I was recently struck by a video by the French civic nationalist and anti-Zionist Alain Soral. I have to personally credit Soral’s videos, among other things, for breaking the mainstream conditioning which had prevented me from thinking outside of the liberal-egalitarian sandbox, so to speak. Hence, while I am quite critical of important parts of Soral’s thought, I am not inclined to be harsh.
Soral’s thought is hard to pin down (see my Alain Soral FAQ, written some years ago, but which I would say remains just as valid), being to some extent the product more of a confrontational and provocative style and a deep intellectual culture, than a coherent system. If I were to pin Soral down: the Franco-centric chauvinism of Maurras and the acerbic criticism of Marx, with a sprinkling of Alex-Jonesian conspiratorial innuendo. In practice, a glorious NazBol, with a seething hatred of bourgeois politics and feminism.
Soral’s videos, in which he regularly speaks for hours, commenting on current affairs and culture, represent a kind of counter-education or alternative viewpoint to the mainstream discursive flow. In this respect, they is quite like William Pierce’s legendary American Dissident Voices broadcasts in the 1990s and early 2000s. There is value in this. It is hard to judge the validity of the culture and narratives one is brought up in if one is never even exposed to genuine alternative viewpoints. Hence why the mainstream media/culture folks are panicking at the moment: they have been shielded from serious criticism for so many years that their memetic immune systems have grown shockingly weak. So weak they might just keel over and die tomorrow, tragi-comically, under a barrage of tweets . . .
I have not watched Soral’s videos with much regularity in recent years. Mostly because I feel he’s been repeating himself and his organization, Égalité et Réconciliation (E&R, Equality and Reconciliation) has been increasingly sinning by commission on race, rather than just avoiding the subject. Too often, Soral/E&R’s criticisms really boils down to “JR3”: Jews are the real racists. Many of Soral’s followers are incidentally black or Arab. Mainstream orthodoxy incidentally is refreshingly weak in many minority communities, as evidenced by the success of Louis Farrakhan for example, whose pep-talk preaching we could all learn from. I often find it easier to talk politics with a minority than with pious whites.
Soral recently published a characteristically provocative and vulgar video (I do not say gratuitously vulgar, in addition to being fun, this grabs attention and gets the point across) entitled: “Marx ****s Hitler.” As someone who has written a fair bit on Hitler, this certain caught my attention. This was all the more striking in that Soral has previously provocatively called himself a “national socialist” (by which he mainly refers to patriotic and socialist economics . . .). What’s more, Soral’s publishing house Kontre Kulture has only recently started publishing National Socialist historical documents, including Mein Kampf, Joseph Goebbel’s The Battle for Berlin, and the apocryphal Political Testament attributed to Hitler.
In the video, Soral claims that “right-wing and far-right bourgeois” hate Marx because “in the long run, Marx ****s Hitler.” This is because, in a market society, “the economic and social question takes precedence over and overdetermines the racial question.” Race-realists will rightly scoff at such a blanket statement, however, let us hear Soral out, for he has an important point to make.
Young French nationalist bloggers and YouTubers – most notably Daniel Conversano, whom Soral notoriously physically assaulted during a debate – have increasingly been talking about intelligence differences between races. Soral addresses this issue in his characteristic semi-non-committal fashion:
Today it is often said that thought is collapsing because of race-mixing . . . the migratory invasion from Africa, by referring to IQ. I don’t say that it isn’t a reality, but actually we didn’t really need them to collapse.
Soral adds that Western thought has collapsed since the 1980s, with the fall of the Soviet Union as ideological competition, leading to the disappearance of “Hegeliano-Marxist dialectic,” which he considers a valuable way of thinking.
I would agree with Soral that Western thought has been declining independently of IQ. Only in a sick world are Tom Friedman and Paul Krugman considered “thought-leaders,” to not speak of their French equivalents, such as the embarrassing Bernard-Henri Lévy, whom Soral quotes from a recent radio interview with the equally-Jewish Anne Sinclair (Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s former wife . . . it’s a small ethno-nepotistic world): “The Torah is the treasure of the Jews and the Jews are the treasure of the nations.”
