Hadding ScottVideo

Steve Bannon and Nationalism

by Hadding Scott

I READ SOME reactions to a recent speech by Steven K. Bannon from people identifying as Alt Right. One response, I thought, was overly laudatory, the other overly dismissive. Here I give very briefly my view of Bannon’s relationship to nationalism and to the race.

On the whole, Steve Bannon is a conservative Catholic — conservative in the old sense of preserving traditions. His public statements generally reflect that. He has in the past stated his rejection of racism, but also his opposition to economic globalism and support for a nationalism based not on race but on social ties and culture. This seems to be in accord with the Catholic worldview. Based on this understanding of Bannon, I would not expect him to advocate anything more radical than civic nationalism.

Civic nationalism is not really enough to prevent racial decline, but it is a good start. I might point out that Mussolini’s Italy was a civic nationalist state. Once the principle is established, that the state exists to preserve the people in it and to guard their interests against predatory minorities and against predatory foreigners, further refinements can be made later.

What I find especially important is Bannon’s stated view that the economy exists to serve the nation. This is a direct repudiation of what passes for conservatism today. That “conservatism,” which would not have been regarded as conservative a century ago, subordinates all other considerations to profit. Under that ideology, race is one of many values sacrificed on the altar of Mammon. The rejection of that ideology is a prerequisite for our race’s survival. In that regard, Bannon is in practice, regardless of his declared disregard for race as a value, a more radical advocate for our race than some who carried torches in Charlottesville, who still espouse that destructive ideology of profit.

What I find curious is Bannon’s repeated misuse of the word corporatist. He uses the word corporatist as a smear-word, the way Marxists use it, apparently as a synonym for plutocrat, and of course as a way to avoid saying Jew.

As a conservative Catholic, Bannon ought to know the proper meaning of corporatism, because it was advocated by Pope Leo XIII. Corporatism is a system that is supposed to prevent any particular set of interests from dominating a national economy and serving themselves to the detriment of the nation as a whole. This is the corporatism that was later adopted by Mussolini’s Italy, and would eventually have been implemented in National-Socialist Germany. It is an expression of economic populism. There is even a fine article on Wikipedia that explains this, if it hasn’t yet been vandalized by editors.

Marxists have inverted the meanings of words like corporatism that represent alternatives to Leninism in order, I believe, to remove those concepts from public discourse. As a conservative Catholic, Bannon should know better.

During the election last year I supported Trump. To those who pointed out Trump’s shortcomings, especially his Jewish connections, my response was that unfortunately Hitler was not on the ballot. Nor is it reasonable to expect somebody like Hitler to be on the ballot in a country as badly entrenched in delusion as the United States. The USA needs radical change, and this does not happen overnight. There are bound to be intermediate stages. Before the National-Socialists became dominant in the German Reichstag and Hitler was appointed chancellor, Europe was shocked by the election in 1925 of the conservative president Paul von Hindenburg. Hindenburg was not Hitler, but he made Hitler possible. Without losing sight of our ideal, this is how we have to view political change, as an incremental process.

Steve Bannon seems to be less educated in nationalism than he should be; he doesn’t even know as much as a conservative Catholic should know. It appears that his outlook is not altogether free of the prevalent “conservative” attitudes and other propaganda of the past few decades — but he does nonetheless represent a move in the right direction.

* * *

Source: National-Socialist Worldview

Previous post

Gun Control: A Jewish Movement

Next post

A Race That Has Been Subjected to Hate

Notify of
Inline Feedback
View all comments
christopher drach
christopher drach
21 October, 2017 12:49 am

Bannon is way too cozy with AIPAC and Israel to ever be considered anything but a water boy for the Zionists IMO

Reply to  christopher drach
21 June, 2020 11:48 pm

You have been proven right. I did not know anything about Bannon, only what the (Jewish) media had to say, and for a time I thought he was OK. Very soon, I noticed that he was a phoney.

What I find unbelievable is that after National Vanguard posted in November 2016 an article from the Jewish newspaper “Forward” praising Bannon as a good friend of Israel, Hadding Scott wrote this article. Bannon’s “nationalism” is civic-nationalism and that will never work. By ignoring the Jewish Question, he has demonstrated he is not one of us.

23 October, 2017 3:02 am

“He uses the word corporatist as a smear-word, the way Marxists use it, apparently as a synonym for plutocrat, and of course as a way to avoid saying Jew.” It is this avoidance (naming the Jew) that has too many people unwilling to go to the heart of things–and thus the resolution of problems. Alien values, propaganda, and a concerted effort to take over institutions didn’t just appear out of nowhere. It comes down to Who Did What and how it all links together. When Jewish actors are identified, their values and mode of transmission into larger society is explained can then enable an understanding. Then and only then can correct decisions be made. With that said, a character like Bannon and his people are like the John Birch Society… Read more »

Bruce Arney
Bruce Arney
23 October, 2017 1:25 pm

Great article. Until Hitler, or his prototype, appears on the ballot, we must make do with what is at hand. Bannon is a bit of a rogue and has moved off the reservation, so who knows what his future position may evolve into.

Sic Semper
Sic Semper
Reply to  Bruce Arney
23 October, 2017 1:44 pm

The IRA had a political and military wing. The political wing spoke niceties that was palatable by the public, while the military wing learned the art of the car bomb. So much of what the IRA did to advance their cause is instructional on how to mount a successful counter.

Ethnic Europe had best learn what the IRA did before it is too late. The same is true in the Zionized States of America.

Bruce Arney
Bruce Arney
Reply to  Sic Semper
24 October, 2017 1:35 pm

The IRA certainly played hard ball and their tactics proved very effective. Are there any hardened men left, willing to starve themselves in prison, for a just cause, like Bobby Sands did?