Agrarian Populism & Cargo Cult FascismNicholas R. Jeelvy
Allow me, dear reader, to take you on a fantastic journey to a mythical time known as the “middle tens.” It was a period between 2012 and 2018 when the hottest political movement was populism. All the cool kids were populists, and we were witnessing the rise of something new and exciting, something that would later be described as national populism. This was the era of Brexit and Farage, the era of Jair Bolsonaro and Marine Le Pen, of Matteo Salvini and the Yellow Vest movement. It was the era when a rag-tag gang of disaffected young men memed Donald Trump into the Presidency — or so we believed at the time.
Everyone wanted to rush ahead of this new wave of energy, the Left to defeat it, the treacherous Right to deflate it, the various factions of the Dissident Right to claim it as their own. Is there a warm, fuzzy feeling in your belly yet? That’s called nostalgia. It’s what you get when your glory days are behind you and all that’s left ahead are the many and grueling indignities of middle and old age.
I’ve got more bad news for you. Not only are your glory days over, they were never really glorious to begin with. You got caught in a passing fad that you’ll never live down. Your dad was eventually able to rise above his embarrassing 80s hairdo, but you’ll never live down going full fash. We’re in a big hole, gentlemen. And as the old farmer used to say, the first thing you gotta do when you’re in a hole is to stop digging.
Many got hung up on the word “populist” and its corollary “working class.” Some used it euphemistically, to mean working-class whites. Some took it seriously and operated on the classical definition. Others still used it as a catch-all term for everyone left holding the bag in the great globalist game. It got so absurd that the owners of small industrial businesses were lumped into that great mass of “the working class” or “working-class whites.” And usage of such terms caused significant confusion, least of all on the Dissident Right.
Working from the term “working class,” many became convinced that the way to get ahead of the national populist wave was to adopt working-class politics. The way out would be tried-and-true methods of syndicalism, trade-unionism, and a perennial favorite on the Dissident Right: fascism. It was a way of going full fash without going full fash, or at least without the bells and whistles of full fash, which always invite the slings and arrows of the hostile media. It was a way of being racialist, anti-capitalist, anti-globalist, and for white people (and the right type of white people, at that) which simultaneously mapped onto historic movements generally admired on the Dissident Right and sorta-kinda dodging the unsavory implications of traditional fascism.
Others decided to avoid going full fash by taking possibly the only worse route: full Marx (and then circling back to full fash anyway, because of the whole NazBol thing).
Now, there were problems with this approach. First of all, it wasn’t exactly clear who this “working class” was. As I said before, people used this term, which seemed to naturally grow out of the populist designation, and then based their perceptions of political reality on what it implied. “Working-class” means, in the classical Marxist sense, people who depend on wage labor to survive. The modern, loose term designates people who’ve been left out of, or worst hit by, the enriching processes of globalization.
Now, when Marx and others described the working class, it was primarily an industrial proletariat, people living in large cities and deriving wages from selling their labor to capitalists — owners of capital in the sense of the means of production in its most literal sense: the machines used in the production process. What the working man provided to the company was labor, but because any other working man could also provide labor, the working man was fungible and could very easily be replaced, making him powerless in the face of capitalist exploitation. His bargaining power in the classical bourgeois contractualist model of employment was very low.
Hence, working men collectivized and attempted to improve their position in bargaining by bargaining collectively. The result was trade unions, which were organizations that could compel employers to improve wages and working conditions by threatening to deny capitalists access to labor, just as capitalists had before threatened to deny laborers access to capital. An often-overlooked aspect of unionism was the necessity to maintain solidarity and prevent defections, which unions first maintained based on shared ethnic and religious background. Later, as labor forces became more diverse, more violent means and cooperation with organized crime outfits was employed.
The above history of unionism is what is traditionally meant by working-class and working-class politics. But there are precious few people in America who fit this description today. And what’s more, what wage-earners do exist not only aren’t unionized, but their positions would be eliminated and automated if they did. Most of these positions exist on the sufferance of the political and capitalist class because it isn’t politically expedient to automate them. If, however, fast food workers, supermarket checkout girls, or PowerPoint presentation makers in megacorps were to unionize, their positions would be eliminated and they’d be made redundant, eliminating even the need to fire them.
