who were sympathetic to the Soviet Union or at least had more radical socialist economic views. Before Benito Mussolini and his Fascist Movement came to power. Mussolini who was a follower of French Syndicalist Georges Sorel had already cooperated many syndicalist such as Edmondo Rossoni, Ugo Spirito, Sergio Panizio and many other who became a core part of the Fascist movement in Italy. The Fascist Syndicalist as they were called were more radical than the average fascist, with starting strikes and calling for worker and union control of the factories which worried many within the Italian Industrial capitalist class. Mussolini even tried to form an alliance with the Italian Socialists with the signing of the Pact of Pacification in 1921 however this fell apart soon after as many of the more conservative Fascist leaders like Italo Balbo rejected it which restarted clashes between the Fascists and the socialist. Few years later in the mid-1920s  the Fascist Syndicalist would lose out to the more reformist and class collaboration corporatist elements which grew out of the syndicalist tradition. However unlike in Germany most of the radical Syndicalist elements within fascism were not pushed out of the party and remained largely loyal to Mussolini, with many of them still holding positions within the government such as Edmondo Rossoni who was a part of the Grand Council or in fascist intellectual circles like Ugo Spirto. Many of the Fascist Syndicalist were still seen as radicals within the fascist movements with some fascists accusing Ugo Spirito of being a communist.

Despite the hostility between Fascism and Communism, Fascist Italy was the first western nation to recognize the Soviet Union in February of 1924 and in 1933 signed the Italo Soviet Pact with both soon taking part in trade deals throughout the 1930s. Along with military leadership from both countries taking tours of Italy and the Soviet Union albeit both still saw the other ideology as enemies in their own countries. Mussolini in 1934 would even host meetings with anti-national socialist German conservative revolutionaries such as Ernst Niekisch who was sympathetic to the Soviet Union. However, relations would begin to break down with the start of the Spanish Civil War in 1936 with the Soviets backing the Communist and Italy backing the Nationalist. Relations would be destroyed in 1941 when Italy joined Nazi Germany in its war against the Soviet Union.  

In 1943 Rossoni would vote to remove Mussolini from power but despite this the ideas of Fascist Syndicalism would regain prominence with the rise of the Italian Social Republic in 1943 with former leader of communist party Nicola Bombacci joining Mussolini new government hoping to rally the working class to their new cause however, the republic would collapse in spring of 1945 with Mussolini and Bombacci being executed by their former communist comrades.

With the establishing of the more moderate fascist Italian Social Movement in 1946 which was Pro NATO and anti-communist pushed out many of the more radical syndicalist elements of fascism which gave an opportunity for the new reestablished Italian Communist Party to absorb these elements. The Communist Party would start funding the anti-capitalist fascist and anti-west Pensiero Nazionale magazine headed by Italian journalist and intellectual Stanis Runnias in hopes of incorporating Runnias and his followers into party. Runnias would invite the communists and fascist syndicalist in 1950 to an armed revolt which did not pan out.  The collaboration between the two would end in the early 1950s when Runnias refused to denounce Fascism with the magazine lasting all the way into 1970s. Runnias was not the only one who still maintained a more radical socialist economic element to his fascism in the cold war period there was also the Fascist politician Giorgio Pini who wrote for many Italian Fascist Journals and served as Ministry of Interior of the Italian Social Republic in 1944. After the war he tried to push MSI into a more socialist direction but failed and would leave the party and criticized the party for its ties to Pro American regimes like the military junta in Greece, Apartheid South Africa, and Salazar Portugal.

There is also of course one of the main organizers of the Italian Fascist/ National Socialist terrorist groups in the years of lead between 1969 to 1988 Franco Freda. Franco Freda had positive views of Maoism, and the Vietcong. Along with calling for nationalization and land redistribution. He also was a follower of traditional philosopher Julius Evola and leader of the Third Reich Adolf Hitler. He also considers the Palestinians and Vietnamese guerrillas as being more European than the French and Anglos who he viewed as selling their souls to Jewish capitalism. All of this got his ideology to be dubbed Nazi Maoism However, it is debatable on weather Freda truly belongs on the Pro Soviet Right as its been alleged that Freda and his groups were funded by the Italian SISMI and the CIA through the P2 Masonic Lodge to counter act the Soviets in Italy and Freda groups were often involve in conflict with communists such as the Red Brigades and often blamed communist and anarchist groups for terrorist attacks that Freda groups committed. Along with some of Freda associates who went on to support Pro American causes throughout the globe such as Stefano Delle Chiaie who went on to support pro NATO governments in South America such as Pinochet Chile. Another associate of Freda, Alessandro Alibrandi went on to fight for the Pro American/ Israeli Lebanese Phalange Militia in the Lebanese civil war and was even treated in an Israeli hospital. Freda also was able to avoid jail time in Italy and never had to flee the country like other who took part in the years of lead, which puts his beliefs into question.  

In Spain dissident elements of the Spanish Falange who viewed Franco as betraying the ideas of Jose Antonio decided to align with the communist opposition groups. This group of Falangist was led by Dionisio Ridruejo Jiménez. Jimenez was a part of a collection of Spanish artists who wrote and drew in the Spanish civil war called Generation 36. Jimenez was also the co-writer of the Falange anthem called cara al sol.

  During the war Dionisio Ridruejo Jimenez was a propagandist for the nationalist cause but was also in conflict with the more monarchist and military elements of the nationalist side. He ended up being censored for making nationalist propaganda in the Catalan language. A language that the nationalist generals wanted to eradicate. In 1941 he was dismissed from his post in the Propaganda minister by the Franco government for his support for National Socialist Germany in World War 2. He would go to serve in the Spanish volunteer group for Germany known as the Blue Division from 1941 to 42. 

In 1955 Jimenez was completely disillusioned with Francisco Franco leadership of the country. Jimenez decided to form a club of Authentic falangists, communists, and democrats in opposition to Franco government.  In 1957 Jimenez was briefly jailed for a time for his anti Franco activities. As time went on, he become more of a social democrat and ended up fleeing to Argentina in 1960. He would return to Spain in 1975 and died. However, his ideas of anti Franco Authentic Falangist still live on to this day in some groups like the Spanish political party Auténtica party.   

Other dissident Falangist such as Gustavo Morales  joined the dissident student group called Front of Student Unionist. After the return to democracy in Spain, in 1978 Morales apart of the Spanish Delegation of World Festival of Youth and Students that was being held in Cuba travel there along with some of his falangist friends. When they were at the festival, they saw Fidel Castro and gave him a Roman Salute, with Castro extending his hand and saying, “I know who you are.” Castro soon advised Morales to travel to the Che House/ Museum library. There Morales found Castro copy of Jose Antonio Primo De Rivera Completed Works.  This made Morales believe that Castro was more of a pragmatic nationalist than a hardline communist, who simply adopted communism to get the backing of the Soviets against the United States who had dominated the island politics for many decades.  Morales despite him being against anti-religious sentiments of the Cuban Government at the time still respected Castro and was sadden by Castro passing years later. Morales would return to Spain and continue to promote the ideas of Jose Antonio and Ramiro Ledesma Ramos, founding several foundations in the 1990s about the Falangist ideals.

The last of the European post war Fascist and National Socialist that took a Pro Soviet position is Francis Parker Yockey. Yockey was not born in Europe but America but did a lot of his writing and political activities in Europe and was one of few American thinkers of the right to have a positive position of the Soviet Union with the only other one being conservative and materialist philosopher George Santayana who like Yockey spent a lot of time in Europe most notably in Italy. Santayana also said this on the Soviet Union.

“I am not a conservative in the sense of being afraid of revolutions, like Hobbes, or thinking order, in the sense of peace, the highest good; and I am not at all attached to things as they are, or as they were in my youth. But I love order in the sense of organized, harmonious, consecrated living: and for this reason, I sympathize with the Soviets and Fascists and the Catholics, but not at all with the liberals. I should sympathize with the Nazis too, if their system were, even in theory, founded on reality; but it is Nietzschean, founded on Will: and therefore a sort of romanticism gone mad, rather than a serious organization of material forces—which would be the only way, I think, of securing moral coherence. . . .I hope that (the Soviets) may succeed in establishing a great new order of society, definite, traditional and self-justified.”

Unlike Yockey Santayana was not as involved with political action nor was Santayana a supporter of national socialism or antisemitism like Yockey.  Yockey is also one of the most mysterious out of everyone in this article as no one knows the true extent of his ties go to the communist world let alone his ties to the fascist/ national socialist underworld. Yockey got involved with politics in the early 1930s in America as a Marxist originally when he was attending University of Michigan. When Yockey was attending university was around the rise of Adolf Hitler National Socialism and Yockey quickly became fascinated with Hitler. Even declaring he would never dine with Jews or African Americans. Yockey would also become fascinated with Conservative Revolutionary theorist Oswald Spengler and his ideas of civilization, Prussian Socialism, and cyclical history.  He would soon go on to collaborate with pro Hitler groups like the Sliver Shirts and German American Bund. He would also publish articles for Father Coughlin Social Justice Journal and was also believed to be involved with the occult.

When America joined World War 2 in 1941, Yockey faked a mental illness to get out of military service and is believed to have gone on to help German spies who landed in the US and Mexico and was holding meetings with them. After the war during the Nuremberg trials, Yockey was able to become part of the war crimes investigation with Yockey hope of getting SS general Otto Ohlendorf out of war crime charges by leaking US documents that could help his case. Not long after Yockey was fired from his position. Yockey would go on to live in Ireland and would go onto write his most famous book Imperium published in 1948 which is largely seen as a sequel to Oswald Spengler Decline of The West. The book was also very critical of the United States, with Yockey seeing America as an Inherently rootless and liberal nation. To Yockey America embodied the worse aspects of modernity. Surprising Yockey viewed race as more spiritual than biological subject which is closer to Spengler than Hitler view on race despite praising the rise of Hitler and his in the 1933 election in the book.  Yockey was also very supportive of a unified European empire seeing post World War 2 Europe as divided and occupied by the US and USSR but seeing the US as the worse of the two. Yockey wrote Imperium under the name Ulick Varange which symbolizes Ireland with Russia. Showing that Yockey already had some sympathies for the Soviets.

 Yockey would go onto in 1950s to help the Nasser government in Egypt write anti-Zionist materials and live there for a time and is said to have meet Nasser personally and even formed ties with a Jihadist group known as the Muslim Brotherhood. Yockey would go to Czechoslovakia in 1952 to witness one of Stalin purges of cosmopolitans and mostly Jewish elements within the communist world which Yockey later wrote an article about titled “What is behind the hanging of the eleven Jews in Prague?” In which Yockey believes that under Stalin the Soviet Union had thrown off its international and “Jewish” element and has embraced a form of Pan Slavism and that the Soviet Union was an ally in the fight to liberate Europe from the United States with Yockey advocating a Fascist Communist alliance. Yockey is believed to have made many trips to eastern Europe throughout the 1950s and even believed to have been to Moscow and have been recruited by Soviet intelligence. Yockey would also travel back in forth between Europe and America trying to form connections amongst as many fascist groups as possible to help overthrow the United States at home and in Europe. Yockey successfully formed ties with German Socialist Reich party and formed his own group the European Liberation Front.  Yockey even tried to get British Fascist Oswald Mosely to review Imperium, but Mosely refused seeing it as waste of time. With Mosely seeing Soviet Russia as a greater threat than the US. Yockey would often travel under fake names and identities making him hard to track and with no one knowing the full extent of his ties to the Red East. However, his luck would run out when he would be arrested in Oakland California by the FBI in 1960 and would commit suicide soon after in hopes of not revealing information about his activities and to keep other fascists and national socialists out of the FBI hands.

