2,070 words
One of the intellectual developments responsible for transforming numerous Italian Leftists into Fascists was the notion of a nation-based proletariat. Realizing that a political consciousness based on class alone was a failing strategy for national rejuvenation, the men who would set the ideological groundwork for Fascism began to understand that more was needed to unite those nations oppressed by the global power hierarchy. Myth, symbolism, and mass national sentiment were seen as crucial to the revitalization of Italy and the Italian people. Contra Marxism, history as conceived by these intellectuals was not simply the scientifically-discernible unfolding of material processes but rather a more nuanced interplay of both matter and spirit. Italy, underdeveloped and unable to compete economically with its neighbors, was conceptualized as the underclass of a global system dominated by Anglo-Americans.
There can be no doubt that Italian Fascism was heavily influenced by Marxism. It accepted some of its premises and conclusions, but, crucially, rather than an international, borderless collective of workers fighting against an oppressive bourgeoisie, Fascists intellectuals thought in terms of classes of nation-states. In this conception, Italy was considered to be a proletarian nation, struggling to makes ends meet in a world system rigged against it. Thus Italians themselves were also proletarians — a label which applied equally to workers and producers alike. The unification of these classes was determined to be an essential part of the restoration of Italian prestige and power. This was a tremendously important conceptual innovation that created an ideological foundation for those in Italy who saw the Left-Right dichotomy as flawed, insufficiently explanatory, and incapable of addressing the needs of Italians both in the present and in the future.
About a century later, White Nationalists around the world are making a related and similarly momentous conceptual transition: the political prioritization of race over the neatly packaged bundle of values and assumptions that is the modern “proposition” state. In doing so, White Nationalists have adjusted and broadened Fascist thought to fit contemporary realities, making it possible to conceptualize the white race in its entirety as the global proletariat.
As a consequence of the convergence of Left and Right that frequently occurs within White Nationalist discourse, the white race has been re-characterized as a political collective that is both national and supranational. Like Fascism, White Nationalism shares a similarity with Marxist thought in its conception of broad antagonistic international coalitions. That is to say, there is a recognition of a ruling elite working in opposition to a worldwide “class.” Fascists believed that the class system was more appropriately applied to the global state system and, with surprisingly few exceptions, rejected the idea of biological race. For White Nationalists though, the chimerical international class consciousness of Marxism, as well as the civic national-class consciousness of Fascism, has been replaced by an international race-consciousness. Though there is certainly a wealth of historical examples of allied white ethnicities, these alliances were rarely deeper than temporary arrangements in order to accomplish very specific political, economic, or military goals. The idea of international racial unity would have seemed ludicrous to no more than a few extraordinarily prescient thinkers a century ago (even two or three decades ago). This idea, however, is clearly gaining traction in the 21st century and, while only in its historical infancy, seems destined to change our entire understanding of geopolitics.
The purely hypothetical and historically false notion of international class-solidarity was duly rejected by Fascists and has, generally, been rejected by the Right in all of its various manifestations throughout the world. The presence of sub-national oppositional collectives has always been seen as a problem by Rightists, even those for whom nationality means nothing more than legal recognition from the government and a nominal commitment to vague civic ideals. In the modern nation-state, the tensions arising from the presence of various oppositional collectives have most often been brushed aside as anomalies or handled by lame attempts to channel differences into broadly inclusive identities based on juridical citizenship. But for White Nationalists, mere juridical citizenship is not sufficient to turn any random border-bound collective into a nation. The nation must reflect something greater than the mechanics of a particular form of economy, the worship of law qua law, and the bureaucratic blessing of rubber-stamped membership. The nation must have primordial racial roots and the state must be the vehicle for ensuring the security and success of the primordial nation. The state must be the ultimate manifestation of a racial Rousseauvian “general will.”[1] White Nationalists are ideologically devoted to the notion of a white racial collective that crosses political boundaries but which also requires various national borders to maintain its integrity.
The White Nationalism of the 21st century is thus in a seemingly paradoxical position: it is, first and foremost, a necessarily international movement to ensure the biological survival of the white race yet it sees a multiplicity of racially-restrictive nationalisms as the only practical means to accomplish this goal. The restoration of multiple white homelands, ancestral or otherwise, is seen as integral to an effective defense against the ongoing Jewish-led genocide of whites. White Nationalism is an effort to unite people across borders while at the same time fortifying those borders. Simply put, race transcends borders but without borders there might not be a race to protect.
