The Counter-Revolution Revisited

[T]'he ongoing revolution described by Correa de Oliveira and Molnar has continued into our own time, dissolving anything it touches.'

From The European Conservative

By Charles Coulombe, BA, KSS

We must rediscover the principles that—in as many forms as there are Western nations—founded each of our countries and the West as a whole.

The month of June, with its observance of White Rose Day on June 10 and the feast of the Sacred Heart—the Friday following the Octave Day of Corpus Christi, always reminds me of the Jacobites who observed the first day, and of those heroes—in the Vendee, Tyrol, Italy, Spain, Mexico, and elsewhere—who made the Sacred Heart their symbol and tried to share their sacrifices in fighting for the right with that of Jesus on Calvary. What all these groups had in common was that they were counter-revolutionaries—a term that simply meant that they resisted those who usurped power in their respective countries. But few scholars have attempted to explore the history and message of these thinkers and fighters in a coherent way until Brazilian activist Plinio Correa de Oliveira, with his 1959 Revolução e Contra-Revolução, and Hungarian Thomas Molnar, with the 1967 work, The Counter-Revolution.

The first of these interpreted Western history since 1518 as a succession of waves of anti-Catholic——indeed, purely evil—revolutions, proceeding through 1789, 1848, 1917, and so on. Molnar attempted to see why counter-revolutionaries consistently failed but also attempted to do something rarely if ever done before and infrequently since: to see in the opposition to these revolutions as not merely negative naysayers, but holders of a more or less coherent world-view among themselves..

The Hungarian scholar divined that a large part of the problem is that revolutions only occur when the rulership has come to doubt its own legitimacy and is reluctant to deal as ruthlessly with its opponents as those opponents were inevitably happy to deal with the Old Regime and its supporters. Molnar lays this down to a period of ideological “softening up” in the given society. He also points out that the counter-revolutionaries failed to see that the real enemy was not, in fact, the mobs stirred up against the established order, but the middle class intellectuals who invented and popularised the erroneous notions used to stir them up. 

In their works, both writers left out the Anglo-American world, which in the end would generate an endless amount of pro-revolutionary assistance in continental Europe, Latin America, and elsewhere. Part of the reason for this is that ‘conservatives’ in the Anglosphere took great pains to depict the revolutions of 1688 and 1775 as being different to those others. But in truth, their effect would be huge—not least in the Catholic Church, where the American example in particular convinced the fathers of Vatican II that such liberalism was different in kind rather than merely in degree from the kind of liberalism with which they were familiar.

In any case, while defence of monarchy was a large part of counter-revolutionary discourse prior to 1918 (successive defeats over the course of the 19th century had led most deposed counter-revolutionary monarchs to seek refuge in Austria-Hungary), the fall of the dynasties in 1918 led to the birth of a new sort of counter-revolution, which Molnar describes thus:

Gradually, the counter-revolutionaries came to the realisation that they were the real revolutionaries in the sense of the word that is compatible with the reaction to the doctrines of the revolution. Bernanos wrote during this period that to be a reactionary means simply to be alive, because only a corpse does not react any more – against the maggots teeming on it. This phrase could have been adopted as the counter-revolutionary motto: it vividly painted what the counter-revolutionaries believed their task to be, namely, to become alive inside an agonising, no longer reacting body, the State, invaded by a poison carrying enemy. The counter-revolutionaries were revolutionists insofar as they intended to reactivate this agonising body, not by calling forth a new political party, but by an appeal to the entire nation in the name of salus populi. Ernst von Salomon, in his Fragebogen (page 238), written after 1945, formulates the mood of twenty-five years before: ‘Unless it were possible to recreate a constructive form of State, Bolshevism must be the natural heir to the obvious and shameful dissolution of all organic strength by the ideological senselessness of the bourgeois-liberal and Social-Democrat wizards.’ This is what was tried almost everywhere in Europe during the twenty some years separating the two world wars: Horthy in Hungary, Salazar in Portugal, Pilsudski in Poland, Mussolini in Italy, Franco in Spain, and others, with less success, elsewhere, for example in Germany. Between 1919 and 1933 many young Germans adopted as their ideal Moeller van den Bruck’s ‘conservative revolutionary’; this hero figure survived until 1944 among the youthful members of the anti-Hitler resistance who hoped to rid their country both of National Socialism and of an imminent bolshevisation. 

Ground between Hitler and Stalin, what was left of this kind of counter-revolutionary was pushed into oblivion in 1968.

So, the question might well be asked: why bother studying the works and efforts of a long line of losers? Well, for one thing, regardless of its opponents, the ongoing revolution described by Correa de Oliveira and Molnar has continued into our own time, dissolving anything it touches. The 16th century saw a revolt against the altar, the 18th against the throne, and the 20th against both; those vanquished, it has set its sights on demolishing reality itself. Everything good—in a word—must go. But our current foes who would demolish natural law are still propelled forward by the same dynamic ultimately unleashed at Wittenberg. To combat it, we must look at its roots and re-examine its opponents. 