Yockey was not the only one who wanted a United Europe and saw that Western Europe was dominated and controlled by the United States amongst the Nationalist scenes. In fact, there was a continental party of European nationalists mentioned in beginning of this article called National Europe Party. Who ran under the motto “Neither Washington nor Moscow” and is where many of the followers of Conservative Revolution would get there start in post-World War 2 politics. Intellectuals such as Jeans Francois Thiriart and Alain De Benoist would get there start or restart in the pan European nationalist scene, that would eventually have a more Pro Soviet position. There was also Otto Strasser who had been a part of the Pro Soviet Right before World War 2 and still would be after. Even debating Oswald Mosely over the issue and even started a small German party called German Social Union and would have contact with Jean Francois Thiriart. Other than that, Strasser was not as important in the political scene as he was in Pre-world War 2 Germany and would die in 1975 with his party having very little influence amongst German nationalists. The real important figures are Thiriart and Benoist.  It should be noted that both did not start out with a Pro Soviet positions. In fact Thiriart was one who coined the term “Neither Washington nor Moscow” but both end up coming to a pro soviet position and both collaborated with pro soviet movements in Russia after the fall of USSR.

Thiriart start in politic began in in 1930s as a Belgian antifascist socialist, however by 1940 Thiriart became associated with a group of leftists that were influenced by Hamburg National Bolsheviks i.e., Heinrich Laufenberg and Fritiz Wolfiem and took on a more nationalist position but unlike the Hamburg National Bolsheviks the group took on a pro national socialist position believing that Germany had the potential of unifying Europe. Thirart would join the Belgian branch of the Waffen SS during World War 2 and would serve time in prison for it after the war. Thirart would go on to abandon politics for over a decade and would later criticize and denounce National Socialist Germany anti Slavic policies and geopolitical strategy that led to Germany to take on the Soviet Union and everyone else all at once which led to Germany destruction and Europe being divided by foreign powers such as the USA and Soviet Union. Thiriart believed that both world wars were civil wars in Europe that coasted Europe dearly.  

When Thiriart returned to politics in the 1960 not on the Pro Soviet Right but on the side of the European Belgian imperialist group Mouvement d’Action Civique or MAC that sought to keep Congo under Belgian control and worked with similar groups like the French Secret Armed Organization. MAC would also be a part of the Pan European National Party of Europe. All of them believed that if Western Europe colonies were to become independent that western Europe would be even more be controlled and reliant on the United States. As Thiriart began to see the colonies become independent, Western Europe becoming more under the control of US and piety nationalism of German and Italians inside National Party of Europe. Along with Italian MSI supporting NATO made Thiriart rethink his strategy of how to make Europe independent of the United States with Thiriart soon founding the Pan European Jeune Europe with that goal in 1963. Instead of viewing the anti-imperialist movements throughout the world as enemies but rather as friends that were in a similar struggle against the United States. Thiriart soon formed ties formed ties National Liberation Front of Algeria, Vietcong in Vietnam, Palestine Liberation Organization of Palestine, the Black Panther Party in the United States, and many others with many of these groups contributing to Thiriart journal. Thiriart also had ties to Nicolae Ceausescu Romania who Thirart became an admirer of. Thiriart also became friends with Juan Peron Argentina with Peron reading Juene Europe journal while in exile in Spain and became friends with Thirart. Thiriart also made connections with many Arab nationalist states such as Egypt, Syria, and Iraq. Along with China were Thiriart met prime minister Zhou Enlai. 

Thiriart hope with meeting all these group was too forming a beneficial relationship where Jeune Europe would be able to have their militants trained and experience combat with these groups and eventually have these members return to Europe where they would take back Europe from both the United States control and negotiate with the Soviets for eastern Europe. There are few examples of Jeune Europe members fighting for these groups the most famous Roger Coudroy died fighting with the Palestine Liberation Organization against the Israeli government. Coudroy was the first European to die in the conflict. Thiriart was also belived to be an adviser to PLO for a time.

 Juene Europe had members all throughout western Europe from Belgium, Italy, Spain, Austria, and France but only had around 100 members in each country, but their journals tended to have a readership of several thousand. The group participated in strikes, street activism, and had connections with sections of the European Third position like Otto Strasser, Oswald Mosely, and Hans Ulrich Rudel. Despite connections to both communist and fascist groups Thiriart rejected both Fascism and Marxism instead promoting an ideology called National Communitarianism which advocated for a Pan European secular and autarkic society where major industries would be nationalize and the rest would be in hands of small businesses.

Thiriart rejected communism for its internationalism and materialism. Fascism and national socialism where both rejected for support of piety nationalism instead of Greater Europe and for fascism more theocratic tendencies. Thiriart at first supported a more racial based nationalism but according to Political scientist Alexander Jacob supported integration of Turks and Arabs residing in Europe later on in life.  Thiriart believed that only a unified Europe could compete with both the USA and USSR. Only through Europe becoming a large country could Europe have the resources to compete with other great powers. However, by 1969 Thiriart would retire from politics for a time due to the lack of growth within his organization, no money and meddling from Soviet Union to make the Arab countries not support Thiriart ambitions of supporting the Liberation of Europe.  

Thiriart would be out of the political game for over 10 years. Largely focusing on his profession of Optometry in Brussel. Largely trying to avoid those former members of Juene Europe who tried to have him join politics again. In 1981 Thiriart office would be attacked causing Thiriart to rejoin the political struggle. Thiriart in an uncompleted book called “The Euro Soviet Empire From Vladivostok to Dublin”  would advocate for a unified Europe with the Soviet Union. Europe and the Soviet Union would be stronger together then fighting each other.  Thiriart in 1984 would also help to set up the National Bolshevik National European Communitarian Party with Luc Michel another Belgian National Bolshevik. In 1991 Thiriart would lead the European National Liberation Front the only true successor to Juene Europe. In 1992 still in belief that Russia and Europe would only have great future united traveled to Russia to meet with anti-Yeltsin opposition leaders such as Gennady Zyuganov and Alexander Dugin. Dying from a stroke shortly after returning home.   

Jean Francis Thirart wasn’t the only National Bolshevik at this time Christian Bouchet once a French Monarchist and later French Fascist would also start to adopt more National Bolshevik ideals in the 1980s to 1990s and would lead several minor French National Bolshevik/ Third Position radical groups in France such as Unite Radicale and Nouvelle Resistance. That was not only National Bolshevik but was also anti clerical and supported environmentalism.

There were also others outside the National Bolshevik scene in Western Europe like French intellectual behind French New Right or GRECE Alain De Benoist who was writing around same time as Thiriart during the 1960s. Like Jean Francis Thiriart, Alain De Benoist wanted a unified Europe that would ally with the third world against liberal imperialism. Benoist like Thiriart believed in a third way economic model between communism and capitalism while at the same time distancing themselves from older third way ideals like Fascism and National Socialism. What separates Thirart and Benoist is that Benoist wanted a unified Europe that would preserve all the unique ethnic identities while Thiriart wanted to assimilate them all into one people. Benoist is also a pagan and heavily critical of Christianity while Thiriart was a secularist. Thiriart was also more inspired by revolutionary Jacobinism ideas like secularism while Benoist spent most of his writings deconstructing liberal’s ideas like democracy, capitalism, globalism, and human rights. Not to say that Thiriart would disagree with some of these positions.

At first Benoist like Thiriart was critical of Soviet Union and sought an alliance with China to help counterbalance American and Soviet Hegemony but as time went on Benoist believed that American liberalism was a greater threat than Soviet Russia. When the Soviet Union finally collapsed in 1991. A year later both Thiriart and Benoist would go meet with Soviet/ Nationalist oppositions to Boris Yeltsin. They would meet with Alexander Dugin of the National Bolshevik Party and Gennady Zyuganov of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation.

Outside of Europe

There were of course many people outside of Europe who held nationalist or even social conservative beliefs that sided with the Soviet Union or communist groups inside their own country for variety of reasons. For example, in the Lebanese Civil War 1975 to 1991 many secular Arab Nationalist like the Baath Party, Nasserist’s and Syrian Social Nationalist Party sided with the Lebanese Communist Party and other communist groups like Popular Front of Liberation of Palestine to fight against the Israeli invasion of the country and against their Maronite backed forces. Islamic organizations such as Hezbollah and Amal would also join this lose coalition to fight against Israeli which lasted all the way up to year 2000 with the Hezbollah coalition being victorious.

Prior to this in 1967 many of Arab Nationalist country such as Nasserist Egypt whose leader Gamal Abdel Nasser was a former member of the fascist Young Egypt Party, sided with Syria and Jordan to go to war with Israel with the backing of Soviet Union. This became known as the 6-day war which was a complete disaster to the Arab nations. The Soviet Union due to this war ended up severing all diplomatic ties with Israel.

Even in the Jewish nation of Israel there was a section of the right that was pro soviet most notably the militant organization known as the Lehi, a Ultra Zionist group that took influence from Fascist Italy and wanted to ally with the Axis power in the World War 2. In the middle of World War 2 the Lehi switched and became a pro soviet group. In hopes that Soviet Union would recognize them as fighters against the British who occupied Palestine/ modern Israel at the time. Of course, this did not happen, but the Lehi still played a major role in establishing modern Israel. Brutally fighting off the Palestinians being responsible for several massacres most notable the Deir Yassin massacre during the mandatory Palestine Civil War in the late 1940s. Even one of Lehi former members Yitzhak Shamir became the Prime Minster of Israel during the 1980s. Others like Nathan Yellin-Mor founded the Semitic Action party that hope to bring together Arabs and Jews into a confederation where both groups could belong instead of Lehi original goal of expelling the Arab population. Semitic Action even supported the Arab Nationalist FLN in the Algerian War for independence in hopes that the two countries would become friends afterwards.

In Latin America while there was hardly a right that could be considered Pro Soviet in most of Latin America. There was those that had sympathies for Castro Cuba such as populist Juan Peron leader of Argentina from 1946 to 1952 and briefly from 1973 to 74. Peron had supported Castro out of hope that he would help liberate the continent from US influence. Castro friend and fellow revolutionary Che Guevara was supportive of Peron anti-imperialist policies and denounced the coup against Peron in 1952.   While in Exile in Franco’s Spain, Peron met with Che Guevara and tried to convince him not to go to Bolivia as he saw it as being Che death bed. Peron was proven correct on October of 1967 when Che Guevara was executed by the Bolivian military. Peron had many supporters of in Argentina of a Marxist persuasion such as Peronist Armed Forces and Montoneros.

On Fidel Castro, prior to Castro becoming a communist in his high school days at a Jesuit school Castro adopted Falangist and national syndicalist ideas of Jose Antonio Primo De Rivera. Which was Castro first introduction to anti-capitalist nationalist politics along with Hispanidad and anti-imperialism, which help to shape Castro later communist world view.

Post-Soviet Russia 1992 to Present

After the collapse of the Soviet Union the Russian economy was in complete chaos with many Russians being in poverty and foreign corporations swallowing up many portions of the Russian economy. The mass privatization that happened under Russian President Boris Yeltsin would be called shock therapy economics. Which was a complete disaster for Russia with large capitalist oligarchy being formed while the majority of people lost everything, along with shortages that made the situation worse. Many Russians also felt humiliated as they went from a great superpower to an impoverished nation. This caused nationalist sentiments of both Soviet, Russian monarchist and other nationalist tendencies to not only rise but to banded together for a brief time against the Neo Liberalism of Boris Yeltsin. 

Many of the leaders of the opposition would be figures who were against the Soviet Union dissolving such as Colonel General Albert Makashov, people’s deputy Sergey Baburin, First Secretary of Komsomol Gennady Zyuganov, and Soviet General Valdislav Achalov. Other where dissidents in the Soviet Union who later regretted its downfall or saw that these Neo Soviets as allies at least in the fight against Yeltsin such as leaders of the leaders of the National Bolshevik Party, Eduard Limnov and Alexander Dugin. These figures would go on to establish the National Salvation Front, a coalition of communist, socialist, conservatives, democrats, agrarians, orthodox nationalist, monarchist, national socialist, national Bolsheviks, and others in opposition against Boris Yeltsin. This opposition would be dubbed the Red Brown alliance.

The National Salvation Front would organize mass protest against Yeltsin regime.  Some leaders of the front such as Gennady Zyuganov and Sergey Baburin would create mass political parties like the Communist Party of the Russian federation and Russian All-People’s Union that would win seats in the Russian parliament called the Congress of People Deputies. Other leaders such as former General Albert Makashov and Valdislav Achalov would help to form the paramilitary wing of the group. Other such as Alexander Dugin, Yegor Letov, and Eduard Limnov would be the more activist, cultural, and intellectual side of the movement. Dugin had made contact with Western European intellectuals such as Alain De Benoist and Jean Francis Thirirart in 1989 and invited them and others to Russia to get support for the cause. Dugin hopes with forming these connections was not only to find support for the National Salvation Front cause at home but also to help to organize and unify other anti-liberal groups globally against the United States. The United States is viewed by Dugin and the National Salvation Front as the center of global liberalism that is being forced upon the world. Dugin also wrote many intellectual articles and helped to write the Communist Party of the Russian Federation political program. Limonov and Letov would organize the protest and cultural events such as music concerts.

