Search Results for: purge

Middle American Resistance, Nullification, and the Purge of the Military

By Wayne Allensworth

In earlier pieces on Middle American Resistance (see here and here, for instance), your humble servant wrote that gun control could be the issue that galvanizes that resistance.  From counties to whole states, a showdown with the globalist Blob has been shaping up over what may be the bridge too far Middle America won’t allow to be crossed.

Under front man Biden, the Blob is preparing to attempt to cross that bridge. The aim, of course, is not to halt the recent surge in “gun violence.”  That would mean throwing more black criminals in jail, wrecking the Blob’s “white supremacist” threat narrative.  The aim is to disarm us, the people the globalists really fear

County sheriffs, other county level officials, state governments, and towns and cities around the country have refused to enforce gun control measures in “2nd Amendment sanctuary” zones.  In January, after a number of Texas counties had done just that, Governor Greg Abbot stated that he wanted Texas to become a 2nd Amendment sanctuary state so that “no government official at any level” could infringe Texans’ 2nd Amendment rights. 

Nullification is a key weapon in Middle America’s fight for survival. 

The states are resisting on other fronts as well.  Texas, for instance, had previously sued the federal government over the Biden administration’s intention to end immigration enforcement, and is at it again. Gun control may be the emotional trigger that sets off Middle American resistance, but it is mass immigration that has been the Blob’s indispensable weapon of mass destruction in its war on “deplorable” America.  We must act to preserve a sanctuary for our people if they are to have any future at all.

The key question is what the Blob intends to do about all this, but the administration’s intention to purge the military may tell us something. As noted in this space previously, the “boots on the ground” are largely on our side, so it’s no surprise that the Blob is targeting “extremists” in uniform. 

Don’t expect any help from bogus “populists” in the national level GOP—and we should not take it for granted that Republican “beautiful losers” at any level are completely trustworthy.

Wayne Allensworth is the author of The Russian Question: Nationalism, Modernization, and Post-Communist Russia, and a novel Field of Blood

With the United States of America Controlled by Radical Leftists, What Does “Patriotism” Mean?

By Wayne Allensworth

The old America many of us remember fondly has died of a theory — the theory of radical egalitarianism manifested since the 1960’s as the “blank slate” view of human nature. Sensible people acknowledge — or at least quietly admit to themselves — that social-economic disparities among racial and ethnic groups are most likely the natural result of differences in the abilities and interests of those groups. Engineering an equality of outcomes for all would require totalitarianism. Freedom or absolute equality, take your pick.

The globalists and their leftist allies cannot ever admit such a thing, as it would mean denying their ideology and the viability of their project of radically restructuring the world. Thus, the Revolution is never ending, as the goal of absolute equality is impossible. Like the Soviets under Stalin, the revolutionaries must constantly seek explanations for the failure of the Plan. If blacks are disproportionately imprisoned, then “systemic racism” must be to blame. If women are “underrepresented” in STEM fields, there must be a nefarious “glass ceiling” blocking their advancement. And that means a forever witch hunt for “wreckers” and “saboteurs” in the form of phantom “white supremacists” working through an invisible “institutional racism” supported by an evil “patriarchy.”

What’s more, as the Revolution becomes institutionalized, sweeping all before it, it becomes both a fervently religious project, as people who have lost their traditional religion seek redemption by other means, and a vehicle for upward mobility within the system that supports it. As with Stalinist apparatchiks in the USSR, advancement by denunciation is a viable means of working within the system, though the virtue-signaling apparatchiks themselves must be ever watchful, lest the Revolution consume its children.

Sleepy Joe’s administration is radically left-wing, openly pursuing an anti-American agenda that was implicit during Obama’s presidency. From imposing “critical race theory” to purging the military to essentially ending border controls, all with the encouragement and support of a vast array of mass media, government agencies, educational institutions, and corporations, the managerial system is brazenly and unabashedly deconstructing the vestiges of an old America it despises. For all intents and purposes, the Globalist Blob is our system of government. The “checks and balances” and representative institutions you learned about in school are corrupt, even inoperative, especially at the national level. We cannot expect the law to protect us “deplorables.” Derek Chauvin’s conviction was a foregone conclusion. Donating money to Kyle Rittenhouse’s defense fund can get you fired.

“Constitutionalism” as a defensive strategy is a failure, not only because our opponents have deconstructed and re-interpreted the document itself practically out of existence, but because the most ardent constitutionalists failed to acknowledge that the document and the political structures related to it were the products of a specific time, place, and people, and that constitutionalism itself cannot remain viable if the heirs of the people who created it are attacked, degraded, denounced, and replaced.

