Mad Rant: The So-Called Far Right

The Mad Monarchist rants on those Revolutionary parties in Europe who get called 'conservative' or 'extreme right' by the international socialist MSM.

From The Mad Monarchist (26 September 2011)

Something the late U.S. President Ronald Reagan famously said was, “Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?” I fully agree with that sentiment, especially when it comes to monarchy. You are either for it or against it, speak up and say so. Be one thing or the other. Lately I’ve been asked about some of the allegedly right-wing groups gaining in popularity in Europe and am most especially concerned about those in the remaining monarchies on the continent. I say “allegedly right-wing” because these groups often pose as or are labeled as hard core conservatives, traditionalists or right-wing. I am here to warn you that, in many if not most cases, they are not products of the political right at all and are certainly not worthy of the support of traditional monarchists even if they do try to sing an enticing song now and then.
 
In some cases, they make no secret of their true intentions, for others they try to be more subtle. Let me state at the outset that some of these parties have elements of their platforms that I would support and the really unfortunate thing is that sometimes they are the only ones addressing such issues because the more mainstream parties prefer to bury their heads in the sand rather than confronting difficult, long-term problems. However, again, were I voting on the far side of the pond, my first test would be where they stand on monarchy (and religion as I view the issues as inseparable but this is not primarily a religious blog so we’ll stick with monarchy for the time being). If they do not support their monarchy then I would never support them, no matter how many other issues I might agree with them on. The monarchy is one sure way to tell the difference between the revolutionaries and the counter-revolutionaries. What is needed is counter-revolution and I will NOT support any revolutionaries regardless of whether the media classifies them as left wing or right wing revolutionaries. A revolutionary is a revolutionary pure and simple and they are all poison to me.

Let me list a few examples. Probably the most infamous in the English-speaking world is the BNP or British National Party which has generated some populist support in reaction to the screams of Islamic radicals in London for the government to be overthrown and Islamic law enforced. Strident BNP opposition to this and their calls for curbs to immigration appealed to some people (and I can understand why) but they are wolves in sheep’s clothing. They decry capitalism as loudly as any socialists and their economic platform includes direct attacks on private property (say goodbye to the aristocracy), all in the name of nationalism of course, but including many of the same big government solutions the socialists have used to ruin most of Europe. Their leader has said openly that he is a republican and they have clearly shown that the monarchy means nothing to them. Christianity is treated in the same way, given no real support but simply used as a political football when convenient to have something to throw back at the Muslims. Their leadership (originally and much evidence says currently) voice support for Adolf Hitler and we all know what an avowed anti-aristocracy, anti-monarchist and anti-Christian revolutionary he was -and if you don’t believe me just read his book, he established that right away.

I will not address the Scandinavian monarchies since I know very little about their politics and based on what I do know there seems to be very little diversity of political thought. So, moving on to the Low Countries we have the most problematic in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. It is in the grand, old Netherlands that we have the figure of Geert Wilders who won many conservative plaudits for his strident opposition to Islam and multiculturalism. However, do not be fooled, this man is no traditional conservative either. Raised Catholic, he abandoned the Church as a young man and is an agnostic. I don’t think many people are aware of this, at least in America, who only know him from things like his appearance on the late Glenn Beck program. The man is no Christian, he is an atheist who dislikes Christianity only slightly less than he dislikes Islam. He does not fear Islam replacing Christianity in the Netherlands, he fears it replacing his beloved leftist, secular society. He is an expansionist who has called for the annexation of Flanders, greater direct democracy (something the BNP also favors -as did the likes of Mussolini before he grabbed power), numerous socialist policies, he is pro-homosexual, wants to abolish the Dutch Senate and has tried to remove the Queen of the Netherlands completely from any role in government. The “Party for Freedom” is not a monarchist party!

Moving down to Belgium things are somewhat better and somewhat worse. The worse part is that the anti-monarchists are stronger in Belgium but the better part is that the Belgians cannot agree on anything these days so until they at least manage to form a government the monarchy seems safe. The New Flemish Alliance, led by Bart De Wever, and all Flemish nationalist parties I have ever even heard of have all been anti-monarchy, either blatantly so or at least by virtue of the fact that they are anti-Belgium. Make no mistake about it, Flemish nationalists who support the monarchy *do not exist*. Period. They are also descended from a political heritage that collaborated with the Nazis and was very much the Flemish version of the German Nazi Party. They would despise the Belgian Royal Family if for no other reason than that they tend to speak French better than Dutch. They are a real and immediate threat to the Kingdom of Belgium and, to make things worse, they have been increasingly embraced by more respectable groups outside the country lately. The closest thing to a nationalist party in the French-speaking half of the country is the National Front, the Belgian version of the French party made famous by the Le Pen family. They purport to be all about national unity but when I posted a question on their Facebook page asking them to clarify their support for the monarchy, not only did they refuse to answer but erased the question. They also seem quite friendly with other groups that are frankly Nazis with a name change. However, the up side is that they seem to have almost no popular support at all.