As Yeltsin policies of privatization came into effect prices skyrocketed, shortages and unemployment grew, which only made the National Salvation Front and other Russian anti-liberal/ anti-Yeltsin groups stronger. Eventually these group end up controlling most of the Russian Parliament and started to block Yeltsin policies. This enraged Yeltsin and the relations between the people deputies and president would continue to grow worse. Eventually even Yeltsin own Vice president Alexander Rutskoy denounced Yeltsin policies as “economic genocide.” Yeltsin would expand presidential power to pass his shock therapy reforms, which were viewed by the parliament and vice president as unconstitutional. Both sides would start to ignore or reject the other laws, orders, and decrees. Yeltsin would have a new constitution written that would have abolished the parliament, obviously the parliament did not vote for it.

On September 21st, 1993, Boris Yeltsin would dissolve the parliament which was unconstitutional and in turn the Russian parliament would impeach Yeltsin but both sides rejected the other authority. Soon supporters of parliament from a variety political persuasion from communist and nationalist would go to parliament in Moscow. This also included paramilitary groups such as National Communist National Salvation paramilitary wing led by Albert Makashov and the National Socialist group Russian National Unity led by Alexander Barkashov. Many Soviet veterans and former members of KGB would also defend the parliament. The police as well as most of the military and liberals would be on the side of Yeltsin.  On September 28 the first clashes would break out between the opposing side.  The fighting would continue for a week with both sides trying to take control of the capital city of Moscow with almost 150 lives lost. On October 4th  of 1993 the parliament surrendered but many supporters and congressmen would not face prison time as Yeltsin would eventually provide amnesty.  However, some of groups involved were banned such as the National Salvation Front. The remnants of the soviet system where also dismantled.

Despite the failure of removing Yeltsin this did not end  the Red Brown alliance. As many of the problems of Yeltsin presidency that originally formed the alliance where still there and would get worse with the outbreak of separatist insurgency in Chechnya that started in December of 1994. Despite some of the nationalist and communist political parties being banned, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia a Pan Slavic Monarchist nationalist group (who also supported the 1991 coup against Gorbachev) took back control of parliament in the election cycle in 1994.

Gennady Zyuganov the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation who was also a Nationalist and Social Conservative would run in the presidential elections of 1996 against Yeltsin. Zyuganov not only had wide support from the Russian population but also from many parts of the Russian Right, such as Russian conservative Sergey Baburin and his political All Russian People Union. Despite Yeltsin only having a six percent approval rating this would not be an easy task for Zyuganov who had to go up against the Oligarchs of Russia, foreign oligarchs such as George Soros and the American government who threw everything, they had at Zyuganov from slander from the media to elector fraud, intimidation, and spending over 200 million dollars on Yeltsin campaign.  All of the interference allowed Yeltsin to win another term. To make matters worse for the Pro Soviet Right and their allies many of the groups started to go their own way such as the National Bolshevik Party who endorsed Yeltsin in hopes of accelerating Russia into a Revolution. Alexander Dugin would leave the NBP a few years later over ideological disagreements and personal differences with Eduard Limnov and other members.  As the situation look grim for many Russian Nationalist, they would soon find a former KGB agent who was supported by the Russian Oligarchs to be an unexpected ally. This ex KGB  agent was none other than Vladimir Putin.

Before the fall of the Soviet Union Vladimir Putin was a KGB agent who was stationed in East Germany allegedly supported the West German militant group Red Army Faction with safe houses in East Germany. According to Historian Mark Felton Putin allegedly was also the handler for German National Socialist Rainer Sonntag. The KGB and Putin objective of supporting such groups and individuals if it is true, was to destabilize West Germany just like how the US was supporting militant groups in the eastern bloc to destabilize the region. Putin also spied in West Germany at one point. He also recruited members for the KGB in East Germany. Putin in 1989 during the fall of the eastern bloc in East Germany was at the KGB HQ where he was gathering and destroying secret KGB files so that the files did not fall into Western hands.

  One would think the Vladimir Putin would be a hardline communist, but he supported the reformist Mikhail Gorbachev and resigned from the KGB when the 1991 coup took place. When the Soviet Union fell Putin saw this as a complete geopolitical disaster for Russia as Russia became a lot weaker both internally and externally because of the collapse. That said Putin accepted that the USSR was not coming back even said that many of founding ideas that Vladimir Lenin had for the USSR where a ticking time bomb ready to go off such as the Soviet Republics had equal rights to each other and could withdrawal from the Soviet Union at any time. Putin did agree with Joseph Stalin that the Soviet Union should be a unified country with Russia being at the center of it.  Putin also saw the Soviet Union economic policy also contributed to the collapse of the country. Along with also disagreeing with the Soviet Union anti-religious stance. Putin could be best described as being a part of the Post-Soviet Right Wing a Russian who saw the importance of Soviet Union but recognized it had immense flaws and could not be revived.

 Putin would after the fall of the Soviet Union be an adviser to St. Peterburg Mayor on foreign relations and also help to organize the local branch of the liberal conservative party called Our Home Russia in 1995. In 1997 Putin would move to Moscow and be appointed by Boris Yeltsin to his Presidential Staff. Then in 1998 Yeltsin appointed Putin to be the director of the FSB, the successor to the KGB. Yeltsin and some of the Russian Oligarchs such as Boris Berezovsky wanted Putin to take Yeltsin place as president.  Putin at first hesitated to accept the offer but eventually agreed. In 1999 Putin became president of the Russian Federation after Yeltsin resigned then won the presidential election in 2000. Many people in Russia thought that Putin would be just like Yeltsin and that’s what the oligarchs had hope for. This would be proven wrong. while Putin for his first term started to put charges against many of the oligarchs such as money laundering and bribery with some being arrested or fleeing the country to Western Europe such as Boris Berezovsky. While Putin still governed as a Liberal Conservative, he did end up also nationalizing the oil industry in Russia taking it out of the Oligarchs hand and Putin turned into a national conservative as time moved on. Putin would also successfully beat the Chechen insurgents that where destabilizing Russia. Due to all of these successes Putin has maintain his power to this very day.  Putin would also maintain the CSTO a defensive organization of Russia and other countries in the region and would create in 2015 the Eurasian Economic Union. Putin would also support separatist groups in Georgia and Ukraine to fight off western influence in the region. Along with strengthening alliances with Illiberal countries such as China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Belarus, Nicaragua, and many others. In 2022 when Russia officially launched it military operations in Ukraine, Putin would call on an alliance of conservative and socialist forces globally to counter act Western capitalism which is seen as a socially and economically destructive force to Russia and the Third world.

These changes that Putin had made and him moving away from US and liberal influences made some on Pro Soviet Right to jump ship such as Alexander Dugin who became a supporter of Putin and started form his own ideology called the 4th political theory. Others such as Gennady Zyuganov, Sergey Baburin, and Albert Makashov would still be opposed to Putin as not going far enough with dismantling capitalism and liberalism but would support him on certain issues such as the ban on LGBT propaganda and military intervention in Ukraine. The Communist Party of Russian Federation is the second largest party next to Putin National Conservative party called United Russia. The Communist Party has maintained a coalition of various left- and right-wing groups called the National Patriotic Forces of Russia, which includes groups such as Left Front, A Just Russia, and Great Russia. The Communist party also maintains it nationalist and social conservative positions with the party even collaborating with the Orthodox Church.

Eduard Limonov and National Bolshevik Party would still be opposed to Putin. The NBP would drift from allying itself with Right wing to more left wing and liberal groups. Even at one-point Limonov in one of his manifestos called for the complete abolition of the old order, hierarchies and the establishment of a direct democracy in Russia. The NBP even broke into Russian government buildings throughout the 2000s and even tried to control parts of Kazakhstan. All of this got the party banned in 2007.  Afterwards Limonov would create a new party in 2010 called the Other Russia Party later to be called The Other Russia Party of E.V Limonov that went back to NBP roots in the 1990s being a balance of right and left ideals. While the party would still be opposed to Putin but like the communist party supported Putin on certain issue such as the war in Ukraine. The group formed their own battalion called the Interbrigades that fights in Ukraine to this day. One of its most iconic members is Beness Aijo or Black Lenin a half Ugandan half Russian man who was born in Latvia and has fought for the Russian separatist in Ukraine. Limonov would die in 2020 due to medical complications with his group still existing to this day changing the group name to the Other Russia of E. V Limonov in honor of their former leader.  

Sergey Baburin would go on to establish the political party called Rodina which is the 6th largest party in Russia but has moved away from its red brown stance and is in support of the decommunization of Russia. The party is also in alliance with Putin United Russia. Baburin would leave the party and revive his old party All Russian People Union and would run in 2018 presidential election but lost to Putin.

Alexander Barkashov the leader of National Socialist paramilitary organization Russian National Unity is still alive to this day. Despite his group disbanding and splitting off into many pieces. He still has heavy influence in not only the Russian National Socialist scene but also in the larger Russian nationalist scene. Former members of RNU would form their own combat group that fights in Ukraine and one of RNU former members Pavel Gubarev was the first governor of Russian separatist Donetsk Peoples Republic. While Gubarev still remains in contact with Barkashov and other remnants of the RNU he moderated his ideology and said that he was more of a center left nationalist. Barkashov also has contact with the Russian Orthodox Army a religious battalion of Russian separatist in Ukraine.

Alexander Dugin with his 4th political theory or 4pt would become one of the most popular intellectual from Russia and arguably one of most influential anti- liberal thinkers of the 21st century. Dugin ideas of Eurasianism, multipolarity and alliance of anti-liberal forces have not only been echoed by Putin but also other world leaders from China, and Nicaragua. Dugin 4th political theory is a anti liberal ideology that goes beyond according to Dugin the 3 other major ideologies of liberalism, communism, and fascism with 4pt rejecting those ideologies notions of universalism, progress, and equalitarianism. Dugin believes that there are multiple civilizations, and that one civilization should not have all the power to sway the world in one direction.

Dugin has been a professor at Moscow University and one of the heads Russia tv station called Tsargrad Tv. He is also the head of the Geopolitical journal Geopolitika and has been interview by many Tv stations and youtubers. Not to mention Dugin has written over a dozen books that have become popular in many pro-Russian circles.  Of course, this fame has also brought tragic consequences such as an assassination attempt by Ukrainian Neo Nazis in August of 2022 which led to the death of his daughter Darya Dugina, who was also involved in politics. The motivation of the terrorist for trying to assassinate Dugin was for both Dugin and Dugina support for Russia in the war in Ukraine.  However, the assassination attempts only gave Dugin and his family prominence amongst the Russian leadership with Putin awarding Dugina with a medal called the Order of Courage. Despite claims of Westerns and Ukrainian National socialists accusing Dugin of being a Putin brainchild years, prior to the assassination attempt  Dugin had never been mentioned by Putin or even meet him not to mention Dugin lost his university job in 2014, which would be weird for Russian government supposed top ideologue to lose his job at a top university. However, since the attack on his life and the taking of his daughter life, Dugin probably has more influence now on Putin then he ever did before. With Dugin being invited to many major Russian conservative conferences such as the Siberian Form of The World Russian People Council.

Despite all these individuals and groups going their separate ways after the banning of National Salvation Front in 1993 along with the 30th anniversary of Russian Constitutional crisis or Black October coming up next year. All of those that formed or fought with the Front, have had a lasting impact on Russian politics with most major parties in Russia being some mixture of anti-capitalism and social conservative nationalism. Many of these groups and their followers also have meet again on the battlefields of Ukraine fighting with each other one more time.

