The Real Revolutionaries

Ever wonder why the establishment calls everything it doesn't like "fascist"? Wonder no more; fascism is the spectre haunting modern socialism from within.

I routinely mention “longhouse simps,” defined as people who agree with the establishment and think they are part of the resistance, for example, this idiot:

Substack Note originally posted 22 March, 2024

Such people are not the revolutionaries you are looking for, they are controlled opposition at best. Their leaders all occupy positions of institutional power, and their demonstrations, though violent enough to result in massive amounts of property damage and even the death of innocents, are entirely performative; in other words, they are demonstrations of power and institutional capture, not acts of revolution. The institutions all favour socialism, specifically Marxist socialism, the hallmarks of which are central planning and abolition of private property, especially rural property. Both of these things are being pushed by globalist organisations like the World Economic Forum, which controls many of the governments of western nations. Most of the professional managerial class (PMC) is comprised not of free marketeers who got to their positions via merit, but of central planners trained in Marxist theory who were born into rich and powerful families. However, there is a genuinely revolutionary movement that also calls itself socialist, meaning that, at the time I wrote this, it is still anti-establishment. For those of you who already know the history of socialism, or have read my article breaking down its three types, you already know where this is going. For the rest of you, the real revolutionaries of which I speak…

…are nationalists. Some of them even call themselves “fascist.” After branding everyone who opposes them with the f-word to the point where it has lost all meaning, the PMC has succeeded in making enough people numb to the term that no-one is shamed by it, some have turned it back on the PMC, and others have begun to wear the label as a badge of honour. Some anti-establishment leftists have begun saying “we’re all fascists now, we just need to distinguish between rainbow fascists and red fascists.” “Rainbow fascism” is their term for progressive identity politics, which is the ideology currently being advanced by the establishment. Fed up with the insanity of bourgeois rainbow fascism, self-described socialists who actually care about the proletariat are now repeating history by abandoning the Marxist parties and moving towards third positionism. Anyone who has studied history, particularly the history of Weimar Germany, should not be surprised by this development, I certainly wasn’t. However, we all know what followed, and that’s what I want to warn you about: do not fall for fascism.

In previous articles, I have described The Unz Review as “the BitChute of the blogging world,” in that you will find perspectives there that you won’t anywhere else, but that doesn’t mean they are entirely valid. The mainstream narrative may be so severely distorted that it is completely unreliable, but the best lies contain a grain of truth, which is why so many people believe them. On the flip side, just because an alternative perspective turns the mainstream narrative on its head, doesn’t make it true. Don’t automatically reject everything you’ve been told, otherwise you end up believing in utter nonsense like flat Earth. Besides, that’s not thinking for yourself, that’s allowing the establishment to control what you think via reverse psychology; always remember that even a broken clock is right twice a day. Anyway, there is one article from that website that has been making the rounds recently, and I’ve even shared an excerpt from it in a Note before, much to the annoyance of Marxists. You can read the whole thing if you want to, but in the interest of brevity, I will instead go through this chart, which was posted by a National Socialist Substacker who has also shared said article:

Most of the stuff on this chart is true… but some of it isn’t, and makes all three forms of socialism here look a lot better than they actually are. Since this was posted by a National Socialist, it obviously favours that position over the other two, but note the “did you know” entry for fascism: it is neither far-right nor far-left, it is the 3rd position. As I’ve told you before, “third positionism” is their term, not mine. This is why I like to say that third positionism killed the left-right sliding scale, and fourth positionism buried it:

The Four Political Theories represented by their respective icons: monarchy, the 0th position, is represented by the crown, liberalism, the 1st position, by the dollar sign, communism, the 2nd position, by the hammer and sickle, the 3rd position by the hakenkreuz, and the 4th position by the star of chaos.

Yes, I put monarchy in the centre, contrary to the trend of categorising it as authoritarian right. Why? Well, two reasons, really. First, it’s dynastic, whereas the right believes in meritocracy and the left believes in equity. Second, it was the status quo that both liberalism and socialism originally arose in opposition to. Neoliberalism is the modern centrist position, not just because it is the status quo in most modern nations, but also because it shares a similar dynastic characteristic with classical feudalism. Anyway, back to National Socialism, and why it’s not what it’s cracked up to be. In my article on the three types of socialism, all I did was explain the differences between the various socialist systems, but the article is meant to be as neutral as possible, primarily because I wrote it for self-professed socialists so that they can either tell me which one they are, or admit that they don’t know what socialism is and simply wear the label because they think it sounds good. Here, I am not even attempting to be neutral.

