You haven't yet saved any bookmarks. To bookmark a post, just click .

Eric Striker has noted that in the recent elections the Republican governor of Kentucky ran a campaign based on a 1980s Reaganesque style revulsion towards "socialism" and against teachers, and he got his head handed to him, justifiably so; in other elections that night affirmative action and sanctuary cities took a beating.  One needn't be skilled in the reading of tea leaves to understand which way the wind is blowing.

Richard Spencer's publishing house, Washington Summit Publishers, recently issued a translation of Armin Mohler's The Conservative Revolution In Germany (1918-1932). Out of that matrix came National Socialism and, while not everyone is a Nazi, embedded within that is the magical position, the third position: conservative on social issues and progressive on economics.  If any enterprising politician should ever want to carry everything and everyone before him he really ought to look into it.

The amazing thing is that Trump ran on a set of issues that were unheard of for a quarter century, and he pulled off a miracle.  One would think that he would have countless imitators but in fact he has none, not even himself.

Capitalism overturns everything, uproots the world as it creates new ones every minute.  Exotic sexual ideologies expel nature, and fabricate an ersatz reality.  These aren't two sides of the same coin, they are the same coin, the coin of the realm of the ruling class.

By loosening economic controls the right destabilizes communities, by loosening social controls the left destabilizes human beings. Together they work as a pincer movement against our security, as everything that was solid melts into thin air.

The third position is protectionism for human beings and, as such, is inherently conservative.  It is fascism with a human face.  

A few years back Ashton Kutcher infamously declared that he was liberal on social issues and conservative on economics and his statement was hailed as the wave of the future.  He of course had it completely backwards, poll after poll shows a majority wants the exact opposite, wants the third position, wants a generous social democracy combined with an end to the tyranny of insidious social experimentation, be it that of an invasion of alien races or ever new frontiers in gender identity.  What they want is a tight knit and upright community, not a continued greasing of the skids of a no holds barred neo-liberal accelerationism.  They know in their hearts that the left got rid of social controls and the right got rid of economic ones, and that all sides conspired against them.

We forget just how much of a player David Duke was in the early 1990s, ideologically at least, people said oh but they're racists but others said maybe they like his platform.  Then Duke and Buchanan went back and forth accusing the other of stealing the agenda they had first.  But then they faded away, and no one picked up the mantle.

In the early 1990s the movie Falling Down became iconic, about a white man who had had enough and wasn't going to take it any more and proceeded to start mowing people down. This was adduced as an example of the growing phenomenon of the angry white male.  But really the map of this was clear by the time of George Wallace and his not a dime's worth of difference, or even way back in 1948 with Strom Thurmond.  Later Sam Francis cribbed Donald Warren's 1976 book The Radical Center and conjured up his legendary Middle American Radical, and Christopher Lasch diagnosed why liberalism was bad for the common man, and another liberal, Richard Rorty, gave two cheers not for capitalism but for social solidarity.  Later another Warren--Elizabeth--got into the act with her book The Two Income Trap, for by then the American Dream was over.

What was happening was clear enough.  After the war was a golden age for the American white working class.  While our enemies were wading through rubble our industrial plant was in pristine condition.  A man could work, the wife stay home to care for the children, vacations could be taken, retirements made, a good life had. But soon came the natural accelerants of open borders and open markets and the re-proletarianization of our people. This was done in the name of "freedom" and "openness", two things which are always the mortal enemies of decent folk everywhere.  They acted as agents of social sterilization, the jobs went out, the people came in, the housing prices went up, the neighborhoods became crowded, crime went up, as did the cost of living, the birth rates went down. In turn the money machine required more immigrants.  Wash, rinse, repeat, decimate, as is said.

Just in the middle of this deluge came figures who saw it clearly and wanted to arrest this wasting away of the social fabric.  The aforementioned Duke and Buchanan for sure, and also Ross Perot. Together they took what can be considered the white man's third position, against pointless foreign wars which bled our young dry, against the invasion by the colored races, against the free movement of goods across our borders, against moral and social chaos.  If you want to know more about it just listen carefully to that giant sucking sound.  

In addition to waging the culture war against the forces of moral decay Buchanan made a hard edged moved toward economic autarky and economic nationalism. While in Reagan's White House Buchanan once sent a businessman looking for tariffs packing but the former doctrinaire free trader got Dick Gephardt religion, and promoted industrial policy (which by then had become dirty words).  He wanted to make it impossible for goods made outside America to be sold here by throwing up massive tariff walls.  At the same time his corporate tax was zero. Haul up the drawbridge, make it enticing and necessary to produce here, and watch the middle class revive.  It could have worked.

But by the time he came around neo-liberalism was coming into its own, history was declared over, the free movement of goods and people across all barriers was ascendant.  Former hippie Bill Clinton was all for global capital, took the baton from that old internationalist traitor George Bush Sr. and pushed through NAFTA (see giant sucking sound, above).  Earlier Reagan and Thatcher were said to have been running some kind of supposed counter-revolution in the name of the decent folk, but they were not even speed bumps on the road to the loosening of all controls, threw gasoline on the accelerants, tossed on the match, and greased every skid on the way to disaster. Capitalism is nothing less than the overturning of everything at every instant, it says so in the brochure.

