The globalist regime’s standard argument against European nationalists is that they are incipient Nazis whose ideology will inevitably lead to another Auschwitz. Propaganda on this point has been so systematic and pervasive that these days the association is almost Pavlovian. This is so even when a particular nationalist might not consider himself to be close to National Socialism, anti-Semitism, and racialism. In France, this is the story of the Front National.
The French nationalist Alain Soral has taken a rather unique approach in tackling the issue head on by calling himself a “French national socialist.” Various senior politico-media regime figures have used this as a further argument in ostracizing and persecuting the “Nazi” Soral. I believe there is even a video of him somewhere on the Internet (which I recall, but cannot find again) in which he makes the provocative, offhand comment: “Ce qui me fait bander, c’est Hitler.” (Which could be rendered as: “You know what gives me a hard-on? Hitler.”) He has also listed Heinrich Himmler’s Schutzstaffel, along with Charles Maurras’ ideal monarchy and the Islamic Republic of Iran’s ayatollahs, as examples of the kind “transcendental power of a hereditary caste, both religious and military” necessary to check capitalist globalism.
Ironically, Soral politically is not actually a racialist and has spoken derisively of eugenics. This means he is in no way a National Socialist, which would necessarily imply a respect for Darwinian evolutionary principles and their application in public policy. As Commander George Lincoln Rockwell argued : “National Socialism, fundamentally, is the application of science, not only to inanimate objects and animals, but to mankind himself. . . . National Socialism is the inevitable end-product logically of evolution. If you believe in evolution, you’ve got to be a Nazi if you think about it long enough.”
Why then does Soral declare himself a “national socialist” while defending himself against accusations of “Nazism” ?
The answer, I believe, is that Soral wants to redeem what there was good in National Socialism even from a non-racialist standpoint, which for him is essentially the ideology’s progressive economics. He has written in Dialogues désaccordés (a book of written exchanges with the mainstream journalist Éric Naulleau):
[T]he far-right [as a slur], at least since 1945 and more so since May ’68, is an invention of leftism, under Atlanticist sponsorship, that is of the business right (what I call the Bank) to hide the fact that National Socialism was socially left-wing.
That too is one of the keys to understanding everything that has been at stake since the Second World War.
As a French national socialist, I am irritated at being lumped with the far-right, a term which for me designates the neoconservatives, the Americano-Zionist imperialists, and the international banking power . . .
So, my answer is that I am not of the far-right, but I am a national socialist, but one can consider this to be worse!
I would add, so that I am not merely taken for a provocateur, that I am a French national socialist: With no need to refer to a racial theory for reasons of living space, which corresponded to the German situation. Ideology often stemming from geography!
I am a national socialist in the manner of Hugo Chávez, hence given the current context of domination by militaro-banking globalism, a genuine man of the left! Understand, if you will . . .
In the video, after quoting these words, Soral adds: “I will let you judge the honesty of each and of the obscenity of my adversaries.” Soral has in other videos praised National Socialist economists Gottfried Feder and Hjalmar Schacht. He has also published a wartime book by the left-wing French writer Francis Delaisi defending the Third Reich’s economic policies. Soral said at the time: “The solutions of tomorrow to the current crisis are in this book . . . which actually had been fully discovered by the German National Socialist economists and planners.” In short, the apology of a regulated, national capitalism rejecting usury and using protectionism where necessary.
In calling himself a national socialist, Soral apparently provides more ammunition for the regime to demonize him. No doubt he considers he is “doing the time” anyway so he may as well “do the crime.” In showing German National Socialism’s merits from a left-wing perspective (and recall that, in France, the Left always benefits from an understood moral superiority) and calling himself a national socialist, Soral violates one of the regime’s most sacred taboos and, beyond the thrill of provocation, contributes to the undermining of political correctness, which he has elsewhere theorized  must be destroyed for us to think freely.
If Soral is not a racialist and evolutionary thinker, I suspect this is partly due to unfamiliarity with the copious Anglo-American research on heredity. But it is also because of his alliance with the mixed-race anti-Zionist star Dieudonné M’bala M’bala and his own Black and Maghrebi followers. Soral concedes that immigration and ethnic diversity are destructive, but he adds that these are only secondary consequences of a greater evil: The Judeo-globalist elites ruling France today.
In this Schmittian prioritizing of the enemy, Soral is oddly Hitlerian. For as the historian R. H. S. Stolfi points out, throughout the rise of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP), Hitler refused to support the ruling parties of the Weimar Republic even when these were opposing a foreign adversary such as the Franco-Belgian occupation of the Ruhr or Italian rule over ethnically-German South Tyrol. For Hitler, the fundamental cause of Germany’s then-travails was the unpatriotic Weimar government stemming from the defeat of 1918 and Marxist Social Democracy, and that regime therefore was the primary target of the National Socialist movement.
