The Far Right's Love of the Kremlin’s Policies

Moderators: DrVolin, Wombaticus Rex, Jeff

Re: The Far Right's Love of the Kremlin’s Policies

Postby American Dream » Thu Mar 09, 2017 9:37 pm

Review: “Dreamer of the Day” by Kevin Coogan


What is less well known is that an American fascist theoretician, Francis Parker Yockey (1917-1960), himself marginal in the American radical right even today, is actually a theoretical pioneer of the contemporary international fascist revival with its new cultural politics, and is recognized as such from France to Russia’s contemporary “red-brown” ferment. (Yockey is promoted in the U.S., and somewhat disingenuously, mainly by Willis Carto and the Liberty Lobby.(2)) Contemporary fascism, internationally, finds it a largely losing battle to conjure up the old biological racism and master-race theories: they can chip away at the still-powerful association of such biological determinism with the concentration camps, but they have found a far more fertile path in circumventing such questions with a whole new battle over “culture”. And once this is recognized, the centrality of Francis Yockey, the subject of the excellent book by Kevin Coogan under consideration here, and who spelled this out in his 1948 book Imperium, looms into view.

Yockey, in in his youth, in the depths of the depression, was briefly sympathetic to Marxism, but quickly abandoned it for fascism. Subsequently, in late 1930’s Chicago, he jostled different far-right groups such as pro-Hitler German Bundists, anti-labor vigilantes, Silver Shirts and the Father Coughlin movement. But Yockey himself was no storefront fascist. Possibly the decisive ideological influence in his life had been the reading, in 1934, of Oswald Spengler’s Decline of the West (a world-wide best seller in the 1920’s). Through Spengler (including his later works Years of Decision and Prussianism and Socialism) Yockey stepped into the ferment of 1890-1933 Germany known as the “Conservative Revolution”, and such other (sometimes brilliant) reactionary theorists as Carl Schmitt, Karl Haushofer, Ernst Niekisch, Ernst Juenger, Moeller van den Bruck, not to mention the highly ambiguous earlier figure of Friedrich Nietzsche. For most of these intellectuals, Hitler and the Nazis were vulgar guttersnipes and their “voelkisch” (i.e. populist) ideology merely one more version of the mass society the Conservative Revolutionaries despised. What mainly characterized the Conservative Revolution were variants of an aristocratic radicalism that imagined a regeneration of decadent bourgeois society from the throes of materialism, democracy, socialism and feminism by a “hard” cultural elite of “supermen”, men such as those tempered in the trench warfare of World War I and the “storms of steel” (the title of Juenger’s 1920’s best-selling novel) of the modern technological battlefield. Spengler, in his major work, had defined “universalism” as the passage from “culture” to “civilization” in an organic rise and fall; this phase emerged when the old culture-bearing elite was sinking into effete aestheticism, and prepared the way for Caesarism (an anticipation of the coming of Hitler).

Aside from Spengler himself, two figures of the Conservative Revolution in particular stand out as decisive influences on Yockey: Carl Schmitt and Karl Haushofer. As a student at Georgetown University in the mid-1930’s, Yockey encountered Schmitt as the leading international Catholic jurist of the period. Schmitt’s relationship to Hitler and the Nazis was complex, but hardly (to put it mildly) a hostile one. Schmitt’s sophisticated legal theory was little short of state-idolatry, and presented a distinction between “enemy” and “foe” which passed easily into fascist political and legal thought. An “enemy” for Schmitt was an opponent of the moment, with whom there was temporary conflict and disagreement, but a “foe” was an irreconcilable opponent against whom the struggle was potentially total and lethal. Schmitt ridiculed Western parliamentarism and democracy, and developed ideas about the inevitability of extra-parliamentary activity — i.e. activity in the streets — which also influenced the German New Left in the 1960’s (Schmitt was among other things an admirer of Lenin). This in turn shaped Schmitt’s idea of Ernstfall or “ultimate confrontation” in which normal legality had to be suspended. (Schmitt provided the legal cover for the 1934 “Night of the Long Knives” in which Hitler eliminated the “red fascist” wing of the Nazi Party around the Strasser brothers).