America and Conclusion

It may not seem like it to the establishment conservatives who watch Fox News, Glen Beck, PragerU, and conservative talk radio but there has been a growing number of people on the “American Right” who have Russophile and see the mainstream American establishment such as the government and its corporate backers as the center point of globalism and social decadences. It ranges from conservative magazines and commentators such as Chronicles, John Doyle, Gonzalo Lira, Nick Fuentes, and Steve Bannon to white nationalist such as Jared Taylor, Matthew Raphael Johnson, and Eric Striker. All of them having varying degrees of sympathies to Russia. Even this blog an American conservative socialist blog is a testament to this move to Russia as a counterbalance to globalism and a bastion of conservative anti-capitalist thought at the very least. Even with conservative magazines and commentators who aren’t pro Russia such as The American Conservative and Tucker Carlson still have not supported American support for Ukraine believing its only making the situation worse and the funding could be better spent on problems at home. All of these positions would have been unheard of if not blasphemy to the American Right only a little over 30 years ago. There also a trend of American social conservatives and nationalist converting to Russian Orthodoxy as it seen as more tradition form of Christianity. 

In the 2020s there has been the emergence of Patriotic Socialism and Maga communism which is a more patriotic and moderately social conservative form of Marxist Leninism that has sympathies for former president Donald Trump and tries to appeal to Trumps base. Patriotic socialism and Maga communism were created by Russia Today journalist Caleb Maupin and YouTube commentators Haz and Jackson Hinkle. Maupin has meet Alexander Dugin on one occasion and Haz claims to be influenced by the man with both seeing him as an anti-imperialist Russian traditionalist. In other words, Maga Communism is the closes thing to an authentic American form of National Bolshevism.

Oddly enough even among some of those on the Pro Ukraine side in America such as White nationalist Richard Spencer supports the war in hopes of it leading to a revival of the US and Europe. Along with a wakeup call for them to throw off social liberalism and other issues that could be hindering Western Civilization. Which sounds somewhat similar to Nikolay Ustryalov position of supporting the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War who hope the Bolsheviks would revive Russia into a great empire once again.  Richard Spencer former Palo conservative mentor Paul Gottfried who also takes a pro Ukrainian position on the war has stated in past lectures that the Soviet Union and its socialist allies were not only more socially conservative than the US but also that the US was a breeding ground for cultural progressivism due to the US support for globalization and universal rights. Gottfried has even said that he even has a soft spot for old school soviet style communist and rather have them around then the modern American Left despite Gottfried disliking the Soviet system. He was also friends with Stalinist Eugene Genovese when he worked at the University of Rochester who Gottfried saw as a conservative Stalinist.

Whether there’ll be an American form of the Red Brown alliance that still exist in Russia remains to be seen. One thing is certain to the writer of this blog is that as long as America is the center point of globalization, woke capital, social liberalism and has declining economic conditions in the states will only grow the Pro Russian Right as well as an anti-capitalist right and a socially conservative left.


The Soviet Union 1945 to 1991

Eastern Bloc and the Cold War

The Conservative Revolution in Germany 1918 to 1932 by Armin Mohler and Karlheinz Weissmann

Western Europe and the Cold War

George Santayana on Liberalism and the Spiritual Life

Otto Strasser’s “New Europe,” Part 1 | Counter-Currents

Otto Strasser’s “New Europe,” Part 2 | Counter-Currents

The Great Nation by Jean Francis Thiriart

Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social and Political Thought by James A Gregor

Outside of Europe

Post-Soviet Russia 1992 to Present

America and Conclusion

The Strange Death of Marxism by Paul Gottfried

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

Gustavo Morales – Castro: From Blue to Red (2016)

Originally founded here

I met Fidel Castro — the Commander — in 1978. At the time, I was part of a Spanish delegation participating in the World Festival of Youth and Students in Cuba. 

The Commander came over and greeted us, surprised to see half a dozen people wearing blue shirts. I raised my arm in the air and he extended his hand to me, in a sign of cordiality, and said: “I know who you are”. Then he advised me to visit the Che House/Museum library. I followed his advice and there I found the Complete Works of José Antonio [Primo de Rivera], dedicated by Antonio de Olano to Fidel himself. I soon found out that a Jesuit professor named Armando Llorente had introduced Comandante Fidel to José Antonio, who considered him his best student: “He sang Cara al Sol with me twenty thousand times, with his arm raised”.

It would not take long for the landing of the Granma to take place. Then, the arduous battle in the mountains. The end of anonymity in your meetings with journalists. The activism and fights against the Batista government, as well as the triumphal entry into Havana in 1959, with his rifle raised and a rosary wrapped around his forearm. And, after all, the hostility of the United States on the beach of Girón and, consequently, realpolitik , when he turned to the Soviet Union as a result of the American siege.

The red-and-black flags became just red: he got off the Rocinante and mounted Sancho Panza’s mule. He had already forgotten what he had said about his brother Raúl — “he is good for nothing” — and succumbed to the charms of Moscow.

To paraphrase the Mexican saying: “Poor Cuba, so far from God and so close to the United States!”

Rest in peace, Commander. We have dreams, enemies and origins in common – but we don’t share your party, your system and your friends


original Russian translation

The issue of identity is central to the controversy surrounding immigration. From the outset, two remarks emerge from the discussion of this topic. The first stems from the observation that while much is said about the identity of the indigenous population, there is generally much less about the identity of the immigrants themselves, which, however, is most threatened, even by the very fact of immigration. As a minority, immigrants are under direct pressure from the way of life of the majority. Being obliterated or, on the contrary, inflated in a provocative, even pathological way, their identity is retained only most often in a negative (or reactive) way, due to the indifference or hostility of the environment in the host country, even the capitalist super-exploitation to which workers are exposed, who find themselves defenseless far from their homeland.

On the other hand, it is striking to see how the problem of identity in certain circles is made dependent solely on immigration. The main, if not the only, “threat” to which the national identity of the French is exposed, allegedly comes from immigrants. This does not take into account factors that are everywhere in the world, both in countries where there are many foreign workers and in countries where there are none at all, that cause the erosion of collective identities: the primacy of consumption, the Westernization of mores, the imposition of homogeneity through the mass media, etc.

It is not difficult at all, in this view of things, to make immigrants scapegoats. However, it is not the fault of the immigrants at all if the French seem no longer able to reproduce their own way of life and demonstrate to the world the originality of thinking and being. It is also not the fault of immigrants if social ties are destroyed wherever liberal individualism spreads, if the inculcation of selfishness narrows the public space that could serve as a crucible for the revival of an active civic spirit, and if people living according to the laws of market ideology become more and more alien to themselves. . It is not the fault of the immigrants if the French are becoming less and less a people, if the nation is becoming a ghost, if the economy is globalizing and people no longer want to be creators of their own lives, but accept more and more what what they decide for them, starting with the values ​​and norms in which they do not participate. Finally, it is not immigrants who influence the minds and impose on radio and television sounds, images, interests and models that “arrived from behind a hillock.” If “mondialism” exists, we will say with all clarity until proven otherwise, then it comes from the other side of the Atlantic, and not from the other side of the Mediterranean. And let’s add that a small Arab shopkeeper, by his neighborhood, definitely contributes more to the preservation of a French identity built on genuine French values ​​than an American-style amusement park or “shopping center”. interests and models “arrived from behind the hillock”. If “mondialism” exists, we will say with all clarity until proven otherwise, then it comes from the other side of the Atlantic, and not from the other side of the Mediterranean. And let’s add that a small Arab shopkeeper, by his neighborhood, definitely contributes more to the preservation of a French identity built on genuine French values ​​than an American-style amusement park or “shopping center”. interests and models “arrived from behind the hillock”. If “mondialism” exists, we will say with all clarity until proven otherwise, then it comes from the other side of the Atlantic, and not from the other side of the Mediterranean. And let’s add that a small Arab shopkeeper, by his neighborhood, definitely contributes more to the preservation of a French identity built on genuine French values ​​than an American-style amusement park or “shopping center”.

The real reasons for the erasure of French identity are in fact the same ones that cause the erosion of all other identities: the fact that the nation-state model has become obsolete, the destruction of all traditional institutions, the decline of civic spirit, the crisis of the representative system, the imitation of the American model, etc. . The obsession with consumption, the cult of material and financial “success”, the disappearance of ideas of the common good and solidarity, the fact that the individual does not connect his future with the fate of the collective, the development of technologies that have now become an independent factor, the growing export of values, the loss of economic, industrial and media independence – only they eroded the “homogeneity” of the French population to an incomparably greater degree than could be done by immigrants, who themselves are not least victims of these processes. “Our identity,” Claude Imbert emphasizes in this regard, “is much more damaged by the loss of citizenship, the cultural confusion imposed by the mass media, the impoverishment of language and spiritual life, and above all the decline of the formerly centralized, powerful, prescriptive state that created we have this famous “identity” (1). In short, if French (and European) identity is collapsing, it is primarily because of the vast process of increasing homogeneity in the world by means of technology and economics, the main engine of which is transnational or American-centered imperialism and which spreads everywhere a sense of meaninglessness, i.e. e. a sense of the absurdity of the world, destroying organic ties.

From this point of view, immigration plays a revealing role. She is a mirror whose task is to enable the French to appreciate the full extent of the latent crisis in which they find themselves, a crisis of which immigration is less a cause than an effect among others. Identity is the more perceived as under threat, the more its vulnerability, instability, in a word, decay is felt. It is for this reason that it is no longer able to digest the influx of foreigners. In this sense, French identity is not so much threatened by the presence of immigrants in France, but precisely because that identity is largely blurred, France is no longer able to deal with the problem of immigration except by indulging in angelic naivety or advocating deportation.

The positions of xenophobes and “cosmopolitans” ultimately coincide, because both believe that there is an inverse relationship between the ability to assert a national identity and the integration of immigrants. The former believe that France, more concerned about its identity and becoming more conscious in this regard, will suddenly get rid of immigrants. The second thinks that the best way to facilitate the admission of immigrants is to contribute to the erasure of French identity. The conclusions are opposite, but the premise is the same. Meanwhile, both are wrong. Just as the presence of immigrants is not a fundamental cause of the destruction of collective identities, the assertion of a French identity will not exactly become an obstacle to the integration of immigrants, but, on the contrary, will facilitate it. Immigration creates a problem because the French identity is proving to be unstable. But it is thanks to the newly realized national identity that we will resolve the difficulties associated with the reception and adaptation of newcomers.

This shows how foolish it is to believe that it would be enough to reverse immigration flows in order to avoid a “decline”. Obsessing over the problem of immigration, making immigrants responsible for what was and was not, at the same time, you can forget about other causes and other culprits. In other words, attention is completely diverted to the other side. It would be interesting to know who benefits from this.

But first of all, you should ask yourself what is identity. Asking about French identity is not about asking who is French (the answer is relatively simple), but rather what is French. Meanwhile, in answering this more important question, the singers of “national identity” limit themselves in general to indulging in pompous reminiscences or appealing to the memory of “great people”, the more or less known founders of “true France” (Clovis, Hugh Capet, crusaders, Karl Martell or Joan of Arc), whose images were hammered into the national consciousness by textbook and pious historiography (2). Meanwhile, this little catechism of what might be called the religion of France (in which eternal France, which never changes, is ready at any time to stand up against the “barbarians”, and the Frenchman, in the extreme case, is defined no more than as someone who is not a foreigner, in the absence of any positive characterization, but only as not belonging to the world of others) has only a very remote relation to the history of the people, whose main feature was that he always knew how to deal with his contradictions. Moreover, they do not make any effort at all, arguing in a Manichaean manner about the continuity of national history, devoid of any contradictions, when globalization is considered simply and exclusively as a result of a conspiracy. Thus, historical digressions are immediately placed in a non-historical perspective, a perspective that is supposedly of fundamental importance, when the goal is not to tell about history, but to describe the “essence” that always allegedly remains the same, and which can only be defined in terms of resistance to otherness or rejection of the Other. Identity thus inevitably comes down to immutability, to a simple copying of the “eternal yesterday”, glorified in the idealized spirit of the past, a fully formed entity that can only be preserved and transmitted as a sacred relic. At the same time, the national feeling itself is deprived of the historical context (the advent of the modern era), which predetermined its appearance. Under these conditions, history becomes essentially something that has no periods, while history is impossible without division into periods. It becomes mere duration, which makes it possible to ignore differences, while duration, by definition, creates dissimilarity, difference between itself and itself, the constant emergence of new differences. Briefly speaking.