In the aftermath of World War II, western propagandists took a schizophrenic approach to dealing with the remnants of the NSDAP. On one hand, the west tried to “de-nazify” Germany through active re-education, mostly carried out by the openly Marxist Frankfurt School. On the other hand, the west also white-washed the Nazi regime in order to solidify the alliance against the Soviet Union. The Holocaust, for example, was something that virtually no-one talked about other than Jews, many of whom continued to praise the Soviet Union until 1956. Plenty of internet anti-Semites, not just National Socialists, will happily post quotes by western Rabbis praising Communism (they are all over the comments section of BitChute, for example). While some may be tempted to dismiss these quotes as fake, I don’t, and here’s why: you will notice that very few of those quotes are from after 1939, and none are from after 1956. Gee, I wonder why that could be? What could have possibly happened in 1956 that western Rabbis all of a sudden stopped praising the Soviet Union? It wouldn’t have anything to do with all the interesting things that Nikita Khrushchëv was up to that year, now would it?¹ Anyway, back in Germany, the Marxists of the Frankfurt School were more than happy to re-write history to paint the Nazis as “greedy capitalists,” and thus the myth of “privatisation,” originally invented by a Keynesian rag called The Economist back in 1938, began to spread. In reality, Hitler’s economic policy was something called “gleichschalltung,” which has no direct translation in English, but is best translated as “synchronisation.” Sure, no central planning here!

It is true that National Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not seek the abolition of private property. However, it is still socialism, it is still state control of the means of production. Business owners in Nazi Germany did not decide what to produce, how many, what to charge, or how much to pay their workers, all of that was decided by the central planners. Private ownership of the means of production was on paper only. If you wish to know just how much control the NSDAP had over German industry, I would suggest reading The Vampire Economy by Günter Reimann, a biased little tome to be sure on account of the fact that Reimann was a Communist (also, fun fact, his granddaughter is one of the organisers of BLM²), but still a valuable insight into the workings of a fully state-run economy. Another source which I would recommend is Hitler’s Beneficiaries by Götz Aly. Still, the best source to learn how Hitler intended to run his nation comes from Hitler himself, but Mein Kampf is not an easy read. I would also suggest reading On the Jewish Question by Karl Marx, because then you will understand where Hitler got a lot of his ideas from. After all, Hitler was a Marxist until 1919.

Now then, some of you reading this will undoubtedly not care what sort of abuses that German industrialists suffered during Nazi rule, after all, they were “evil capitalists,” and the needs of the Aryan proletariat outweigh the needs of the Judeo-bourgeoisie, right? Okay then, what about farmers? You may have heard of something called the Holodomor, a genocide in all but name (a.k.a. “democide”) that occurred in the Soviet Union, partially engineered by a crackpot I like to refer to as the “Rasputin of Stalin,” Trofim Lysenko. Well, what if I told you that Nazi Germany did something similar in Austria and Czechoslovakia? In addition to the mass extermination of Jews, homosexuals, and the physically disabled, as well as the show trials and public imprisonment of political dissidents, the Nazis also seized control of agricultural production. Farms would be assessed, their level of production estimated, and farmers would be forced to hand over everything they produced, minus whatever the officials deemed necessary for the farmers to live on. If there was a bad harvest and the farm did not meet the production quota, the farmers would be treated as thieves, because their food did not belong to them, it belonged to the State. In order for them to have eggs on Easter, my grandmother’s family would hide one egg per day the week before. Sorry, I don’t have a book for this one (maybe Reimann mentions it, I haven’t read his entire book), just old family anecdotes. Still, conditions were not nearly as severe as they were in Ukraine between 1932 and 1939, but that’s because there was another factor involved.

But Sasha, why did you say 1939? The Holodomor ended in 1933!

No, it didn’t end in 1933, it entered its second stage, which most historians refuse to acknowledge simply because it is a far more serious indictment of Marxism in general than of Stalin specifically. That’s when Lysenko got involved, and his attempt to revitalise Ukrainian agriculture - a new type of planting practise based entirely on Marxist pseudoscience - was implemented throughout the Soviet Union, which made things worse… much worse. The death toll of six or seven million from starvation alone between 1932 and 1933 swelled to a whopping twenty million by 1939.³ As part of the Great Purge, anyone who spoke against these new agricultural practises was exiled, imprisoned, or executed. This continued right up until the moment that Stalin ordered the mobilisation of the Soviet economy for the invasions of Poland and Finland. I will elaborate in another article, because this is - you guessed it - another deep rabbit hole, and this article is about National Socialism, not Soviet Communism.

Post-publication edit: I came across an excellent summary of Lysenkoist agricultural failures if you want a more in-depth explanation, but not quite so in-depth as The Harvest of Sorrow by Robert Conquest or Mao’s Great Famine by Frank Dikötter:

How Lysenko killed millions

All forms of third positionism, National Socialism included, attempt to negate both capitalism and communism, and for this reason, many third positionists profess to be both individualist and collectivist at the same time (or neither, for that matter). This is not something I ever saw in the writings of the classical fascists, rather it appears to have originated with Julius Evola⁴ whom Benito Mussolini considered to be a lunatic, and only ever trotted him out to act as a liaison between the PNF and NSDAP. Evola’s own pet project was to synthesise a new position out of both fascism and National Socialism. He may not have succeeded while either regime was in power, or even in his lifetime, but there is a modern syncretic third positionist movement based on his writings. One such example is a group called Iron March, which published the book titled Fascist Economics and Socialism of Duty, in which the claim is made that modern fascism is neither individualist nor collectivist, which shows a strange evolution, as Mussolini was openly collectivist. Here’s the problem: individualism and collectivism comprise a dichotomy; you are either one or the other, you cannot be both at the same time, nor is there a third option. There are merely differing degrees of collectivism, such as tribalism, racism, nationalism, or globalism. Likewise, some individuals have a greater proclivity for acting as part of a team than others, so you could say that there are differing degrees of individualism as well. Nonetheless, the dialectical movement (emergence and subsequent fusion of two contradictory positions)⁵ is pretty obvious here. Third positionists may not want to admit it, but their ideology is based on the exact same philosophy as Marxism; both originate with Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who praised the State as the highest form of the nation (and you wonder why I keep reminding people why the words “nation” and “state” aren’t synonyms), and for that reason, I would argue that fascism is more closely aligned with original Hegelian philosophy than Marxism is. Bearing that in mind, perhaps now you know why so many critics of the neoliberal world order claim that western nations are already fascist in everything but name. Anyway, the point of all this is that individuals within a fascist state are free to act only in the interests of the State.

Speaking of Iron March, this was a group that claimed that communism is working towards capitalist goals, just without the bourgeoisie. So… communism is state capitalism, then? Huh… looks like the third positionists understand Karl Marx’s work better than most self-professed Marxists do. Never let it be said that I think third positionists don’t know what socialism is. Anyway, this is the rationale behind the comedically bizarre claim that Marxism “can seem capitalistic or even libertarian.” No, Marxism is inherently totalitarian, but an awful lot of self-professed Marxists claim to be anarchists: “what part of ‘stateless, classless, moneyless society’ don’t you understand?!” Oh, I don’t know, maybe the part where Marx advocated for a dictatorship of the proletariat and a state-controlled central bank. Yes, these things were supposed to create the conditions for humanity to become a “species-being” and render the State obsolete, but that is the great non-sequitur of Marxism. Third positionists realise this, and where fascists say that the totalitarian state is the end goal, National Socialists also say that the totalitarian state is simply a means to an end, but that their end is more realistic than that of Marxism. I suppose that’s true, but their vision is based on a terribly inefficient economic system. For example, the reason that Operation Barbarossa ground to a halt is because it literally ran out of gas, but by all means, keep up that narrative that the United States “had no choice but to get involved in order to stop the unstoppable Nazi War Machine.” Honestly, the reason that narrative pisses me off when self-described “anti-fascists” make it is because it makes the Nazis seem more dangerous than they actually were, and if you see anyone make this argument, respond by telling them “that’s actually pro-Nazi propaganda.”⁶ What is true of all socialism is true of National Socialism as well: it does not work as advertised. Rather than saving the nation (or the race, for that matter), the totalitarian state becomes a leech upon it, growing so large that it eventually kills its host, or in the case of Germany, gets its host killed by the very Marxists it is trying to save the nation from.

I doubt that this article will sway many self-described fascists or National Socialists, but hopefully it will serve as prophylactic to anyone seriously entertaining third positionism as a viable solution to the problems caused by the current establishment. Nationalism is certainly better than globalism, but nationalism alone will not save any nation. Na shledanou.

1. In addition to aligning with the Arabs the year prior, resulting in the USSR coming into indirect conflict with Israel as a result of the Suez Crisis, 1956 was the year that Khrushchëv gave his famous “secret speech” denouncing the personality cult of Iosif Stalin, which not only shocked the western world because it shed light on the horrors of Communist dictatorship, and in particular, the suggestion that Stalin may have killed just as many Jews as Hitler, but it also pissed off Chairman Mao, causing the Sino-Soviet Split. Later that year, in an attempt to get back into good graces with the Chinese, Khrushchëv chose to invade Hungary in response to the uprising there, ignoring the advice of Georgy Zhukov and instead kowtowing to Vyacheslav Molotov and Georgy Malenkov, who were both Stalinists, though this doesn’t appear to have had as much of an impact on the way that the west viewed the Soviets as everything else that year.

2. Source:

3. This is a conservative estimate. The number of people who died of starvation in the Soviet Union between 1932 and 1939 that typically gets thrown around is thirty million. Fun fact: Russia suffered some level of famine every year from 1917 to 1949.

4. In reality, however, there is an individualism which contains within itself - within the values of fidelity, service and honour - the seeds of overcoming isolation and egoism of the individual and renders possible a tranquil and sound hierarchical organisation. - Julius Evola, Heathen Imperialism (1933), as quoted in Fascist Economics and Socialism of Duty

5. This is the way that Karl Marx defines dialectical movement in The Poverty of Philosophy (1847). Note that I didn’t use the phrase “thesis-antithesis-synthesis,” because that’s not the best way of describing Hegelian philosophy, and very few actual Hegelians use it. It was the Kantian school of thought that both influenced Hegel and came up with that exact phrase, which was then popularised by Karl Popper’s exposé titled What is Dialectic?

6. On that same token, it is worth pointing out that the nominally anti-slavery argument that “slaves built America” is actually a pro-slavery position. A lot of impressive construction projects throughout history have been falsely attributed to slave labour, such as the Great Pyramid. No, it wasn’t built by aliens either, but by highly skilled and well-paid workers who were honoured in both Egyptian iconography and in their own tombs.