Francisco Franco, like every other dictator, is a controversial figure. Some time ago, as he came up in conversation, it occurred to me that I didn’t know much about the man. Charles Haywood’s article, On Franco, soon came to my attention, which I read with great interest. At the end of it, he asked a question that lingered in my mind. What would a modern-day Franco look like today? What is the possibility of a modern Franco emerging, and how might he perform in today’s America?
“What should be the goals of that man? His first step should be administrative: to create the organization on the Right that is lacking.”
Charles Haywood,”On Francisco Franco”1https://theworthyhouse.com/2019/04/16/on-francisco-franco/
The “Right” Definition
Before any attempt to organize the Right can be made, the “Right” must first be defined. This is a monumental task because of its breadth and the numerous sub-parties that enjoy the umbrella doctrine that is considered the Right-Wing politic. Defining the “Right” is made more difficult still by the fact that — and the vibrant Christian Nationalist and other various Right-Wing communities are acutely aware of this — not all self-defined right-wing adherents are, in fact, Right-Wing. For example, in the grand political scheme, as a whole, Establishment Republicans can be very easily described as Center at best, in the same way that Libertarians (who are much further, still, to the Left of many Republicans) hold various conservative policies but are not what history would consider to be Right-wing. Some have said, and I am inclined to agree, that the current state of the Republican party is what the Democrat party was in the 1960’s.
Let us look, first, to what had been the beating heart of the American Right for the last sixty or so years: the Conservatives, which itself is, for many reasons, impossible to define anymore. I could point specifically to the many leftward policy shifts that have taken place in recent decades (as I have done previously), but I will speak generally. If the nature of conservatism is to conserve then any proactive engagement to alter the direction of the political course cannot lay claim to this title. This is why, in a neo-liberal society, there is increasingly less distinction between liberal ideology (Feminism, anti-racism, LGBT, etc) and CON INC. (not to be confused with honest, Right-minded individuals). Of course, the current Liberal will always be worse than the conservative in where they stand since the liberal pushes the boundary and the conservative only follows behind, holding onto each new status quo. Instead, many of the remaining faithful have dropped the descriptor and have adopted the term “paleoconservative” or have become Christian Nationalists, Populists, National Socialists, or some other Right-Wing variety. Neo-con, Reaganite, and Classical Liberals are all accurate descriptions for the 21st-century conservative that is left over because this is the “Right” that was inherited. As a result, Liberals, Libertarians, and mainstream Conservatives all bemoan the unconscionable actions taken by the corporate oligarchy but will defend to the death their right to behave unconscionably, meeting any suggestion of political force to restrain with the accusation of “Communist!” This is not the position of traditional right-wing philosophy — which has often advocated for discipline and moral behavior.
I have often heard it said among Conservatives that we must return to x, y, and z. If Conservatism is a “rooting” or a “return,” then this begs the question: a return to what? Past right-wing parties are not necessarily the model we should seek, certainly not the ones that are realistically attainable, because these are the parties that failed. When faced with modern issues, going back in time is not the answer. We are not the same country or people, and most likely never can be again. Time always marches forward. Furthermore, to ignore the events that led to the change in the first place would be very unwise.
Suppose we did engage in time travel and return to a bygone time. Where would we go? To the perversions of the ’60s and ’70s? The very decades that we point to as the source of our national degradation (in the way that 1789 is pointed to as the source of Western decline)? The sexual revolution, the Communist takeover, the legalization of homosexual marriage, and Roe V. Wade? Perhaps we should go further into the ’30s, ’40s, and ’50s to an era that predates the civil rights movement – arguably (one of) the first steps towards the inevitable result of our current predicament. Suggesting a pre-MLK social arrangement will offend 90% of modern conservatives despite him being a known communist, adulterer, and woman-beater.
A return to the Constitution and the founding principles, as many advocate, is an admirable goal. An important consideration, however, is that these documents were written for a moral people with specific sensibilities and other commonalities that had offered social and political cohesion. We cannot just revert to upholding the documents without reverting to the country that existed at the time that they were written. Every political affiliation invokes the Constitution and claims that it supports their right to certain freedoms (which, in some cases, it does), and it is no wonder that this has caused such confusion and controversy because the truth is that the legal documents that built the United States were not intended for the country that we have been given, but were made for a particular people. i.e. Christian Anglo-Saxons.