Our vaunted “freedom” was not something that happened by accident or because of ideology. It was a cultural artifact of our people, of the habits and customs they inherited. There cannot be any America without a strong, confident, and self-aware American ethnos. That’s why our very determined enemies carry on a relentless assault on “white supremacy.” It explains why they attack “whiteness,” including the presumption of innocence, the Electoral College, and the concept of equality before the law.

The United States of America as a political manifestation of the American ethnos is dead, but the ethnos, weakened and under siege, lives on. Acknowledging that the global capital on the Potomac and the system it represents are indeed hostile to us is a necessary step toward thinking about what comes next. To begin again, a reassessment of what “patriotism” means is necessary.

At this late date, with our enemies firmly in control, Scott Greer correctly answered the question of what patriotism means for the American Remnant:

Wayne Allensworth is a Corresponding Editor for Chronicles Magazine. He is the author of The Russian Question: Nationalism, Modernization, and Post-Communist Russia, and a novel Field of Blood   

We’re All Charlottesville Now

By Carolina Contrarian

The debacle at the United States Capitol building last January 6th is still being analyzed and debated, but we can already see the shape the fallout is taking. Nancy Pelosi recently claimed that the rioters “chose their Whiteness over democracy.” Arnold Schwarzenegger likened the event to a Nazi attack. A chorus of left-wing politicians, and some supposedly right-wing ones, are decrying the protests as being rooted in White Supremacy.

What is happening to the Stop the Steal rally attendees is exactly what happened to the Charlottesville Unite the Right attendees, writ large.

Attendees of the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally self-identified as many things – historical preservationists, Southern heritage supporters, Southern Nationalists, American nationalists. Others, probably a small minority, could accurately be described as “supremacists.” In keeping with the “Unite the Right” theme, about a thousand people were in attendance, representing a wide variety of differing goals and beliefs.

All of them – ALL OF THEM – were relentlessly branded as “Nazis” and “White Supremacists” by the national news media.

ALL OF THEM were implicitly blamed for the events of the day, which has now been firmly cemented in the minds of the American public as a “deadly White Supremacist rally.”

The most powerful voices in America, seeing an opportunity to further a narrative favorable to their goals, did not care to ask whether it was accurate to describe everyone there as a “Nazi” or “White Supremacist,” and they did not care to ask about the degree of blame due to the authorities for the “deadly” part.

Most of the American public uncritically lapped up the preferred narrative of the elites, that Nazis and White Supremacists, emboldened by their leader Donald Trump, had laid siege to Charlottesville, Virginia, resulting in carnage. The few people who knew the truth of the matter, branded with the most foul possible stigma and hobbled by censorship, were powerless to refute the myth.

The villainized attendees suffered varying types and degrees of political and criminal persecution. Some who engaged in physical altercations were punitively overcharged for their actions, while serious misbehavior on the part of leftist counter-protesters was minimized, ignored, or even celebrated. Civil cases which may be described as “lawfare” were filed against parties involved with organizing the event. Some attendees were doxxed and hounded into ostracism and unemployment by self-righteous mobs of activists.

This is what people must understand: Everything that happened at Unite the Right in Charlottesville is happening again with Stop the Steal in DC. The kneecapping of the extreme right elements that gathered in Virginia was a dress rehearsal for what is happening to Heritage Americans as a whole now. Just as the “punch a Nazi” meme turned overnight from “It’s okay to punch Richard Spencer” to “It’s okay to punch anyone with a Trump hat,” the condemnation of Charlottesville participants has morphed into condemnation of all American nationalists.

Other aspects of the Charlottesville reaction are being repeated. There are calls to charge people who are guilty of at most trespassing and vandalism with treason and sedition. There was a swift and severe deplatforming and censorship reaction that reached all the way up the highest office in the land, affecting then-President Donald Trump. While half the country’s communications were hampered, an alternative, false interpretation of the events is being hammered into the public by our elite class. Treason! Sedition! An attempted violent coup of our democracy inspired by conspiracy theories about election fraud, and egged on with incitement from the losing candidate. (A video in which Donald Trump clearly told his supporters to protest “peacefully and patriotically” is being scrubbed from the internet.)