...The real key to Yockey, however, is summed up in the term “National Bolshevik”, a somewhat obscure yet very important strand of the 1920’s Conservative Revolution, and one which is increasingly important today. The term “National Bolshevik” refers to an ambiguous minority current that appeared in the revolutionary wave in Europe immediately following World War I. The term was first used by Bela Kun, head of the short-lived Communist government in Hungary in 1919, and cropped up in some statements of Karl Radek, the Communist revolutionary who conducted Comintern business from his prison cell in Berlin in the same year, meeting with members of the German business(4) and military elite as well as with the German radical left. (He also laid the foundation for Russia’s commercial treaty with Attaturk in 1920, concluded even as Attaturk was murdering leading members of the Turkish Communist Party.) In 1923, the German CP undertook the brief “Schlageter turn”(5) of several months during which it worked with the Nazis in a campaign against the Versailles Treaty, staging rallies and sharing podiums from which Ruth Fischer attacked “Jewish capital” in a way sometimes difficult to distinguish from fascist rhetoric(6). Already in 1922, Germany had signed the Rapallo treaty with the Soviet Union, allowing the defeated German army to to use the Ukraine for secret training and maneuvers banned under the Versailles Treaty. Because of Germany’s central position in continental Europe, the possibility of a German- Russian rapprochement against the West often hovered over European power politics, posing a direct threat to Britain and France, and much of the foreign policy of the two major world empires was aimed at preventing just such an alliance. Germany since 1870 had been the “new power” threatening British and French hegemony , and German support of different kinds for anti-colonial movements in the British and French empires (which dated from the pre-1914 Kaiserreich) was a constant problem for the latter. Thus in 1922 when the Rapallo treaty brought Germany into an alliance with revolutionary Russia, there was general consternation in Anglo-French ruling circles. In 1932, (as in 1923) the German Communist Party again cooperated with the Nazis (7) in strikes and street actions against the “main enemy”, the “social-fascist” German Social Democrats, a perspective they bizarrely maintained even after Hitler seized power and put them into concentration camps, expressed in their slogan “After Hitler Comes Our Turn”. Finally, the consternation occasioned by Rapallo was completely eclipsed by the impact of the Stalin-Hitler Pact in 1939.

But “National Bolshevism” refers to much more than just a rapprochement between Germany and Russia, or tactical collaboration between Communists and Nazis against liberals and Social Democrats. It condenses a series of attitudes which reach far beyond Europe, and which have wider currency in the contemporary world than is generally recognized: hence the importance of Yockey and of Coogan’s study of Yockey. National Bolshevism is one of the most extreme forms of appropriation of elements of the revolutionary socialist movement for the preservation of class society. Weimar Germany from 1918 to 1933 was a laboratory of a myriad of currents thrown up by the simultaneous potential of working-class revolution (1918-1921) and of the extreme reaction (which borrowed significantly from the workers’ movement) brought to bear against that potential, culminating in Hitler’s triumph in 1933. Though figures such as Bela Kun and Karl Radek are better known, National Bolshevism entered the workers’ movement most dramatically in Hamburg and Bremen in 1920, articulated by the two German ex-Wobblies Wolffheim and Laufenberg, who threw themselves into the German workers’ councils that sprung up after World War I. For Wolffheim and Laufenberg, as for a number of other currents of the early 1920’s in Germany and elsewhere(8), workers’ revolution was the royal road to the national revolution; for the National Bolsheviks, the Russian Revolution was itself a national revolution(9). (To his credit, Lenin called National Bolshevism “eine himmelschreiende Absurditaet”, roughly, a “monstrous absurdity”. Unfortunately, other figures of the Third International were not so careful.)

