What Is American Populism?

I enjoyed this old episode.

I listened to it on the road yesterday.

A populist is nothing more than an angry, usually rural or small town Jeffersonian who is trying to protect his community from a relentless assault by arrogant metropolitan progressive elites.

This is a useful definition of populism from Clyde Wilson:

Abbeville Institute:

“In order to understand the conflicts and tendencies in American society from that time to the present moment, I think we need to clearly grasp the differences between Populism and Progressivism.

Populism was weighted toward the South and West, a product of the culturally most conservative parts of American society. It was backward looking, even reactionary, like most normal societies throughout history. New forces had brought new conditions which seemed unsettling and unjust—according to old dispensations. Populism was, and is, a defensive attempt to correct these new forces.

Progressivism was weighted toward the North and East. It was a phenomenon of the most educated, modern parts of American society—a philosophy of the urban professional. Far from rejecting modernism, Progressives embraced it as an opportunity. Its evils could be brought under control by Progressives—by planning, expertise, organization. Such planning, of course, translated into wealth and power for the Progressives, what became the Liberal Establishment. The long term result has been an endless series of expensive, unproductive social plans, like the “war on poverty.” Expensive and unproductive, except to their managers. Morality has almost come to be defined as holding the proper attitude toward Progressive programs, and it is bad form to point out the interestedness of their proponents.

Populism is not an agenda, but a reluctant impulse of self-defense. Seldom have real Populist leaders sought to make themselves into a new elite. What they have sought to do is to protect their people from oppressive officials. This certainly characterizes the American Revolution, and the history of political assertion that preceded it. It characterizes the much-discussed phenomenon of the Christian Right currently. According to alarmed Liberals, bigoted fundamentalists are out to construct a police state and break down bedroom doors to impose their morality on more enlightened thinkers.

But, of course, what has actually happened, is that millions of decent sincere, often simple Christians have been provoked into action by militant obscenity, blasphemy, and atheism (not to mention wholesale child murder) invading the public sphere and officially sanctioned by the ruling elite. They are quite right. Separation of church and state in American tradition has not meant banishing of all Christian values to the closet. All that is really desired is to restore the status quo ante.

Where the People’s Party put forward specific measures they were corrective—the direct election of Senators, cooperatives, free silver, regulation of railroads and banks in the interest of producers and consumers, income tax on great wealth—they were not forwarding a socialist society but reacting to abuses of state capitalism. The Republican party did not and never had favored an open economy. By free enterprise it meant private ownership with government support and subsidy. This is the only kind of free enterprise the Republican party has ever favored. And by charges of socialism levelled at the Populists, Republicans meant government acknowledgment of the complaints of agriculture and labor, which is the only kind of “socialism” the Republican Party has ever opposed.

To the extent Populism was ideological it rested not upon an agenda of the future but upon a vision of a past golden Jeffersonian age of widespread private property and limited government. It was simply old-fashioned American republicanism. Now it may be that this kind of thinking is merely nostalgic and sentimental and idealistic, as some of my socialist friends think and tell me. Sin we have always with us, and the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. But I do not think it is only nostalgic to believe that there was a time when America had a more honorable class of leaders and a higher sense of public ethics than we do now. …”

This age old conflict is now understood by the “journalists” who are deeply ignorant of American history which they see as a parade of horrors and evils as the rise of “fascism” vs. “anti-fascism.”

American populism has always been and remains to this day deeply antiwar and anti-imperialist though. It has always been and remains to this day racially and culturally conservative. It has always been and remains to this day supportive of a broad distribution of property. It has always been and remains to this day supportive of civil liberties and deeply suspicious of concentrated political or economic power.

Note: In this conflict between “fascism” and “anti-fascism,” the “fascist” side generally supports American monuments and the Constitution. It is the “antifascist” side which supports censorship and believes in their right to engage in violence against other people and property.

About Hunter Wallace 12369 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. At this point, the “populist” label has already been tainted by the GOP. They’ve astroturfed so many grifters and captured the terminology, so any “populist” movement would just go the way of the tea party or MAGA, rerouted back to electing MIC shills and cheap labor cons.

    The situation pretty much forces the use of labels that are repulsive to “respectable conservative” entryists and subversives. The “White nationalism” and “Southern nationalism” labels achieved this goal. “Alt right” left an opening for them until Spencer heiled Trump, causing all of the respectable cons to jump ship. In hindsight, the grifters all running for the exits after heilgate was one of the funniest things ever. You had these scumbags like PJW and Cernovich scrambling to delete everything they ever wrote mentioning “alt right” and rebrand as “new right” or whatever. Very funny.

