The Fascist Next Time

Enter stage right.

Moving forward from this 2015 post on Trump, let’s consider the hysterical leftist reaction to Trumpism, capped off by the following description of Trump supporters from the bipedal pile of academic excrement, Roger Griffin:

A rabble made up of so many heterogenous elements from Catholic conservatives and apocalyptic Dispensationalists to survivalists, nra fanatics, neo-Nazis and outlandish QAnon conspiracy theorists...

Griffin, who behaves as if he has a proprietary interest in every discussion of fascism, and who has temper tantrums when other academics, or the media, approach the subject in a manner of which he disapproves, believes that right-wing populism is a more significant current danger to “liberal democracy” than is frank fascism:

By spending four years crowbarring apart constitutional democracy from the liberalism and civil liberties that humanists, secular and religious, have struggled for over two centuries to weld together into ‘liberal democracy’, Trumpism and other forms of identitarian, ethnocentric populism have arguably posed a greater, more insidious threat to the credibility of democracy world-wide and the prospects for a sustainable world order than revolutionary extremism (which could have been efficiently put down by a display of state power). The digital pundits obsessed with Trump’s putative fascism would be advised to devote more time to threats to liberal humanism emanating from within the parliamentary spectrum of politics…

Putting aside Griffin’s usual enthusiasm for “state power” “putting down” dissident politics (are you a “fascist,” Roger?), let’s consider the main point. I’ve stated in the past that the work of scum like Griffin can be useful to genuine fascists with respect to strategy and tactics. Certainly, the slime mould to rhizome paradigm, centered on the Groupuscule idea, has been helpful in this regard.

Thus, when a piece of filth like Griffin sounds the alarm about right-wing populism, we all should certainly pay attention. He is correct that, at the current time, right-wing populism is the most potent current threat to globalist liberalism; hence, it is not surprising that many on the Far Right – including myself – temporarily support right-wing populism for tactical, and indeed strategic, reasons.

But, of course, right-wing populism on its own will achieve nothing lasting. We observed four years of Trump resulting in nothing other than increased chaos and balkanization – excellent from a negative, anti-System perspective – but certainly not the positive change we want to actualize. Orban in Hungary is maintaining a healthy stasis, but that’s not going to last indefinitely. Electoral solutions will achieve nothing lasting – see this for a detailed explanation.

And note as well that whatever success right-wing populism has had has been the result of farstreaming, not mainstreaming. Trump won in 2016 by re-inventing himself as a right-wing populist and lost in 2020 after attempts at mainstreaming. Orban has become more and more successful the further to the Right he has moved. Meanwhile, Mainstreaming Marine in France has yet to achieve an electoral victory, and even if she does, one wonders if the means used will prevent any useful ends from being actualized. The fact that farstreaming is linked to successful right-wing populism suggests that right-wing populism can serve as a useful bridge between the current System and the Future. Just like Nietzsche asserted that man is the bridge between the ape and the superman, so can right-wing populism serve as a bridge between the filthy establishment politics of today and what we really want for tomorrow.

Right-wing populism is not my endgame, “fascism” is. However, right-wing populism, as Griffin suggests, can play a useful negative role.  It may not achieve anything – or at least anything lasting – on its own in a positive, constructive sense, but it can serve as a “wrecking ball” to “liberal democracy,” attacking the foundations of the liberal world order, as Griffin puts it – “…crowbarring apart constitutional democracy from the liberalism and civil liberties that humanists, secular and religious, have struggled for over two centuries to weld together…”

Sooner or later Whites will realize that playing within the System, even playing with right-wing populism, is a losing proposition, since the rules of the game are stacked against them. What next?

There are two possibilities here:

1. The System is forced, fairly soon, to accept the political legitimacy of implicitly White right-wing populism. If this occurs, based on Suvorov’s Law, this lessening of repression would ease the way to authentic revolution. This legitimization of White interests, even at the implicit level, would likely lead to the emergence of more revolutionary political currents emerging from an increasingly radicalized White population.

2. The more likely outcome is that a combination of System manipulation, “state power,” and non-state actors conspire to attempt to repress the expression of right-wing populism, which, due to its inherent attraction to dispossessed Whites, will continuously struggle to re-emerge despite the repression. This constant dialectic, this heightening of the contradictions, will “build up the pressure” so to speak, so, when, possibly the repression is no longer tenable, the right-wing populism will emerge in a more virulent form, and be closer to the endgame that individuals such as myself desire.

If possibility #1 occurs, the transition from right-wing populism to right-wing extremist radicalism will be more certain, more of an inevitable evolution, but it will take significantly longer to achieve, since we would need to go through various phases of the actualization of right-wing populism, coupled to the slow realization among Whites that this form of politics really doesn’t achieve anything, and by itself, without any further evolution to radicalism, is a dead end.

If possibility #2 occurs, the transition, and the eventual outcome, will be less certain, and more dependent upon context, events, and personalities, but, if the transition does occur, it will take place much more rapidly, more suddenly, because, as stated above, the right-wing populism in this scenario will already be fairly radical and virulent to start with, as a result of the previous period of repression. So, Suvorov’s Law applies here as well, but its application will be delayed because of the repressive period, but it will manifest in a more aggressive manner.

Am I being overly optimistic, falling into the trap of "fascist dreaming" that Griffin mocks, and the trap of talking about inevitability? Well, no, because there are some caveats here. First, as stated, possibility #2 is more likely and this possibility is characterized by more uncertainty over the eventual outcome. Second, regardless of which possibility plays out, the inept Der Movement may find a way to ruin the situation and block the emergence of an authentic fascist alternative, via Nutzi stupidities and affirmative action incompetence.  I would be more sanguine if we had a genuine movement and not a farce populated by grifting frauds.

So, again we come back to the same issue – the failures of Der Movement, and the need for a New Movement to actualize real progress, such as leveraging right-wing populism for ultimate benefit. The Old Movement is incapable of this – look how they muffed the chance they had in the four years of the Trump Interregnum, leaving us all worse off than before.

With a different approach, a different movement, and different leadership, we can move past right-wing populism. The “membrane” separating right-wing populism from something better may be thinner than the System imagines.

The Fascist Next Time.