Category: mainstreaming

Der Movement Parallax

Analyzing some important points.

Read this.

For 15 long years, beleaguered Rhodesia maintained near total tactical military supremacy in the region despite severe weapon, materiel, and manpower shortages. Yet, military victory bereft of a strategic vision and clearly delineated political objectives is ultimately self-defeating. The political objectives of Rhodesia changed throughout the course of the war. Initially Rhodesia sought to maintain White minority rule, later hoped to create an African puppet regime, and finally sought nothing more than a seat at the proverbial “multicultural table.” This last political objective sealed the fate of tiny Rhodesia, and led to the pogrom of White genocide presently occurring in southern Africa. The nation of Rhodesia faced a series of overwhelming odds since its inception as a sovereign nation, but its greatest threat was its internal lack of strategic aim. This is a mistake we cannot afford to make.

This is very true.  A fundamental error that is often made is confusing strategy with tactics, and vice versa.  Means and ends are not the same; objectives and the tools to achieve those objectives are not the same.  One problem with mainstreaming is precisely this; the idea is to “mainstream” in order to “achieve (and maintain) power” so the power can be used to “preserve race and culture.”  Very laudable. Let’s put aside the empirically determined fact that mainstreaming simply doesn’t work.  Let us assume it does work.  What happens when selfish human nature takes over and the attainment and maintenance of political power ends up being the ultimate objective, the end, rather than as means to achieve racial-cultural objectives?  You may object: the same power-fetish may occur even with a vanguardist strategy.  That’s true, but less likely. The farther one’s “everyday” activity is separated from their ultimate objective, then the easier it is to lose sight of that objective. Mainstreaming is, in theory, a way to actualize vanguardism; vanguardism in turn is (in theory if you will) a way to achieve racial-cultural goals.  Being one major step removed from the alleged “real objective” makes mainstreaming more susceptible for activists to give up on their supposed goals and pursue political power for its own sake.  Vanguardists, on the other hand, live in “racial extremism” on an everyday basis and are less likely to lose sight of the objective that is “in their face” on a constant basis. Vanguardists are thus more likely, in my opinion, to understand, and remain focused on, the strategic aim.

As Greg Johnson articulated in New Right versus Old Right, white racial survival is the ultimate goal of White Nationalism, but I would go one step further and say we must explore not only how to survive, but also how to thrive racially as one people.

Fair enough.  Preservation is the first step.  Overcoming and progress comes next.

The policy failures and lack of strategic vision of former Rhodesia mirror those of the contemporary White Nationalist movement. The survival of the White race is imperative, but whites will only succeed if they maintain unity; in what form this “unity” manifests itself, and how centralized or decentralized it is, is open to debate. In order to reach our peoples greatest potential, we must seek unity of both race and thought, and harmonize these into a new European/White ecumene. 

There may be truth in this.  But it is a futile exercise to attempt to get everyone in the “movement” on board with a common vision.  It’s not going to happen.  Out of the morass – or perhaps from a fresh direction – a dominant memetic structure will emerge. Whether that will be the right direction, or a disaster, remains to be determined.

In Ricardo Duchesne’s penultimate work, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, Duchesne rightly speculates that a penchant for rational abstraction is the hallmark for White racial success. From this ancestral proclivity new and old ideas must be forged, crafted in a manner conducive to White unity. We’ve all borne witness to the perils of abstraction run amok, such as diversity for the sake of diversity and so-called “human rights”, but abstraction, when grounded in blood and soil and beholden to a people rather than to a proposition like universal equality, can produce a clarity of vision commensurate with the greatness of our race. I’m not opting for ideological orthodoxy or an outright purge, but I am suggesting that we as a movement begin a dialogue towards what we can and cannot accept.

Again, I’m doubtful that the feuding activists of Der Movement – all Chiefs and no Indians – will come to such a consensus.

Rhodesia wasn’t able to formulate a clear sense of strategic national purpose, because they couldn’t decide what they could and could not accept. Pragmatism is the basis of power politics, but it must be grounded by an immoveable set of axiomatic principles. 

That’s correct, and why mainstreaming is bad even if it would be politically successful – because there pragmatism itself becomes the “immovable axiomatic principle.”

Our lack of a cohesive vision is tantamount to a proverbial arming of the natives, and the natives are getting restless.

