The combat of movements termed “National Revolutionary” has been tirelessly waged on many fronts. In Europe, Africa, Latin America, and Asia it has counted its hard won victories and mourned its martyrs. However, in the United States and elsewhere, this rich and storied history and its living current today have been largely ignored, both on the right claiming to be nationalist, and the left claiming to be revolutionary socialist. The result has been an ossification of the ruling elite in this country with no alternative in sight. On the radical fringes of the system, the willing idiots of “anti-communism” and “anti-fascism” serve the game of the global economic ruling class by preventing any useful collaboration between the so-called “right” and “left.” In the face of ever increasing exploitation of the people by the rulers, these antiquated quarrels are becoming increasingly irrelevant. We rise to offer the National Revolutionary synthesis to those who wish to break free from the decaying paradigm of internecine left-right bickering. In it, nationalists and socialist revolutionaries find a common struggle, they realize that the liberation of the nation is inherently a liberation from the hands of capitalism, and that the livelihood of the vast majority of society can only be defended by breaking the nation away from the internationalist capitalist system.

The National Revolutionary idea rests upon two equally important pillars, nationalism and socialist revolution. We shall define nationalism as the condition in which the destiny of a people is in their hands. This type of nationalism has nothing to do with the Enlightenment conception of nationalism from which the nation state arose, a nationalism that arose hand in hand with the dominance of the financiers and lawyers of the Third Estate as they wrested power from the hands of the old aristocracy. Our nationalism goes far deeper than that. We want the primordial autonomy of the people, where they lived by their own codes, their own laws, their own faiths, where they controlled their own livelihood, where they spoke their own languages, and created their own culture. We emphatically reject the global monoculture offered by so-called multiculturalism, where all the people’s of the world live on a diet of McDonald’s and watch the same rehashed Hollywood movies. We oppose immigration, not out of fear or hatred of foreign cultures, but because it warps the culture of both the immigrant and the inhabitants of the host nation, in addition to acting as the reserve labor force of capitalism. At this point we must reiterate that our nationalism is not defined negatively, it is not defined as being against any other nation on earth. For one nation to define itself in contrast to another is not nationalism, as it defines itself in relation to a foreign principle, as the mere negative image of its enemy, that ceases to have a meaning with the defeat of this enemy. We support the right of all peoples to define their way of life and their destiny, no matter how foreign it is to us. Moreover, reject the petty nationalism of warring nation states that emerged with the Enlightenment. Nationalism does not require the separation of peoples into ever dividing states to achieve autonomy. This is the sort of negative false nationalism that has soaked the world in blood for over two hundred years. This does not contribute to the autonomy of peoples as nations weakened by war and strife make easy prey for the machinations of imperial powers, today represented by the United States. Our nationalism is a nationalism of brotherhood and unity, we believe that the autonomy of a people from the culture rotting forces of the international market can only be obtained through cooperation with other nations across a vast continental space that encompasses the resources needed for basic autarky regarding food and military industrial production. In this sense our nationalism is a pan-nationalism as well, we are for the brotherhood of nations within the context of a continental great civilization. Thus we are for Pan-Arabism, Eurasianism, Pan-Africanism, and Bolivarianism. This doesn’t imply imperial submission to some dominant nation within the bloc, rather it provides for a common front of defense against the threat of large imperial powers that a small nation cannot resist alone. Moreover, it prevents a nation from being submitted to the demands of the global marketplace because it can obtain resources from its continental partners rather than from rootless international capitalists. This leads us to our second principle, complementary to nationalism and as equally important.

Revolutionary socialism is the natural ally of the nationalist struggle. To return power to the people of the nation necessarily implies returning control of the economy to the people of the nation. Here we must further explain what we mean by revolutionary socialism. By revolutionary we mean that revolution is the only available means to the ends of achieving socialism. We do not believe it can be legislated into power through the mechanisms of parliamentary democracy. We have seen nationalists try to cut deals with the large capitalists in the past in order to get into power. They ended up swinging from meat hooks in a Milan Piazza or committing suicide. The capitalist class will not surrender the levers of power to the people. The parliamentary system itself is a tool of capital where all those who wish to run in its elections must either be wealthy oligarchs or swear fealty to wealthy oligarchs to obtain funding for their campaigns. If men in our ranks want to play the parliamentary game, they can only do so as secret infiltrators lending aid from inside the system to the revolutionaries who will seize it. The revolutionaries will remain outside the system waiting for their opportunity to strike. We encourage all actions to discredit the parliamentary class, and seek active collaboration with those who are involved in direct action against the government and the capitalists. To this end, the collaboration with radical labor must be encouraged, we want to see the working peoples rise up in strikes, demonstrations, riots, and eventually full revolution to return the means of production to the people. We adopt the ideology of class struggle. The working people must triumph over the forces of capital. By working people, we do not simply mean the industrial working class as envisioned by Marx, but the vast majority of people who work or can work for their wages, in contrast to the capitalist class that can simply count on their income to arrive from the labors of those below them. On our side in the class struggle stands the vast majority, perhaps 99% of the population. We seek to push them towards the sole solution of seizing control of the enterprises of their employers, the globalist financial hyperclass which knows no loyalty to nation. Identifying our enemies has been made quite easy, those who can hide their wealth from taxation by putting it in offshore havens or those who can afford to live far from their workers are clearly our enemies. As for the smaller owners of medium scale enterprises, our socialism will be flexible, they must allow their workers to partake in the management of their enterprises and they will be given the option of working alongside them as administrators if they are knowledgeable about the operations they control. Moreover, we affirm international solidarity of working peoples within the context of nationalism, by which we mean that we support encouraging other nations to define their own form of revolutionary socialism and use it to seize the means of production within their nation.

