The Hijacking of Nationalism (and Populism Too)

Populism, distilled to its most essential, is a pure and ideology-free method of redress for the peasants of any given country.

What is Nationalism then? Well, I would argue that it is simply outwardly-facing Populism. If the problems that a nation faces are internal, then we can call efforts by the peasants to band together and demand redress either peaceably (more or less) or perhaps more … kinetically as a manifestation of Populism. But, if a nation faces outward enemies, then Nationalism is yet another method of banding together to demand redress or to defend oneself.

But if only things were so simple.

Unfortunately there are various kook ideologies that try to hijack the power of Populism and Nationalism and use them for their own ends. This ideological hijacking is particularly visible and pernicious in our day and age when it comes to Nationalism and so has to be intelligently resisted.

The problem is also readily apparent with Nationalism, where, the pure expression of a people’s ethnic solidarity is undermined by spook ideologies like Communism, Liberalism or whatever else. These ideologies use the power of, say, Russian Nationalism to spread Communism across Europe or American Nationalism to spread Liberal Democracy over the world. Both are bastardizations of the purer, simpler, ethnic, peasant solidarity movement that defines Nationalism in its distilled, pristine form.

Ideological hijacking makes Nationalism turn feral.

Don’t believe me? Just look at what is going on in Ukraine. As I have written previously, the Liberals of Kiev are the most bloodthirsty advocates of exterminating Russians in the Donbass. However, when pressed about their actual beliefs, one finds that they all support the LGBTQ+ agenda, Black Lives Matter, and are quick to condemn you for anti-neoconism for pointing out that Ukrainians do not rule Ukraine and never have. Ukrainian Nationalism then, has simply become a vehicle for the local elite to more closely align themselves with American Liberal hegemony. Just listen to what they say about this war themselves: this is a war to promote Liberal Democratic Values against the threat of Authoritarianism that Russia represents. Unlike other bloggers, I don’t try to say that this is not the case. This is exactly what this conflict is about. The graft, the lying, the intimidation and the outright murder you see being committed by Ukraine and NATO aren’t proof that they aren’t Liberal Democracies. Far from it - these things have been the defining features of Liberal Democracies since the system was first birthed from the darkest recesses of the chaos warp.

And you don’t even have to look at Ukraine to understand what I’m saying here: just look at the US. The United States channels Americans’ nationalism to create a vast merchant empire that serves the interests of Israel’s foreign policy in the Middle East. American Nationalism has become inseparable from Zionism. This is a corruption and perversion of what American Nationalism could have been and what it used to be - namely, an isolationist, America First platform.

We are, all of us, constantly getting duped into supporting the extracurricular projects of the powers that be. But the engine behind this effort is the power of Nationalism (and Populism too). Even when it is condemned by the oligarchical power structure in both Russia, Ukraine, Europe, and the US, it is still being channeled and used - to the detriment of the people who are being asked to bleed and sacrifice for its advancement, of course.

“Perhaps this is a good enough reason to do away with Nationalism and Populism all together,” you say.

The only problem is that Populism and Nationalism are as natural as the rain and are ingrained into the DNA and memeplex of any healthy people. Furthermore, as I alluded to earlier, the same people who want to shoot you up with the death vax and strip you of whatever freedoms you had left seem to think that Populism and Nationalism are the two greatest evils that the world faces. That useful heuristic alone, along many many other red flags, should give us all pause. Further-furthermore, peasant self-pride has a lot of positive side-effects that we take for granted.

Living in relatively homogenous societies with people more or less similar to us leads to peace and plenty within the borders. Without homogeneous nations, the wars between countries simply move to the streets and roads of once relatively peaceful communities. “Crime” is largely a fake concept and a psy-op, really. Most crime is not committed by criminals, but by organized ethnic and religious mafias. For example, America’s blacks prey on Korean grocery stores, Whites whose GPS got them to take a wrong turn into the ghetto, and on other rival gangs of blacks, of course. Albanians traffic people all over Europe and sell drugs and arms to Islamic terrorist groups while working hand-in-hand with the CIA. And, of course, a certain tribe in particular, uses every imaginable vice and crime under the sun to wage psychological, cultural and biological war against their ancient blood enemies in every nation that they set up shop in.