True, but, again, one cannot force a collective vision on a collection of individuals and mini-groups who cannot even decide on the parameters of “Us” vs. “Them.”  The Us/Them division is the fundamental characteristic of what a group is; if even that cannot be agreed upon, then there is no group.

Old hostilities and petty ethnic rivalries exacerbated an already precarious military and political situation. Intra-racial division, aside from contributing to Rhodesian political incongruity, proved deleterious to the war effort by limiting the mobilization of the population…

Let’s have more dem dere narrow ethnonationalism, as well as more divisive Guntherite racial theories!  That’ll bring folks together in unity, no doubt! 

We contemporary White Nationalists find ourselves in similar circumstances. The rampant division within our movement, though generally not based upon intraracial ethnic distinctions…

“…not based upon intraracial ethnic distinctions…”  Uh, I think the author of this piece just missed the last century of failed racial nationalism.  “Intraracial ethnic distinctions” constitute the first major division of “movement” disagreement.  If one wanted to do a memetic “PCA plot” of Der Movement, then the subracial/ethnic question would be the first major axis of variation.

Like our former Rhodesian brothers, our numbers, though growing, are few and the upcoming struggles will require mobilization of our entire movement for the survival of our race.

Not going to work. You need to find the optimal segment of Der Movement – or better yet start a New Movement beginning with first principles – and build your unity out of that.

European civilization has always been conflicted, agonal in nature, and historically our propensity for low-level kinship violence has been evolutionarily beneficial. 

Perhaps in the past, not the present.  The definition of what is “evolutionarily beneficial” (i.e., adaptive) depends on the environmental context.

However, in the midst of possible racial extinction, it’s of the utmost importance that internecine movement division stop. But how can division stop, particularly if we begin to explore new strategic paradigms, as dialogue breeds division?

Good question.

Put simply, we can stop division through dialectical synthesis. The musical virtuoso J.S. Bach wasn’t simply a master composer and performer; he was first and foremost a “synthesist” and thus able to harmoniously weld together an eclectic assortment of European musical styles into a cohesive melody. More to the point, like the works of Bach, we in the White Nationalist movement must shed the detritus of the past and form a new metapolitical imperative based upon a thoughtful, long-term strategy and movement unity. Strength in numbers is a very real thing, and as was the case for our Rhodesian ancestors it will be a deciding factor in our movement’s life or death.

That’s not an answer.  It’s hand-waving.  How to, in real-world terms, practically speaking, create the unity the author refers to?  Actually and precisely, how?

Native Africa never truly overcame the so-called “k-factor,” though it did receive outside help from a variety of forces, from international finance to Communist China…

A side note: Asians are always going to be on the forces of anti-Whitism and anti-Westernism.  Yockey understood that.  Can today’s yellow fever fetishists understand that as well?

My criticisms aside, I liked this article and believe the author is on the right track, sort of. But I myself went through this stage, long ago, of thinking that the entire “movement” could unite around some fundamental principles, have unity, and move forward.  Not possible.  As I said, the “movement” cannot even agree on the most basic distinction of all – Us/Them – how is anything else possible?  The author it seems wants to make “preservation and advancement of the White race” as the “immoveable axiomatic principle” – good luck with that since Der Movement cannot agree on what the “White race” is and who does or does not belong to it.  

So, while the author’s heart is in the right place I have to tell his head: it’s not that simple. It’s not like others haven’t come to similar conclusions before.  It just doesn’t work that way in reality.  The solution for him, personally, is either find a segment of the “movement” that fits his perspectives and try and build that segment into the dominant activist vehicle, or, if no such suitable segment exists, then help build a new one from the ground up.

Sallis is Right Again: Farstreaming

Orban moving right.

Read this.

Recall this?

Well, my comment that Jobbik is to Orban’s right no longer holds, because Orban has continued farstreaming to his right, while Jobbik has been mainstreaming to the center.  The two ships have passed each other on the sea of political rhetoric.

Outcome:

Orban farstreaming to the right = sailing to political success.

Jobbik mainstreaming to the center = sinking and hemorrhaging supporters.

Mainstreaming may be good in theory but has no empirical support in practice. Mainstreaming fails.  Pushing the radical envelope succeeds.  Sallis is correct…again.

6/14/17: Another “Movement” Fail

Another “movement” fail.