Identity is never something one-dimensional. Not only does it always include a diverse base, but it combines constant and changing factors, changes and external influences. Also, the identity of a people or nation is not solely the sum of its history, its customs and dominant traits. As Philippe Forget writes, “any country can be, at first glance, a set of characteristics determined by mores, customs, ethnic, geographical, linguistic, demographic and other factors. However, if these factors can, apparently, create an image or define the social reality in which a people lives, they do not help to form an idea of ​​what a people’s identity is as an ancient and permanent phenomenon. Therefore, one should reflect on the foundations of identity, referring to the essence.

This phenomenon, continues Philippe Forget, who refers to the discovery of space and time, “should not be traced back to a substantialist conception of identity, but to an understanding of being as a play of difference. We are not talking about understanding identity as something immutable and immovable, which can be qualified and turned into a canon (…) understood as woven from differences, which is renewed and reborn in the fertile soil of heritage, consisting of a set of past experiences used to overcome oneself. In this sense, it is impossible and should not have recourse to the defense of forms of existence that are seized as something inviolable, rather efforts should be made to transform society. Adherence to the identity of established forms also leads to the extinction and destruction of the collective identity” (4).

No less than culture, identity is not an entity that can be frozen or purged by command. It is determinant only in a dynamic manner, and can only be understood by taking into account the interactions (or retrodeterminations), the choice to give up personal identification, and the identification strategy that underlies that choice. From the very beginning, it is inseparable from the habit of doing something or refusing to do something, in a specific cultural and social context, that is, in the context of relationships with others. Identity is thus always reflexive. From a phenomenological perspective, it implies that one should never separate “self” from “other”. The subject of collective identity is not “I” or “we”, the natural wholeness.

The difference that emerges is that which Paul Ricoeur drew between the idem identity and the ipse identity. The stability of collective existence in the face of constant change (identity ipse) cannot be reduced to the course of events and repetitions (identity idem). On the contrary, it is entirely related to the hermeneutics of the concept of “self”, with the perception from the position of narratology, designed to demonstrate the “place”, space-time, which produces meaning and forms the condition for finding “self”. From the point of view of phenomenology, according to which nothing is given naturally, the object comes from a fundamental development, from a hermeneutic narrative, which is characterized by the assertion of a point of view that retrospectively builds events in order to give them meaning. “Narrative constructs a narrative identity, shaping the identity of the story told, Ricoeur argues, “and it is this identity of the story that forms the identity of the character” (5). Defending identity, then, is not content with ritualistic recitation of historical milestones considered important, or chanting of the past in order to avoid confrontation with the present. That is, to understand identity as something that is preserved in the conditions of the game of various parties, not as something frozen, but as always the only way to change or not change. to avoid confrontation with the present. That is, to understand identity as something that is preserved in the conditions of the game of various parties, not as something frozen, but as always the only way to change or not change. to avoid confrontation with the present. That is, to understand identity as something that is preserved in the conditions of the game of various parties, not as something frozen, but as always the only way to change or not change.

So, it is not a question of choosing the idem identity against the ipse identity, or vice versa, but to accept both in their mutual relationship through an orderly narrative that takes into account both the perception of oneself and the perception of the other. To recreate the conditions in which it will once again be possible to reproduce such a story – this is what finding oneself consists of. But it is a feeling that never freezes, for the collective subjectivation constantly proceeds from choice more than from actions, and from action more than their “fact”. A people survives thanks to its ability to tell, appropriating being for itself through successive interpretations, becoming a topic for a story about itself and thus avoiding loss of identity, i.e. becoming an object for a story about another. “Identity,” Philippe Forget writes further, “is always an attitude towards oneself, a perception of oneself and others and oneself through others. By definition, it is a narrative about oneself, created in a dialectical relationship with the other, that completes human history and makes history the history of collectives. (…) It is through the act of storytelling that personal identity asserts itself and reconciles stability and change. Being as a theme depends on the narrative act. The personal identity of the individual, like the identity of the people, is formed and preserved through the course of the narrative, the dynamism of intrigue, which creates the narrative action, as Ricoeur says” (6) created in a dialectical relationship with the other, which completes human history and makes history the history of collectives. (…) It is through the act of storytelling that personal identity asserts itself and reconciles stability and change. Being as a theme depends on the narrative act. The personal identity of the individual, like the identity of the people, is formed and preserved through the course of the narrative, the dynamism of intrigue, which creates the narrative action, as Ricoeur says” (6) created in a dialectical relationship with the other, which completes human history and makes history the history of collectives. (…) It is through the act of storytelling that personal identity asserts itself and reconciles stability and change. Being as a theme depends on the narrative act. The personal identity of the individual, like the identity of the people, is formed and preserved through the course of the narrative, the dynamism of intrigue, which creates the narrative action, as Ricoeur says.” (6)

What is currently most threatening to national identity has, finally, a strong dimension, represented by a tendency towards the destruction of the social, that is, towards the internal disintegration of all forms of organic sociality. Roland Castro could justifiably speak of a society in which “no one else supports anyone”, where everyone rejects everyone, where every individual becomes a potential stranger to every other. And liberal individualism bears the greatest responsibility for this. How can one speak of “brotherhood” (on the left) or “common good” (on the right) in a society where everyone is busy striving for the maximum satisfaction of their own interests, plunging endlessly into imitative rivalry that takes the form of risk in the name of salvation , constant competition that knows no end.

As Christian Thorel noted, it is “fixation on the individual to the detriment of the collective that leads to the disappearance of attention to the other.” Meanwhile, there is a danger that the issue of immigration will obscure this fact from us. “The alienation of which migrants are victims can make us forget that we are increasingly living in a society where alienation is also the rule in relations between the “autochthonous” themselves. Why should the French support foreigners if they support themselves less and less? On the other hand, some reproaches should be addressed to themselves. It is often said that young migrants are full of hatred and that they should respect the country that hosts them. But why should young Arabs be more patriotic than young native French, who are far from patriotic? In the end, the greatest danger is to believe that the spread of selfish sentiments will encourage criticism of immigration (which is legitimate in itself) will, when it is the spread of such sentiments that most destroys the social fabric. The whole problem of xenophobia, however, lies in the belief that the strengthening of the national feeling is based on rejection of the Other. After which, as it has become a habit, it ends up being normal to dislike one’s own compatriots. while it is the spread of such sentiments that most destroys the social fabric. The whole problem of xenophobia, however, lies in the belief that the strengthening of the national feeling is based on rejection of the Other. After which, as it has become a habit, it ends up being normal to dislike one’s own compatriots. while it is the spread of such sentiments that most destroys the social fabric. The whole problem of xenophobia, however, lies in the belief that the strengthening of the national feeling is based on rejection of the Other. After which, as it has become a habit, it ends up being normal to dislike one’s own compatriots.

A society that is aware of its identity can only be strong when it puts the common good above individual interests, and solidarity, empathy and generosity towards the other above the obsession with competition and personal success. It can exist only when it adheres to the rules of unselfishness and gratuitousness, the only way to avoid the breakdown of social ties, that is, the emergence of an order in which a person produces himself as an object, having previously managed to turn everything that surrounds him into an artifact. Meanwhile, it is obvious that not through the preaching of individualism, even in the name of “struggle for life” (a simple reworking of the individualistic principle of “war against all”), it is possible to recreate an organic and mutually aid-based sociality, without which no nation is worthy of its name. It is impossible to find brotherhood in a society where everyone aims to “succeed” more than his neighbors. And it is also impossible to restore the desire to live like a brother by turning to xenophobia, that is, to the rejection of the principle of the Other, which ends with the fact that everyone begins to understand this Other.

Alain de Benoist, translated from French by Andrey Ignatiev


1. Historique? “, in Le Point, 14 December 1991, p. 35.

2. See works on this topic that effectively expose the myths of Suzanne Citron, Le mythe national. L’histoire de France en question (ed. Ouvrieres-Etudes et documentation internationales, 2eme ed., 1991) et L’histoire de France autrement (ed. Ouvrieres, 1992), whose authors, however, often go to the opposite extremes towards what they reject. See also for a different perspective on French history. Olier Mordrel, Le mythe de l’hexagone, Jean Picollec, 1981.

3. Phenomenologie de la menace. Sujet, narration, strategie”, in Krisis, avril 1992, p. 3.

4. Ibid., p. 5.

5. Soi-meme comme un autre, Seuil, 1990, p. 175.

6. Art. cit., pp. 6-7.

7. Le Monde, 17 aout 1990.

A New Evil and Opportunity in Canada

I am sure everyone has heard by now about Canada horrific new euthanasia laws that will go into effect in the coming months. If you haven’t you can read about it here:

Already there has been stories of Canadian hospitals already trying to convince their patience of killing themselves or as the liberal bureaucrats in Canada like to call it “medical assistance in dying.” Many of the patience that are being ask if they want to take their own lives are the poor, the elderly, veterans suffering from PTSD and now even minors suffering from depression . All of this being justified by the liberals in Canada as being the most “humane” and less expensive way of dealing with these vulnerable  people.

 Even if these people agree to have their own lives taken its show not only how the economic system is failing the poor and the most vulnerable in Canadian society but also how morally bankrupt the liberal system is. Not only because euthanasia is the way the Liberal Canadian systems deals with the sick instead of treating them to the end but show how little they care for the people who have served their country or the next generation that suppose to lead the country eventually. And the fact that some of these people do not want to live and the Canadian government and Medical industry is willing to help them take their own lives shows how nihilistic liberal society has become. Further showing that the liberal belief of the individual will meaning one doing whatever one wants too is completely bankrupt and is slowly destroying society.

While the situation may look bleak for many of my Canadian comrades but there an opportunity here. The fact that Canadian society has become so nihilistic that it gives dissidents in Canada a chance to create meaning in Canadian society and help those who are the most vulnerable in society whether it be through charity, providing housing or other means. The dissidents in Canadian society especially the socially conservative ones can show that there is more to life than ones own individual desires such as community, nation, work, and God. If dissidents can provide meaning, community, and institutions to provide for the Canadian people in their time of need then it is only a matter of time before the liberal system in Canada falls. Because the liberal system can no longer provide anything grand. As G.K Chesterton once said

“People talk about the impatience of the populace; but sound historians know that most tyrannies have been possible because men moved too late. It is often essential to resist a tyranny before it exists. It is no answer to say, with a distant optimism, that the scheme is only in the air. A blow from a hatchet can only be parried while it is in the air.”

In other words, it’s important that Canadians move quickly on this matter as soon as possible. Providing meaning and building institutions is the only way to destroy this evil.


The Collapse of Consent in Canada by Declan Leary

Eugenics and Other Evils by G.K Chesterton

Canada expanding assisted suicide law to include the mentally ill, possibly enable ‘mature minors by Ashley Carnahan

Maya And Genesis

“The Creation Story of the Maya” is a Mayan religious text on how the earth and people as we know it came into existence.  To give a brief summary of the story there was six Deities covered in green and blue feather that decided to create life on this earth. The names of these Deities where Shaper, Tepew, Quetzal Serpent,  Xpiyacóc, Hurakan, and Xmucané.  To separate the sky from the earth the deities decided to plant a large ceiba tree that made room for life on the planet.  The deities soon created plants, animals, and then tried to create humans. The first proto humans they created were made up of mud, but they had no souls, so the Deities decided to wipe them out with a great flood. The second group of proto humans the Deities created were made of wood but the wood people failed to worship and were destroyed. What remained of the wood people ended up turning into monkeys.

            While the sky and earth existed, there was no sun or moon. While a bird named Seven Macaw claimed to be the sun and moon which was false.  Two twins named Hunajpu and Xbalanque shot down Seven Macaw with a dart officially disproving Seven Macaw. However, this was not the twin’s main quest. The twins’ real quests was to get there father back from Lords of Xibalbá, of the Underworld who had slayed their father. To get there father back the twins challenge Xibalba to a ball game. The twins won the ball game that allowed their father to come back as the Maize God. The heroic twins climb to the earth surface and then to the sky. Becoming the sun and moon, with the other deities finally making humans this time using white and yellow corn.

