Print this post Print this post

The French Anti-Revolution

524 words

While Marine Le Pen could be said to be more “liberal” than her father, Jean-Marie, she is still undeniably the key figure in relation to the destruction of the European Union. It would be more powerful than Brexit, and infinitely more powerful than Trump. This is not because there will be endless memes about it (although there may well be), and not because Leftists globally will have a mental breakdown on a scale equivalent to their response to Trump, but because it could open the gates for the older, traditionalist factions of the Front National to rise up and either push her towards their stance, or eventually inherit the party from her and take over.

If this actually happens, it could be the most revolutionary act since the French Revolution itself. It would be an Anti-Revolution. It would serve to reverse time and restore order to what some believe to be the heart of Europe. It would potentially be the Final Revolution, a restoration of European order and harmony, and a complete reversal of the cancer that has spread at a historically unbelievable rate since the French Revolution occurred.

Donald Trump and Brexit are both very interesting, and have done well to shift the political tone, but they are both hollow gestures, as both Trump and those behind Brexit are not really conservatives or traditionalists. They are modern capitalists. Steve Bannon summed it up perfectly by describing his movement as an economic nationalist one. They will not reverse the spiritual damage done to the West because they do not have the spirit to do so.

Saying this might annoy or alienate some people, but no American can reverse the damage, as most Americans, whether they like it or not, are against monarchy, hierarchy, and harmonious order. It is in the very roots of the nation. It is in their national spirit, for the most part. They are the sons and daughters of the decline, although some more so than others. America is a nation founded on republican, anti-traditionalist values. America and the French Revolution go hand-in-hand. How America has conducted itself in the world since their “liberation” from monarchy is a testament to this inability to do anything seismic. Of course, there is work to be done in America, work that has to be done by good people, but it is a very complex situation.  America is a very young nation, so it could go either way.  It could even be that America was merely a mistake, and it will simply dissolve.

Am I saying that Americans must embrace the Queen and monarchy in order to save themselves from the jaws of chaos? Maybe I am. Honestly, I don’t know what they should do.  Am I saying that a group of Radical Traditionalists will rise from the ranks of the FN? Maybe I am. Am I saying that, if they do indeed rise to take control of the party and follow through with their traditional values, that it would be, or could be, the saving of Europe? Yes. If this Anti-Revolution takes place, nothing is unimaginable and everything is possible, if time itself can be reversed.

This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , . Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. Ghost of Bowden
    Posted March 13, 2017 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

    “America is a nation founded on republican, anti-traditionalist values.”

    I must respectfully disagree. Rome, which predates any of the European Kingdoms, was a republic. And Greece, which predates even Rome, was the originator of democracy. Ergo, republicanism is more “traditionalist” than monarchy.

    …You dumb f***.

    • Wiesse konig
      Posted March 14, 2017 at 5:56 am | Permalink

      Athens lasted less than 200 years, much of which involved internal conflicts and civil war. Regardless of your opinion on monarchy, under kings Europe was able to expand it influence all over the world. While modern democratic govts. Can barely keep their borders intact. Why should we follow the athenian model?

      In regards to “republican” govt. even if we do a reset back to some golden period. What would prevent them from degenerating in the same way? They will want to expand sufferage since it will create more voters they can pander to. Especially since women and blacks are more prone to want wealth redistribution, the temptation for politicians to give them the vote is always there.

      • Ghost of Bowden
        Posted March 14, 2017 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

        Who exactly did you have in mind for our new monarch, then? Do you see any viable candidates with the requisite cultural, spiritual, and/or martial virtues? How do we avoid getting King William Gates I? Or a jew or crypto jew? Or a shabbos goy-king? Can one monarch/autocrat really govern effectively in the face of the “managerial state/class”, multinational corporations, and the complexity of the world we find ourselves in? Can he manage a 21st century economy, nuclear armed rivals, etc.?

        • Wiesse konig
          Posted March 15, 2017 at 6:44 am | Permalink

          18 of the 20 wealthiest countries are monarchies, so Although most of those countries are small, I would say that monarchs can function in modern economies.
          At the same time, I cannot think of any reason why they would be unable to make use of beurocratic management, to deal with managing larger countries (didnt stop Prussia)

          Your point on finding a suitable king is the biggest challenge, especially in a nation like the US founded on principles directly opposed to monarchies.
          All of the existing leaders either in government, buisiness, or culture are pretty much horrible. (King gates is a terrifying idea, ick)

          The best way to look at this problem would be how kingdoms/empires started historically.

          For Rome, it began with a military leader being declared supreme leader, then his successors made the position into a mostly hereditary title. It’s possible to see how a fascist govt. could turn into a monarchy the same way.

