The foundation of the soviet union was predicated upon Russia's failure to properly industrialize and their disastrous campaigns in the Russo japanese war and ww1 that left most of the population alienated from the tsar and his nobility. Yes, it was agitated by jews. They would not have been able to agitate anyone at all, however, if there were no issues to begin with. Severe issues. A large contingent of the white army was even anti-tsarist, the feeling of discontent was not strictly among the political left. Even if there weren't a single jew in russia's borders, *something* was going to happen that would not have been good for the monarchy. Maybe it would have ended up being the second xinhai revolution, who knows
What did this do for the right, then?
It was a wake-up call. By the 1920s when the bolsheviks consolidated control over the soviet union, the west was already under the jewish yoke ourselves. Just a yoke of a different variety.
Before the establishment of the USSR, the mantra for the right in opposition to globalism and jewish capitalism was, effectively, just to support reactionary monarchist political parties that had no real solutions, little popular support, and were not getting anywhere.
The USSR opened up the floodgates for new revolutionary theory to enter the right wing consciousness. Marxist (heterodox) scholars and monarchist ideologues alike started to work together and cooperate to develop new ideas to challenge the hegemony that enveloped the world, lest it fall under the dominance of leninism due to a lack of action, or remain much the same under traditional jewish finance.
And thus, thanks to the wake-up call that was the USSR's existence. We found answers. We found solutions. We overtook the political and economic paradigm of the age and challenged reaction, capitalism, liberalism, and communism all the same. And we were winning.
What happened to it? It was destroyed because it could not be allowed to exist by the jewry in charge of the 2 halves of the world. What was originally a European ideology only continued to exist in the middle east until the collapse of syria, and by some extent it somewhat exists in china and north korea today, too, but this is debatable.
What is to be done? People will need to be propagandized, and they must be propagandized properly. They must maintain their politicization to not lose faith in the movement and to continue to press on and persevere. Only through understanding the theory that gave rise to our movement will any proper governance of a revolutionary movement, and later on, a state, be achieved. So they must be educated. They must be educated on the works of Sorel, Hitler, Mussolini, Codreanu, Proudhon, Maurras, even Hegel, Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates. They must also be educated in the theories of others. Marx, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, etc. Adam Smith, Friedman, Hayek, Hoppe, Rand (ugh), etc on the opposite side. There is no harm in understanding the beliefs and theories of your enemies, this can only work in your favor. And they are also successful for a reason, so there's something to be learned in their writing while disagreeing with them.
Only through building a well educated mass movement, predicated upon violence, can any change be something that is possible.
What did this do for the right, then?
It was a wake-up call. By the 1920s when the bolsheviks consolidated control over the soviet union, the west was already under the jewish yoke ourselves. Just a yoke of a different variety.
Before the establishment of the USSR, the mantra for the right in opposition to globalism and jewish capitalism was, effectively, just to support reactionary monarchist political parties that had no real solutions, little popular support, and were not getting anywhere.
The USSR opened up the floodgates for new revolutionary theory to enter the right wing consciousness. Marxist (heterodox) scholars and monarchist ideologues alike started to work together and cooperate to develop new ideas to challenge the hegemony that enveloped the world, lest it fall under the dominance of leninism due to a lack of action, or remain much the same under traditional jewish finance.
And thus, thanks to the wake-up call that was the USSR's existence. We found answers. We found solutions. We overtook the political and economic paradigm of the age and challenged reaction, capitalism, liberalism, and communism all the same. And we were winning.
What happened to it? It was destroyed because it could not be allowed to exist by the jewry in charge of the 2 halves of the world. What was originally a European ideology only continued to exist in the middle east until the collapse of syria, and by some extent it somewhat exists in china and north korea today, too, but this is debatable.
What is to be done? People will need to be propagandized, and they must be propagandized properly. They must maintain their politicization to not lose faith in the movement and to continue to press on and persevere. Only through understanding the theory that gave rise to our movement will any proper governance of a revolutionary movement, and later on, a state, be achieved. So they must be educated. They must be educated on the works of Sorel, Hitler, Mussolini, Codreanu, Proudhon, Maurras, even Hegel, Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates. They must also be educated in the theories of others. Marx, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, etc. Adam Smith, Friedman, Hayek, Hoppe, Rand (ugh), etc on the opposite side. There is no harm in understanding the beliefs and theories of your enemies, this can only work in your favor. And they are also successful for a reason, so there's something to be learned in their writing while disagreeing with them.