    • There’s too many grifters. Notice how the GOP has to have several blacks on board. That’s how MAGA and the Tea Party was. “Everyone’s an American.”

      People have to learn that when it includes everyone, it doesn’t include them.

    • The Alt Right will be forever associated with riff-raff like Spencer, Anglin and Azzmador. HW and I prefer to think of ourselves as members of the Dissident Right. Sounds a lot more intellectual, don’t you think?

  2. Populism essentially means telling people what they want to hear. But what they want to hear isn’t the truth. What they always want to hear is that they’re wonderful, amazing, deserve more than they have and someone else is to blame for all their troubles.

    The truth, on the other hand, is that in order to get out of this mess that Western nations and white people have got into, sacrifices will have to be made. Big ones, like drastically lowering consumption and increasing fertility. Giving up on suburban living, cars, going out, holidays and so on. And having much larger families, which everyone on the right preaches, but doesn’t practice.

    Getting rid of Jews or even secession, as HW advocates isn’t going to be enough. It might be a good start, but it’s a very small part of the problem. The problem is this pampered, high consumption lifestyle that Westerners have gotten addicted to after WW2.

    • You want “more children” because you think that will provide a larger voting block. Voting is dead.
      Remember the last “election”?

      Whites have never overpopulated their countries.

      So trying to out-breed the Mexicans and other nonwhites coming here is a joke. It’s not going to fix things.
      Besides the fact that nonwhites get a lot of support to house, feed, and take care of theirs.

      Having more children will provide more slaves to generate more money to support the nonwhites. It will not lower taxes, nor will it give them power. The problem is with the nonwhites and bad whites in power.

      You want people to give up on “suburban living”. I bet you do not live in black or Mexican areas.

      • The whole “democrats will steal every election from now on” that i hear from many cucked conservatives is correct, but not for the reasons they foolishly believe. The america they love so much is way too packed with non-white invaders of all types that want nothing to do with MAGA or white populism and will vote for any politician who gives them freebies and hates whites, and a slow, dull jew-tool like Biden is no exception for the non-whites. No ballot stuffing or machine shenanigans will be necessary once non-whites outnumber us. Too many on the right believe that enough non-whites will support conservative policies and become republicans just because of how grotesque the left is, that race doesn’t matter and that everything is gonna be kumbaya and end well if only there were no liberals or democrats in america and how minorities in multicultural america are waking up and will save the day. They will say how trump got increased support from blacks and hispanics last election, and how critical race theory and defunding the police hurts blacks and nonwhites the most, and all that weak nonsense. It’s textbook conservative racial cowardice. All of it evading the elephant in the room.

    • Agreed – populism is fake, and ghey – White Nationalism/Supremacy is what the Cool Kids are doing. How can populism even be a Thing when so much of the US is brown-skinnned untermensch or self-hating Whites. Best would be an all-White country carved out of the US with heavy emphasis on the military – a modern-day Prussia. I’m anti-war only when it comes to the crap wars that have been occurring since 1914(or 1865) where International Jewry always makes out like bandits.

      • Populism was a fine thing in the time of Andrew Jackson and Huey Long. But we are going to need a much stronger remedy for what ails us now.

    • Andrei,

      Excellent comment. Having children is good in itself. Still it would not be possible to out breed some of the non-anglo groups in American society. According to one statistic I read Black birth rates by 2018 were 1.89 well below replacement level. Whites were 1.82 or fairly similar. Increase in black population is due to immigration. Latin birth rates are somewhat declining as well but a lot of births go unreported and there is massive immigration.

      Also you are correct in that secession might not solve the problems. If the South secedes what about the race problem in the South? Or that the Southwest is more and more like Mexico.

      I cannot imagine us embracing populism or limited government. Our outlook is different. If you embrace civic nationalism, a contradiction in itself you get outvoted.sooner or later. If you try to evict non-Anglo citizens from the USA you get a nasty civil war.

      I am not sure how anglo America gets out of this one. If anyone wrote a reasonable solution on this website I must have missed it.

      I cannot imagine the Federals allowing secession anyway.

      • Nobody could have imagined in the 1980s that Eastern Europe would successfully secede from the Iron Curtain and Soviet Russia…until they did!

        USA Federal power, while still great, is not absolute. If twenty or so Red State Governors were to one day, in unison, say enough, we’re done with you Feds, what could they do to stop it?

      • Slight clarification. When I wrote I do not see how anglos get out of this one it just meant that there will be a lot of turmoil before things get better. Since I believe there are around 200 million whites in the USA I do not see whites in America being destroyed or extinct. Not even close.

