Which Revolution? The View From Lawrence Dennis

From Maury2k.

The “Dennis Strategy” might be said to amount to one tenth of the ARV-ATS strategy in terms of demographics. The sinking middle class is one of the ten core demographics I have identified as potential constituents for anarcho-pluralism/pan-secessionism. (By the same measure, the “Sailer Strategy” might account for another one tenth given its primary orientation towards the populist-nationalist Right.) This also fits with the centrist dimension of the ARV-ATS strategy, which involves addressing the economic needs of the general public at large of which the sinking middle class and the various demographic subgroupings comprising the populist-right are a significant part.

Of course, there are two big differences between the ARV-ATS approach and those of both Dennis back then and Sailer today. Anarcho-pluralism/pan-secessionism identifies a much wider range of potential constituent groups for a revolutionary movement towards the end of achieving a popular majority. Both the Dennis approach and the Sailer approach are too narrowly focused population-wise to achieve ultimate success given contemporary political realities. Second, while the views of Lawrence Dennis advocating a stronger, centralized state and militarized political party might have reflected the prevailing trends of his time (Dennis was nothing if not a realist), Martin Van Creveld has demonstrated that the 21st century tendency is towards the delegitimization of the state in favor of the “fourth generation” military model. Hence, the appropriateness of the ARV-ATS emphasis on secession, decentralization, militias, etc.

Dennis’ view might have indeed been preferable to a Marxist revolution with its inevitable blood purges and economic stagnation. To some degree, the U.S. actually followed a version of the course suggested by Dennis during WW2 with the mass military mobilization and creation of the managerial state during that era, whatever the consequences of these. (Dennis was prosecuted for sedition because of his opposition to WW2 and he later became a staunch critic of the Cold War.) Fortunately, the military failures of the American empire, the bankruptcy of the welfare states, and the growing contempt for the political class should have the combined effect of reversing the 20th century trend toward ever-expanding statism.


Revolution seemed to be in the air in the 1930s. The Nude Eel was floundering about, experimenting but the Great Depression continued. FDR & the Democrats bought time by extending relief to individuals. This was something Hoover & the Republicans refused to do. They wanted relief at the Federal level only for big companies like with their Reconstruction Finance Corporation.

Most people talking of revolution thought of communism. But Lawrence Dennis as a Nationalist and an American was opposed to the classic Proletarian Revolution of left-wing dreams. Instead, Dennis proposed a middle-class revolution.

He raised these technical objections to Communist Revolution. He felt it would involve a high degree of violence & disorder. “Going against the American kulaks,” was how he phrased it. This meant liquidating many competent managers and experts. Whereas Dennis wished to utilize the skills of present bosses to economize the human resources of society.

Remember Lawrence Dennis was specific in that which he wished to accomplish. In his 1932 book, IS CAPITALISM DOOMED?, he made a closely argued attack on the policy of allowing investment bankers to determine the use & allocation of capital. But he didn’t hesitate or shrink from what needed to be done.

He was flat out for a dictatorship. States rights & the tripartite division of government would be abolished in favor of a highly centralized government which would exercise powers of a truly nation state. This was something Francis Parker Yockey would argue was something America never had.

Since the multi-party system was utterly incompatible with the successful pursuit of any possible scheme of national interest, there would have to be a single national party. This party would probably have a militarized type of organization.

Banks and basic monopolies would be nationalized; as, of course, the Federal Reserve. The rest of business would be place under strict public regulation. Above all, Dennis emphasized that a regime of discipline was a necessity.

Who would make this revolution? Dennis felt it would not come from big business or the elite professionals. Rather, he felt that the frustrated elite of the lower middle classes, the sinking members of the middle class in danger of being de-classed, here is where the revolutionary impulse would come from.

This is the opposite of the Obama schema of the top using the bottom against the middle. It should also be obvious that the aging, well-off base of the Tea Party would play NO role as well.

Neither militant labor nor reactionary capital but the insurgent middle class!

Categories: Uncategorized

Leave a Reply