It’s an old right-wing talking point, but it’s 100% true - crime is just low-scale guerrilla warfare waged against the host population by hostile minorities. If the peasants had the power to organize amongst themselves, they’d simply solve the predation problem by kicking out the ethnic and religious criminals. The police, secret or otherwise, in contrast, do not want to solve the problem of crime, only to contain and profit from it. Should the problem actually be solved, they’d be out of a job. As a result, they spend more time policing the people being preyed on than the actual criminals. For most of human history, there has been no need for an organized police. Only in large port cities, historically, have the authorities had to create something resembling a privatized and professional police force to keep the peace among the bickering traders and the various riff-raff.

But you never needed police in the heartland countryside, did you? Hmm, I wonder why.

Nationalism, as we have seen in many instances, is only ever championed when it serves the interests of the powers that be. But, again only certain elements of Nationalism are ever allowed to manifest. Populism is hardly ever allowed to exist side-by-side with Nationalism. Sure, the Ukrainians are allowed to take out their bloodlust on Russians, but they’re not allowed to ask questions about the oligarchic caste that controls their country’s political system and continues to loot the country’s economy.

The Russian authorities, in contrast, are so afraid of Nationalism that they won’t even tap into it to win a war that they’re currently losing. After all, should the people be allowed to take pride in their country and regain a feeling of ownership over it, they would eventually start asking questions about the same group of oligarchs that owns most of it.

It is a dangerous position to be in - to be a genuine populist-nationalist and to speak out against injustice against one’s fellow peasants.

The reason for this is because power, ultimately, is relative if not exactly finite. So, every sliver of power that the peasants gain back is a piece of power that they take back from the oligarchs that oppress them. That is why, sometimes, it feels like organizing to tackle even the smallest problems in your community runs up against so much resistance from every single authority in the land. Even tackling something like crime. Well, the peasants organizing into a militia to clean out the criminals is not tolerated by the state anywhere on our prison planet. Funny enough, any talk of Americans banding together into a militia is immediately condemned as racism, even if the group goes out of its way to prove that they are race-blind like many civic nationalist groups have done in the past. This indicates that there might be a hidden agenda here that is not understood by the peasants themselves, seeing as they take the accusations leveled at them at face value. After all, every time that peasants anywhere band together, they are condemned by the powers that be for being racist, fascist and nationalist/populist no matter how many token non-Whites they allow into their ranks.

Why is that?

As I alluded to earlier, the truth is that the powers that be don’t want to concede any power to the peasants because that is power that the peasants might not be willing to give back and power that they might use to actually solve some of the problems that their community face and thereby become stronger. With this infernal logic at play, to be able to clean the streets of one’s community anywhere appears to necessitate fighting a war not only against criminal gangs, but also the police force that exists in a sort of symbiotic relationship with them, the local political authorities, and eventually, the entire might of the federal government. That them there’s just how it be.

That being said, there are plenty of historical examples of the peasants doing just that and being able to come to a compromise with the highest authority in the land. I can’t help but point out that these instances almost exclusively occurred under the various evil and intolerant Authoritarian governments of centuries past. Since Liberal Democracy took over, these revolts have largely petered out.

Funny that.

The problem is partially, no doubt, because of the conceptual con that Liberal Democracy pulled on the peasantry by pretending to be a government by the people and for the people. Sadly, the vast majority of people in the West believe in the siren song of Human Rights Values Freedom Democracy, and so, as a result, we remain in a conceptual prison, first and foremost. The peasants can conceive of nothing more than the tried and true strategy of “voting harder”. It doesn’t help that their supposed leaders continue to sell them on that failed strategy. The fear is that, of course, should more kinetic methods like strikes and boycotts and sit-ins and organized noncompliance and revolts be tried, that a bloodbath would ensue. This is, of course, entirely true. Anyone who challenges the authority of the powers that be will suddenly discover overnight just how life for the Donbassians has been for the last 8 years and counting. If there’s anything that the Americans got right it’s when they started chanting, “freedom ain’t free” but without really understanding the profound implication of what they were saying.