Spain I don’t think is worth going into as we have been over most of that ground before. The die-hard Falangists oppose the King because he ruined their beloved dictatorship by making Spain a constitutional monarchy. Moreover, that group, before Franco took over leadership, was pretty much republican anyway. As for the Carlists, they don’t agree with anyone on anything, even each other, and the few who remain are ignored. It should also be pointed out, again, all of the Spanish separatist groups are adamantly republican and no monarchists do or could support them. Besides which, the way things are going now, the policies of the revolutionary left will be the ruin of Spain long before the revolutionary right ever gets their act together. However, this brings up an important point, an important theme running through this little rant, I’ve touched on it before, but it never ceases to infuriate me. Groups such as these that are lumped together as “conservative” or “right wing extremists” are nothing of the sort and have nothing to do with the traditional political “right” in any way whatsoever! They are largely modern-day Nazis with a nose job and, make no mistake about it, Hitler was every bit as much of a revolutionary as Robespierre, Lenin or Chairman Mao.

You don’t have to take my word for that, read what guys like Hitler, Mussolini or any of the modern political leaders mentioned above have said on the subject of aristocracy, Christianity or monarchy and you will see that they have all been vehemently opposed to all of it. I will repeat, whether they are “left wing” revolutionaries or “right wing” revolutionaries, a revolutionary is a revolutionary and the world does not need any more of that. Counterrevolution (in a big way) is what we need. Hitler was virulently anti-monarchist, he despised the Hapsburgs in particular. From his book it sounds as though it all boils down to a grudge he held since he was a young man shoveling snow at a party the Hapsburgs attended and none bothered to bring the little wuss a cup of coffee. He held the typical Marxist class hatred for those born better off than he was and as the “old guard” he had to overcome to achieve power. Mussolini called a truce with the monarchy when it served his purpose but later his true republican colors rose to the surface as he lamented the fact that his “fascist revolution” had stopped at the throne and that he had not overthrown the King when he had the chance.

True, Hitler tried sucking up to the Kaiser when he was trying to get the real conservatives on his side but once the Kaiser made it clear that he wasn’t buying the load of crap Hitler was peddling, he dropped him and banned all royals from front-line service, placed most of them under surveillance and even sent a few to the concentration camps. He famously boasted of his contempt for the aristocracy and that in his “New Germany” all class distinctions would be abolished. Likewise, Mussolini endured the King so long as he did not oppose him but once he was dismissed immediately reverted back to his socialist, anti-royal, anti-religion roots as dictator of his puppet “Salo Republic”. Just because these people were against democracy does not mean they were not revolutionaries. Just as the Communists championed the “dictatorship of the working class” they championed the dictatorship of themselves, and they happened to be commoners, and like all revolutionary movements the focus was still on “the people” rather than God, tradition or the monarch. History has shown that movements that claim to be “for the people” also tend to be the most destructive toward “the people” whether one looks at the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution or revolutionary leftists like the Brown Shirts or the Black Shirts. And if you don’t believe they were leftists, just take a look at their original party platforms, they would fit right in with most leftists today for the most part.

Nationalism can be dangerous when taken to extremes. Yet, like some, I favor nationalism rather than internationalism. However, as much as you might be inclined to agree with some of what the likes of Griffin, Wilders or De Wever might say do not be taken in by them. They are no more friends of the “Old Order” than the avowed leftists who most denounce them are. The sad fact is that in modern Europe true servants of the traditional order are few and far between. Some may reason that in times of great crisis one might have to ‘cut cards with the devil’ but I would advise extreme caution and I certainly would not regard any of those mentioned as being worth the risk. Remember that kingdoms have been lost before, and not a few, because they thought they could sup with the devil and found out in the end that their spoon was not long enough. Remember the story about the coyote and the scorpion? It is in the nature of all revolutionaries to destroy rather than restore and they will ultimately revert to their own nature. The fact that some continue to be taken in by them makes me a very … Mad Monarchist.