      • Illegal Messicans breed like mice, Miss. But Mexican Americans whose families have lived in Los Estados Unidos for generations aren’t like that.

  3. “Getting rid of Jews or even secession, as HW advocates isn’t going to be enough. It might be a good start, but it’s a very small part of the problem. ”

    Nationalizing or abolishing the FED is the key. That is the Ring of Sauron. The rest falls into place after.

    • “Nationalizing or abolishing the FED is the key…The rest falls into place after”:

      If banking is nationalised, by what nation? You are assuming there is a real nation.

      Remember, the system only allows populism/reformism to take place when it absolutely has to. If the U.S. ever “audits the FED” or does “nationalised banking,” don’t be excited. The logic and nature of the U.sury S.ystem compel it to undo all reforms and double-down on the usury as soon as the crisis has passed.

  4. That’s a really fine article at Abbeville that Hunter links and excerpts above. The whole piece is worth reading … Another quote from it:

    “The foundations, like Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, as [George] Wallace pointed out, enabled great fortunes to escape taxes and use their wealth to inordinately influence public policy against the wishes of the people. From the point of view of democratic philosophy his position is unfaultable. and it will make a great platform plank for a future Populist leader, if one should appear.”

    The Abbeville article also discusses one of the great early US thinkers, John Taylor (1753-1824) of Caroline Virginia, who was one of the early people to see the tyrannical dangers of the 1789 US Constitution, which he opposed; Taylor was talking secession as early as the 1790s.

    Taylor quite understood the ‘iron law of oligarchy’, that there were always people and forces ready to seize the taxation etc. apparatus of the state and start manipulating and oppressing society in this way, with demagogues manipulating an expanded franchise of voters

    He foresaw the dangers of tyranny from banking and financial schemers and parasitical elites, and also from a judicial oligarchy … the USA now

    Helpful overview of John Taylor in this piece:

    • I am embarrassed to admit I never even heard of John Taylor until you provided a link to that very informative article. He deserves to be remembered!

  5. Remember, the US sided with communism in WW2 and its been downhill ever since. Communism has come to our front door.

    • There is no socialism at our front door, back door or anywhere near us! And the U.S. did not side with Russia,. Nor with the PLA or any other socialist forces opposing Germany and Japan. Twenty million Russians died to pave the way for an easy triumph for the Dollar empire. When Russia was no longer useful the Cold War immediately began.

      • “Mao’s cabinet looked like Biden’s”:

        It certainly did not! The People’s Republic allowed only a handful of Jews to join the Party or perform translation and medical services, and they betrayed it and they all ended up in prison. Fake communist Sidney Rittenberg, who seemed reliable after he braved the Long March, finally ended up where he bagan: in Charleston, South Carolina, helping capitalist corporations make deals with (corrupt) China.

        HUNDREDS of Jews were involved in the anti-communist Kuomintang (Chiang Kaishek) regime. They fled with the KMT to Taiwan and other capitalist safe havens.

        The People’s Republic has not been immune but is more resistant to Talmudism, and to Papism, than almost any other nation.

        • The Chinese aren’t going to allow themselves to be pushed around by malign foreign interests anymore. And they aren’t very religious, so the Christians will never make any significant headway there.

  6. The one good thing for the Right that came out of the Trump Loss was the arrogance and hubris of the Left. Much like the UTR marchers, Trump left his January 6, 2020 supporters twisting in the wind even while he pardoned every Jewish crook imaginable.

    For all their talk about wanting to separate Trump from his supporters, Democrats have done absolutely jack-shit nothing about wooing them away from the Republican Party and many of them used to be Democrats.

    Had Biden had any advisors wanting to expand the Democrat Tent, all he had to do was keep all of Trump’s promises, like Finish The Wall, Finish the Pipeline and issue a blanket pardon and commutation of all Trump’s former supporters, painting them as victims of Trump’s bombastic but dishonest political hyperbole. Instead of going out of their way to punish Trump’s supporters.

    Oh yes, and drop the whole Critical Race Theory shtick like a hot potato. In any case, I think THAT more than anything else woke up the average normie to how Anti-White the Democrat Party is. And they aren”t winning any “Latinx” friends by flooding their territories with unvaccinated Haitians and other Central and South America invaders. Those communities are being decimated by all kinds of variants these invaders keep bringing in.

    • You’re right, Scumbag Joe has done nothing to attract millions of former Trump supporters like me to the DemonKKKraps (who, I am told, are the Real Racists). They obviously don’t want or need our support, not when there are an inexhaustible number of low-skill, low IQ brown immigrants dependent on gibs they can use instead.