White Nationalism conceives of two internationalisms: a positive international white racialism and a negative international multi-racial Judeo-globalism. These two internationalisms are constantly working in opposition to each other in the same way that the bourgeoisie of Marxism is supposedly constantly working against the proletariat. Through economic exploitation, the hijacking of culture-producing institutions, and the forced demographic marginalization of whites (and, to be sure, plenty of other non-Jews as well), Judeo-globalism is very much playing the role of the oppressive bourgeoisie, while white racial internationalism plays the role of the proletariat. Though only a select handful of whites actively fights to reverse this encroachment into white territory and culture, all whites are victims of it. White resources are being drained, white culture is regularly invalidated, white countries are being flooded with non-whites, and any and all explicit (and, increasingly, even implicit) white resistance to Judeo-globalism is smeared as “supremacist” rather than “survivalist,” irrational rather than rational, and pathological rather than healthy. Even among fellow whites, pro-white advocates are almost always the subject of scorn despite valiant efforts to protect them from what will certainly be a terrifying future if current trends are not reversed. That this holds true for all white countries is what makes it possible to conceptualize whites as a global proletariat. Whites worldwide are viewed as a unified political bloc by our enemies. Italy is no more or less a target of Judeo-globalism than is Germany, the United States, or Australia.
Is applying the label “proletarian” to the white race defeatist or is there power to be found within the use of that appellation? Is it ideologically treasonous to appropriate a Marxist conception of “class” and apply it to White Nationalism? To answer these questions, one needs to realize that White Nationalism is not a conservative movement. Though certain ideas do overlap, the bulk of White Nationalist goals are anathema to conservatives. Conservatism itself is a deracinated and unsophisticated political ideology based on the preservation of a revolving canon of strategic ghosts and the fetishization of re-imagined historical utopias, i.e. “the good old days.” It has utterly failed — if it ever even really attempted — to preserve white sovereignty and security. The language of conservatism, no less than its policies, has worked with rather than against the Left. White Nationalists are not beholden to it. Indeed, it should be abandoned unless strategically necessary in some particular instance.[2] Fortunately, there is an extant global language of radical politics that can and should be utilized, regardless of its origins, simply because it has become the galvanizing lingua franca of revolutionary thought. If it was good enough for Benito Mussolini, it should be good enough for us.
To attach the term “proletariat” to the white race is to make clear to our people and our enemies that we know where we stand in the contemporary world system. Despite our vast natural strengths, we are indeed the current geopolitical underdog. The resistance to really accepting this and altering our political consciousness appropriately impedes real world action. We are still to a large extent surrounded by adequate levels of material comfort and are thus easily distracted from the future that most of us realize is before us if we do nothing: living as despised and embattled minorities in our own countries. It is easy to shut off the computer and drift into the somnolence of popular culture or corporate life. But part of our resistance to full acceptance of our position is our inability to free ourselves from the shackles of an outdated language which reflects outdated politics. We do not like to seriously ponder this terrible future but it is something that needs to be on our minds every waking moment of the day.
The sooner we think and write in the modern language of revolution, the better prepared we will be for all possible real world outcomes. Whites are already a worldwide minority. We are being invaded, out-bred, conditioned to think that our very existence is “problematic,” and told we are evil for not accepting our fate. For this to change, appeals to “freedom,” “constitutionalism,” “color-blindness,” and other ambiguous emotional palliatives are laughably inadequate. The time has come for hard, angry, radical language. We are fast approaching an uncertain and dark future but, like it or not, at this time our battle is still generally one of metapolitics. The lessons that racially-conscious whites have learned since the end of World War II are many, but the most important is that there must be a real and potent global union of whites that can transcend ethnicity without diminishing its value and that places the biological survival of the white race above the preservation of particular cultural traditions while not invalidating or threatening them. Many White Nationalists do not currently go far enough in dealing with these questions, in part, because they are weighed down by the parochial, reactionary language of conservatism.
It has often been asked, if being a minority group is so horrible why are whites so eager to become one? Based on all available evidence, historical and contemporary, the races that threaten to outnumber us in our own lands are far more inhumane and barbarous than whites have ever been, and, even worse, Jews will continue to rule. The difference is that soon, if left unchecked and undefeated, they will rule with a far larger army of non-whites which can be manipulated into doing their bidding. Imagine the damage a Jew like George Soros could do with an exponentially larger labor pool. He certainly is.
Class consciousness failed because it was posited as an unbreakable bond based on a misreading of history, a very shallow understanding of human psychology, and a deceitful approach to biology. White Nationalists in the 21st century are fortunate to have access to knowledge and experience that radicals of the past did not, as well as a deep familiarity with the entire arsenal of Leftist tricks. Racially-aware whites from, for example, Great Britain and Germany or from the United States and Spain, now see that, under threat of biological extinction, historical differences seem far less pressing than they once were and can see clearly how they have been manipulated into doing the bidding of the Jewish elite for far too long. There is a unity that is within our grasp now more than ever before. This implicit internationalist element to White Nationalism is being acknowledged daily on websites and social media but we need to take steps to more formally outline a theory of white racial globalism in order to strengthen our political power, allay any fears that individual ethnicities will be Americanized or diluted in some way, and use our worldwide numbers to our advantage. Conceiving the white race as a global proletariat engaged in an historical, life and death battle against a Judaic multiracial bourgeoisie is a move in that direction.