“With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”
John Jay, Federalist Papers No. 2
“With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together.”
George Washington, Farewell Address
Classical Liberalism, Liberal Democracy, whatever you want to call it, is the very problem. The American founders built a nation, not a free-for-all. The modern conception of “American Freedom” is antithetical to everything that the Right around the globe has historically stood for and is also antithetical to Scripture. The Libertarian will read, “Every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25) and say that “it was good.” (Genesis 1) The Christian knows the world is flawed and never perfect, but will always strive to improve, to “sanctify” the nation. Time moves ever forward, and history is a teacher, not an objective. Tradition is good, and identity is essential, but politics is not a science. Politics is the art of people, place, and time. As people change, so can governments. To my political brothers, our European heritage has undergone forms of government, not least of which was, in its golden age of Christendom, a monarchy. To my Christian brothers, the Old Testament Hebrews were governed by multiple systems. The Patriarch, the Judges, and the Kings. Each was ordained and blessed by God. Do we, as Americans, read the Old Testament in disbelief that they never established a Constitutional Republic? No. Because what they had was good for them at that particular time and was established by God. Governments change. A thing once lost (even if a good thing) may be better off in the past.
This is not intended to be an attack because there are many who retain the name Conservative that still, in many ways, hold fast to correct political doctrine and are a powerful ally. Only to be mindful of the Leftward drift of the group as a whole (publicly Gay and Tranny spokesmen and attendees of CPAC, for example). This principle applies not just to conservatives, but others on the Right, as well. Any enemy of the Left is, until reason is otherwise given, a friend of mine. Nor is it an attack against the Constitution or suggesting we scrap it and adopt a completely new form of government. The State must, after all, always reflect the character of the people while also acting for their “earthly and heavenly good.” This is, more than anything else, a pondering of what constitutes “Right-Wing.” The attack lies solely against the Left and those on the “right” that enable the Left.
Right-Wing Religiosity
“Only the religion of the nation can enable even the best of governments to fulfill its duty with an intentionality that is rooted in personal faith.”
Abraham Kuyper, Our Program
Is there a distinction between Right-wing politics and Christianity? Yes and no. The Christian faith is, of course, not a political philosophy, but our politics must reflect our Christian faith. There is a reason why you have heard of the Religious Right but never the Religious Left. The former is indispensable from religion, while the latter dispenses away with it altogether. Kuyper also notes in “Our Program” that the essential difference between any overlap of a principled Leftist and the principles of the Right (what he calls “anti-revolutionaries”) is the presence of religion. Oddly enough, the Left is keenly aware of this and uses it as an attempted insult.2The Left often attempts to belittle and discredit notions of Christian persecution. See: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1198910302 The true Right is fundamentally Nationalist, and the Nation’s religion is key to the identity of a people. It has been said many times before: “Western Civilization is Christendom, and Christendom is Western Civilization.” If one were to concentrate further, he would see that Russia is Orthodox, Spain is Catholic, and the United States is Protestant.
“In Europe, however, the state church can only be the Christian church.”
Ernst Jünger, The Peace
In other regions, those who hold to Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or even Jewish religions can be on the political Right within their own nation, which is why Christian Nationalism is essential here. A devout Muslim living in New York may be seen as a Conservative extremist, but it could never be in the framework of American politics, as our customs are fundamentally Christian. Put differently, the Muslim in question could be considered an extremist on the political Right in Syria, but it is impossible for him to be Right-Wing here. He must, in fact, necessarily be considered Left-Wing since his religion is in direct opposition to Christianity, which is necessarily Right-Wing in the United States. It cannot be otherwise because Liberalism is the only ideology that will allow him to publicly express his religion and influence its politics. This also explains the political divide, simultaneously representing the divide between faith because it is in the very nature of Leftism to be anti-Religion.