  7. The way i see it is, you simply cannot be pro-white/jew aware while at the same time still support the MAGA civnat so called “populism” of trump and co. That’s called serving two masters. Trump pandered endlessly last time around to negroes, hispanics and jews. On foreign policy, he bent over for Israel, he agitated against Iran, and followed whatever garbage the neo-con warmongers told him. The whole time he was in office, he sought to improve race relations(cuck on race) to be the anti-obama, and bring the races together. Now as a result, all you have in 2021 are boomers and normies claiming how based blacks are seeing the light and how hispanics are becoming conservatives, how the democrats are gonna hunt down the poor jews and wipe israel off the map, basically rejecting the whole premise of white nationalism. At least back during the obama years, you had black panther members and farrakhans goons threatening whites with race wars, killing white babies, hunting down whites because of trayvon /michael brown etc. etc. which all resulted in more white normies getting pissed about the negro problem at least. When trump came along though, all the negro and jew worship on the right was kicked into high gear. MAGA “populism” was a sick joke.

    • He gave millions to rappers to get them to endorse him in the election. Millions to Mexican dreamers. Billions to Israel.

  8. “The difference between nationalist populism and National Socialism is not a question that can be answered scientifically.There are no thick doctrinal treatises you can consult to answer these questions definitively.

    These are living organic peoples’ movements, so they are less about straight jacking a people into a preconceived theoretical model and more about developing a system of values based on life needs of a particular people in a particular land.

    Nevertheless, there are certain observations we can make about nationalist, populists movements vs National Socialist ( or fascist, right-wing socialist movements).

    Populism is reformist in character, NS/fascism is revolutionary. Populism depends entirely on the momentary popularity of a charismatic leader and has no disciplined, organized, militant party structure behind it. When populist leaders do come to power, they generally exist within a pluralistic multi-party system, and so are constantly plagued by the obstruction and disunity caused by opposition parties. NS/fascism do away with multi-party chaos and create a one-party state where total unity of purpose is achieved.

    Populist movements can swell up like a flood, and disappear just as quickly depending on changing circumstances, and are therefore forced to draw from existing elites and institutions, while NS/fascism movements are forced by necessity to create a state-within-the state of committed operatives and officials, so that when they do take power they can plug their own structure from top to bottom into functions of government.

    Populist movements are easily driven from power by international forces applying economic pressure, while NS/fascist movements cannot be unseated without a major war or upheaval.

    The lesson every nationalist in the West should take from the failures of Trump, Brexit, Bannon, Le Pen, ect is that we need truly NS/fascist movements and not simply nationalist populist movements. Another populist victory in a western country would be easily undermined obey the enemy, but a NS/fascist victory would create a nationalist regime with the resilience of Iran or North Korea, which is what the enemy fears the most.

    This is why they threw out the entire liberal democratic rule book and violated all their own alleged values to crush Golden Dawn in Greece, it’s why they are so terrified by parties such as the Nordic Resistance Movement. It’s why they pulled out all the stops to annihilate the alt-right after Charlottesville.

    The basic rule is: it’s very easy to get a generic populist movement off the ground, and to get a fair amount of support and popularity. But starting out this way, it’s extremely hard to convert that movement into something with resilience and take hold onto power with any strength or permanence.

    A revolutionary NS/fascist movement is much more difficult to get off the ground, and it’s going to face a much harder and dangerous path to power- but once a certain critical mass is reached, it’s much more resilient and much more capable of taking and holding power.”

    – Warren Balogh NJP (National Justice Party)

  9. The only concern I have with NS/Fascism is what happens after the charismatic Great Leader is no longer in power? Who will replace him, another charismatic Great Leader ? There are only so many of those to go around.

    • @Spahnranch

      That’s a valid concern, but of all the systems of governing, it is the best for Europeans.

      The monarchy didn’t always produce the best and brightest.

      • November,

        There is such a government called constitutional monarchy such as in Spain where there is tradition and stability with a monarchy and elected representatives. The current Prime Minister of Spain is a Socialist for instance. The authority of the Crown and the elected Prime Minister are summarized near the end of the link. A strong charismatic leader can exist with real power next to a monarchy with limited power.

        I agree that different groups of humans need different styles of government. I prefer strong controlling governments and I think latin Catholics work best under such a system. After all we believe in Church and State united and we are quite Authoritarian.

        For Western/northern European types who are Protestant or Pagan i have always thought that National Socialism works well. There are monarchies in Belgium, Norway,Sweden, Holland, and Great Britain. I am sure that an elected Adolph Hitler would have dominated those limited monarchs and gotten at the very least his economic system in place. Without a strong economy a modern country is helpless.