The real author of this source is unknown but if it doesn’t come from the Deities or the others depicted in this story then it probably comes from Mayan people thousands of years ago. The message being how the earth, plants, animals, and humans came into existences in this world. The most interesting phenomenon in this religious text is the ceiba tree that is very similar to the tree of life in the book of Genesis in the Bible, Torah and mention of the tree are in the Quran as well. Along with other non-Abrahamic religions.  Nevertheless, the tree of life in Christianity is seen as the source of eternal life in the Garden of Eden.  The ceiba tree plays a somewhat different role. Separating the sky from the earth and allowing life to be created on Earth.

Another similarity with the Abrahamic religions is the great flood that wiped out the first proto people aka the mud people because they had no souls. There is also a great flood that happens in the book of Genesis but the people were wiped out because they were decadent in God’s view and a man named Noah and his family were spared from the flood by the Lord for being seen as righteous by the Lord. There is some similarity on why the first people were wiped out and it’s because both were not seen as good by God in the case of Abrahamic religions and the 6 Deities in the case of the Mayan religion. One other similarity is there is also a hell in all these  religions and we can assume there also a Mayan version of heaven just like how we know there is one in the Abrahamic religions. After all everything has its opposites.

The main difference between the Mayan version of the creation of the earth and the Abrahamic story is the sun. The sun in the Abrahamic religions was the first thing created by God in fact it is one of the first things said in the book of Genesis is “let there be light.” While in the Mayan religion the Sun was one of last things created. Another major difference is that there is only one God that created the earth, life, and he only created one set of humans according to the Christian and rest of the Abrahamic religions. In the Mayan religion however, there is 6 Deities that created earth, who created 3 different types of humans. Then there two twins that became the Sun and Moon with their father becoming a God. 

I am no theologian or religious scholar but the similarities between all these religions when comes to the origins of man and earth are striking.  Especially since the Mayans had no knowledge of the old world where the Abrahamic religions came from and vis versa. This makes me believe that all religions have some fundamental truths that they all believe in despite all their differences.


The Creation Story of The Maya

Genesis 1:3

On the question of Russian imperialism By Nikolai Ustryalov 1916

The Russian Version can be found here

(Journal of foreign policy and law “Problems of Great Russia”, No15, October 15 (28), 1916, pp.1-5.)

Service to the motherland imposes on every thinking citizen the duty to find out the meaning of this service, to think over and justify its motives.

“Great Russia” is the slogan that today unites the broadest and most diverse circles of Russian public opinion. We are fighting for the honor and dignity of our native country, “we need Great Russia.” What is the real content of this slogan dictated by life, how are the basic conditions for its feasibility conceived, what is the essence of that ideology, the confession of which logically leads to it? Only then can the problem of Great Russia be solved when the very nature of its formulation is clearly understood. This article aims to outline certain prospects in this direction.


Faith in “Great Russia” is, first of all, faith in the Russian state. In other words, “Great” Russia can only exist as a state a. Both given “theories” and living facts of empirical reality equally inevitably lead to this conviction.

Humanity of the present historical era exists and develops under the sign of statehood. The life of modern “nations” is the life of states. And, of course, this phenomenon is not accidental, it is rooted deep in the nature of things. A people’s “personality”, a national “idea”, like any spiritual monad, requires a certain unity for its manifestation. We need a center of spiritual energy that acts according to goals, we need a formalizing principle of activity. A single integral beginning should hold together the complex diversity that the historical life of this or that “people” seems to be. And so the state was such a unifying, formalizing, fastening principle.

The state organization was born at a certain stage of world-historical development, when the lower forms of social life ceased to correspond to the degree of cultural age reached by mankind. Perhaps, initially, or at least in its original “idea”, the state was directly connected with the tribe, race, nationality. But over time, this connection has weakened significantly [,] and the state has acquired an independent, self-sufficient value. Unity according to the principle of breed, tribe, in a word, “physiology”, having turned out to be too narrow and poor, was replaced by a unity of a higher order. True, a homogeneous tribal core is also useful for a modern state; yet it is by no means a necessary feature of it. Even “nation” in the sense in which it is now commonly understood by science *), cannot be considered its constitutive feature. If theoretically it cannot be denied that a nation is capable of creating a state, then in reality the opposite process is observed incomparably more often: the state creates a single nation. Thanks to the unifying power of the state, groups of people that were previously alien to each other are coming together, drawing closer together, acquiring “many common, unique cultural elements and a common historical past.” So, for example, it often happens with areas conquered by an external force: years pass, and the population of these areas, which used to shun and hate their conquerors, gets used to them, sometimes even completely merges with them. In this regard, the tragic example of Poland, which is now before our eyes, is instructive and bright to the last degree: even if her soul is still one, but isn’t it threefold, like a body, in which he lives? Is it a secret that if the Russian Poles are completely devoted to Russia, then the Austrian Poles, in general, are loyal to Austria, and the Germans to Germany?…

In statehood itself, in the very “essence” of the state, there is obviously some kind of strong ferment capable of holding elements, sometimes very heterogeneous, in sovereign unity. The state of modernity embodies in itself a whole complex set of various national, racial, ethnographically, historically and culturally unique features, permeates the diverse content with a single creative form, combines individual elements into a kind of higher synthesis, and under the sign of this synthesis reveals itself to humanity and world history.

States are the same organisms endowed with soul and body, spiritual and physical qualities. The state is the highest organism on earth[,] and Hegel was not entirely wrong when he called it an “earthly god.” It encompasses everything that is valuable in humanity, all the heritage of culture, accumulated over centuries of creativity. The state is a necessary condition for concrete morality; it is through it that Good is realized in life.

“Great Russia” must exist before all the state.

Meanwhile, it is well known that it was in Russian culture that it was very difficult for the ideas of statehood to achieve recognition. Not only the Slavophile line of Russian thought, but also its other currents often treated the state somehow unfriendly: either with an absolute, frank denial, or with hostile suspicion, or somewhat contemptuously, “haughtily”. This widespread hostility might even give rise to the conclusion that the Russian people are apolitical, stateless, incapable of organization, discipline, and law and order. However, such a sad conclusion was refuted by the fact of the great and ever-growing Russian state **).

Of all the “critics” of the principle of statehood, only Tolstoy was consistently and to the end consistent. Together with the state, he also denied any coercion, “condemned” even the whole “culture” in general, and, most importantly, he had the courage to deny “Great Russia” as well. His preaching acquired from this a significant moral loftiness and purity, but on the other hand it completely renounced the concrete situation in life, passed entirely “by life.”

The Slavophils believed in the “Russian idea”, but associated it not with the state, but with the community, the “world”, with the “Earth”. But their theory, which sharply separates the “State” from the “Earth”, must be deeply mistaken [th]. These principles are inseparable both in principle and in fact. The State is the Earth that has known itself in its highest unity, internally enlightened. The Earth without the State is an amorphous, inert mass, the State without the Earth is simply nonsense, a naked form, devoid of any reality.

The “spirit of life”, once sung by Khomyakov, forced Russia to take the only path worthy of a great people – the path of bold and broad state building. Despite innumerable external obstacles, despite some of our own national characteristics, we have created a powerful state organism: apparently, world history needs us, and it did not let us perish.


Within each state, a special culture is created, universally valuable, but individually colored; perhaps universally valuable precisely because of its individually unique coloring. All those elements, the complex totality of which constitutes the soul and body of the state, do not disappear in its concrete unity. On the contrary, the more perfect the state, the more fully and clearly they are preserved, giving the whole uniting them a specific, original look. Each power has its own culture, a number of special distinctive features that belong only to it. In this culture, as well as in these signs imprinted with the seal of individuality, lies the source of that charm that is inherent in the “fatherland”, “motherland” in the eyes of every citizen. Patriotism can be explained only through the highest categories of aesthetics,

Each state organism is thus called upon in its own way to fructify the historical life of mankind, to tell the world its own special word. Everyone lives by this “word” and strives to make it sound more powerful and louder. Everyone strives to make it sound to the whole world.

In the field of international life there is a profoundly significant correspondence between spiritual authority and external, political power. The development of the spiritual culture of the state is somehow intimately connected with the growth of its political power. This general law of state existence, confirmed by constant factual examples, was noted in the history of Russian thought by Khomyakov: “according to the secret (but perhaps understandable) sympathy between the spirit of man and the volume of society – we read from him – the very greatness of the mind and thought belongs only to great peoples” ***).

Yes, that’s for sure: great culture can be owed to power n o n o m u n a t i o n a l o n o n a l o n o d a r s t v e n o m

And from here, a practical imperative arises before each state: strive for expansion, be powerful if you want to be great! Here is not only the voice of a biologically natural and valuable instinct; here – the command of moral reason, the covenant and demand of the historical Spirit. Existing and due here coincide together, as two aspects of one and the same phenomenon.

Those nations that have already fulfilled their mission, whose “words” have already resounded, must die politically and give place to others. But “places” in world history are not given for free – you need to know how to take them, you need to prove in practice your superiority over the old holders and new applicants. To do this, first of all, you need to know yourself, your spiritual powers, the limits of your inner capabilities. For not infrequently, having overestimated themselves, the great powers also suffer grave wrecks. So it was with Napoleon. So it was with Russia in the era of the Crimean War. Apparently, this will be the case with present-day Germany. The state will to power must be regulated by the power of the state mind.

These considerations, it seems to me, justify the phenomenon that is now usually called imperialism. Imperialism explains many great events throughout the history of mankind. The idea of ​​imperialism underlies the policy of all modern states. This idea is vital and deeply fruitful.


To defend the principle of “Great Russia” and at the same time to deny imperialism means to reveal either an insufficient understanding of the principle being defended, or an undoubted inconsistency.

You have to choose: either outright cosmopolitanism (be it socialist, be it anarchist, be it religious), or state politics. Tertium non datur. World history follows the second path.

“The Slavic world is like a woman who has never loved and therefore herself, apparently, does not take any part in everything that happens around her. She is unnecessary everywhere, a stranger to everyone. But you cannot be responsible for the future; she is still young, and already a strange longing has taken possession of her heart and makes him beat faster.” So wrote Herzen in 1851 ****).

As for Russian statehood, this statement was not true even then. But it very aptly characterizes the mood that is widespread in the Russian public.

Isn’t it time for us to finally realize our love? Will not the world fire of our days ignite the eros of “Great Russia” in every Russian heart?…


The path of imperialism is the necessary and completely legitimate path of the great states. It needs to be openly acknowledged. Otherwise, that false note will certainly be heard in our ideology, which is compromising, first of all, for our own national self-consciousness. Is it possible to accept the understanding of the current war of the peoples as “a war against imperialism incarnated in Germany”, and in the corresponding interpretation of our enemy as “the enemy of the human race.”

Let’s be sincere and honest! Let’s be objective! Isn’t imperialism a specific characteristic of German policy alone, and don’t the Powers of Accord act under the banner of imperialism?

Isn’t the “will to power”, the “will to expand” characteristic of modern England? Consider the Anglo-Boer War. Let us recall the British policy in Egypt, in Asia. Consider English history in general. And it would be very naïve to assert that England does not know militarism: for what is the English fleet but the offspring of militarism, in any case no less formidable than its German brother and rival. Imperialism is impossible without a militant world outlook, without constant work on external might. England is too wise not to be imbued with the principle of militarism in our epoch. And if the island position and the general international conjuncture allowed her until very recently to be limited only to the cult of naval military power, then from the point of view of the fundamental difference between her and Germany it is impossible to catch. Both here and there – a sovereign policy, backed by armed power. Very instructive in this respect is the book of the English Professor Cramb…

Modern France is less typical. She is more tired of history, “Napoleonism” has exhausted her too much, she is now poured not so much centrifugal as centripetal force. But even she, obeying the basic law of state life, cannot remain in absolute peace, in complete contentment with her borders. Suffice it to recall at least her definitely offensive policy in Africa (Morocco), her active role in the Far East, not to mention her desire to reunite Alsace-Lorraine …

Let’s take our other allies. Japan is steadily following the path of great power. Serbia clearly proved its will and its ability to expand in the era of the Balkan wars of 1912-1913. In addition, it tends to the west, towards Bosnia and Herzegovina. Italy and Romania never concealed their state-national aspirations.