Notes
1. For an account of the influence of Jean-Jacques Rousseau on Fascism, see: A. James Gregor, Phoenix: Fascism In Our Time (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1999).
2. The current qualified support among many White Nationalists for Donald Trump is a perfect example of this.
9 Comments
I appreciate many of the premises in this article, but I reject the idea of actually adopting the label “proletariat” for whites as a racial whole, for the simple but vital reason that proletariat has a precise meaning, and adopting it and seeking to redefine it in our terms simply invites confusion. The simple fact that we mean to unite white workers, capitalists, aristocrats, etc. in our cause in and of itself invalidates it.
There is no need for it. Proletariat means precisely what the Marxists intended it to mean, and, as the entire article demonstrates, our notion of whites racially united in being dispossessed by a Judeo-global hostile elite is something quite different. Either we coin a new term, or simply go, as we have, defining what we mean in a sentence rather than in a single word — both options being fine.
Excellent development of the White Proletariat thesis. The proletariat as referred to in the classical Marxism that co-opted the Old Left – the wage-earning or working class, and especially the industrial workers – was always recognized as racially White. This was necesarily the case in Europe, but it was also effectively true in the U.S. Indeed, the pre-Marxist Old Left was highly racial conscious and pro-White, and if the word had existed at the time could have been accurately decribed as racist.
The New Left in the 1960s, smarting from their rejection by the White working class, morphed into Racial Marxism, a new Marxism ever more explicitly based on race, with the non-White races replacing the White Proletariat, and the White race as a whole, including the White Proletariat, replacing the bourgeoisie as the opponent in the new dialectic.
So the Racial Marxists who now form the establishment have essentially ceded the White Proletariat to the White side. This is clear in the new coalition formed by the Democratic Party over the last forty or more years which has all but abandoned the White working class in favor of an unnatural alliance of non-Whites and various types of maladaptive and dysfunctional Whites with a Jewish core and leadership.
Since the end result of the Racial Marxist dialectic is White dispossession, replacement and destruction the stakes are far more radical than the Old Left ever imagined.
Next time we fight it’s side by side. Too bad that idea fell through, especially for the Brits and Germans who are ancient tribal cousins.
Excellent article. We’re feeling that sense of solidarity now because all of our homelands are threatened equally. A Polish or French nationalist no longer has the luxury of advocating their national interests at their neighbor’s expense. We all stand or fall together.
Good article.
See these comments on it:
http://eginotes.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-new-racial-proletariat.html
In brief, certain memes of the “left” – or perhaps the “radical center” – can be usefully applied to racial nationalism. These includes social credit and the citizen’s dividend, the idea that all (racial) citizens of the state are stockholders (literally) invested in its future.
While I agree wholeheartedly with the substance of this article, I’m still not convinced on the question of language. ‘Proletariat’ just sounds too soulless, mechanical, and Judeo-marxist, while ‘internationalist’ sounds too cosmopolitan. We are a specific and finite group of great White nations with common racial origins in the continent of Europe. Putting our primordial heritage above artificial civic nationalist squabbles is not being ‘internationalistic’. It’s simply being tribal in a more fundamental way.
The author deserves credit for his consistently thought-provoking articles.
That said, it seems to me that the plight of whites is much more similar to that of the aristocracy than the proletariat. Just as the aristocrats were overthrown by the bourgeoisie (with the assistance of the revolutionary mobs and the odd turncoat) and lost their power, prestige, property, etc… – so likewise have Aryans been overthrown by the Chosen (with the assistance of non-whites and no small number of white traitors), and lost their influence, status, territory, etc…
However, such a comparison may be too pessimistic, since the aristocrats were outnumbered by the bourgeoisie, whereas in the reverse is true in the case of Whites and their mortal foes.
Our rulers are a wealthy minority. Democrats support ethnic minorities, while Republicans support wealth retention, so our rulers win on both sides in a hegemonic fashion. A lose, lose siuation for them would involve support of a combined ethnic and economic majority, which seems to describe your global proletariat idea.
This is why we need a Racialist and Producerist National Syndicalist Labor movement.
A real Labor movement, not just talks and rhetoric revolving around it.
Organize the guilds, the corporazioni, the syndicates. Organize them now.
If White workers become conscious of their power over the productive forces of society, we would have our Revolution by tomorrow’s end.
If White workers (and employers) were organized into syndicates, we would be dictating the conditions and policies of the state by the end of the week.
No state can hold on to power if the syndicates can organize properly and strike exactly where it hurts the most economically.
But National Syndicalism would not mean democracy.
To each according to his merits…
Meaning; the guilds would have to dole out the amount of votes not based on sheer numbers, but on work experience, age, the social status of a member in the eyes of his tribe and work comrades.
Why have the post-WWII Nationalist movement(s) still not formed any labor unions of their own?