Similarly, Soral is completely intolerant of those nationalists and identitarians who would try to “cut a deal” with the organized Jewish community (e.g. Guillaume Faye, Éric Zemmour ). Conversely, he is supportive of racialists (e.g. Hervé Ryssen) and out-and-out National Socialists (e.g. Vincent Reynouard) who oppose Jewish power. Soral has also associated with supportive Jews such as Jacob Cohen and Gilad Atzmon.
Soral’s view of history is Hegelian: History as a struggle not between races but between ideas. If Jews are subversive, this is because of their adherence to the Jewish ideology (what Soral today calls “Talmudo-Zionism”) as against their inherent nature. A neo-traditional society would, what’s more, be immune to neo-Jewish subversion. He is a self-styled “Judeophobe,” ideologically anti-Judaic, but not racially anti-Semitic.
I would say there is no reason why the racial (that is to say, evolutionary) and ideological views of history cannot be combined. Nicholas Wade appears to attempt to do so, by suggesting the self-reinforcing co-evolution of race and culture. It would be surprising if the world’s various religious traditions, including Judaism, in developing over centuries, did not in some way reflect the underlying character of the peoples that produce them. Indeed, this would account for the many continuities we find in European and Jewish behavior despite the decline of Christianity and Judaism as practiced religions.
Soral then cannot be accused or lauded as an orthodox National Socialist. But he is most certainly a national socialist as defined by Irmin Vinson:
In the generic sense of the term, national socialism is (arguably) not inconsistent with democratic institutions, despite Hitler’s own view of the matter; its true antonyms are multiracialism and capitalist, one-world globalism. Nor is national socialism inconsistent with an American “melting pot” view of ethnicity, provided that the various ethnic groups that comprise the nation are sufficiently similar that each can see a common identity and common destiny in the others – that is, insofar as they, despite their ethnic differences, are branches of the same race and can, therefore, be effectively acculturated to a common set of national ideals.
After considerable study of the mercurial and ambiguous Soral, I would say that perhaps the ideologically-closest figure to him would be Argentine President Juan Perón (indeed, he has often expressed the perhaps unlikely hope that Marine Le Pen could prove to be France’s Evita). The similarities are innumerable and perhaps make for a good summary of “Latin” national socialism: belief that “demoliberalism” is a sham masking bourgeois, Jewish and Masonic power, a highly-moralistic and populist concern with social justice, respect for tradition (pro-Catholic, hierarchy, discipline) and opposition to atomizing ’60s individualism-egalitarianism, opposition to Anglo-American power, opposition to Jewish power and international Zionism, hostility or indifference to the Allies in the Second World War (but clearly more comfortable with Benito Mussolini than Adolf Hitler) including a refusal to demonize the Axis (hence Perónist Argentina’s openness to Axis refugees), and an unsystematic and “spiritual” approach to race.
The departed mestizo champion of Venezuela, President and Comandante Hugo Chávez, would also under this definition be a national socialist (with his opposition to el Imperio Norteamericano, his support for Syria and Iran, and his assertion that “descendants of the same ones that crucified Christ [have] taken possession of all the wealth in the world”). Indeed, Chávez has called himself a Perónist. Encouragingly, Juan and Evita Perón remain secular saints in Argentina, suggesting such a message can resonate enduringly with a nation.
As for the national socialist Alain Soral, he is no Nazi, but that doesn’t make him any less dangerous . . .
1. Alain Soral and Éric Naulleau, Dialogues désaccordés: Combat de Blancs dans un tunnel (Paris: Éditions Blanches, 2013), 65-66.
2. Francis Delaisi, La Révolution européenne (Brussels: Éditions de la Toison d’Or, 1942). Since republished by Kontre Kulture .
3. R. H. S. Stolfi, Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2011). Reviewed by Greg Johnson .
4. Nicholas Wade, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History (New York: Penguin Group, 2014)
5. Irmin Vinson, Some Thoughts on Hitler and Other Essays, 5-6.
6. On Perón, see Kerry Bolton, Perón and Perónism (London: Black House Publishing, 2014).
7. Although I would point out that the various Argentine constitutions (including Perón’s and the one currently in force ) simply state: “The Federal Government shall foster European immigration,” which elegantly preemptively resolves the racial problem.
8. A denunciation of deicide and ill-gotten privilege which arch-Zionist Charles Krauthammer immediately understood his tribe to be guilty of. Charles Krauthammer, “Borat looks in the wrong place for anti-Semitism,” Town Hall, November 23, 2006. http://townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/2006/11/23/borat_looks_in_the_wrong_place_for_anti-semitism/page/full