Herein lies the American Liberal contradiction: they want both all religions and no religion. Because of its seething hatred of the Religious dogma inherent to the political Right, the Left must allow for religious liberties of all religions regardless of political consequences. Again to use Muslims as an example, supporters of conservative Muslim politics and Sharia Law must be Left-Wing because they are, again, the only ones that will have them. At the same time, Sharia Law is restrictive, which stands in total opposition to the very same Liberal ideology. Thomas Rousseau, founder, and leader of Patriot Front, does not publicly profess any particular faith, but even he has publicly stated that foreign religions are incompatible with our culture, were never intended to be allowed in our Republic, and have no place in America. Inexplicably, making such a claim will embroil some of those who claim to be Right-Wing, even those who would add the prefix “Christian.”
“Only Christianity can reanimate the values which once served as the animating spirit of the West.”
Giles Corey, “The Sword of Christ”
No Enemies on the Right
In order to reorganize, therefore, the Right must first rediscover its Christian identity. This has raised certain questions as to which Christian identity to assume. Comically, some Baptists have apparently come to the conclusion that we Christian Nationalists wish to drown them, which is absurd, especially since William Wolfe (a particularly loud voice in the Christian Nationalist movement) is himself a Baptist. The conception of Christian Nationalism, as prescribed by Stephen Wolfe in his book, is described as pan-Protestant. How anyone came to the conclusion that it was a particularly anti-denominational movement is beyond me.
Understandably, this would, however, beg the question of what to do with Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox. After all, many in our movement, and those adjacent, have accepted the notion of “No Enemies on the Right.”3https://theworthyhouse.com/2023/10/02/on-the-principle-no-enemies-on-the-right/ Indeed, my own dealing with people in these non-Protestant Christian circles, whether in real life or on social media, lends credence to the fact that there is a good deal of “based” voices there. After all, if there are to be no enemies on the right, politically, how much more so is this to be true religiously? Ideally, there will be a collaboration between the three of us — both politically and in terms of faith — but functionally, the Nation will, when at odds, be Protestant.4https://gab.com/unconscionableAdmin/posts/111129534766468887 This is notably pointed towards Catholics as, in the same way, the magistrate has no Ecclesiastic authority, and the Pope (singled out by Westminster in 1643) is to have no political authority (CH. XXIII SEC. IV). How a Christian officer might effectively govern according to his conscience and confession over a Christian people of (in some cases) wildly different beliefs is volatile and can easily erupt into chaos. Chapter twenty-three of the Westminster Confession of Faith offers a description of how this might be done.
The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.
Westminster Confession of Faith, “Of The Civil Magistrate,” CH XXIII SEC III
In theory (and hopefully in practice), Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox will be able to delineate between the major and minor doctrines of the Christian faith and respect the boundaries of each. We are constantly reminded that any sort of “big tent ecumenism” has historically led to perversions of the essentials, destroying the denominational liberties they find in their path. I believe that, as a general rule, religious liberties and each denomination’s ability to practice with minor differences should be upheld, provided they remain Christian. We Protestants are intimately familiar with the phrase: “Fences make for good neighbors,” and for good reason. If American Catholics and Orthodox are able to respect this ecumenical fence, I believe this Protestant principle can provide the backbone for a healthy religious life.
The same sentiment can be applied politically. While disagreements can exist regarding certain policies, there are key issues that are inherent to Right-Wing politics. The question is, at what point do you enter or leave the sphere? Is there a certain number of core policies you must hold? Are there specific policies that are necessary where, if you adopt all but one essential value, you cannot call yourself Right-Wing?