          For most of history monarchies began from tribal leaders making oaths of loyalty to each other, with the strongest above the others being the king, in this sense they occur naturally in the absence of other governments. While existing governments aren’t going anywhere soon, if any areas in North America or Europe were to become lawless, (maybe due to racial/economic conflicts in the next few decades?) you might see people forming defensive groups that would eventually subsume and merge with each other to form kingdoms (this is of course mostly long term fantasy/conjecture, but fits the historical pattern)

          The more likely way it would occur is with some constitutional modifications to turn a republic into a more aristocratic non-universal sufferage system. For example the longest lasting continuous government was the “republic” of Venice. It was a very different institution than modern systems. The head was the Doge, who ruled for life, and he was picked by hereditary nobles. There was only a small mostly powerless lower house to represent the average person. It was one of the wealthiest countries in Europe for almost its entire 1100 year history, (and it took nepoleon to finally finish it). If you wanted a “Republic” a similar system without universal sufferage might work. Getting there would be the hard part, and would require either a coup, or Hitleresqe political organization to overcome the establishment and replace it.

          Something else to consider is the factor of “superior people”. Most political systems don’t occur without some unusually gifted people to start them. Even if you are completely on board with the popular perception of US history, the founding fathers are seen as special and a historically unique group. Nazis feel the same for hitler. Monarchies and empires feel the same way for thier founding Kings. It may be that we have to look for, and wait for, those special individuals who can lead people to make these changes happen.

          • Ghost of Bowden
            Posted March 15, 2017 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

            My first concern is an explicitly and exclusively White nation. The form of government is secondary. I would prefer a restoration of the original American Republic, with limited franchise. Maybe add to that a semi-symbolic, semi-functional aristocracy to uphold the highest cultural and spiritual values.

            One little item on my wishlist for all European peoples… Explicit and permanent codification of free speech and the right to keep and bear arms. Proper due process is huge as well.

            • Wiesse konig
              Posted March 16, 2017 at 7:54 am | Permalink

              Even if our ONLY goal was a white state, it would still be important to look at the republic we had and see why it went from being essentially a white ethnostate republic, to a democratic brownish mess.
              As I said earlier any republic will generally turn to a democracy, as politicians will always want to expand sufferage. We started with only landowning white males voting and went to all men, then blacks, and then women. Despite the constitution saying no to all of them. Until 1912 the senate was picked by state governments.
              How would you stop these mistakes in the future?

              While having a limited aristocracy in place might act as a check on these problems, the British aristocracy was unable to stop parliament from replacing thier authority.

              The specific issue for a white state also is wether a democracy actually is well suited for whites.
              Democracy works best for the groups most willing to organize and fight for thier own selfish interests. So groups like blacks or jews, who will readily pounce on any excuse to advance thier own interests will do better than whites, who normally perceive the world in terms of common good.
              This means it will be difficult to keep them out of politics, and destructive when they get in.
              Democracy rewards selfishness, and I dont think whites are selfish enough.

              What then does either a democracy or republic offer us but a risk of the same failures we have lived through?

              As for free speech and arms, the question is which forms of government have historically been better at respecting them? Obviously no government is perfect in regards to rights, but do you think modern European governments are better in there than the monarchies were? How would Edward II, who required his citizens to own longbows, look at todays england, and thier laws on arms?

              Look at all the “enlightenment” philosophers who were able to publish works directly critical of monarchies (often while employed by the state) mostly without censor?
              Compare that to a modern college, where a simple “whites have a right to exist” will get a professor fired?
              Which has a better track record for liberties? Did you hear of a king restricting speech with hate crime laws like modern states?

              Another issue to consider for a white state, is how historically the aristocracy has been much more difficult to infiltrate by (((subversive))) elements than republican governments or even fascist ones.
              A person gets into an aristocracy in the western tradition through military service to the crown, usually requiring some perticularly heroic act, and then from them thier descendents retain thier title.
              Since the barrier to entry is military service then birth, how easy is it for a (((selfish cowardly person))) to get into government?
              How many jews have earned a knighthood?

              Until European states perverted the institution by allowing people to buy titles of nobility, there were no jews in the aristocracy in the entire history of Europe. (The rothschilds bought thier title obviously)
              Compare this with even the Nazi party and SS with hitler granting a few partially jewish people in on special permission.
              The European aristocracy was more effective at keeping out jews over 1000 years than the nazis were for 12.
              A white nationalist, would be wise to consider an aristocracy as a barrier to subversive elements.

              Anyway, long story short, other than misplaced nostalgia, what reason do we have to prefer a democracy or republic?

    • Darryl
      Posted March 14, 2017 at 9:38 am | Permalink

      Though no fan of monarchy both Rome and Ancient Greece had kings and kingdom before becoming Republics.

      • Ghost of Bowden
        Posted March 14, 2017 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

        If that is the case, I stand corrected. Still trying to catch up on my history.

    • Rhino
      Posted March 14, 2017 at 10:05 am | Permalink

      It goes without saying that various varieties of monarchy existed both before and after both the Roman Republic and the Greek democracies.

      Those ultimately very temporary modes of government are aberrations.

    • Wiesse konig
      Posted March 15, 2017 at 8:53 am | Permalink

      Also, in ancient athens only 14% of the population had a vote, sufferage being limited to a landowning male aristocracy.

      The romans also had defined political classes (patricians, plebeians) which limited and determined rights and authority.

