Far Rightist Says “Death To America!” 6

On that at least, we can agree.

This is a really interesting talk. This fellow’s worldview and ideology are very much in the vein of classical, eighteenth century, “throne and altar” conservatism. If you were a “conservative” in the late 1700s and early 1800s, this is how you would have seen the world.

While I obviously disagree with most of this, and in many ways my own ideology is the polar opposite of what is being expressed here. He’s a Russian Orthodox, monarchist, anti-Masonic, white nationalist anit-modernist counterrevolutionary and I’m a far left (historically speaking) revolutionary anarchist. HOWEVER, what is interesting is the direction in which he takes his cultural and political criticisms by advocating essentially withdrawing from the system and urging his fellow reactionaries to “reject constitutionalism, capitalism, and conservation of American ‘founding principles’, embracing smaller and more manageable organic identities centered around their faith, their families, and their folk communities.” In other words, he’s advocating something akin to the national anarchist position (which is in turn compatible with the wider pan-anarchist/anarcho-pluralist paradigm) in practice if not in theory.

If a comparable perspective were to become prevalent among the entire spectrum of the American right-wing, from the Tea Parties to the fascists, then entirely sections of “red state” America would be walking away from the system. The Empire would be hollowed out from within and defeated, and the Left and the demographic groups it claims to champion would achieve self determination as well (https://attackthesystem.com/why-the-radical-left-should-consider-secession/) Of course, the Left can’t see this, given the Left’s usual myopia.


  1. I have no problem with saying death to the current US. But I’m really tired of these people who try make Americans ashamed of all their ancestors and their entire history. America was very pro-white for a long time. It didn’t work out in the long run but it didn’t work out anywhere else either.

    Many European monarchies were multinational empires. There was no true blood-and-soil ethnic nationalism in the ancien regime. Europe stayed white because of geographic isolation (it was much harder for people to move around and much of the world was unexplored) and because Europe already had a surplus of peasants to exploit. But the ruling class had no problem filling up the colonies with non-white slaves because their was a labor shortage and a demand there.

  2. “Is there anything more bizarre than a white nationalist and neo-ancient-regime advocate. The two are like oil and water.”

    I agree with that in a technical historical sense in that the ancient regime represents pre-modernity and white nationalism is an outgrowth of 19 century pseudo-scientific ideas about race like Galtonian eugenics and the work of Arthur de Gobineau and H.S. Chamberlain. But didn’t pre-modern Europeans hold to a belief in racial stratification that was comparable though not rooted in the same specific set of philosophical justifications? For example, weren’t blacks widely regarded as “the children of Ham” and weren’t many ethnic groups considered to be natural barbarians? For instance, among Catholic philosophers in the Renaissance period there were debates about whether the native peoples in the Western hemisphere were human or something else. And you find that kind of thinking among ancients like Aristotle as well. Even most leading Enlightenment thinkers and major figures in modern philosophy like Voltaire, Kant, Hume, and Hegel seem to have had similar beliefs.

  3. “But didn’t pre-modern Europeans hold to a belief in racial stratification that was comparable though not rooted in the same specific set of philosophical justifications?”

    Yes partially true. I would never say that ancient or medieval Europeans were without racial views/prejudices, but the idea of race as the biological and ideological force was totally foreign to throne and alter monarchy. Lastly how can one be quote “traditional” and then fuse your ideology with neo-Darwinian eugenics and race theory? Isn’t scientific race-ideology by definition anti-traditional?

  4. Anti-population replacement (as opposed to WN) seems consistent with traditionalism. Massive population replacement certainly wiped out Amerindian traditions in nearly all of the territory of what is now the US.

  5. Most of the European movements seem to be anti-population replacement (and/or against Islam replacing Western secularism and what remains of Christianity) rather than anything like WN.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s