Another similarity in the Charlottesville rally and the Capitol “siege” is the conspicuous absence of law enforcement. In Charlottesville, witnesses on both sides of the political spectrum reported, and an independent investigation confirmed, that an ineffectual and passive law enforcement presence was a major factor in the calamitous turn of events. It is shocking that our Capitol building could be easily breached by a disorganized group of mostly unarmed protesters, and it is puzzling that this egregious failure of law enforcement is scarcely mentioned.

Another aspect of the Charlottesville fallout is beginning to be repeated. Jason Kessler, the organizer of the Charlottesville rally, has for several years been reporting on the journo-activists who targeted attendees of Unite the Right – activists like Ford Fischer and AC Thompson who created an award-winning documentary on exposing “hate.” For this work, they besieged Unite the Right attendees by, for example, ambushing them with camera crews at their place of employment. Their reporting omits mention of the threats and violent behavior of the left-wing participants, and uses deceptive editing and scary music to portray the rally participants as dangerous. Kessler explains, “These men essentially blood libel the participants of the protests by omitting crucial evidence that makes them look bad.”

Unite the Right participants did not expect the events to go awry as they did. However, most of them at least realized that expressing their beliefs would shock some people and draw strong criticism. Participants of Stop the Steal are, by contrast, lambs to the slaughter. Most of them are moderate, conservative Americans who are operating under the assumption that we still live in the country in which they grew up. Unite the Right attendees were disabused in 2017 of the idea that freedom of speech and assembly are still protected. MAGA-Americans are for the most part unaware that we are experiencing a shift to a new regime – a regime in which expressing a belief in traditional American values may be considered domestic terrorism. They have no idea that they are potential targets for doxxing, violence, un-personing, and abusive prosecution which befell the Charlottesville attendees. As the nation becomes assimilated into the reality of the communist regime, they are about to learn a painful lesson.

This article appeared originally on the Reckonin website.

Nationalism Is Neither A Heresy, Nor Idolatry, Nor Blasphemy. It’s Piety.

By Darrell Dow

How should Christians respond to the new wave of nationalism cascading across the globe? Regrettably, too many, most notably those who denounce it, fail to define the term before writing about or discussing it. And their analysis, which typically concludes that nationalism is an unalloyed evil, misapplies proof texts and appeals to emotion or rhetorical tropes. Thus do they baptize the dogma of post-WWII liberal globalism. 

Consider the response to the Jericho March, an ecumenical series of prayer vigils that includes Jews, Catholics, Protestants, and media and political celebrities such as Alex Jones, Michele Bachmann, and General Michael Flynn. These small gatherings undoubtedly contain some bizarre theology and strained ecumenism alongside dubious claims of private revelation from the Almighty.  But they are small and relatively inconsequential. Suggesting they are a public threat or dangerous religious movement is a little over the top.

Nevertheless, the marches have drawn the ire of Christian clergymen and public intellectuals, not primarily due to the theological commitments of the organizers, but because of a connection with the #StopTheSteal effort and the charge that Donald Trump was robbed on November 3, 2020. 

Writing for The Gospel Coalition recently, reformed theologian Michael Horton lobbed charges of heresy and blasphemy, calling the “Jericho March” a “sacrilege.” 

“Evangelicals marching on Washington to perpetuate a cult,” he wrote. 

TGC followed up with an even more egregious analysis from Baylor historian Thomas Kidd. Kidd describes nations as “imagined communities” rather than organic, natural, Divinely-created entities. Yet because he fails to define nationalism, Kidd cannot explain why it is “bad” and offers instead the unsubstantiated assertion that “America has long nurtured more problematic forms of Christian nationalism.” He also conflates nationalism with dispensational eschatology and militaristic action designed to bring Heaven to Earth. Kidd is under the illusion that he is describing Donald Trump and Pat Buchanan. In truth, he paints a picture of George W. Bush and Bill Kristol. 

Men such as Horton and Kidd are working feverishly to undermine the nationalist movement by tying it to odd and extraneous elements in American life rather than the legitimate grievances of Middle America. Indeed they seem blissfully unaware that we are living through an elite attempt to fully dechristianize the West.

Is “nationalism” an object of idolatry as Horton, Kidd and others claim? Is Christian Nationalism a heresy or blasphemy? Or are nationality and ethnicity an integral part of God’s economy? Western Civilization, once called Christendom, cannot even be discussed without reference to Christian nations, whose magistrates adopted a fundamental principle that social order and law are predicated on a belief in God. Yet Horton dismisses Christendom as coercive and incompatible with the Gospel, siding with the Anabaptists rather than Knox, Calvin, Zwingli, and Luther. Horton also assumes that he can deconstruct Christian politics apolitically. But his arguments open the door to the emergence of an anti-Christian state that enforces its own orthodoxies.