Finally, let us look impartially at ourselves. It seems that history has not offended us, we have nothing to complain about, our land is truly great and plentiful. However, let us recall the life of Russia over the last century. Constant expansion, multiplication of state property, constant growth, struggle … Poland, Finland, the Caucasus … Wars in the Middle East, Central Asian politics, war in the Far East … “Warm Sea”, Tsargrad, Manchuria, Vladivostok, Port Arthur … Nature itself forced us to spread in all directions: Russia is truly the greatest state, and therefore it has always been cramped within its actual borders. The next tasks were carried out – new opportunities, new prospects opened up. And corresponding theoretical substantiations of all these broad claims were always born …

And we have nothing to hide, bashfully keep silent about our great power, about our activity, aggressiveness. It is indecent for a lion to dress in the skin of a lamb. It is inappropriate for a Russian bogatyr to put on a mask of sham oiliness, to hide a sharp sword and a damask club under the rags of a passable kalika or under the cassock of a monk alien to the world *****) … Yes, we are a healthy nation, great both spiritually and physically. Yes, we freely strive forward, the will to power lives in us. Of course, we have no right to deny the same will in others. But if our primordial, natural path coincides with the primordial, natural path of another state, a collision is inevitable, inevitable, and attempts to avoid it are useless. Such clashes, for all their horror, are deeply fruitful: they create history, they burn the obsolete and give way to everything new, worthy of life.


All living things must be born in torment – such is the law, such is fate, or, if you like, such is the curse of our earthly existence. Rejection of torment is a rejection of life, of living creativity. If a nation harbors truly constructive forces, it is not afraid of suffering on the Cross: it sacrifices itself in the name of its “idea” and it will say its word at all costs.

World history appears to us as the arena of these constant contests between states, this constant competition of national “ideas.” Within each state, a continuous process of physical and spiritual growth, maturation, and finally death is taking place. The results of such processes inevitably affect the interstate life. Some figures give way to others, new factors of development constantly appear in the light. The “international order” is something temporary and deeply conditional – it is entirely conditioned by the actual correlation of the available forces of civilized humanity. And one should not make of it some supposedly sacred principle, a fetish, which it is a sin to touch. The internal state of one of the states, the figures of world history, will change in a tangible way – inevitably, automatically, and “

The “ideas” of cultural states intersect, intertwine in a peculiar way, and at the same time mutually enmity, compete, strive to subdue each other. This is a great, aesthetically valuable and fruitful struggle of different styles, diverse ways of human life. Each of them is legitimate and necessary in its own way, each in its own way expresses the universal, universal principle. But their mutual struggle is also truly necessary: ​​it is a guarantee that humanity is not frozen in place, it is the main factor of progress.

Every healthy state organism is attracted to expansion, to greater power, and each is limited by analogous impulses of organisms like him. Here the seal of some higher wisdom is clearly felt. Great wars, similar to the one we are experiencing, are, as it were, an impartial verdict of the historical Reason regarding litigations between earthly states. Judgment is being carried out on the peoples, on their aspirations, on their “ideas”. Organic changes that have matured over a certain period of time in individual states receive authoritative sanction in terms of world history. The external, “physical” appearance of the world is brought into line with its internal, spiritual appearance. Internally justified, truly legitimate claims are satisfied, internally false, empty encroachments (be it “offensive”, be it “


This is how the theoretical premises of the problem facing us, the problems of Great Russia, are drawn to me in general terms. The current war is a reassessment of the existing “international order” and, at the same time, a test of the physical and spiritual forces of modern state organisms. The results can’t be random. Its outcome is predetermined by the development of dramatic action throughout the entire chapter of the historical process that is now ending, and is conditioned by the objective meaning of this chapter. The war will end – the meaning will be revealed; not earlier: “the owl of Minerva begins its flight only at dusk” ******).

There is a struggle of various national-state “ideas” and “styles” of the modern cultural world. Each great power “defends” as much as it “attacks”, for each strives to keep its former property and, moreover, to strengthen it with new acquisitions. So far, England, Russia and France have changed the map of the world no less than Germany and Austria. Let Great Germany be carried away by the slogan “Berlin – Bagdad”, the image of “Tsargrad” persistently attracts Great Russia. If “Germanism” is justifiably proud of the greatness of its culture, then we must (and can!) oppose to it the no less majestic outlines of the still young, but already undoubtedly bright Russian culture. Oh, of course, here we still have a lot of work ahead of us, a huge field of activity, hard work on ourselves.

But in any case, we must not hide our nation-state aspirations in breadth. They are not a secret either for our enemies or for our allies. Let the Reason of history judge who has greater rights to Constantinople, who is more worthy of it: Turkey and Germany, or Russia. The “principle of the established international order” as well as the “national principle” are for Turkey. But the “Spirit of History”, I want to believe, is for us. Of course, much here depends on Russia itself. Will it withstand the great material and moral, physical and spiritual test, will its national genius rise to the height of the tasks facing him and already clearly realized by him?…

History seemed to be calling us to Tsargrad for a long time. Over the past century, this call has found a lively and at the same time quite conscious response in the “soul” of our country. The best Russian people pointed to Constantinople as the future path of Russia: national poets and publicists emphasized the deep ideological meaning of the upcoming “annexation”, active politicians took care of the practical side of the matter, and the Russian people made bloody sacrifices…

Moscow and the city of Petrov, and the city of Konstantinov – These are the cherished capitals of the Russian kingdoms

– so Tyutchev wrote back in 1848. He understood that Tsargrad is “the world destiny of Russia”, and was sure that the time would come when “the vaults of ancient Sophia in the renewed Byzantium will again overshadow the altar of Christ.”

“Sooner or later, Constantinople must be ours,” Dostoevsky wrote many times in the 1970s.

All modern Russian journalism unanimously professes and preaches the same conviction. The most varied theoretical views give rise to a single cherished practical slogan: “To Tsargrad!”

The Russian-Turkish wars fatally led us to the Bosporus. The best historical traditions of Russian foreign policy lead the same way. And, we will believe, the Balkan war of 1912 will be the penultimate stage on this path.

Soon, we’ll find out soon…

For now, the conclusion is clear. If the guiding principle of our political activity is the great Russian state, “Great Russia”, then the view so widespread today of the current war as a “war for European freedom”, “a war for the trampled rights of small nations”, “a war against imperialism”, ” war against German militarism”, “war against war” – with all this familiar ideology and phraseology will have to be decisively broken. For it is possible to consistently adhere to it only from the point of view of a narrow, cabinet abstract (although, perhaps, sublime) anarchic, cosmopolitan ideal, in other words, only by rejecting the idea of ​​the state, only by rejecting “Great Russia”.

N. Ustryalov.

————————————————– ———————-

*) “Nations are not natural, but historical and social formations … A nation is not something objective. A nation is something essentially subjective, that is, a property of a certain content of consciousness. A group of people who perceive themselves as united by a multitude of common, unique cultural elements and a common historical past and therefore different from other people, forms a nation. (Jellinek, “The General Doctrine of the State”, St. Petersburg. 1908, pp. 84–86).

**) This peculiar antinomy of Russian culture is aptly outlined by N. A. Berdyaev in his lecture-brochure The Soul of Russia.

***) A. S. Khomyakov, vol. I, Moscow[.] 1861, p. 227.

****) “The Russian people and socialism” (letter to Michelet).

*****) Only Alyosha Popovich did this in Rus’ …

******) Hegel, “Philosophie des Rechts”, Vorrede.

————————————————– ———————- (Journal of Foreign Policy and Law “Problems of Great Russia”, No15, October 15 (28), 1916, pp.1-5. )

The American Protectionist Economy of The Past and The Protectionist Economy of The Future

For almost the last 80 years the United States has had a free trade and global economy. Meaning countries do trade with very little restrictions on their economies such as no tariffs and government subsides.  This has led to globalization, outsourcing of American jobs, dependence on foreign countries, less regulations and unions, suppression of wages, the destruction of smaller producer everywhere, mass immigration of both legal and illegal migration to America and brain drains in developing countries. In other words, free trade has had serve negative effects on the working class and has led to corporations to globally expanded meaning they have more power over economies, governments, and the average person.

Despite the myth of America always being a free trade or even free market economy. The American economy was not always a free trade economy but rather was a protectionist economy that protected local industries and jobs throughout most of its existence. In fact, part of the reason why the American revolution was fought was because America did not want to rely on Britain for manufacturing and not be allowed to industrialize. In this article I will go over a brief history of protectionism in America, why it was adopted then abandon, and how we may return to a protectionist economy and how to avoid from making same mistakes.

History of Protectionism

As mentioned earlier the American Revolution was not just fought over unfair taxation but Britain also had enacted laws to prevent America from industrializing such as a ban on high value manufacturing in hopes to keep America an agrarian colony that produced raw materials for British industrialist to then sell those products to America. Basically, to keep America dependent on British industries. Many of the founding father such as George Washington believed the only way to be truly independent was also to be economically independent. The second law to be passed under Washington presidency was the Tariff Act of 1789 which put a 5 percent tariff or tax on all imported goods in hopes of encouraging the consumer to buy domestic goods.

While Washington enacted the first protectionist laws the real architecture of American Protectionism was none other than the first Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton a Founding Father and leader of the Federalist Party. Hamilton like Washington believed the only way for America to be truly independent was by having a protectionist economy that promoted industries at home. Along with having a manufactured based economy was the only way for America to compete with rival powers. Hamilton was not just a supporter for tariffs but even outright bans on imported goods and bans on export of raw materials that could be used for American manufactures. Hamilton also supported government subsidies for industries, key innovations, exporters, and inventions at home. These ideas would be favored by many American manufacturers and by Hamilton’s very own conservative Federalist Party which many founding fathers were members like John Adams (second president of America), John Jay, Rufus King, and John Marshall.

The federalist party largely represent the interest of the rising American industrial capitalist class that was largely located in the American North. However not all the founding fathers wanted tariffs or wanted a society dominated by manufactures rather wanted to keep America an agrarian economy. These interests were represented by the Democratic Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe which represented the slave plantation owners and other large farmers that were largely in the American South. The reason why plantation owners were against the tariffs was because they were producers of raw materials like cotton, and food that they sold to foreign countries like Great Britain. The tariff would raise the cost of living in the south and cut into the profits of the plantation owners due tariff on Britain.

While the Federalist would only have one of their party members John Adams elected as president and would lose out to Jefferson Democratic Republicans. The Democratic Republican president James Madison (with Jefferson support)  would have to raise tariffs by 25 percent due to the war of 1812 that disrupted trade,  along with the government need for more revenue to fund the war and anti-British sentiments.    By 1816 the tariff had been raisin to 35 percent then to 40 percent by 1820. While support for tariffs remained high at this time the agrarian plantation class would oppose it again later in the late 1820s for many similar reasons as originally and seeing it as largely benefited the industrial capitalist who were growing rapidly at this time. Swallowing up the small family farmers and small manufactures which gave rise to big cities and monopolies in the North with industrialist having strong influence in the northern governments, that went against agrarian interest. While at the same time the protectionist economy did protected/ created American jobs, national security, independence and created new technologies and inventions at home just like Hamilton wanted.

The conflict between the industrialist protectionist North and slave plantation free traders South would continue all the way up to civil war. With the South prior to the war have some successes in overturning protectionist policies in their favor with the North conceding on some of the issues. However, this did not ease tensions and in 1861 Civil War broke out between the industrial North and the Agrarian South partially over the issue of Free Trade. Abraham Lincoln the president of America at the time was a strong protectionist. In fact, protectionism was his number 2 issue after anti-slavery. The South led by Jefferson Davis made free trade there second major issue after pro slavery with free trade being mandated in the Confederacy constitution. As everyone knows the Industrial North ended up winning the civil war in 1865 and Lincoln not only ended slavery but left a strong protectionist legacy amongst presidents all the way up to 1945.  