The successful populist, and that increasingly will be the only successful politician, will have to start here: simple “moderate” message of good-will hammered hard and mechanically repeated (the populist finds tests effective sound bites and repeats them in the form of mantras to mesmerize and inspire: Trump’s “make America great again”…Idealistic appeals will fall on deaf ears unless those ideals are linked to self-interest and hope. Donald Trump instinctively grasped this and acted upon it, using the vocabulary and statements at the level of an eight-year old to propel his campaign. The populist casts scorn on the expert. Without modern media, Trump’s campaign would have been ignored and allowed to wither by being deprived of the oxygen of publicity, but modern media provide new ventilation systems for the oxygen of populist rebellion.

Sigh.  Yeah, Trump sure got elected; he “succeeded;” fat lot of good it’s doing all of us now. Wait, this essay says, use Trump’s methods.  Yes, but the methods are linked to the outcome – superficiality, jackassery, a complete lack of any ideological foundation is lined to major cucking in power.  Alliances, alliances!  And when the “alliances” are successful, it’s a pyrrhic victory – look at the UK under Brexit, groaning under mass non-White immigration and beset by constant NEC terrorist attacks.

And apparently Le Pen lost because she didn’t mainstream enough!  

The defeat of Marine Le Pen, ironically, had much to do with her attachment to and association with old and discredited political structures. She also refused to make an alliance or compromise…

Amazing!  Leave it up to Der Movement to learn nothing from its constant debacles.  Let’s all go on Twitter, rant about “crime” (why not import lots of “high IQ law abiding Asians” then?) and make alliances that will prevent any meaningful change in the event of an electoral victory.

Yegads…Der Movement’s stupidity is terminal.

Those who believe in a return to some form of ethnic separatism need to abandon, at least for the time being, uncompromising and isolating positions and become more fluid and fluent, more outgoing, more social, and less ideological, more passionate but less embittered; in a word, more popular…

More compromises, more mainstreaming, more implicitness…in other words, doubling down on decades of failure, betrayal, and defeat.

Of course, we need to use whatever sociopolitical and technological “technics” for victory, but not at the expense of the core message.  Means are not ends; means are to achieve ends. Once we focus on means at the expense of ends, the meaning of any “victory” is lost. We’ve seen, time and time again, that mainstreaming usually fails, and any “victories” based on lowbrow appeals to strictly proximate interests end up achieving nothing. This is the same “implicit Whiteness” argument wrapped in a slightly different package – implicit Whiteness and Republican “dog whistling” led to decades of GOP fraud.  Don’t we ever learn?

The other negative aspect of the new media is the encouragement to retreat from social life. Much time spent with a computer would be better spent by many in a real social environment.

I agree.  Of course, that statement was made on an online post, and I’m answering it in one. So, we’re both hypocrites.  On the other hand, if you want people to get involved more in analog activism, rather than digital navel-gazing, the “movement” needs to be cleaned up. Read some “movement” comments threads online and then imagine meeting some of those folks offline.  Would you really want to?

In Praise of Extremists

A critique of mainstreaming from Counter-Currents.

This seems to me a reasonably forceful criticism of mainstreaming, and I of course agree wholeheartedly:

Vanguardism must be repeatedly emphasized, because the instinct of every politician seems to do the exact opposite. Politicians are inveterate panderers and flatterers of the public mind, which unfortunately has been completely molded by our enemies for generations. Politicians follow the people. Vanguardists seek to lead them. Politicians take public opinion as a given. Vanguardists seek to change it. Politicians always seek to soften their message to appeal to the public. Vanguardists realize this is folly. If one attracts lukewarm followers who are in only partial agreement, then under normal circumstances, you will be fighting with them as much as with your opponents — and when things get tough, they will sheer off and leave you alone anyway.

That’s what I’ve been preaching for years – mainstreaming, at its best, will leave you with support a mile wide and an inch deep.  I’d rather have the opposite: support only an inch wide, but a mile deep, and then take the time to expand that mile deep support ever wider. Greg seems to agree; thus:

Thus Vanguardists realize that there is no real substitute for the slow, painstaking, and difficult work of converting a significant minority of our people to our way of thinking. We have to uphold a radical and absolute vision and then bring as many of our people around as possible.

Yes, indeed.  Less Le Pen and more Golden Dawn. Less Trump and more Salter. Less Alt Right/Alt Lite/Alt Wrong and more EGI Notes.  Let’s talk about the ideas of Yockey rather than obsess over cartoon frogs or civic nationalist political candidates.  How about more emphasis on Codreanu and the Legionary movement and less emphasis on how to boost Marine Le Pen’s vote totals?