What is a Nation?  What is ‘Nationalism’?

One of those orthodoxies is that “nationalism” is an evil. But if so, it’s only evil as they define it, or better yet, again, because they don’t define it. 

“Nation” is an Old French term that means “birth, rank; descendants, relatives; country, homeland.” It is directly descended from the Latin (natio) meaning “birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe.” Linguistically, it is connected to the idea of birth. Natal, native, and nativity are, of course, all related. 

Many conservative Christians attempt to disconnect “patriotism” (Good!) from “nationalism” (Bad!). But patriotism is likewise tied to the language of peoplehood. It is derived from the Latin word patria — fatherland — and implies a connectedness to family, to the father (pater). Nation and love of country are tied not merely to a place but to family and people.  

Writing in the 19th century, political scientist Francis Lieber, defined nation this way:

The word “nation” in the fullest adaptation of the term, means, in modern times, a numerous and homogeneous population, permanently inhabiting and cultivating a coherent territory, with a well-defined geographic outline, and a name of its own—the inhabitants speaking their own language, having their own literature and common institutions, which distinguish them clearly from other and similar groups of people, being citizens or subjects of a unitary government, however subdivided it may be, and having an organic unity with one another as well as being conscious of a common destiny.

Anthony Smith, one of the foremost scholars of nationalism, identified six criteria for the formation of the ethnic group, or nation, as:

  • A collective identity.
  • A common ancestry.
  • Shared myths and common historical memories.
  • An attachment to a specific territory.
  • A shared culture based on common language, religion, traditions, customs, laws, architecture, institutions etc.
  • An awareness of ethnicity.

Nations arise organically as extensions of families. People organize themselves into distinct groups for the purpose of living together, serving the broader community, providing a series of collective goods, and securing a posterity. Edmund Burke called the nation the “eternal society” — the “primeval contract” that provides continuity among the dead, living, and unborn.

While nationalism can morph into a dangerous ideological construct, it is best understood as the means through which the nation is protected and preserved. It is the self-conscious awareness that seeks to develop and improve the nation, and to codify its existence with laws, government, mores, beliefs, and institutions that make civic life possible.  

Nationalism draws much of its power from the idea that members of the nation are part of an extended family, united by ties of blood and soil. But ethnicity and nationality are also somewhat permeable and subjective realities rather than monochromatic absolutes. In the same way that a family adds and enculturates members who do not share a common lineage or language, a nation can do so, too. But as adoption is not normative, neither is the idea of a multicultural or “universal” nation grounded merely upon a common set of ideas or propositions.   

What Does the Bible Say?

The question for Chrisitans who read Kidd and Horton is this: Does the Bible warrant nationalism? The answer of origins lies in Genesis.

Far from being a product of God’s judgment, God baked national differences and other forms of separation and distinction into the cake of creation that reflects Him. God created by division. He builds a house.   

Scripture opens with these words: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). The Hebrew word used here for God is Elloohiym, which implies divine plurality. The Christian God is trinititarian with three distinct persons sharing the same essence. The Christian God is both one and many, unity and diversity. God created man in his own image. As there are differences within the godhead we expect there to be differences within the created order. 

The Spirit of God peered into chaos and darkness, but by his word spoke creation into existence. The multiplicity of creation is a product of divine power, will and sovereignty: stars and planets, plants and trees, fish and birds. All that diversity exists within unity. Likewise, God created two sexes with multiple personalities, colors and nationalities.  

God also created family — his ordained progenitor of nations — in the Garden. But again, he began by separation. Genesis 2:21-22 says: “So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.” 

Clearly God’s creation was not uniform and monochromatic, but beautiful in its range. In the creation narrative that unfolds in Genesis, the phrase “according to its kind” is repeated. God created different types of plants and fruit trees. He created different kinds of sea creatures, birds, and land animals.  And he created man — male and female. 

Diversity sprang from Adam and Eve. In Genesis 1:28, God gave them a mandate: “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” The same task is given to Noah and his sons after the flood. God gave the family the task of dominion. As God’s vice-regent, they incarnate divine image bearers via procreation and spread His glory. 

The word for “families” shows up repeatedly in Genesis 10, most often translated “clans.” From families, God creates tribes and nations with borders and boundaries separating them. In other words, the Bible teaches us that nations are extended families.  