However, as a consequence of the abolition of slave plantation owner class allowed for industrial Capitalism in the North to expand to the American South. Quickly taking a part many of the small farms in the region in the last few decades of the 19th century. Centralizing wealth and power into fewer hands with the wealthy becoming more detached from the average person and their interest. This is seen by the poor working standards, low wages, price gouging, import of cheap foreign labor, bloody suppression of worker strikes, with holding of bank loans to small producers and widespread fake products. Not to mention major monopoly such as the Rockefellers that controlled entire industries such as oil. While some of this was minimized due to reforms and trust busts that started widely under Theodore Roosevelt in the early 1900s and did have some support from some major capitalist such as J.P Morgan. However, many of the large-scale corporation would remain and did not entirely stop the divide between the supper rich and everyone else. 

As the 20th century began the protectionist and isolationist policies of the US began to break down. With the United States playing a bigger role in world affairs and with a capitalist class who wanted to expand their markets pass Americas borders in their pursuit of more profit. This can be seen by the presidency of Woodrow Wilson and his ideas such as Wilsonianism a form of liberal internationalism that became popular in elite intellectual and capitalist circles after the first world war and would later morph into modern Neo Conservatism and Neo Liberalism. It can also be seen in the rise of international corporation from within America such as United Fruit Company that dominated many parts of Latin America such as Colombia or Guatemala. Another example the  Ford Motor company which did business in the anti-capitalist Soviet Union being partially responsible for modernizing the country and helping to make a rival for the American Capitalist order (which Ford Motor is a part of) and later for that Soviet Union to use the poor conditions in Latin America created by United Fruit company and other corporations to foster communist revolutions all throughout the continent that could of lead to the American capitalist own downfall, born out of their own greed. However, we are jumping ahead of ourselves as American government was still supporting protectionist policies and went back to isolation after Wilson left office.  And in 1922 tariffs were raised again to 50 percent with the Fordney-McCumber Tariff Act.  Another tariff was passed in 1930 called the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 raised tariff up to 60 percent. Being the last major American tariff of the 20th century.

When America entered World War 2 after the attack on Pearl Harbor in December of 1941. America became involved with world affairs again and this time did not go back into isolation or protectionism. With the economies of Europe and East Asia being destroyed due to the war, made America into a world power. Which gave the American capitalist class a reason to expand into new markets in western Europe and parts of east Asia to not only to make more profit but also to counter act the Soviet Union which was also a rising power that threaten America newfound power and influence on the world stage.

In October of 1947 the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was signed by the United States and other countries which promoted international trade and elimination of tariffs and other trade barriers. Tariffs were largely reduced in America along with other government regulation. The reason why so many major American capitalist wanted to go global was because they would have more markets to make profit, more resources and have a cheaper work force and resources outside the US.  US influence and control in Western Europe only strengthened with the Marshall Plan which helped to rebuild Europe and the formation of military alliance known as NATO also strengthen the US influence in Europe. The Rockefeller foundation would also start to advocate for more trade relations with China in hopes of expanding their own market.  In 1979 American government in hopes of splitting the communist bloc and making cheaper goods signed a trade agreement with China which began the outsourcing of jobs and US dependence on China on certain industries such as medicine, machinery, electricity, and textiles. America would also start to rely on other countries like Saudi Arabia for other industries like oil. In 1984 under President Ronald Reagan the predecessor to NAFTA the Canada US trade agreement was signed with Canada. Furthering America free trade policy and with Reagan economics further deregulation as a whole giving corporations more and more power. 

When the Soviet Union fell in late 1991 allowed American influence and international capitalism to expand eastward to Russia and other former Soviet states. For a time, exploiting Russia and the others for their natural resources until 1999 with Vladimir Putin coming to power nationalizing oil industry but still Europe and America still relied heavily on Russian oil and natural gas.

 In 1994 NAFTA was signed between America, Mexico, and Canada which caused mass outsourcing of American jobs to Mexico. The World Trade Organization came into existence which replaced the General agreement on tariff and trade. America would continue a free trade policy all the way up to Donald Trump in 2016. Who started to put tariffs on China in hopes of bring industries back to America. In 2020 many more problems in Free trade were revealed with the Covid 19 pandemic that shut down many countries causing shortages that still last to this date. Then the Russia Ukraine War started in February 2022 of this year causing more shortages especially of oil and natural gas.  Which gets us to the current crisis.

The Current Crisis: Karl Marx and Oswald Spengler The Predictors of Doom of Western Capitalism Through Free Trade

The crisis of free trade that has been building for almost 80 years and has accelerated in the last 2 years can be understand by looking into two intellectuals on the issue of free trade.  The founder of communism Karl Marx and one of key figures of the German Conservative Revolution Oswald Spengler. Marx approaches the issue through a class analysis while Spengler approaches the issue from a geopolitical or civilization analysis.

Marx unlike Spengler was a supporter of free trade not because he was a capitalist but because he believed that through free trade the world would be brought closer together and class divides would widen. In one of Marx article titled “On Free Trade” Marx states this on the issue.

“But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.”

If we look Mexico for example, we see that after NAFTA was signed many of small farms ended up going bankrupt due to government subsidies and tariff being cut. Along with not being able to compete with the corporations that moved into Mexico. This caused mass immigration to the United States which caused more competition in the American labor market and help to erode the traditional makeup of the United States. At the same time NAFTA created conflict inside the southern Mexico state of Chiapas. Which is home to many small indigenous farmers. An anarchist insurgent group called the Zapatista Army of National Liberation released a declaration of defiance against NAFTA which they saw as pushing them into more poverty. An Uprising would soon break out after signing of NAFTA. The conflict would last for 12 days until treaty was signed allowing Zapatista to have their own autonomous zone.

This was not first-time conflict t6hat had broken out over poverty, free trade and antagonism of foreign corporations’ control over the economy. In fact, as was stated earlier it was part of reason United States declared independence from Britain. There of course more modern example to like In Cuba in the 1959 which led to the rise of Communism in country. In Colombia in 1964 an insurgency broke out for many of the same reason with the conflict still going on to this very day. Of course, it’s not just leftist who are opposing free trade and globalization. In Russia in 1990s after the fall of Soviet Union many right-wing conservatives, nationalist, and monarchist banded to together with communist in defiance against the Neo Liberal Yeltsin government that brought Russia into poverty with its Neo Liberal Shock therapy economics.  In the United States Right Wing Populism has come to the stage with Donald Trump becoming president with similar trends taking place in Western Europe. Trump by no means an anti-capitalist was against free trade and problems it caused like mass immigration, outsourcing, and dependence on foreign countries most notably China.  The rise of right-wing populism in America in 2015 also came with strong anti-elite sentiments with strong antagonism of prominent supports of globalism like George Soros and Hillary Clinton. While Marx was correct that with free trade would create more antagonism with the ruling capitalist. However, he was wrong to believe that it would solely be a class conflict as many of these movements even the left-wing ones embrace forms of Nationalism or localism (in case of the Zapatistas) and sought the liberation of their countries from foreign influences. Some of the left-wing ones even embraced religion and social conservatism like the Sandinista in Nicaragua which Marx would see as backwards. Not to mention many of the left-wing uprising happened in agrarian countries or regions like Chiapas, Colombia, and Nicaragua. Not in industrial countries where Marx predicted.

Marx also did not take into account other classes that could become prominent with free trade. This class being the Drug Cartels or what I like to call the Narco Aristocrats. With the opening of borders, outsourcing of jobs and some places poverty that was created by free trade gave drug cartels a chance to also become international. With Cartels being able to get more recruits and buyers due to the depression that free trade caused in some regions like Mexico or Rural Colombia in terms of recruits or Rust Belt or Appalachia in terms of buyers. Many of these cartel’s pull billions of dollars on drug trafficking alone. The money the cartels have allows them to form armies that do fight off the Mexican and Colombian militaries. And if the current crisis within international capitalism gets worse then we can only expect the cartels to only grow and possibly take control of entire countries.

While class conflict may have grown in the Americas due to free trade. In the East however with America and Europe having many of their industries and imports being based from countries like China, India, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. Western free trade has given rise to these Eastern countries to become superpowers like in the case of China and Russia and Regional power who also have major effects on the world economy nevertheless like Saudi Arabia. This of course is more in line with Oswald Spengler view of the destruction of Western capitalism than it is with Karl Marx. In Man and Technics Spengler warned that western technological capitalism was not only destroying everything that was natural but was also moving many industries to East Asian countries for profit and that this would eventually give these East Asian countries the economic power to rival the West. This is especially true for China which has the second largest economy in world partially due to Chinese state intervention and the outsourcing of western industries to China.

The importance of China and other eastern countries economy can be seen from the last two years alone. With China shutting down for Covid which caused masses trade distributions and shortages in America and the world. To Russia oil and natural gas being sanctioned by western countries due to the war in Ukraine which has caused a shortage of fossil fuels and the price of energy to increase. Not to mention made inflation worse for many western countries. All this was also accelerated when Saudi Arabia and OPEC announced that they would decrease oil production by 2 million barrels causing more problems for western economies.

China, Russia, and others have also made economic alliance like BRICS and SCO which is now competing with many western economies and economic unions. These economic unions like BRICS contributes ¼ of world GDP and 50 percent of world economic growth in the last 10 years. The eastern countries may have used western free trade to their advantage, but they always saw America and its allies as threat to their own ways of life and sovereignty. Only using the Western capitalist short sightedness for profit to their advantage. Now that China and Russia no longer needs America and the West. Russia now and sooner or later China will start to begin (or already begun in the case of Russia) military operations to claim territories that were once a part of their countries, that play geopolitical roles that could be used against China and Russia if they remain under American influence such as Ukraine and Taiwan. This of course in the case of Russia has already destroyed relations with the West and when China does move on Taiwan will do the same as well but as we seen in Russia this will probably hurt America and its allies more than it will hurt China.

The Return to American Protectionism

All the problems that free trade has caused which has hurt the American working class for decades is now finally hurting the capitalist class too. With some like Black Rock CEO Larry Fink stating that globalism has ended due to Russia Ukraine War.  However, amongst more dissident elements of capitalist like Donald Trump has already started to move America away from free trade by not only implementing tariff on China but also on European countries like the UK and France during Trumps presidency from 2017 to 2020. Even Joe Biden the current president of United States who is staunch liberal internationalist who has lifted many of these tariffs has had to sign the Chips acts which provides 280 billion dollars into funding research and manufacturing in the US of semiconductors something that is needed to make cars and computers for example.  This is not stopping the decline of the US however as America is still in economic downturn and internal conflict is becoming ever more inevitable due to partially from free trade. Not to mention America is nowhere near an autarkic or economic independences.

We cannot rely on the capitalist class or dark elves of this class like Moldbug call them to make America economically independent again as they will always try to expand internationally in pursuit of profit at the expense of the American people when it benefits them. Arguably many of these new protectionist policies are to desperately save Liberal globalism more than anything and these protectionist policies will be overturn if that is somehow achieve.

Hamilton protectionism had the goal of not only making America economically independent but also to be beneficial to American workers and capitalist alike. However as soon as it no longer served the capitalist interest, they abandon protectionism for free trade putting American jobs, sovereignty, and security at risk. America has resources to be economically independent and Hamilton protectionism does not need to be abandon but the more liberal elements need to be cast out of it. Important industries like fossil fuels and energy should be nationalize for national security reasons. The rest of the economy should be run by small business and coops that will be regulated by guilds where all members of a local economic sector like manufacturing for example will all be able to set prices, monitor trade, only allow local guild members to trade in a local area and would provide benefits to family if anything bad would happen to one of the members. Other concepts like family rights that base laws on how it benefits the American traditional family would be beneficial in protecting jobs and American interest. Only through the removal of the current capitalist class and being replaced by the workers can any of this be achieved.


America Was Founded as a Protectionist Nation

Free Trade Fallacy by Michael Lind

England’s medieval guilds

Medieval Guilds

On The Question of Free Trade by Karl Marx

Man, and Technics by Oswald Spengler

A lecture by Professor Michael Lind on Alexander Hamilton and Free Trade

24c. The South Carolina Nullification Controversy,cloth%20%E2%80%94%20mostly%20in%20the%20north.

Guild Socialism: A Plan for Economic Democracy by George Douglas Howard Cole


BRICS as a Driver of Global Economic Growth and Development by Badar Alam Iqbal,(US%24%204%20trillion).

The Problems With NAFTA by Kimberly Amadeo

Protectionism in the Interwar Period