And then we have this:

 
We should follow the old Roman maxim, “Suaviter in modo, fortiter in re”: suave, supple, and infinitely pragmatic and persuasive in style — yet firm and steadfast, indeed adamantine and dogmatic about essential principles.

Which is exactly what I’ve been saying for a long time. Modifying rhetoric and tone?  Certainly. After all, the hard tone of this blog is not meant for the general public.  But modifying core principles?  Absolutely not. And even if we wanted to do so, it doesn’t work.  Mainstreaming fails, time and time again.

…extremists are important. Cultural and political innovations take place on the extremes, at the margins, and then are diffused to — or imposed upon — the mainstream. Thus we should treasure extremists. We should cultivate them. We should encourage their creativity. 

I certainly agree.  I would like to see this attitude actualized.

Then we should steal their best memes and spread them far and wide.

If only people in the “movement” would steal my best memes and spread them far and wide. Please do.

And foremost among those memes is that the “movement” is a complete failure, needs to be deconstructed, and reconstructed starting with first principles.

Who Has Been Right?

Who’s been mostly right?

Let’s get one thing out of the way: Der Movement was right about Trump’s chances of winning and I was wrong.  Now that we got that one aberrant item out of the way, let’s get to the “meat” of the issue.

Der Movement invested an enormous amount of intellectual and moral capital in Donald Trump the man, labeled “the last chance of White America” aka the “God Emperor” who is going to save us from demographic displacement. Someone else – who might that be? – clearly asserted that Trump is a vulgar, ignorant buffoon, a pro-Jewish and pro-Negro cuck, who is not worthy of the breathless onanistic support of racial activists.  Unlike Der Movement and its slavish hero worship and Man on White Horse Syndrome obsessions, I made a clear distinction between Trump the man – a disaster – and Trump the campaign, Trump the movement, Trump the right-wing populist.  I made clear that the only real reason to support Touchback Trump was the perception – not reality, but perception – that Trump is a “racist fascist” thus inducing racial chaos and balkanization in America.

The outcome?  Trump has been constantly cucking, betraying his base, but, because of leftist hysteria and perceptions, political violence and chaos has skyrocketed.  Sallis right, Der Movement wrong.

I also made the point that Trump’s supporters were more important than Trump himself – and, yes, we see Trump’s supporters battling leftist thugs in the streets while Trump himself wimps out on a constant basis.  Sallis correct once again.

I have been warning about Silk Road White nationalism and the trend of Asians pimping out their women to pathetic beta activists in order to further Asian racial agendas.  Lo and behold we have Chinese “maidens” and Japanese “shady ladies” infiltrating and subverting White nationalist blogs. Surprise!

[We can ask how these “shady ladies” find the time to not only run their own Asian supremacist blog, but also leave long and rambling posts in the AltRightosphere.  Do they have a (White) sugar daddy supporting them? Spoiled rich kid living off daddy’s money? Or, perhaps, just like the Russian government is said to pay Internet trolls, China does the same?]

I warned against the Alt Lite/Alt Wrong, and was very sharp toward the Alt Right because of the Alt Right’s “big tent” embrace of the aforementioned elements. Then we saw the Alt Lite/Alt Wrong throw Spencer under the bus, re: Hailgate and chuckle with the Jewish friends, giving consolation to Jews that “Spencer is likely to get shot.”  Absolutely disgusting – Brimelow and Derbyshire leading the list of speakers.  Do you need any more indication on why the Alt Wrong is wrong?

Back online in the very early 2000s, I was critical of the clownshow of the National Alliance even before Pierce died, and we see the utter collapse of the organization since then.

I was sharply critical of Marine Le Pen and mainstreaming and we saw Le Pen go down to a catastrophic loss, and mainstreaming also lost in The Netherlands, Austria, and Australia. Der Movement, on the other hand, exhibited delusions about Le Pen and are still pontificating about “how well” Le Pen actually did, even after her shocking “blow out loss.” Sallis right, Der Movement wrong.

This is a question of judgement.  Who, dear reader, do you trust? Should you trust? Will you trust?

Mainstreaming R.I.P.

It is time to move on from mainstreaming.  It is time to move on from a failed “movement.”