As a good Marxist, Soral argues that political conflicts primarily involve class, rather than race. He says that during their teenage years, when high T-levels and parents’ pocket money mean one can afford to be irresponsible, young men can engage in apparently racial conflict. However, with age, they will mellow and end up defending their objective class position. Soral says:
The fashy [white] student becomes a bourgeois with age, who maintains his bourgeois position through economic practices which make him walk hand in hand with, let’s say, the Jewish banking high bourgeoisie and even a certain Arab, Saudi, Qatari, and Emirati bourgeoisie. Over longer periods, the logic of class takes precedence over the logic of race.
Soral then puts the names of a number of figures (Joseph Macé-Scaron, Claude Goasguen, Alain Madelin) who began in far-right groups (Action française, GRECE, Occident . . .) only to work with the mainstream media, Sarkozy’s clique, or even the CRIF itself (the official Jewish lobby). He then mocks the infatuation of many French nationalists for the Jewish French nationalist journalist Éric Zemmour and adds that Zemmour’s popularity reflects “bourgeois interests in a bourgeois, globalist, and also neoliberal logic and not at all a identitarian, regional, or national one.”
(I would personally say Zemmour is actually fairly good although it is embarrassing and inappropriate that the media has, for some reason, chosen not to make an indigenous Frenchman the voice of “French patriotism.” Imagine if the only “nationalist pundits” employed by Israeli television were, curiously, Christians . . .)
I would say Soral has a point. Certainly, when we think of who wields power in the world today, it is not a mono-ethnic bloc, but a coalition made up of Jews, whites (of liberal or big-business persuasion), and various nouveaux riches from the Third World. If one’s goal is revolution or even reform, one must also think about the interests and mentality of this coalition, rather than racial blocs alone. As so often, elites are what matter.
At the same time, I would point out that the phenomenon of selling out is as old as humanity. The rabble-rouser Sieyès, after inciting the mob to decapitate the Germanic-origin French aristocracy in the name of freedom, equality, and popular sovereignty, then happily became a comfortable notable under Napoleon. Every man’s gotta eat and the there are few prophets in the wilderness.
One may also ask: are people distancing themselves from racial politics because race is not a vector of political power or simply because, at the moment, race is so taboo that people need to distance themselves to make a living? I understand the problem of taboo is not unrelated to that of the ruling class.
Personally, I prefer Italian elite theory. The asymmetries are such that political change is always accomplished by elites, not by classes or races as such. At most, change is achieved by elites representing a certain class or race. In Germany itself, Hitler managed to achieve a political and cultural revolution through a deal with the military and the conservative component of the ruling elite, which led to the extermination of Marxism in Germany and to significant elite changeover. Real change does happen on occasion, although rarely, and invariably some people are never satisfied.
Personally, I am wary of revolutions. They almost always make things worse. Although given how bad the current trends are, I sometimes think an outright collapse would be for the best. In any case, understanding of elites is critical to achieve both revolution and reform: Are Western ruling elites, or a fraction of them, open to a demographically and culturally salutary change of direction? The cases of Hungary and Italy suggest this might not be impossible, perhaps even in the medium term.
An interesting question is that of Jewish ruling elites’ position in the West’s eventual identitarian turn. Traditionally, Jewish groups since the Second World War have overwhelmingly opposed all forms of Western ethno-nationalism, have promoted multiculturalism, have generally promoted ideologies ranging between libertarianism and social democracy, and, without regard for consistency, have supported Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. This has led to anti-Jewish attitudes among Western patriots and led many to adopt a hard-line position (e.g. William Pierce’s fable of the scorpion and the frog).