        • Señorita Alva- While your response is an historically valid one, it does not take into consideration some simple facts.

          1) The Latins of Europe, are NOT the ‘latinos’ of mixed-race Central and South America. You are not (unless you are directly, and purely, derived solely from Iberian ancestry) ‘Latin.’ I am more Latin than anybody who is of mixed (mestizo,castizo,criollo, etc.) descent, in that I have never had my ancestors pollute my gene pool with any but White Christendom families, and I have Latinate ancestors on both sides of my family, via the Celts and the Gauls.

          2) The current crown in Spain is a bastardizing, sodomizing, and utterly corrupt crown, when compared to Franco and his attempts to keep Spain ‘unsullied from the world.’ They are ipso facto illegitimate, because of their transgression of the national and ecclesial covenants of the past.

          3) Lastly, everything pertaining to [sic] ‘Catholic’ civilization must take into consideration the aberrant nature of the West, post-schism. As Anthony Flood noted in his quoting Dr. Farrell,

          “Christian theology has left an indelible imprint, a presupposition, which permeates the “popular histor-iographical consciouness” of the Second (Western) Europe, with its persistent division of History into the tripartite scheme delineated by various sigla: “Ancient History, Mediaeval history, Modern History” or “Classical Ages, Dark or Middle Ages, Modern Age” being the two most popular. The origin of this discernible form is, not surprisingly, the Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—or rather, the dialectically formulated and deconstructed “Trinity” of the post-Augustinian Christian West. This Augustinian-Trinitarian civilization, which in these pages is designated “The Second Europe,” was erected on the foundation of the Orthodox and Eastern Europe, which is similarly designated “the First Europe.” The basic thesis of these essays is thus that there are Two Europes, Eastern and Western, First and Second respectively, and that both are the effects and consequences of very different and ultimately con-tradictory theological presuppositions and methods. These essays argue that these different and mutually exclusive presuppositions and methods have permeated every facet of legal, social, and cultural conventions. But to say this is to say nothing new, nor terribly original, and certainly nothing terribly upsetting to the “multiculturalist” or “Judeo-Christian Conservative.” The thesis of the Two Europes is explored in these essays from the presupposition that the Western, Second Europe is derivative and aberrant.

          Lest multiculturalists or conservatives still misunderstand, this may be plainly stated: these essays argue that The First Europe is “first” in the sense of cultural primacy and that it is therefore the canonical measure of Christian civilization. That the Second Europe came eventually to regard itself as the canonical measure of Christendom, with all the tragic implications that this pretense engendered, is, in large measure, the task of these pages to elucidate. When the main thesis of this work is posed in this manner, certain obvious questions and dilemmas present themselves, with the First Europe and Russia in the foreground, exposing the insufficiency of any merely secular, political, economic or sociological approach to a historiographical analysis of the crisis. Why is this so? It is so because Byzantium and Russia function as mysteries even to the modern exposition of Mediaeval History in textbooks, text-books which continue to treat of both entities as separate phenomena from each other, and more importantly, from “Europe,” meaning “Western Europe.” Why the separate treatment? Because having assumed its own cultural canonicity, the historiography of the Second Europe cannot contend with the sharp and cumbersome edges that Byzantium and Russia offer for analysis; they cannot be squeezed and moulded into the paradigms appropriate to Western European Scholasticism or feudalism. One well-known textbook on Mediaeval History summed up this attitude by treating of Byzantium in a chapter entitled “Europe’s Neighbors.” But the real problem is that Byzantium and Russia expose the inadequacy of the “Ancient, Mediaeval, and Modern” tripartite paradigm of the Second Europe’s historiography, for in the Western sense, Russia has no ancient history, and an arguable case could be made that it is only just beginning to have a “modern” one. It has no “ancient” History in even a sense that would be recognizable to a subject of the Byzantine Empire, for prior to its conversion to Orthodox and East Roman Catholic Christianity rather than to the West Roman and Latin, it possessed no high literary culture at all. Russia possessed nothing analogous to the classical pagan inheritance pos-sessed both by Byzantium and the Latin West. Hence, Russia’s very existence and history as a nation is more intimately bound up with Christianity than any other. Orthodoxy was both father, mother, and mid-wife to Russian nationhood. If Russia therefore be an enigma or a mystery or a riddle to the Second Europe, it is not because Russia is Russia but because it is Orthodox. We now draw nearer to the task of these essays, for they do constitute an attempt to do Orthodox theological historiography, or perhaps even an Orthodox version of the great “philosophies of history” of the Hegelian Geistesge-schichteschule, or at the very least, an attempt to outline the necessary form that such an analysis must take.” – http://www.anthonyflood.com/farrellghdprolegomena.htm

          Don’t mean to be mean, but it’s a lot more convoluted than what you imagine, dear.