Our socialism is simply defined as putting the means of production in the hands of the people. This can take several forms, single family owned small businesses and farms, free cooperatives of workers for medium sized enterprises, and state owned large industry. We do not find it necessary to directly plan production from the top down to the smallest level. A family farm or bakery should not be seized by the state. We are for a maximum of freedom for small scale enterprises. Here we make recourse to the concepts of economic communitarianism advocated by Jean Thiriart. The economy should be based around small family businesses, free cooperatives, and state owned large industry. The failure of Marxism was the need to centrally plan the smallest elements of production. The failure of capitalism is to allow the free development of massive corporations that can hijack the state. Thiriart speaks of two limiting factors in the communitarian economy, specific organization・and dimensional regulation.・By specific organization of a business, he means what business does the enterprise actually do, is it an arms manufacturer or a toy manufacturer? Of course, an arms manufacturer, being necessary for the functioning of the state, should be under the control of the state. The toy factory requires a further analysis of dimensional regulation.・By dimensional regulation, he means, what is the scale of the enterprise, does it employ 5 workers or 50,000? If a company is a huge corporation employing thousands of workers, of course it is a political threat, no matter what it manufactures, simply because it controls so much money, it can unduly influence the operation of the state. Therefore, the large scale operations should be put under state control. The toy manufacturer who employs five people is free to pursue his business without interference from the state. For middle scale businesses, the approach of guild socialism or free cooperatives can be taken, where workers own the business and manage it freely. What necessarily defines a business as small, medium, or large will be decided in each community. However, as a basic principle, the businesses owned by large national or international trusts will be returned to be communities and managed by the workers themselves. What exactly suits an enterprise for state management, self-management by a worker’s cooperative, or sole proprietorship will be a topic of research and investigation for us as we determine what form of management is the most productive for the purposes of the nation.

Furthermore, autarky in the basic matters of food supply and military industrial production is a fundamental principle of our socialism. We believe that the nation must be self sufficient. If it relies on supply lines from outside its bloc, it is in thrall to the global economy, subject to the vicissitudes of foreign financiers. To achieve this autarky, the economy must be based around the concept of “great spaces,” that is a unity of nations over a large enough area of physical territory to encompass all the resources they will require to be self sufficient. This autarky of great spaces fits perfectly with the nationalism of great continental blocs as exemplified by the movements of Eurasianism, Pan-Arabism, Pan-Africanism, and Bolivarianism we mentioned previously.

Regarding the theoretical dimensions of our socialism, all the works of all socialist movements of the past and present are open to analysis, including Marxism. We are not Marxists, however we recognize the utility of much of Marx’s work, and the work of his followers, especially those in the Third World who created a Marxism of national liberation, freed some many of the flaws found in the original works of Marx. However, we must affirm that socialism is not limited to Marxism, it existed far before it, indeed Plato’s “Republic” describes a type of ideal socialism. While we recognize the utility of much of Marx’s work, we emphatically reject his atheism and materialism, and his progressive view of history that rejects the socialist modes of organization that existed before the industrial era. Intellectually we cannot be the dogmatists of any prior doctrine, but must remain open and ready to use ideological tools as they arise, whatever the source.
Among our intellectual influences we count men that are called left wing・or right wing・by the acolytes of the system. They include but are not limited to Georges Sorel, Werner Sombart, Oswald Spengler, Ernst Niekisch, Ernst Jünger, Ramiro Ledesma Ramos, José Antonio Primo de Rivera, Corneliu Codreanu, Jack London, Ezra Pound, the Strasser Brothers, Joseph Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Tse-tung, Kim Il Sung, Michel Aflaq, Muammar Gaddafi, Juan Peron, Charles De Gaulle, Jean Thiriart, Giorgio Freda, Francis Parker Yockey, Carl Schmitt, Alain de Benoist, Alexander Dugin, Nicola Bombacci, Antonio Gramsci, Thomas Sankara, Hugo Chavez, Ayatollah Khomeini, Ali Shariati, Nicolae Ceausescu, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Fidel Castro, and Che Guevara. We do not swear fealty to one school or idea from the past, rather we recognize important themes that we will recapitulate and synthesize in our own work, while learning from their mistakes. The official organ of ideological work will be a magazine where original work will be published to advance and better define the exact direction of the National Revolutionary movement. We will seek to spread the message of existing National Revolutionary movements worldwide and encourage their development in the proper direction, and foster the growth of new ones in locales where they do not currently exist. Moreover, we hope that the spread of these ideas accelerates the National Revolutionary class struggle worldwide to further the cause of liberation of nations across the globe.


Eugene Montsalvat
Chairman, Institute for National Revolutionary Studies