What Christians “Leaders” Say vs. What the Church Has Taught

The Tower of Babel story in Genesis 11 demonstrates that the desire for a total oneness of humanity — the revolt against divinely appointed and created nationality and ethnicity — stems from pride and rebellion. In verse 4, man attempts to build a city and tower to “make a name for ourselves.” 

In Genesis 11:5-8, God answered: 

And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. And the LORD said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech.” So the LORD dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of all the earth. And from there the LORD dispersed them over the face of all the earth.

God’s message? National, ethnic, and language groups are not arbitrary human creations or social constructs, but divinely ordained entities that reflect the purposes and glory of God. 

But again, most commentary from even conservative Christians casts a wary eye on nationalism. 

Said Mark Labberton, president of Fuller Seminar, “when evangelicals embrace an America-first nationalism, the gospel is co-opted and betrayed.” Baptist author and “evangelist” Beth Moore recently ascended her Twitter pulpit to call “Trumpism” seductive and dangerous, warning that “Christian Nationalism is not of God.”

Speaking of the recent “Jericho March,” Southern Baptist Theological Seminary professors Denny Burk and Andrew Walker said the event represented an incursion of worldliness and “idolatrous Christian Nationalism.”

Moore, who laughably claims that Jesus was an illegal immigrant, spent 2016 chiding Southern Baptists from elite media outlets and gloating over the demise of the “white” church, the Christian Right and the historic American nation.  

“The wrath of God,” said Moore, is revealed against “blood and soil.” This is bumper-sticker theology. The rightly ordered love of family (blood) and place (soil) is obedience, not idolatry. Moore also conflates and flattens natural distinctions in his confusion about the nature of the heavenly and earthly kingdoms. “My family includes many Mexican-born immigrants and second- or third-generation Mexican-Americans. My family is the church of Jesus Christ.”

Wheaton College graduate Michael Gerson, who wrote speeches for President George W. Bush, opined that conservative backers of Donald Trump “are setting the Republican Party at odds with the American story told by Lincoln and King: a nationalism defined by striving toward unifying ideals of freedom and human dignity.”

Here, Gerson appealed to a liberal form of civic “nationalism” predicated on a set of abstractions, propositions and “unifying ideals.” Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, agreed. Mohler thinks that America is not a nation in the traditional sense defined above, but defined strictly by the “creed” of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence — the ideals of classical liberalism, the ideals of the “American experiment.”

Said Mohler: 

[I]f we could put together in a room Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, then fast-forward to Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan, I think that all would absolutely agree upon and insist … that America is a creedal nation. I think if you put all those men in the room, all disparate and diverse as they were, they would be very close in articulating that creed. What has happened to America as a creedal nation?

Responding tartly to a column by Ann Coulter, Mohler wrote that “toxic” American nationalism, “flies right in the face of the gospel of Jesus Christ and in the command of Christ given in the Great Commission.” 

The language these Christian leaders and academics use is historically new and primarily a phenomenon of the post-civil rights era. Prior generations of Christians spoke of the value of nations and also couched their discussion within a web of obligations and duties–a this-worldly piety. 

Geerhardus Vos, for example, wrote that nationalism “has the divine sanction,” and that “under the providence of God each race or nation has a positive purpose to serve, fulfillment of which depends on relative seclusion from others.”

“Nations,” said Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his Nobel Prize speech, “are the wealth of humanity, its generalized personalities. The least among them has its own special colors, and harbors within itself a special aspect of God’s design.”

“Piety must begin at home as well as charity,” wrote Baptist Charles Spurgeon. Purtian Matthew Henry believed that “the highest degrees of divine affection must not divest us of natural affection,” wrote Puritan Matthew Henry. 

“The Hebrew Scriptures do indeed say enough, as in the text, to justify an intense love of native land and its institutions,” Southern Presbyterian R. L. Dabney wrote:  

The aggregation of men into separate nations is therefore necessary; and the authority of the governments instituted over them, to maintain internal order and external defence against aggression, is of divine appointment. Hence, to sustain our government with heart and hand is not only made by God our privilege, but our duty.

Finally, St. Thomas Aquinas

Man is a debtor chiefly to his parents and his country, after God. Wherefore just as it belongs to religion to give worship to God, so does it belong to piety, in the second place, to give worship to one’s parents and one’s country [i.e., one’s people]. The worship due to our parents includes the worship given to all our kindred, since our kinfolk are those who descend from the same parents.