Only through building a well educated mass movement, predicated upon violence, can any change be something that is possible.
Yes, I agree, but if your vanguard isn't properly politicized and organized, and doesn't have a cohesive ideological base, then it ends up being a disaster.
Look at the xinhai revolution and KMT in china. Sun-yat sen was notoriously terrible at having an actual codified belief system. Just vague concepts of republicanism. He teetered between being authoritarian and democratic. He teetered between being socialist and capitalist. The KMT's left and right went in full schism before he even died as a result and the country ended up even worse (for a time) than it was under the Qing dynasty, and it wouldn't be reunited for over 30 years.
So, yes, building and promulgating a unifying belief is important to avoid schismatic sects from forming in your political vanguard party. Hitler understood this, which is why he purged the left wing of the nsdap (though it really could have gone either way, if Strasser were more successful than hitler, the right wing would have been purged) and made his brand of national socialism Supreme over strasserism, esoteric völkism, and proto natsoc "drexlerism"
It can either be before or after taking power, but at some point, you have to put your foot down and adopt some kind of singular belief system. That's not to say that everyone should agree 100%, but everyone should at least be similar enough to not cause schism. Or at least reduce the possibility of it
Big tents very rarely work. I can tell you right now that with the current state of the American right's disagreement on every other issue, it would collapse even faster than the KMT did without a unifying figure and stringent beliefs.
Which means it needs to be *very* basic. Something like:
White people deserve White countries.
Whites should come together to do good for Whites.
Whites should fight evil when it presents itself (ie don't go looking for it in other countries)
The points that you leave open provide an absolute litany of disastrous consequences because of the vagueness of it. What if the pro-white socialist party cadre gets into a disagreement with the pro-white capitalist cadre? What if the pro-white libertarian dislikes the pro-white authoritarian?
See the issue? It turns into KMT 2.0, again.
Governmental goals, economic goals, social goals, and diplomatic goals should be set before you even start recruiting anyone at all. The party is far less likely to fall into schism if they're all, "pro-white x who believe in y economic system and believe that the government should have z level of authority". People that form disagreements will show up, but you know in general that you will agree on most issues and you won't cause a damned civil war. Yes, economics are important too. The early nsdap almost went into schism before the night of long knives very largely over economic issues. Hitler and Strasser agreed on the jews, pan germanism, and ethnonationalism. They did not agree on economics, which was a big enough issue that they became rivals and then hitler purged the SA. If they continued to just be rivals, without the purge, eventually Germany would have very possibly ended up in a civil war before ww2 even began.
There is no way to actually hold any level of authority by just being pro-whatever and anti-whatever. There has to be an actual goal to work towards building and a belief.
Edit: I recant my statement about the KMT. The left and "right" wing factions agreed on literally almost everything. Of all the third positionist movements that happened in history, Chiang Kai-shek's was probably the most left wing of all. Hell, the KMT was killing more of the bourgeoisie class than the CCP was... it believed in land distribution, the destruction of capitalism, dictatorship of the proletariat, Chiang was heavily supportive of and supported by the USSR, his son was educated at a red army academy. Chiang was just a fucking moron who decided to attack (over) half of his party for no damned reason at all and pulled a schism directly out of his ass. He himself was the entire reason why the CCP even got members. Anyways, Hitler and Mussolini were both much better at making deals with the left of their respective parties than chiang was. Mussolini made concessions with them and implemented some of their policies (once the social republic was established though, he *was* the left). Hitler assassinated their leaders without antagonizing them and causing a massive split. Both were better than driving every single one of them away into a party that's now full of people who hate you and outnumber you, but still *agree* with you because you are a leftist yourself.
It works as a simile or metaphor, but the mechanics are vastly different to make them analytically interchangeable.
Also, hating the jew is not a big tent.