However, it should be pointed out that this fear is largely misunderstood.

Try driving 10 miles over the speed limit and refuse to pull over when a cop starts tailing you. Literally anything that you do that challenges established authority can lead to a scenario in which you end up bleeding out into the dirt. Try to stop the courts from taking your kids away after a costly and emotionally draining divorce. Dirt, blood, dead.

My point is that all rules are ultimately enforced by low-IQ mercenaries pointing their guns at you and shoving your face into the dirt. Literally every single rule ultimately boils down to that exact scenario somewhere down the line should you refuse to accede to it. And if you and your buddies break the law together, maybe even a more serious law together, then the same scenario plays out simply with more cops, more guns and more faces in the dirt.

But death is death, whether you die because you refused to pull over for going 10 above or whether you refused to hand over your kids to mommy and the lifetime of drug abuse and HRT therapy that this entails, or if you die alone behind a 7/11 or in a group hiding out from the government the woods somewhere.

Death is the ultimate consequence of any continued resistance against the law regardless of the exact rule that you choose to sink your heels in over and continue to defy, really. We ought to have the courage to admit to ourselves that if we could somehow avoid getting killed by a gang of psychopaths, we’d probably go that extra 10 miles over the speed limit, go to our ex’s house and take the kids back, tell the tax authorities to shove it and so on. Most of us can and do admit to as much. However, the conversation, even privately, among friends, changes in tone and tenor when we talk about other, more creative ways to find ourselves bleeding out in the dirt. But the fact remains: there is no real difference in the final result of resisting a rule, any rule, however large or small in the end.

What I’m saying sounds grim, but I think that philosophical and even metaphysical pessimism makes one less afraid, generally. Quite the opposite, I think it put life into perspective and stiffens one’s spine.

Anyways, my main point is that anything that the peasants do to try and take power back from the powers that be and to buck their agenda, will be attacked and labeled as the ultimate evil of its time. The words and labels change, but the perennial zero sum struggle for power does not. And the only way for the peasants to resist the powers that be is to learn how to cooperate with one another, how to cohesively organize themselves and to realize that there’s nothing inherently more evil about defying the rules as a group as opposed to defying them as isolated and powerless individuals.

Furthermore, Populism and Nationalism could just as easily be referred to a “community-building” and “community-defending” respectively. I just use the more transgressive terms because people more-or-less have an idea of what I’m talking about, even if propaganda has conditioned a Pavlovian response in most of them to instinctively reject the label. I could just as easily just refer to these ideas as Community-ism or Peasantism. Unfortunately, the slogan, “power to the people” has been hijacked by the Communists, as I’m sure you’re aware. That is a shame, of course, because it is a powerful slogan and a powerful idea that Communism, with its centralized committees of commissars has hijacked and used to brutalize the people in ways that the world had never even seen before.

See what I mean about hijacking? It’s a serious problem. Worse, we’re rapidly running out of words in the English language at this point that haven’t been poisoned through this hijacking or the guilt-by-association. We’re forced to think of something exotic-sounding and new with each new historical cycle, even though we’re really talking about concepts as old as time itself.

Boiled down to its most essential, what I’m preaching here on the populism section of this blog is the need to become strong on an individual level, and then on a group level with the goal of eventually prying back the strength that was stolen from us by gangs of criminal psychopaths and the voodoo ideologies that they try to force on us.

I want to call my ideology something like the “make people strong and cooperative so that they can self-organize to take their power back from their enemies and at the same time intellectually inoculate them against conmen trying to tell them that strength and cohesion is bad because it violates a sacred tenant of a voodoo ideology/religion” platform.

What do you think about the name? Kind of long, I guess. Doesn’t really roll off the tongue, does it?

Perhaps we ought to just refer to it as Roloism on this blog going forward?