Donald Trump brought back some of the manufacturing jobs, proving that it is possible to reinvigorate not only a manufacturing economy but also the economic class that depends on it. However, those jobs can also be very easily automated away, or even sent back to China or an even poorer nonwhite shithole with two-cents-per-hour average wages if they should unionize or try to strike.
In the industrial era, the greatest weapon of the working class, for which the ruling class had no answer, was the general strike. Now that weapon is useless. And politics predicated on that weapon — and the now-diminished class that historically wielded it — is worse than useless. To engage in industrial-era working-class politics in an age where there’s no industrial working class to speak of is to engage in cargo cultism, the bane of political movements. Everyone wants to be José Antonio Primo de Rivera organizing the workers in national unions, but that world is gone. The facts on the ground are different now.
A better approach, at least in America and certain parts of Europe, would be to try agrarian populism. After all, 95% of farmers in America are white and they’ve been recently given a rude lesson in racial identity. Now, don’t get too cocky. White farmers have less power than they used to. Big Agribusiness has used every dirty trick in the trade, particularly through pernicious use of intellectual property law over genetically modified seed to bust out the American small farmer and expand their holdings. What’s more, white farmers are economically and culturally encouraged to defect from solidarity by hiring nonwhites, specifically Hispanics, as low-cost farm laborers.
A hypothetical farm strike (withholding of food) by white farmers would, however, make itself heard in the halls of power. While it may not significantly impact calorie production, it can very well hurt food production, specifically the organic, locally-grown food that the elite likes to eat. Not to say that it’d solve our problems or that it is easily attainable, merely that it is both likelier and more potent a strategy than hashing out the old industrial proletarian scenarios. By rebranding as agrarian populists, we can also dispense with the nebulous term “working-class.” Everyone knows who’s a farmer and there’s little confusion that can be injected into that term.
Understanding that a pivot to agrarian populism has its benefits, and would provide new avenues for our movement to make inroads to political power, I see one major obstacle and one major drawback to the agrarian national populist strategy. The major obstacle is the fact that the Dissident Right, for better or worse, is a movement of city slickers. Simply put, we do not understand country ways and country life, which is different from city — or God forbid, suburban — life. This can be solved with humility. We can declare for agrarian populism and then listen carefully to white farmers, rather than lecture them, but we’ll come across this problem nevertheless, just as we came across the problem of suburbanites with a job history primarily in the service economy pontificating about the industrial working class during the national populist period.
The major drawback is that a national agrarian populist strategy is still an attempt to smuggle white nationalism under a thin veneer of economics. Economic nationalism has always been the less-toxified, less-vilified side of nationalism, but it is useless without its cultural and security dimensions, without all of the other sides of nationalism. And let’s not kid ourselves. Economic nationalism means that someone, somewhere will have to take an economic hit “for the team.” How can we do that if we do not clearly define the team? How can we ask white farmers to not avail themselves of cheap nonwhite labor if they do not consider race and ethnicity something worth preserving — if they do not consider other white people to be on the team they’re taking an economic hit for?
This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t explore avenues of action made available by taking an agrarian populist stance. Nor should we abandon industrial workers, no matter how small their number or fragile their position. But if we are to be white nationalists, we must be white nationalists and not make cargo cults or fetishes of economic models or stratagems. We are for white farmers, white industrial workers, white small business owners, white service sector workers, even rich white people. We are suffering economically as farmers, workers, business owners, etc, but we are targeted existentially as white people.
Rich and educated whites have the option of lending their money and social status to the anti-white machine to buy themselves temporary reprieves, but the machine will eventually come for them as well. Far better to have racial consciousness — far better for them to lend their resources and status to the cause of white identitarianism. The age of industrial liberal democracies is over. We are now living in post-industrial racial societies. We cannot prevail in these societies without adapting to the facts on the ground.
I may not have an immediate answer about the organizational form our movement should take, but I can make a definitive pronouncement: whatever works will look nothing like the old, industrial-era populism.