And the left came around all the way soon, became outriders of capital. Mass immigration is nothing but a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich but the ones who rail most against income inequality are its biggest supporters, in another time we would have called that false consciousness. Former hippie Hillary Clinton's dream was a unified market from Tierra Del Fuego to the Arctic Circle, and the free movement of everything throughout it.  This too is the dream of our ruling class.  The money spigots of the new world order are open borders and open markets which when the epitaph of America is written will be seen to be its death blow.

Old Socialists knew better.  It was always Nationalism in one country. Bernie Sanders once famously, or infamously, told Ezra Klein that open borders and mass immigration were Koch brothers' ideas (as are freeing all prisoners and eating away at the substance of America). While in his heart of hearts it's doubtful Bernie wants to build Fortress America (alas) it seems reasonable to think that he does want reasonable controls on immigration.  If he could get his base to go along with it he could walk away with the election.  Problem is, he's got the endorsement of Alexandria ("this is occupied land") Ocasio-Cortez.  That crowd hates white people and, contrary to what you read in the papers, they are no friends to the working class, but do the dirty work of corporations, wittingly or unwittingly, take your pick.

It wasn't always that way.   Old socialists knew better.  Dick Gephardt championed industrial policy, the notion that government and business can cooperate in tandem for what's good for the nation, Ralph Nader showed us what evil unregulated corporations will do, Barbara Jordan knew what was good for the worker and it wasn't a mass influx of cheap labor.  Cesar Chavez had his goons bust the heads of border jumping wetbacks who undercut the wages of his men, though the growers wanted brown serfs for their growing world-wide plantation.  And recently in American Affairs Angela Nagle made the left wing case for closed borders and for her trouble was made a pariah, and Aimee Therese regularly reviles all forms of neo-liberalism, or most of them, at least.

Liberal icon Eugene McCarthy wrote a book saying that America was fast becoming a colony of the world, arguing that economically and culturally, colonial status is evident in loss of control over borders, religion and language. Major investment in a colony is from outside, with control held by the investing powers.

Pat Buchanan said he fell out of his chair when he heard Trump's announcement speech and it's true, Trump ran on a straight up ticket of Buchananism.  He took on the three pillars of the ruling class cash machine, war, free trade, and open borders, and he also took away their shield, political correctness, the you can't say this, and you better not say that.  It's what spooked them so very terribly.  An angel mom said that when she heard Trump's speech she sat down and cried.   But as it turned out Trump became obsessed with blacks, gays, Jews, Israel, everything and everyone but what elected him.  The ruling class needn't have worried, he was no traitor to his class, he was one of them and, for that, may his memory forever be met with violent howls of execration.

The odd thing is that for a position so inherently appealing there's not a single public official who will touch it with a ten foot pole.

So why would such a popular ideology go begging for suitors?  Why the wallflower at the dance?  The problem is that it's what Sam Francis called a strange amalgam of left-right, it's neither this nor that, not one thing nor the other, an ambidextrous ideology and, as such, it's a gossamer world-view, a unicorn position, chimerical. Who would espouse it?  The left demonizes borders while promoting social democracy; the right has its tax cuts while ostensibly preaching morality; they are an inverted mirror image of the other, right where the other is wrong, wrong where the other is right;  yes, the third position is an odd brew.  Add to that that the donors have a stranglehold on the parties and that whoever would take up its cudgel would find himself in the cross hairs of the ruling class and the distaste with which it is viewed by our leaders becomes explicable. Treacherous, but explicable.

This democracy of ours, owned by this ruling class, does have an Achilles heel.  It's that if enough of the people want something, and want it badly enough, they can get it, or at least they can make life very difficult for their enemies.  If Trump proved anything it's that a hostile takeover of a party from the very top is possible, with the right person, at the right time, with the right message.  If the difference between the rank and file of a party and its rulers becomes too great and a canny enough, a forceful enough, and a presentable enough person comes along to exploit and explain it, miracles can occur.  This is not the infiltration of the party, it is a coup de main, a knockout blow.  No one knows what the future holds.  A leader can arise.

In the meantime, of course, every man to his post.  

What that leader would advocate is simple: no wars, no immigration, no free trade, bring up the drawbridge, create Fortress America, become a hermit kingdom, disentanglement from Israel, pro guns, social democracy, pro unions, massive infrastructure spending, social solidarity, anti-degeneracy, public health care, a wealth tax, natalism, pro family formation, pro marriage, pro traditional American heritage, pro traditional gender roles, anti-corporate measures.

Apply social and economic controls, in a word.   Practice fascism with a human face.   To let the middle conspire against the traitors in our midst.

Someone really ought to look into it.


by Douglas Mercer

Read more posts by this author.