The National Bolsheviks, and later Yockey, saw the cosmopolitan proletarian internationalism of Lenin, Trotsky and the early Russian Revolution as a superficial veneer which was cast aside by Stalin(10). “National Bolshevism” ultimately transposes Marx’s theory of the war between the classes to an international theory of struggle between “bourgeois nations” and “proletarian nations”, and buries the singularity and autonomy of the working class (the international class par excellence) in a mystique of the state and the nation. In the interwar period, the main “bourgeois nations” (or plutocracies, as Georges Sorel, among others, called them) were Britain and France; after 1945, the same logic was transposed to the new center of world capital, the United States. And nowhere moreso than in the work of Francis Yockey. The “proletarian nations” were first of all Germany and Italy, but the term applied equally (if not moreso) to all the “new nations” created by the Versailles Treaty, beginning with Eastern and Central Europe, not to mention the Latin American nations under the thumb of Anglo-French or American finance capital, and last but hardly least the growing nationalist ferment in the colonial world, a ferment encouraged, as indicated earlier, by successive German governments.

It is still little recognized today how ideologies first developed in interwar Europe to describe the tensions between the “core” bourgeois democracies and the “periphery”(11) of “young” or “new” nations were exported to the semi-colonial and colonial world, often directly through the influence of “National Bolshevik” or later National Socialist figures,
and after 1945 by the Nazis who fled to the Middle East and Latin America. After 1918, dozens of new nations emerged from the four defeated empires (Hohenzollern Prussia, Habsburg Austria-Hungary, Romanov Russia and the Ottomans) and after 1945, dozens more appeared in Africa, the Middle East and the rest of Asia from the breakup of the British and French empires. In most of these “new nations”, as well as in the semi-colonial countries of Latin America (Peron’s Argentina and Vargas’s Brazil come to mind), there was a real or potential local elite that recycled alloyed or unalloyed “National Bolshevism” from its original Central and Eastern European interwar sources into international “left” “anti-imperialist” currency. The 1960’s Western leftist admirers of Chou en-lai and Lin Piao would have perhaps been surprised to learn that the latter’s occasional references to the struggle between “bourgeois nations” and “proletarian nations” had been articulated decades earlier by Joseph Goebbels and Gregor Strasser. It would have been less of a surprise, or none at all, to Francis Yockey.

In 1947, Yockey settled in a remote village in Ireland to write his magnum opus, Imperium, in which he attempted to reinvent fascism for the new U.S.-dominated world. Yockey had gone AWOL from the U.S. Army in 1942 after a ring of German and pro-German saboteurs to which his family had connections was arrested by the FBI. Two months later, this “Fifth Columnist” (as opposed to an actual spy for Germany, in Coogan’s assessment) had returned voluntarily to the Army and, after a real or feigned mental breakdown, managed to be honorably discharged in 1943 for “medical” reasons. He held a couple of government jobs and then, (“incredibly”, as Coogan puts it) in late 1945 went to Germany as a prosecuting attorney for the Nuremburg trials. Less than a year later, he was fired from this position, in which he had distinguished himself by chronic absenteism, using that year to build up contacts to the anti-Allied German underground which was actively conducting terrorism and sabotage against American military targets.

Much of Imperium reads like recycled Spengler, arguing for a hierarchy of culture elites, drawing on the same organic metaphor of rise and decay of cultures used by Spengler.


More at: http://breaktheirhaughtypower.org/revie ... in-coogan/
User avatar
American Dream
 
Posts: 16439
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Far Right's Love of the Kremlin’s Policies

Postby American Dream » Sat Mar 11, 2017 6:14 pm

For Some, 111 Million White Russians Are Dangerously Intoxicating

Image
David Duke appears on the Russian network RT.


One who quickly spotted the opportunities in Mother Russia was none other than his eminence, Dr. David Duke. The Klansman and one-time Louisiana congressman received his doctoral in history in a Ukrainian diploma mill cited for its pervasive anti-Semitism. Nevertheless, he became an eloquent theorist of what has become an important part of Trump’s worldview.