Her Majesty, the Imperial Milady Marine of Mainstreaming, has fallen.  Will we see any honest analysis of this disaster?  Doubtful, other than here at EGI Notes.

If mainstreaming worked, we would still have to debate whether the compromises and moderation is all worth it.  But here’s the point: It doesn’t work. Once again, to be clear: Mainstreaming does not work.

Moderating Marine has achieved nothing more, electorally speaking, than her more radical father (who she denounced) did.  So, what’s the point?  Look at Austria, look at the Netherlands, look at Australia, there’s no payoff. “Where’s the beef,” so to speak?  Where’s the advantage?  Golden Dawn is not in power in Greece; the Front National is not in power in France.  They are equally not in power.  Perhaps both models need revision?

If mainstreamers justify their strategy by the possibility of electoral success, and if mainstreamers continuously fail, then why is mainstreaming still considered legitimate? Why? Yes, I can see that it may make theoretical sense, at least to those amenable to (at least temporary) compromise.  But political theory must be judged, ultimately, in how it is actualized in the laboratory of real world experience.  One forms a hypothesis and tests it. According to Popper, if the data show the hypothesis to be wrong, it should be abandoned. Perhaps the situation is more akin to Kuhn and paradigm shifts.  Activists with an intellectual and emotional investment in mainstreaming will continue to create ad hoc explanations for its failures, and resist rejection of their theory/hypothesis.  Eventually though, the sheer volume of contradictory data, combined with the rise of new activists unencumbered by adherence to failed ideas, will shift the worldview, and a realization of the emptiness of mainstreaming will occur, and a new paradigm, more hard and radical, will take its place.

Perhaps that will happen.  But the time!  The time!  Can we waste so much time with people ignoring the facts right in front of their face?

I have previously written about the phenomenon of faux-sophistication, and we may be seeing some of that with the adherents of mainstreaming.  

A clear example of this psychological flaw is seen in sports.  Sportswriters and other so-called “experts” endlessly pontificate about the values and virtue of “defense” – so as to contrast their “sophisticated expertise” and “refined tastes” from the “crude” casual fans who, presumably, enjoy lots of offense, action, and scoring.  Thus, the “expert” sniffs: “[fill in name of sport] is 90% defense.” Well, from a logical standpoint, that’s nonsense – games are won by the team that scores the most points, goals, runs, etc.; therefore, scoring and preventing scoring are of equal value and hence any team sport is going to be, in general, 50% offense and 50% defense.  But let’s not let logic and common sense get in the way of preening expertise!

The same applies to politics.  Hillary Clinton’s campaign foundered in part because of snarky millennials and their “data” and “expert” advice to concentrate on “turning out the base” –in sharp contrast to Bill Clinton’s ignored advice to throw a bone or two at the Rust Belt White working class.  

Meanwhile, on the Far Right, the “experts” sniff with disdain at radicals who insist on such outdated concepts as non-negotiable fundamental principles, and instead these heroic “experts” extol the virtue of compromise and moderation.  And they keep on losing, over and over and over again. But they know better you see.  And by taking positions that contrast to all those knuckle-dragging radical extremists, these “experts” seem like real smart and professional and polished and all.  They keep on losing, but they lose with style!

Some would argue that I’m being “premature” and we need to be patient and give mainstreaming more time to succeed.  At what point does this patience move from prudent circumspection to blind adherence to a failed hypothesis? Marine Le Pen was the clearest test of mainstreaming so far, and the test was failed like all that preceded it.  I’m not sure repeating the same over and over again is going to yield significantly different results. That she did better than her father with respect to percentages, but still failed – is this progress? Perhaps the assertion that the Front National has attracted more youthful supporters than before will be accredited to mainstreaming.  But, putting aside that Le Pen still failed, we can ask – are youth really attracted by mainstreaming and moderation? That’s doubtful.  Yes, they may want more “liberal” social mores, but the key issues of race and immigration, and sovereignty, are what motivates most Front National supporters, and with respect to those key issues I’m doubtful that high-spirited and energetic youth, some of whom are involved in the Identitiarian movement, are really looking for mainstreaming and moderation.  In the end, despite whatever the youth wants, the bottom line is, again, that Le Pen failed. Mainstreaming failed (again), big time.

“Farstreaming” has in fact been more successful.  Sometimes politicians can be more successful being more radical.  That may be context-dependent, but it is clear that “moving to the center” simply hasn’t worked.