Nationalism Is Not Hostile To The Gospel

Most Christians once understood these obligations and grasped that the cultivation of natural duties preceded the pursuit of supernatural virtues. But now they are taught, and fear, that nationalism impedes the proclamation and spread of the Gospel. 

Thus are those Christians — mostly the eggheads to whom leftist reporters run for scare quotes — not only undermining the country to which they owe allegiance but a proper understanding of Scripture and traditional Christian teaching.

In fact, as I have shown, Scripture assumes nations as divine creations that serve the purpose of aiding man, as Act 17: 26-27 says:

He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. 

As Christ Himself said, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,  teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19-20).

Nationalism is not thus hostile to the Gospel. It is normative and good. Don’t let any priest, prelate, pastor or professor tell you otherwise.

Darrell Dow, who writes from Kentucky, is a regular contributor to American Remnant. A longer version of this article appeared at CrossPolitic.

The Revolution Will Continue, Regardless of the Election’s Outcome

In a recent piece on “woke capital” in The American Conservative, Chronicles Editor Paul Gottfried wrote that “the fascist enemy for the cultural left never goes away.”  Dr. Gottfried went on to mention New York Times film critic Manohla Dargas, in a comment on the film Dunkirk, writing that “the fight against fascism continues.”

We know, of course, which “fascists” Dargas had in mind: Us, the “deplorables,” and our own Agent Orange, Donald Trump, who has come to symbolize all that the cultural left hates and wishes to destroy.

The fight will go on forever.  It cannot end. Permanent revolution is more than a Trotskyite imperative meant as a counter to Stalin’s “socialism in one country.”  It’s a feature of post-industrial cultural leftism.

There are at least two reasons for that. 

One is that the militants attract the disaffected.  They are, as pointed out by the perceptive blogger who calls himself “the Z-Man,” among those left behind by globalism.  Our pathetic militants seek a sense of purpose our society can no longer provide.  That purpose is to be found in the revolution. Thus, the revolution must go on. The enemy must never quite disappear.

It’s something we have seen before in other times and other places.

The revolutionary right of the interwar period (and some in the movement formerly known as the “Alt Right” today), for example, experienced modern life as a stultifying and demoralizing phenomenon.  As they saw it, bourgeoise society was soft, effeminate, and Eloi-like in its sensibilities.  The revolutionary right identified modern life with the castration of their societies.  They longed for something that was missing from their lives—the element of heroic struggle they identified with mythic pre-modern societies.  The struggle was what attracted the street fighters. 

The struggle, whether that of the left or the right, was an end in itself.  

The other reason for justifying perpetual revolution has been the hard reality of human limitations, limitations that have often undercut revolutionary utopian plans in the past.

In explaining that second justification, there are parallels with the Stalinist view that the class war intensifies as socialism advances that we should consider. 

Following the victory of the party of the proletariat in the Soviet Union, for instance, phantom “wreckers” and traitors had to be rooted out long after the reactionaries and deviationists had been defeated.  Something, you see, was spoiling the Plan.  

Collectivization and forced industrialization may have been necessary for the revolution, but Stalin’s application of blunt force combined with socialist theory was woefully inefficient from an economic perspective.  The Soviet regime, however, could not recognize such fatal flaws in its applied ideology.  The assumed presence of hidden enemies, therefore, offered an explanation for the shortcomings and inefficiencies of socialism.  “Wreckers” who were thought to be undermining the Plan had to be identified and eliminated.  Thus, purges and terrorism continued.  

In our own time, the cultural left needed something to fight long after their side had taken over our institutions and enacted “civil rights” laws.  The left won on those fronts, but it needed an explanation for the failure of the previous stage of the revolution to produce the expected result of absolute equality.  At the same time, it needed a justification for endless revolution that would perpetuate its own sense of purpose, as well as its tightening grip on power. 

Sensible people understand that the natural abilities and interests of racial and ethnic groups are unevenly distributed, therefore economic and social outcomes are unequal.  The cultural left will not, indeed, cannot accept that for the same reasons the Soviet regime could not acknowledge the flaws in its system and ideology.  

Thus, “white privilege” and “systemic racism” remain to be rooted out.  Since those alleged phenomena are undetectable to the naked eye, all the better.  

Do not expect the militants to go away, no matter the outcome of the election in November. The cultural left will have need of them. Human nature and other hard facts will not change over the next two months.

Wayne Allensworth is a Corresponding Editor of Chronicles magazine. He is the author of The Russian Question: Nationalism, Modernization, and Post-Communist Russia, and a novel Field of BloodHe writes at .