In 2004, when Duke was just beginning his advanced studies, he published an impassioned broadside entitled, “Is Russia the Key to White survival?” One can hardly get more direct than that. In it, he laid out his fears and dreams in muscular and often lurid prose.

First, the fears:

Our race faces a world-wide genetic catastrophe. There is only one word that can adequately describe it: genocide. It is a relentless and systematic destruction of the European genotype.

Unchecked, low White birthrates, massive non-White immigration and intermarriage will mean the complete genetic destruction of the great European race that produced an overwhelming share of the world’s great art and literature, scientific and economic advancement. Make no mistake about it: unless our people wake up and act courageously, our very genotype; our people as a unique, living breed of life upon this planet – will be wiped out! Such would be the greatest ecologic and evolutionary disaster ever to befall our planet!


And whether they agree with Duke—or even know who he is—millions have a visceral connection to this sentiment. And, they are frantically searching for salvation, or at least relief. Duke knows the answer: “All across the Western world, I see our racial consciousness growing, our movements increasing, our spirit rising. Everywhere, our people are putting aside petty differences and nationality divisions and understand that now we must have White Pride Worldwide and White Unity.” Nowhere is that truer, he said, than in Russia, “Russia is a White nation! Of the many capital cities of Europe, it is accurate to say that Moscow is the Whitest of them all.”

Duke admits here that there is but one obstacle preventing white hearts in Russia and the U.S. from beating as one. As you might guess, it’s the Jews… again. But even in 2004, he saw a powerful – though flawed – leader riding shirtless to the rescue. “Although there are many reservations about President Putin,” said Duke, “he is perhaps the only leader in the Western World to take any measures against the Jewish-Supremacist media bosses.” He was equally happy 12 years late rabout the results of the 2016 U.S. presidential elections. On election night, he tweeted, “This is one of the most exciting nights of my life… make no mistake about it, our people have played a HUGE role in electing Trump!”

If some white nationalists view Duke as rather passé, others are picking up the torch. Alt-right mouthpiece Richard Spencer has jumped on the Siberian Express. According to Mother Jones, “Spencer calls Russia ‘the most powerful white power in the world’ and admires Vladimir Putin’s authoritarianism—he would gladly admit most Russians into his ideal ethnostate.”


http://lobelog.com/for-some-111-million ... oxicating/
User avatar
American Dream
 
Posts: 16439
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Far Right's Love of the Kremlin’s Policies

Postby Elvis » Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:45 pm

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities." —Karl Rove
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 3590
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Far Right's Love of the Kremlin’s Policies

Postby American Dream » Sun Mar 12, 2017 8:19 am

User avatar
American Dream
 
Posts: 16439
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Far Right's Love of the Kremlin’s Policies

Postby American Dream » Wed Mar 15, 2017 9:58 am

Image

Putin, Assad and the fall of Aleppo
Masters of disinformation

While the attention of the world is focused on events in Aleppo, Assad and his allies are talking about the "liberation" of the city. Some believe him, left wing anti-imperialists for example. By Emran Feroz

The Syrian conflict has several narratives, all of which are jostling for media supremacy. In the end, the one that is being heard most clearly is that of Bashar al Assad. If this were not the case, he and his Iranian and Russian allies would not have been able to recapture Aleppo in the shadow of worldwide disinterest.

There are many reasons why it has happened like this. One is that those left-wingers in the West, who often like to present themselves as being against war and in favour of peace, have taken sides with Assad and Putin. What we are talking about here are primarily groups that believe themselves to be "anti-imperialist", "critical" or "alternative" – and who are presently celebrating the capture of Aleppo as a "liberation".

As critical as these groups supposedly are, they have not recently been focusing on Russian bombs or on the horrors perpetrated by pro-Assad foreign militia, but on those people trapped in eastern Aleppo who were circulating calls for help and farewell messages.