If we can agree on that, then we can start the process of formulating alternatives.  Activists need to stop listening to memes that sound good in theory but consistently fail in practice.

A counter-argument will be that radicalism hasn’t worked either.  But what kind of radicalism?  Yes, Nutzi stupidities haven’t worked, I agree.  Historical Nazism brought back in the post-war period hasn’t worked, warmed-over Guntherism (i.e., 99% of “movement” dogma) hasn’t worked, esoteric silliness about “Kali Yuga” and “the men who can’t tell time” hasn’t worked,” and breathless navel-gazing over cephalic indices and fractional admixture percentages hasn’t worked either.

But has anyone tried to formulate EGI/universal nationalism into practical politics?  No.  Has anyone tried to combine radical policy positions with rational and professional rhetoric and a polished presentation?  No.  It’s either been mainstreaming compromise or foaming-at-the-mouth Nutzism.  

The mainstreamers can run but they can’t hide. The French election was not only a catastrophic defeat for nationalism, but it should completely undermine confidence in the mainstreaming fraud. Let’s all sit back and watch the show, the mainstreamers spinning their endless stream of defeats, rewriting history (“We always said Le Pen had no chance of winning!” or “We never were in any way invested in a Le Pen victory!”  or whatever other lie), the mainstreamers moving on to the next election including the next French election (“Hey! We never said that 2017 was the last chance to save France and Europe through the electoral process!”), Der Movement giving the mainstreamers a “free pass” and forgetting their endless stream of bad advice, poor judgment, and catastrophic defeats.

Or will a miracle occur and the mainstreamers admit they are wrong and gracefully bow out and make way for others who don’t pretend they know everything and who want to take an empirical approach to determine, and then utilize, what actually works?

It is up to you, dear reader, to demand change and leave a failed “movement” in the dustbin of history, where it belongs.  I take it endless failure doesn’t appeal to you?  

Murros on Le Pen

Speaking the truth.

See here, emphasis added:

I have the greatest respect for Marine Le Pen. However, I am afraid she is fighting a losing battle. Current populist parties in Europe are only the first wave of nationalism. These parties still operate within the framework of liberal democracy — and often the activists in these parties actually believe that they can change things by playing according to the rules set by the enemy and while society at large is vehemently against them.

The parties of the first wave of nationalism do not challenge the very concept of liberal democracy (for practical reasons this is, of course, perfectly understandable). Also, these parties seldom challenge the prevailing paradigm of modern economics and therefore they do not challenge globalization as such either. Marine Le Pen, however, is a refreshing exception to this and deserves our respect for it.

The parties of the first wave of nationalism often represent the attitude of “business as usual but without the immigrants” or “business as usual and only those immigrants who work [serve us with low pay]”. The parties of the first wave of nationalism often reflect middle-class egoism and bourgeois social opportunism. Unable to grasp the true causes and effects of globalization, these parties often descend into reactionary “conservativism” complemented with economic liberalism and in the worst cases to outright anti-nation state libertarianism.

Marine Le Pen is, thankfully, free from this ideological blindness but as a representative of the first wave of nationalism she can never be radical enough. What Marine Le Pen is lacking is what the Germans call “Wille zur Macht”, the will to power.

However, what Marine Le Pen and the parties of the first wave of nationalism are doing is that they are resurrecting ethnic nationalism, making it culturally acceptable and helping to transform it from an undercurrent to mainstream – racism will be the new black. The radical left is absolutely right; you should never give a platform to nationalists – but this socio-economic/cultural process is beyond anyone’s control and the material forces in history also make it unstoppable.

The second wave of nationalism would be impossible without the Great Paradigm Shift – Marine Le Pen and the first wave of nationalism are indispensable for this shift. The second wave of nationalism is then ruthlessly radical and aims at nothing less than a total destruction of the liberal capitalist system. The violent and totalitarian nature of the second wave of nationalism simply wouldn’t wash without the masses being already conditioned to it by the Great Paradigm Shift.

For a serious political movement to reach the pinnacle of power always requires the collapse of the economy – already nicely under way – and the ensuing revolution/civil war. Islam is the new communism, the fear of which will pave the way for nationalists to absolute power. This unpalatable truth is, no doubt, too much for Marine Le Pen to digest. Therefore, FN is not a revolutionary party and has no chance of achieving even a fraction of what it promises to people. The second wave of nationalism then finally delivers.