          • Father John,

            I thank you for you taking the time to write a lengthy response to me. I agree that the term Latin in the New World is frequently more linguistic/cultural than ethnic. Mexico has more whites than you imagine especially in the north. As far as I am aware I do not have Indian blood only Spanish and some Germanic.

            I also like Franco. When he died Spain died and continues to do so. I still suggest that a crowned monarch who is blessed by a christian Church is still bound to be less evil than if they were an elected person not annoited at all. That is if Christianity and tradition have any value at all which I strongly believe they do. A person could go through history of course and find evil and good rulers of any type.

            I have read that a people usually get the government they deserve. If so then most countries are getting what we deserve in our rulers.

            As for your last point? That is a lot of information to read and analyze. I have the feeling I could study all of that for hours and there would still be no guarantee I could render a definitive conclusion. That information is a life time of study.

            Still History is my favorite subject. I seem to favor Medieval History as my favorite.

          • Father John,

            I forgot to add that when some people debate which form of government best protects the rights of man I say they are asking the wrong question. The correct question to ask is which form of government best protects the Rights Of God.

            I say in general hands down it is monarchy followed by classical Fascism (which the Pope himself said in 1929 that Fascism is Catholicism and whoever is against it is a Bolshevik). Can a Republic protect the Rights of God? If so it would have to be an unusual republic.

            Surprisingly, the National Socialists also protected God and the Church with their signing in 1933 a Concordant with the Vatican. For this reason I tolerate NS. I am careful in dealing with them of course.

            I find myself in the same position as E. Michael Jones when he said that the only people interested in him are white nationalists. For me as a general rule only a white nationalist website such as this will even give me the time of day.

            E. Michael Jones is demonstrably wrong on race of course.

        • I forgot to mention that there was a monarchy in Italy until 1946. Yet Mussolini easily dominated politics under a limited monarchy due to popular appeal and the force of his personality.

          • Hitler absolutely refused to allow a restoration of the monarchy in Germany, Miss. That decision no doubt caused a lot of damage between the NSDAP, who were mostly Bavarian Catholics, and the Prussian ruling elite, who of course were Lutherans. When the Kaiser died in 1941 no German military officials were allowed to attend his funeral. But many of them did anyway.

          • @Spahnranch,

            Kaiser Wilhelm II was a disaster for his nation. He deserved banishment.

            Hitler while having to balance both Catholic and Lutheran interests was not a fan of Luther because he caused a schism in German unity.

    • Spahnranch1970,

      That was interesting information on the attendance of German military at the Kaiser funeral. I did not know that about Mussolini’s son in law. Such information on Italian History is currently not within my grasp.

  10. @Cristina,

    Monarchs have not earned their high place in power. They were anointed to their throne by hereditary. That way only is effective when the king or queen are competent, ethical, nationalistic. Plus, removal of a terrible king or queen is not an easy thing to accomplish when so many others stakes are invested in keeping the status quo. We have seen the errors of royalty, and it should be discarded as too easily corrupted by power and wealth.

    I have to stick to National Socialism. Leaders would be found among all classes of the folk, not just the upper classes or aristocracy. Hitler himself once stayed at a homeless shelter in Vienna. He would have had no chance of turning around all that ailed Germany under a monarchy or a monarchy-parliamentary hybrid.

    Over one billion Catholics cannot remove the heretic Francis from the papacy. That is not a model that I would want to replicate.

    The next generation of leaders would make themselves apparent in academics, ethics, rhetoric, and courage under a folkish upbringing using secular pedagogy.

    Hitler’s economic policies though the best ever conceived in a modern nation would not be enough to create the wonder that was the Third Reich.

    In Mein Kampf, Hitler made a sound case against having impute by hundreds of foreign ministers because they will never be able get behind a rival’s POV.

    Under German National Socialism, there were many separate departments that were responsible to the goal set forward by the party. In other words, everyone was rowing in the same direction for the betterment of the people and nation.

    In regards to replacing a charismatic leader, well a Führer doe not necessarily need to be charismatic. Charisma helps convey a message, but if the message is hallow, who cares how well it was presented.

    You brought up Mussolini. Both the Vatican and Italian King were constant opponents of his government. El Duce was way too soft on those two institutions in my opinion. Both King Victor Emmanuel III and Pope Pius XII both should have been given behind closed doors an offer that they couldn’t refuse.