Continues at: https://en.qantara.de/content/putin-ass ... nformation
User avatar
American Dream
 
Posts: 16439
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Far Right's Love of the Kremlin’s Policies

Postby Elvis » Wed Mar 15, 2017 2:31 pm

Masters of disinformation


:roll:
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities." —Karl Rove
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 3590
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Far Right's Love of the Kremlin’s Policies

Postby American Dream » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:35 am

How America's Right-Wing Fell in Love with Putin and Moscow


White Nationalists, Trump, and Putin

In early 2015, the leading lights of Europe’s far-right, including members of Austria’s Freedom Party and Greece’s Golden Dawn, met in St. Petersburg, Russia. The meeting, on its own, was one of the most notable gatherings of Europe’s regressive, xenophobic far-right in years. The group organizing the event, the Russian Imperial Movement, is itself an outgrowth of groups like Rodina—a Russian political party founded by Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, a high-ranking Kremlin official charged with running Russia’s defense industries.

Among the Americans attending the conference was Jared Taylor—one of the foremost proponents of “race realism,” which claims genetic superiority for Europeans—who spent his time at the conference condemning America’s liberal policies, including support for same-sex relations. Taylor was joined by Sam Dickson, a former KKK lawyer and another prominent face of American white supremacism. Echoing his European counterparts, Dickson used the opportunity to praise Putin for helping encourage higher birthrates, and exhorting his compatriots to preserve “[the white] race and civilization.” (It remains unclear who paid for the Americans’ travel.)

The conference was, more than anything else, a networking event—and an opportunity for the trans-Atlantic far-right to unite in support of rolling back liberal policies, expelling non-whites from their countries, and unwinding Western democracy. It was also an opportunity for attendees to vie with one another in their praise for the Kremlin, and to lay that much more groundwork in the pursuit of what Matthew Heimbach, as detailed below, has called the “Traditionalist International.”

It’s worth noting that the current crop of leaders within American white nationalist circles—which includes Spencer and Heimbach, as well as, to lesser extents, Taylor and Dickson—relies on rhetoric that is different from that of previous iterations of the white supremacist movement. For instance, this new crop of white nationalists places less explicit emphasis on the notion of the supremacy of one race over any other. Spencer and Heimbach attempt to mask their white supremacy by professing co-equal respect for whites and non-whites alike, and claim that they are merely fighting for an all-white state alongside attendant states for other races. “I support white power, black power, brown power, and yellow power,” Heimbach recently said. “All races should be the dominant political force in their region. That is why America needs to be divided into smaller, ethnically and culturally homogeneous states. … We need to stop the hate and separate.”

Yet Spencer and Taylor, despite the claims that their movement has little to do with traditional white supremacy, have both espoused bogus biological theories about racial difference—a classic tool of white supremacists—in attempts to justify their view that the U.S. must undergo a separation of the races. Interestingly, and perhaps predictably, there is no universally accepted definition of “white” that exists within the white nationalist movement. For example, while Spencer considers his wife, Nina Kouprianova, to be white, other outspoken members of the white nationalist movement—including Southern nationalist Greg Johnson—point to Kouprianova’s Georgian heritage as evidence of what they claim is her non-European lineage.

Whatever nominal differences remain between the current crop of white nationalists and holdovers from an earlier era, there was little question about which candidate these contingents preferred in the 2016 presidential election. Duke not only endorsed Trump, but was inspired by Trump to once more run for office. Spencer held a now-notorious rally after Trump’s election that culminated in shouts of “Hail, Trump!” Heimbach, for his part, was accused of violence against those protesting Trump. And Taylor recorded robocalls to rally support for Trump, whom Taylor said would see that immigrants should be “smart, well-educated white people” rather than Muslims. In all, America’s white nationalists and white supremacists were effectively uniform in their support for Trump.