Whatever the answer, there is a pivotal balance to strike. The principle behind “No Enemies on the Right” is that we all share the same enemy, and so focusing your attack against a group or person that may be farther or not as far to the Right only serves to hinder the cause.5Tweet from @PhilipDerrida: “NETTR doesn’t mean “don’t criticize people on the right.” It means don’t let your differences with other camps get so twisted that you see them as *the* existential threat to civilization. Anyone remotely familiar with RW spaces knows that there’s a lot of theorycel debates.” – https://twitter.com/PhilipDerrida/status/1754952902349910220?t=tYSQ4E5sCTPQOcXu9pTnlg&s=19 This does not mean we ignore wolves in sheep’s clothing or, as mentioned previously, those who claim to be Right-Wing but are not. The difficulty lies in the “what comes next?” Arthur Moeller captured it well in his critique of the Peasant’s War in Germany. “They had no unity amongst themselves, and greedily snatched immediate success heedless of the ultimate result.” (Germany’s Third Empire)
As noted earlier, Republicans today are ’60s Democrats. This is less a repudiation of the mainstream Right than it is a condemnation of the Left. At the time, they (the Democrats) were not entirely bad or were at least tolerable on certain issues. In its current iteration, however, nothing good exists. If there are no enemies on the Right, there can be no friends on the Left — and there should be no desire for it. Corporate sin seems to have become a forgotten truth. This is applied not only to Churches but also to Nations. Communities are judged as communities. Nations are judged as Nations. If we as a Nation wish to avoid judgment and receive blessing from God, then we must not allow evil to flourish.
This is where we see the need for Franco. A figure to unify the Right and lead her into victory over the Left and assume absolute Right Wing political power.
Finding Franco
“The State must ever look to faith if it is not quickly to fall into ruin or be destroyed by fire.”
Ernst Jünger (The Peace)
We are no longer careening towards the fire of destruction but are instead being consumed by it. The only way to ensure our survival is to douse the flames and eradicate the arsonists. This requires a will that has long been lacking in the Right and among Christians; a will that allowed Franco to deliver on his promise that “there will be no communists” or from the Finns, “No mockery of God nor Fatherland will be allowed on our plains!” In recent years, the dying embers of this fiery spirit have been kindled, and we are becoming ripe for change. Soon, it seems, the masses of the Right will be ready for such a leader; the loyalty and enthusiasm shown towards Trump is evidence of this. I do not believe him to be the leader to step into the role of an American Franco, but he is undoubtedly the predecessor.
The history of every revolution, whether Roman, English, or French, shows that it ultimately meant a recruiting of new men and new human forces for the strengthening of the nation.
Arthur Moeller Van Den Bruck
If a Franconian figure is to emerge, he must come from the pool of such individuals, and my Christian Nationalist friends are most certainly showing that there is a new man emerging. The anon army is growing in both numbers and spirit. Oswald Mosely once said, “National action can only come from National unity,” and the same can be said of ideologies. The “Right,” as such, is fractured. In order to act with political influence, it must act as one, and so must first come together as one. Is the formation organic or is it ushered in via political power? There are many Christians on the Right that argue for the former, and the more cautious among our ranks would, as well. Stephen Wolfe suggests the latter. “The national will alone cannot terminate immediately into national action. It must terminate upon a mediator – upon one who translates that national general will into specific commands of action that lead the nation to its good.”6Stephen Wolfe, “The Case for Christian Nationalism,” Chapter 7
A man capable of accomplishing such a feat must be a remarkable man, indeed. Much language that is to follow may very well frighten many on the Libertarian-Conservative Right, but I ask that they bear this in mind: any means of correction, especially against the forces we are engaged with that make up the current, deeply rooted regime, requires power. It requires authority. With our own forces spread out as they are, it is necessary to consolidate that power if we have any hope of victory. This does not necessarily mean consolidation into a single person but rather under one banner, led by one man or cohort.
“The humiliation was disguised in the eyes of the people as a policy of fulfillment: this had been forced on us unjustly it was true, but still our duty was clear”
Arthur Moeller Van Den Bruck
Sources:
- 1
- 2The Left often attempts to belittle and discredit notions of Christian persecution. See: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1198910302
- 3
- 4
- 5Tweet from @PhilipDerrida: “NETTR doesn’t mean “don’t criticize people on the right.” It means don’t let your differences with other camps get so twisted that you see them as *the* existential threat to civilization. Anyone remotely familiar with RW spaces knows that there’s a lot of theorycel debates.” – https://twitter.com/PhilipDerrida/status/1754952902349910220?t=tYSQ4E5sCTPQOcXu9pTnlg&s=19
- 6Stephen Wolfe, “The Case for Christian Nationalism,” Chapter 7
Leave a Reply