* * *
On Monday, April 12th, Counter-Currents will be extending special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
As an incentive to act now, everyone who joins the paywall between now and Monday, April 12th will receive a free paperback copy of Greg Johnson’s next book, The Year America Died.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
What a Nation is Not
Prioritizing Prestige Over Accomplishment: Britain from 1950 to 1956
Nueva Derecha vs. Vieja Derecha Capítulo 2: Hegemonía
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 534 Interview with Alexander Adams
Remembering Louis-Ferdinand Céline (May 27, 1894–July 1, 1961)
Martinez Contra Fascism
Úryvky z Finis Germania Rolfa Petera Sieferleho, část 2: „Věčný nacista“
Nueva Derecha vs. Vieja Derecha Capítulo 1: Política y Metapolítica
My identitarianism came first, but most definitely led to reconsideration of my economic beliefs. As a young shitlib I disdained the idea and purpose of labor unions, projecting the gang aspects and financial padding big labor demonstrated in the ’70s and ’80s back onto their emergence along with industrialization. Ironic, really, because what I knew about early labor unions was heavily colored by how I learned it – from presentations done by fellow students (most even more liberal than I) in a high school AP US History class.
Thanks to years of online reading, I believe I now have a better understanding of the roots of organized labor, and while I still despise most of today’s unions (teachers, fed employees, etc.), I very much see the utility of the guild roots of certain trades. Globalization and the borderless movement of labor, of course, has made traditional labor unions both obsolete and antithetical to White solidarity.
While I’m a child of the dread suburbs, I’ve always been drawn to nature and along with age has come a yearning for a slower, more rooted and rural life. Agrarianism may be too broad a term here, because we are not all suited (by skills or temperament or experience) to be tillers of the soil (or perhaps I’m erroneously interpreting the term), but behind ethnonationalism is a connection with one’s land. I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Jeelvy that rural populism is and ought to be a core component of the dissident right.
A proletariate is predicated on industrial work, but on working for a wage, as you say. This definition applies to many millions more people today than in the 20th Century, when there was more small business. Hence, working-class politics still has resonance, only needing the right frequency.
Populism wasn’t a fad; it was and still is very popular, but is highly persecuted by the establishment through mass censorship, destruction of popular dissidents, and even stealing a presidential election. The same can be said of Occupy Wall Street, which in addition to being diminished by the pozzed feminists and fags that disrupted the movement, was coordinated to destruction by the state on one night.
No engl. Wiki about proto-typ. “bankster”
European farmers, and I think particularly of the French and Dutch, are leading the way with “agrarian populism” although how racially conscious their movement is I can’t say.
While a class critique and analysis is useful it is almost always limiting. Identitarians should be casting a broader net.
“While I may not have an immediate answer about what organizational form our movement should take”.
This is the most pressing issue, movements need a banner to rally around. I feel this is our best hope:
In the industrial era, the greatest weapon of the working class, for which the ruling class had no answer, was the general strike
Georges Sorel – a rather scary thinker – considered the general strike a potent myth that could unite the workers and would eventually rejuvenate both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. It’s a sign of the distance that separates us from Sorel’s time that the idea of a general strike has zero emotional resonance for me. May ’68 in France was the last general strike that still retains a mythic vibe, but that ended with de Gaulle, the soixante-huitards’ bête noire, winning the greatest victory in French parliamentary history.
Even now, there remain a few old-time cargo cults. The Prince Philip Movement is a cargo cult of the Yaohnanen tribe, who believe that the Duke of Edinburgh, the consort to Queen Elizabeth II, is a divine being. (No – not a shape-shifting reptilian!)
Apparently, Bill Gates is now the largest owner of farmland in the United States. Checkmate.
Not to take away from the main point of this article, which is about agriculture, I think it needs to be said that there is still a reasonably robust industrial sector in America, and there are still large, active unions that bargain collectively. There are even retail companies who have a unionized workforce.
No, this isn’t the long-gone days of Jimmy Hoffa or Pinkerton union busting, but I think it is important to recognize the many hundreds of thousands of unionized electricians, welders, carpenters, pipefitters, machinists, and other industrial trades that operate in this country under collective bargaining. They’re still here, and many (if not most) were Trump supporters, despise their (often times) Washington based union leadership toeing the Democratic Party line.
That’s what’s really worrying. Union men might be populists, but union leadership is progressive and woke. It means that union men can be instrumentalized to serve the enemy’s cause.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
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.
Edit your comment