    Some say that after the Bromberg and Danzig massacres were dealt with in Poland, Hitler wanted to retire as Führer. Rudolph Hess was the most obvious person to take over, but so many highly qualified men such as Dr. Göebbels, Reinhard Heydrich, Admiral Karl Döenitz, or Alber Speer.

    I am optimistic that new crops of “Blood and Soil” future leaders would have been turned out generation after generation, as long as jewish influences were removed from their borders permanently.

    The same could not be said of a Christian theocracy or European monarchy or parliament.

    • @Cristina,

      I should have added that while a monarch may have banished the jews from their lands, it was never permanent. They always made their way back in, under a different King or Queen

      The form of German style fascism that I advocate for would make the removal of the jews and their pernicious influence permanent.

      The “Final Solution ” to the jewish question during Hitler’s Reich was to deport those in the territories held by Germany and its allies to the French colonial island of Madagascar.

      • Madagascar is a beautiful tropical island with a fragile ecosystem. Introducing jews into such an environment would have a deleterious effect on the rare plants and animals peculiar to that island. I think Iosef Vissarionovich Dzugashvili had a better idea – ship ’em off to Birobijzhan in the Soviet Far East.

        • Spahnranch1970,

          Madagascar is safer but what about the natives there and the French? The poor natives would not stand a chance against the Jews and I think the French ruled or influenced the island. That Soviet province sounds interesting.

          I accept the throne that you have offered. Yes a racially homogenous country like Germany was could and did thrive internally under NS. That would have happened under a modern monarchy with national socialists dominating the political scene.

          I will go over November’s ideas thoroughly under the assumption of Germany possessing a monarchy in the 1930’3 with myself as queen and how I would deal with Hitler and NS.

          I might add that November writing that Hitler never could come to power under a monarchy would be in many people’s mind a justification for monarchy in itself.

        • @Spahnranch,

          Yes. Sending them off to some far of stretch of Siberia would be preferable, but in 1942, Madagascar was available, and a better option than allowing them to remain on the European continent under Axis control.

        • Ideally, the Jews of Europe and Russia would have been completely deported to Krakatoa and its archipelago in January 1883.

    • November,

      A lot of information to analyze. Since I have to rush to school it will have to wait until this afternoon. Still under a constitutional monarchy a weak monarch cannot be worse than who gets elected. The actual running of the day to day activities are by a Prime Minister. A modern monarch has his power limited. Has not democracy proven that usually the winner in an election is the one with the most money and propaganda? And that one evil buffoon follows another one?

      Could any monarch be worse than who gets elected in the USA or elsewhere? And it does not take long to wreck a country. WW1 was fought in 4 years—the term of a President in the USA. Could not Biden decide 10 million or more refugees could come to the USA yearly? An elected official can destroy a country very fast and efficiently.

      Even a weak monarch is limited by law on the extent of damage they can do. A President/Prime Minister in modern times has way more power and I do not see any limitations on their power to self destroy.

      I believe that elected officials are just as much or more in love with money than monarchs who usually possess money.

      Hitler was elected as he would have been under a constitutional monarchy.

      • @Cristina,

        I am not an advocate for democracy. As far back as Socrates and Plato, democracy was known for its weaknesses and failings.

        The NSDAP first attempted to come to power with what is commonly known as the “Munich Beer Hall Putsch.” Sixteen members of the NSDAP died by gunfire that day, and Hitler was inprisoned. There after, the NSDAP used the means in place to come to power, and once in power, no further elections were held.

        • November,

          Thank you for that information. I should have known you were not an advocate of republicanism/democracy etc. You were just advancing National Socialism over monarchy. I can live with that.

      • I forgot to add that there have been plenty of efficient monarchs who never could have been elected under a republic—Elizabeth of England, Isabella of Spain, Catherine, Anne, and Elisabeth of Russia etc. There was Richard III of England. Maria Theresa of Austria. I could go on and on. I agree that the opposite is sometimes true as well. That is why there are ministers/advisers etc. With humans no system is perfect.

        Or how about this website? Most people on here would rule better than Bush, Clinton, Obama, Trump, Biden etc. Yet no one on this website could ever get elected.

    • Well, I agree with your critique of monarchism at least. “Good” monarchs are rarer than hens teeth. If they exist they would be the exceptions that prove the rule: “This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day. Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us….”

      Re: “Hitler himself once stayed at a homeless shelter in Vienna. He would have had no chance of turning around all that ailed Germany under a monarchy or a monarchy-parliamentary hybrid”:

      He and the Nazis were deliberately advanced and supported by the powerful money interests as an alternative and antidote to the REAL socialism that was moving in Germany in the 1920s and preparing to overthrow Weimar capitalist oligarchy:

    • November,

      The fact that you wrote so much is a compliment. Usually there are ways to limit or force abdication of traitorous monarchs. Weak ones? Not as long as they do not betray. Sometimes weak rulers who keep the peace are better than strong aggressive ones. As for the Pope? We are taught that we are bound to obey the laws of God and we can and should disobey even our parents who command otherwise.