An important thing to remember is that when one phase of the revolution has ended, many of its heretofore adherents opposed further movement in that direction. Thus, Edmund Burke, whom Samuel Johnson called “a bottomless Whig” at the time of the American War of Independence, was driven somewhat rightward by the events he witnessed, becoming the author of Considerations of the Revolution in France. So it has often been proved throughout history: even Martin Luther, when serfs claiming him as guru decided to apply private judgement to property issues, felt compelled to write Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants. One can only wonder what he would have thought of the French Revolution.

It is time to look at all the many counter-revolutionary writers and movements, from Johann Maier Eck to Molnar himself. They are a multinational band to be sure, with many hailing from the Europe ‘beyond the seas’: Canada’s George Grant and Msgr. Lionel Groulx rub shoulders with Australia’s Denys Jackson and Bob Santamaria, Chile’s Jaime Eyzaguirre, Sri Lanka’s J.P. de Fonseka, and the American Ralph Adams Cram. Nor are all counter-revolutionaries Catholic: England’s William Cobbett, the Dutchman Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer, and the Prussian Friedrich Julius Stahl were avid supporters of their countries’ respective state churches. Such a diverse band offer wildly varying solutions depending upon their time and place: yet they do have certain commonalities which would be well for moderns facing the same hideous strength to explore—and this is certainly the easiest time in history in which to do so.

The internet, which has brought so much evil into so many lives may also bring good, if one knows where and how to look. Virtually everything that is in the public domain (and much that is not) is now readily available. Do you wish to explore the writings of Portuguese Integralists, Russian Slavophiles, or Argentine Carlists? You can, so long as you have the names. Do you wish to delve into the many revolts against the French revolutionaries, both at home and in the many nations they invaded? At your fingertips! What about the Papal Zouaves, or the Royalists in the Latin American Wars of Independence? Not a problem. Even if you do not read French, German, Spanish, Polish, Russian, or whatever other language a thinker or party about which you are interested wrote and spoke, there are translation devices that seemingly improve in quality every day. As the revolution has been universal, so has its opposition.

This is an important endeavour, exploring and resurrecting this gallant band, because many counterfeits are on offer. Seemingly every youngster opposed to the current horrors knows something of Evola, which is unfortunate, but they rarely know anything of Attilio Mordini, which is worse. Mere opposition to revolutionary ‘modernity’ is not enough; the opposition those of its opponents who really had something true, good, and beautiful to offer as an alternative must be put forward. Out of the chaff must be sifted the wheat. Italy’s Alleanza Cattolica has made a stab in this direction with its online Dizionario del Pensiero Forte, but much, much more must be done in this direction—and not only in Italian.

As the situation across the West heats up, as it shall, this process becomes ever more important. But the figures suggested are not purely of academic interest. In Central Europe, there is something of coalition of small and conservative states slowly arising. However, this is severely hampered by the mutual hostility of the Magyars and their neighbours. It is difficult for the latter to understand the pain so many Hungarians yet feel over the revolt of the minorities in 1848 and the Trianon Treaty of 1918. But they in turn often are energised by their ancestors’ struggles against the Magyarisation policies the Hungarian liberals pursued in the 19th and early 20th centuries, which stemmed from memories of 1848 and in turn led to Trianon. These might be academic questions in other places, but in Central Europe they are very much alive.

The problem with this is that the cultures and attitudes of the Hungarians, Slovakians, Croatians, Romanians—and indeed, Poles, Ukrainians, Slovenians, and (to this writer’s delighted surprise) increasing the Czechs—have been moulded by very similar religious and cultural attitudes derived from their shared history. If they are to maintain the Christian and sane ethos each of them has enjoyed and is in a sense rediscovering, they must maintain some degree of unity versus a West that would corrupt and an East that would dominate them. It must be pointed out to Hungarians that in 1848, Jellacic and his collaborators were not simply struggling for their own nationalities, and so following Kossuth’s example, they were in essence fighting for the Habsburgs and the Holy Crown. But to the Slovaks, Croats, and the rest, it should be pointed out that Istvan Count Szechenyi stood up for their rights as subjects of that same Holy Crown. After 1867, the very Magyarisation policies that would poison their relationship with the Hungarians were stoutly opposed by the Catholic Party, led by such as the Zichys and the Eszterhazys. Both sides must be reminded that the chances for a peaceful solution between the Habsburgs and the then-Hungarian government were destroyed by the murder of Count von Lamberg by a mob in Budapest. In a word, if these countries are to be spared from becoming either Ireland or Belarus in the next decade, their shared history must be re-examined from a counter-revolutionary viewpoint. The myths that all sides have cherished and that have encouraged each to hate the other must be exploded—both for the sake of objective truth and to allow a decent future for them all. It will be a painful process, but far better than the alternatives.

Nor is Central Europe the only place where this counter-revolutionary re-examination must take place. Conservatives in the Anglosphere need to take a long hard look at 1688 and 1776, myths as foundational to and cherished by us as 1848 is to Central Europe; so too with Germany, Italy, France, and every nation in the West, howsomever corrupt we may have become. This is not in pursuit of some sort of fanciful reconstruction of the current arrangements, but so that we may finally see things as they are. We must rediscover the principles that—in as many forms as there are Western nations—founded each of our countries and the West as a whole. It is a hard task to be sure, but one that is essential if utter collapse is to be avoided: otherwise our descendants shall have to begin to rebuild from utter ruin, even as our fathers did a millennium and a half ago. The more we leave them that is intact, the easier their task shall be.