However, it is apparent that world Jewry is made up of different factions, in particular liberal American Jewry and nationalist Israeli Jewry, represented by George Soros and Binyamin Netanyahu, respectively. In general, these two sides really don’t come into serious conflict all that much (e.g. liberal American Jewry were happy to get behind the fraudulent Clinton “peace process” in the 1990s and force American taxpayers to shovel billions of dollars to the Jewish ethnostate every year). However, it is noteworthy that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has defended Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán from accusations of anti-Semitism and has said that his criticisms of Soros are legitimate. Time will tell how all this pans out.
I would add that in any case it is not fair that such a small ethnic minority should have such a veto-like influence over a nation’s politics and historical direction. The majority ethnic group’s representatives may well rebel against this situation before the century is up. We have many questions: Will white elites wake up? In the face of the rising tide from Africa and Islam, what position will Asia and in particular Chinese elites adopt with respect to race realism and white activism?
Contra Soral, there are situations of collapse when ethnic civil war takes hold and indeed blood or religion determines outcomes more than class. The whites of Haiti, Algeria, and Zimbabwe were exterminated or evicted.
Furthermore, it is clear that intelligence matters for much more than just the quality of public discourse. Race, biology, and genetic heritage set the basic foundation and hardware of human societies. In this sense, Hitler was really onto to something very important. Strikingly, the mainstream historian Yuval Harari has praised Hitler’s ideology for, if nothing else, trying to base itself in biological reality. National Socialism was unique, he says, in actually being a variant of “evolutionary humanism,” the ideology of the future, rather than the childish blank-slatist doctrines of liberalism and communism.
It is relevant here to point out that the two contemporary nations Soral has praised the most, by far, are Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela and Vladimir Putin’s Russia (he also lavishly praises “Best Korea,” but I think this is a semi-troll). The conservative and sovereign Russia of today reminds Soral of the Gaullist France of his childhood years. Chavist Venezuela in turn most closely reflected his NazBol ideals as a nationalist, socialist, and anti-imperialist state under a Christian, anti-Zionist, and charismatic leader.
However, Venezuela of course is economically collapsing. As a Mestiza nation with an IQ of 85, Venezuela’s “Bolivarian Revolution” has led to a regime of corruption and mismanagement on a massive scale. I say this without joy: I am quite sympathetic to the Bolivarian Revolution’s ideals. At the same time, I am also sympathetic to those liberals in Third-World countries who rightly sense that national and socialist boldness can only lead to chaos and tyranny.
A Marxist has no explanation for the success of economic national socialism in 1930s Germany and its failure in today’s Venezuela. Hitler himself would have no difficulty however. As he wrote in Mein Kampf:
In North America, where the population is prevalently Teutonic, and where those elements intermingled with the inferior race only to a very small degree, we have a quality of mankind and a civilization which are different from those of Central and South America. In these latter countries the immigrants – who mainly belonged to the Latin races – mated with the aborigines, sometimes to a very large extent indeed. In this case we have a clear and decisive example of the effect produced by the mixture of races. But in North America the Teutonic element, which has kept its racial stock pure and did not mix it with any other racial stock, has come to dominate the American Continent and will remain master of it as long as that element does not fall a victim to the habit of adulterating its blood. (Chapter 11: Race and People)
In this respect, “Hitler ****s” race-denying socialists in general.
(I add that Hitler’s racial notions in other respects could be quite flawed. He was actually also right in observing that Jews are a racial/genetic group and not only a religious group. However, whereas he tended to conflate the Aryan, Nordic, and Germanic races, genetic science has since shown that “Aryan” Yamnaya steppe DNA is actually highly prevalent among the Slavic nations he held in contempt, second only to the Nordic and Baltic nations.)
While we’re on the subject of Soral, I also mention that he recently republished a blog post by Israel Shamir, praising Ron Unz in the highest terms, for highlighting the over-representation of Jews and the shocking under-representation of white gentiles in American elite universities. The word is spreading, trickle by trickle . . .