      Now to the meat of my article.

      As mythical Queen and head of state of Germany in the 1930’s I would be wary of the election of Hitler. He did however pass the 1933 Concordant with the Church making the NS government legitimate. A person could belong to the NS party and still be a Catholic in good standing with the Church unlike Communism or indeed a belief in Americanism. Individualism and religious indifferentism were once again condemned by Pope Leo XIII as mortal sins. Those “values” are at the core of being a good American.

      As monarch I would support the NS in building a strong economy and them being against Communism and Liberalism. I think they were also against Freemasonry–a belief system incompatible with Catholicism.

      As for the race views of NS. I support them as long as they do not become a form of idolatry. The NS definition of a Jew I think extended only until the 3rd generation? The traditional Catholic one usually defined Jew up until the 7th generation.

      Some Catholic institutions took it further with Church blessing. The Jesuits banned anyone with just one drop of Jewish or Moslem blood from 1593 until 1946. Yes the results of WW2 were disastrous. The racial purity laws of Spain even banned a Catholic priest from saying a mass in public Cathedral in Majorca in the 1960’s. Historically, that is not long ago.

      I have to own that I would be against forcibly incorporating parts of Europe before WW2 because there were German ethnics there. The annexation of Czechoslovakia I would have stopped. And I would not have put Jews in camps not even the relatively comfortable ones before the war. I believe they and Germany would have been happier with them elsewhere.

      In short with a monarch such as myself there is less international tension and no WW2. Or at least the powers that be would have had to really bend matters to find an excuse. Meanwhile Germany is such a fantastic success story that the power of that country might make them untouchable in just a few more peaceful years.

      I think Hitler would have found a monarch such as myself way more accommodating than any other western leader at the time. Which means that if war still happens and Germany loses I get executed by the benevolent Allies.

  11. I am still intrigued by the idea of a reconstituted Confederate States of America encompassing not only Dixie but Northern Mexico, Cuba and other parts of the Caribbean and Latin America. The Capital could be Montgomery. And it could be ruled by a constitutional monarchy. Ideally, the first monarch would be Queen Christina Romana, from the Spanish branch of the House of Habsburg. Both Dr. Hill and HW enthusiastically support this idea as well.

    • @Spahnranch,

      Cristina is too wise to become intertwined with Protestant Anglos. She and her family are well aware of the AQ.

      • November,

        I like the Spahn. I of course accepted his offer of the crown in the friendly spirit in which he offered it. The American South is too protestant and freemasonic for me to seriously be involved with.

  12. National Socialism would be ideal for ethnically/racially homogeneous nation states such as Germany, Norway, Korea or Japan but not here in the US. The Founders obviously had the early Roman Republic foremost in mind when forming their new American Republic. A uniquely American version of Fascism would be a desirable form of government, as would a limited constitutional monarchy for the South.

    • @ In the south, “We have no king but JESUS”, we will have a constitutionally limited republic, with freedom guaranteed by law, you metrosexuals get that thru your empty heads, JESUS CHRIST is the head of state of the Confederate nation, We didn’t bleed at valley forge, for socialism, facsism or some flesh and blood king, practise your sodomy elsewhere, no safe haven for you in our land, the future of the southern republic is already mapped out, you want friendship with the south, you want our approval, our respect, then clean up your yard and protect your people.

    • @Spahnranch,

      The CCP is definitely moving in a National Socialist direction. My guess is that they understand its efficacy, and they have the nationalist and homogeneous population that makes more advantages.

      I was speaking in terms of White enthnostates, after either secession or Balkinization that National Socialism could be used as the template of government.

  13. @ Mexico for mexicans, Cuba for cubans, Latin and central america, for Latin and central Americans, the carribean for carribean people, canada for Canadians and the fair and blessed land of america for us, you metrosexuals have got your work cut out for yourselves, cleaning up the he mess you made out of this country, keep your noses out of everybody else’s ass and get too work.

    • Terry Smith,

      I like that. I strongly condemn illegal immigration for moral reasons. Like perhaps –Thou Shall Not Steal and Thou Shall Not Covet That Which is Not Yours.

      Basic morality actually. Okay. I am exhausted. I have written much. Today is my birthday and we have many guests. I have to get ready. I probably will not even look at this site again until manana.

Comments are closed.