But white nationalists’ support for Trump didn’t stem solely from his claims that Mexican immigrants were “rapists,” his vow to block Muslims from traveling to the U.S., or his sharing of faulty, racially charged crime statistics with millions of followers on Twitter. Indeed, much of Trump’s appeal for white nationalists can be found, unsurprisingly, in incendiary outlets like Breitbart, recently led by Trump’s chief strategist Steve Bannon. (Among the tags Breitbart uses for stories: “black crime,” “feminazi,” and “left wing thugs.”) White nationalists also viewed the foreign policy Trump espoused during the presidential campaign—a mix of America First isolationism, appeasement of Russian expansionism, and aggressive distrust of multilateral organizations—with glee.

And they all—white nationalists and Religious Right figures alike—looked fondly on what appears to be Trump’s mutual admiration of their authoritarian hero, Putin.


Read at: http://www.alternet.org/right-wing/amer ... ves-russia
User avatar
American Dream
 
Posts: 16439
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Far Right's Love of the Kremlin’s Policies

Postby American Dream » Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:14 am

Confusion on the Left


Allying with Fascists
The view that everything is a result of a conspiracy by US imperialism leads to some very strange bedfellows indeed. Take the Workers World Party and their wholly owned subsidiaries: the International Action Center (IAC) and United National Anti-war Coalition (UNAC). In 2014 they participated in a conference in Moscow organized by the Anti-Globalization Movement of Russia (AGMR). This is a group that has links with fascist groups, if it is not fascist itself. According to this report (well worth reading on its own), along with these two US groups there were in attendance “Russian and Italian fascists and U.S. white nationalists from the neo-Confederate group League of the South.” None of this was mentioned by the IAC and UNAC, who seem to have no problem working with these fascists and racists.

This is what happens when the left sees only the hand of US imperialism in everything, when it fails to see the laws of motion of history, when it fails to see the working class as having its own interests, distinct from and opposed to every capitalist force in the world.


Opposition to US Imperialist Intervention
None of this is an argument for the intervention of the US government into Syria. As this article explains, no capitalist power, including the US regime, is capable of intervening in Syria (or anywhere else in the world) to the benefit of the working class majority. But there’s a simple matter of logic: If US capitalism is incapable of such intervention, what makes anybody think that Russian or Iranian capitalism is capable of it? On the other hand, if the reactionary Putin regime can be defended for intervening in Syria to fight the Islamic State, then how can these lefts oppose US intervention to also fight the Islamic State?


Historic Role of Working Class
What lies behind this sort of “thinking” is not only a refusal to take a serious look at history; it’s also a failure to consider the working class as a potential subject of history; it sees the most powerful capitalist country in the world – US capitalism – as having unlimited power to manipulate and control everything. It refuses to see that there are not only laws of motion of the capitalist economy; there are also laws of motion of political development.

If foreign policy is just an extension of domestic policy, then the reverse is true also, and this is the problem. Much of the same left that doesn’t see international struggles in clear class terms also doesn’t see the struggle here like that. The same light-minded, ahistorical approach, the same refusal to look beneath the surface, the same failure to see the class forces at work apply at home too.


More at: https://oaklandsocialist.com/2017/03/14 ... -the-left/














User avatar
American Dream
 
Posts: 16439
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Far Right's Love of the Kremlin’s Policies

Postby American Dream » Fri Mar 24, 2017 8:54 am

Marine Le Pen “Russia and France should work together to save the world from globalism and Islamic fundamentalism.”

Image
Marine Le Pen Meets Putin in Moscow.

Marine le Pen is liked in Moscow, because she backs breaking up the European Union, lifting sanctions against Russia, and, above all, recognition of the Russian annexation of Crimea. The Front National had also sent a representative as an observer during the referedum in Crimia on joining Russia, which claimed that the vote was free and fair. This attitude convinced the Kremlin to take a friendly stand on the extreme right movement.

https://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/2 ... mentalism/
User avatar
American Dream
 
Posts: 16439
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], norton ash and 13 guests