      Something else to consider looking at politics is that even in “republics” and democracies, is that most historical ones had hereditary classes. This is also true for most successful monarchies, and it could be argued that the aristocracy itself may be more important than the government above it.

      The reason for this is A. It provides a check on central authority since they are in a position to stage coups against unpopular governments.
      B. They act as a bridge between the central authority and the population. In rome patricians gave patronage to plebeians, giving them financial and legal support, as well as advice. In monarchies in Europe peasants lived on the lands of nobility, where they were responsible for upholding law, and protecting them. Even when fuedalisim ended, in most European countries, the aristocracy was still active in government, both in Britain and germany they comprised most military leadership. Having an aristocracy means that normal people regularly see members of state leadership and may have positive relationships with them, this gives government a human face, and leads to people being more trusting and cooperative with the state. It can be noted that nations with weaker aristocracy (france and russia) also were the nations with anti-monarchy revolution. Without the bridge of the nobles, government will be seen as impersonal, imposed system, for which they feel no attachment.

      It may be true that regardless of the higher level organization (kindom, republic, whatever) there needs to be a legally enforced hereditary class, in order for long term state health.

      • Wiesse konig
        Posted March 15, 2017 at 8:57 am | Permalink

        Point being. Healthy governments look absolutely nothing like modern government.

    • Posted March 15, 2017 at 11:21 pm | Permalink

      And eventually the Republic crumbled due to civil wars by different Roman factions, and gave way to the Empire – ruled by an Emperor. The Empire, by the way, was when Rome reached its pinnacle.

  2. GenYES
    Posted March 13, 2017 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    America started as an aristocratic republic. Only after suffrage was extended to blacks and women, which required Constitutional Amendments, did the whole project begin to crumble. If we got back to our republican roots, eliminated suffrage for minorities, non-landowners and non heads of household, and had a President who served a life term and was handpicked by his aristocratic peers like the Pope, America 2.0 could work pretty damn well as a fashy state. In fact, you could move the whole project a long way in that direction by taking the vote from the non-property owning, non-heads-of-household, which mostly consists of our diverse citizenry.

  3. alkaloid_content
    Posted March 13, 2017 at 10:34 pm | Permalink

    What a senseless article. ‘…Americans must embrace the Queen and monarchy’? Good grief.

  4. Miha M
    Posted March 14, 2017 at 3:57 am | Permalink

    I disagree with assessment of Trump and Bannon. Bannon in particular understands the situation perfectly and knows exactly what he’s doing. Check documentary he directed: Generation Zero (2012). Big part of Trump’s election campaign was based on whats presented in that documentary. They know economy is going to collapse. Another thing is they know about pedogate.

    If they were openly pro-white right now they would be destroyed by anti-whites. But if they play smart, then pedogate can be used to destroy anti-white elites and congress, those ridiculous rulings on travel bans can be used to destroy judiciary and economic collapse will make whites racist and open to very radical solutions which are not a big no no.

    Its true, we dont know what Trump and Bannon will do, but their real nature will be revealed only economy collapses. It seems that FED will hike rates quarterly so it will happen in 1st term. But for now they are just going along with it.

  5. Colliton
    Posted March 14, 2017 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    I think Bannon’s economic nationalism is a step in the right direction. It shows he has good instincts.

    Americans are good rebels/revolutionaries and Canadians are loyal subjects of the Crown. It seems Canada is in bigger trouble today than the US.

    • Posted March 15, 2017 at 11:16 pm | Permalink

      The trouble started when Canada becomes a democracy, not when it was still a monarchy. The Queen is effectively a powerless monarch now.

  6. Michael Woodbridge
    Posted March 15, 2017 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    The point about Monarchy vis a vis Republican institutions is that Monarchy recognises the principle of historical continuity. The institution of Monarchy also recognises the principle of hereditary through bloodline. Of course no sensible person would claim that Monarchy is impervious to corruption or degeneration but in principle it’s closer to the ideal of White Nationalism than Republicanism or Democracy.

  7. nineofclubs
    Posted March 15, 2017 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

    In Australia, the republican question arises perennially. My own view is that the form of our government is less important than the values it promotes and the policies it imposes.
    It is conceivable that an openly nationalist government could operate as part of the Commonwealth, although relations with other Commonwealth nations would need careful management. It’s also possible that such a government could establish, or operate in an already established republic.
    There are arguments for and against the republic, but in the scheme of things these aren’t core issues to the struggle we’ll face in coming decades. So what are the core issues?
    I want government that ends mass immigration, defends our homeland, develops our industry, promotes Australian culture, creates a healthy environment for the evolution of the Australian people and puts our economy and finance system at the service of the nation, rather than as its master.
    Whether such a government operated under a portrait of a newly minted President, or QE2, isn’t something I’m too worried about.
    Hell, if I could have THAT wish list, I’d take Schapelle Corby as head of state.


Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    Here’s the Thing

    Trevor Lynch: Part Four of the Trilogy

    Graduate School with Heidegger

    It’s Okay to Be White


    The Enemy of Europe

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace