In recent times, there has been significant attention given by mainstream media to the controversial arrest of members belonging to the political group Patriot Front. These arrests, which took place during one of their demonstrations protesting a Pride event in Coeur-d'Alene, Idaho in June of this year, have sparked debate and scrutiny. One notable critique that emerged, even from conservative pundits, was the notion that Patriot Front members wearing uniforms during their political activism were acting as agent provocateurs. This critique, lacking any evidence and purely speculative, quickly spread through social media, sowing seeds of distrust among their followers. It is important to examine the underlying reasons behind this fear-mongering response, as it reveals certain aspects of the conservative political system and its aversion to symbols such as uniforms.
This article aims to explore the behavioral similarities, causes, and consequences of two distinct groups: modern conservatives who hold conspiratorial beliefs and accuse Patriot Front of being federal agents, and the Sans-Culottes of the French Revolution who denounced the monarchy for engaging in a global conspiracy. Both groups share a deep-rooted disdain for aristocracy and order, which is further intensified by symbols representing a higher social hierarchy, such as uniforms.
The term "Sans-Culottes," originally used as an insult by defenders of the Ancien Régime, referred to a loosely-organized group of revolutionary agitators in Paris who lacked the means to afford the clothing of the wealthy elite, particularly silk knee breaches (culottes). This term serves as a historical parallel to the modern-day conservative's animosity towards symbols of social distinction, like uniforms.
While conducting our research on this subject, we found that Associate Professor Christopher Hodson of Brigham Young University's Department of History has touched upon similar connections between these two groups. In his article published in the Salt Lake Tribune in May, Professor Hodson explores certain aspects of this comparison. However, we believe that his work lacks detail and depth, prompting us to further elaborate on his findings and draw intuitive conclusions for the readers. It is important to note that our speculations regarding the lack of detail in Professor Hodson's article are not meant to question his scholarly abilities.
In another perspective, the ideas put forth by paleo-conservative thinker Sam Francis in his series of articles titled Revolution From The Middle also touch upon the subject at hand. Unfortunately, we have been unable to access an affordable copy of this work, but we believe it could potentially offer valuable insights that align with the concepts presented in our own work. However, we will not delve into the articles written by Francis as they were published over twenty-five years ago, and it is reasonable to assume that some of his predictions may not have stood the test of time.
Associate Professor Hodson argues that modern Republican voters have betrayed Conservatism. We must correct his misidentification of the subject matter by using the term "conservative." It is important to represent both American voters and non-voters as a whole, encompassing a wide range of beliefs that lean towards the political right, often with contradicting perspectives.
The main purpose of this article is to address the errors made by Hodson in critiquing the modern conservative movement for deviating from the principles of British philosopher Edmund Burke, whom we refer to as "re-Burking." Firstly, Hodson mistakenly labels this phenomenon as solely Republican, failing to recognize it as a broader conservative movement. It is important to set aside petty partisanship and focus on the essence of the issue. In the 2016 elections, for example, Trump voters did not consider themselves traditional Republicans. Many were first-time voters and deliberately distanced themselves from the electoral process. According to the Voter Study Group, only one-third of Trump voters identified as "staunch conservatives." This ideological discrepancy between what Hodson refers to as "Republican voters" and Trump supporters is crucial to our argument. Hodson's thesis is based on a perceived betrayal of Burke's principles, with Burke considered the father of Conservatism for his publication of The Reflections on The Revolution In France after witnessing the violence of the French Sans-Culottes mobs.
Furthermore, Hodson makes a second error by assuming that there is any parallel or continuity between Burkean Conservatism and the "small-c" conservatism found in the United States. After two hundred years, there is no irrefutable connection between the two, apart from sharing a common title. The modern conservatives have "re-Burked" traditional Conservatism entirely, going against its grain. This gradual shift began with the marginalization of political thinkers like William F. Buckley, who played a role in dismantling the John Birch Society. Contrary to popular belief, a significant majority of right-leaning American voters do not align with traditional conservatism. Instead, they embody the radicalism of the French Revolution. Understanding the mindset of the modern conservative requires examining the French Revolution rather than the ideology of Burke.
For instance, the recent failed insurrection at the Capitol in 2021 by Trump supporters, aimed at asserting Trumpian power, bears resemblance to the actions of Parisian mobs organized by influential figures of the French Revolution. Radical Jacobin journalist and political philosopher Jean-Paul Marat played a significant role in mobilizing these mobs, often resorting to occupying government buildings and using threats to manipulate legislators and politicians in support of the Revolution. Marat, known for his confinement to a bathtub due to a skin condition, spent his time writing editorials endorsing the Revolution's actions until his assassination by Charlotte Corday in 1793.
However, these minor similarities do not provide the same level of insight or relevance as the role played by conspiracy theories in both the modern conservative Trump movement and the French Revolution. As highlighted in an article on the French Revolution published on the Alpha History website:
“The majority of Sans-Culottes [...] obtained their political news from the inflammatory press and secondhand reports, which made them susceptible to rumour and conspiracy theories.”
— Alpha History (https://alphahistory.com/frenchrevolution/)
It is essential to recognize that the events of mobs storming government buildings are not exclusive to these two major instances in history. There have been numerous similar occurrences throughout history, and it is crucial to emphasize this point. The crux of the matter lies in how the media, under the control of a political elite, played a significant role in developing these conspiracies and organizing chaotic mobs to engage in violent and spontaneous actions. These conspiracies were propagated through various mediums such as the press, theater, paintings, statues, music, and writing, and were further spread through word-of-mouth, effectively exploiting the emotions of a population ripe for revolt.
Furthermore, similar to the fervor seen in the Parisian mobs, the Trumpist supporters were also captivated and motivated to act by the political speeches of agitators and propagandists like Roger Stone and President Trump himself. Much like the Sans-Culottes, these Trumpist supporters did not function as a conventional army with defined roles and uniforms. Instead, they served as a political weapon that could be opportunistically wielded by the media elite. This elite group controls the political narrative by promoting their own belief system, while superficially defending the perceived political interests of the violent mob, which feels justified in holding political grievances against the larger political system. By pandering to the desperation of individuals within the mob, this propaganda manipulates its receptive audience into resorting to violence whenever it is deemed necessary to protect the political interests of the media elite from a competing entity.
Overall, there exists a disconnect between the interests of the mob and those who control it. This disconnect is a direct result of the nature of crowds, as described by Gustave Le Bon, the father of modern psychology. Le Bon asserts that individuals within a crowd lack rationality and coherence, likening them to grains of sand that can be stirred up by the wind at will. Without a clear sense of direction, such unruly mobs prove advantageous to those who successfully manage to control their inhibitions.
According to François-Valentin Mulot, a Jacobin priest and librarian during the French Revolution, Sans-Culottisme was intentionally vague and flexible, allowing a wide range of people to associate themselves with it.
Mulot further explains that Culottisme, or the concept of being a "Culotte" (wearing knee breeches), aligns with the ideal citizen that is promoted through political discourse to mobilize the people. He suggests that Sans-Culottisme, the opposite of Culottisme, was created by the Jacobins and Montagnards to distinguish themselves from counter-revolutionaries and other factions in the Assembly. This concept serves as an obstacle to genuine reform, both from within and outside the political system. It offers individuals the opportunity to attain a socially esteemed status. Mulot reveals that the Sans-Culotte is a product of an evolving discourse of the people and symbolizes the overthrow of the existing system of social hierarchy. Ultimately, this overthrow aims to seize power from the ruling class, as implied by Mulot.
In the spirit of our discussion, it is worth noting a fascinating aspect regarding the utilization of the Tiers-État's (Third Estates or Middle Class) dissatisfaction against the deteriorating power structure of the ruling political class. This manipulation is orchestrated by a quasi-political and quasi-professional elite class with vested economic interests, aiming to overthrow the inept rulers in power. In our present circumstances, the predominantly left-leaning international Jewish and WASP rulers are facing mounting pressure from a disillusioned working class. Notably, their more nationalist-oriented leaders have begun exploiting the desperation of conservative masses as a political threat, with the ultimate goal of usurpation or motivating the left-leaning side towards their political solutions. Curiously, both the leaders of modern conservatives, who paradoxically label themselves as "Republican," and the Sans-Culottes are not members of the working class but rather emerge from the privileged elite subclass, albeit with an inferior social status due to their mediocrity.
Another crucial parallel between modern conservatives and Sans-Culottes lies in their shared belief systems. Contrary to Associate Professor Hodson's portrayal of betrayal, modern conservatives adhere to the ideals of nothingness, much like the Sans-Culottes. Individuals associated with either movement, once part of the crowd, prioritize material wealth and lack a comprehensive appreciation of philosophy and civilization. Unlike Burke, who believed in natural class-distinctions of rights and duties, modern conservatives lack any real ideological foundation, which Hodson fails to acknowledge.
In practice, modern conservatives embrace an unapologetic and universal egalitarianism, the belief in subjectivity extended to all except the elite masters who control them. They genuinely advocate for the indiscriminate and equal treatment of individuals, with the condition that such fairness is based on personal responsibility. This fact is vehemently denied by insular left-leaning individuals, highlighting their own ignorance.
The conspiratorial conservative perceives any form of discrimination as a direct attack on their person. They cling to the concept of liberty as prescribed in the Bill of Rights, considering it a social contract bestowed upon them as an afterthought by the founding elites of the United States. The ten amendments within this bill, which they find agreeable, remain politically untouchable, serving as their lifeline. Paradoxically, a piece of parchment designed to subjugate them has become their everything, fulfilling its purpose. Returning to our initial subject, the Patriot Front poses a threat to their ideal of the social contract, even if, as individuals, they would greatly benefit from the implementation of various political solutions rooted in national-socialist policies.
Expanding on this notion, the re-Burked conservative is genuinely unconcerned with gender, race, sexual orientation, social status, salary, profession, and so forth, as long as one does not uphold the degenerate privileges of the elite. Consequently, they subscribe to fairy tales and vague notions of "freedom" that are malleable and altered. To quote Laurence J. Peter summarizing Aristotle, though often attributed to the latter: "the worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." The moral compass of a re-Burked conservative lies solely in their disdain for the parasitic "Liberals" whom they rightly perceive as unworthy, or to our readers, less worthy than the conservative. The "Liberal" indulges in a luxury belief system akin to that of the dying aristocracy of France.
In reality, such individuals are mere wasteful entities, occupying space as a destructive force. They lack the capacity to sustain a civilization, be it as masters or slaves. They epitomize sterility. The modern conservative comprehends this, as their primitive sense of egalitarianism is justly offended by such incompetence, representing their sole understanding of right versus wrong.
The average conservative who participated in the events at the Capitol, influenced by media masters, firmly believes in individual freedoms but not in collective freedoms for groups. Despite this individualistic belief, they exist as mere grains of sand within the larger incoherent crowd. Patriot Front, as a cohesive organization, stands outside of this phenomenon and therefore must be destroyed. Yet, great irony lies in the fact that as an individual, the conservative is nothing more than another malleable grain of sand within the larger crowd. The members of Patriot Front represent a coherent ideal, but to the crowd, they are perceived as foreign oppressors threatening the social contract. This cognitive dissonance allows the conservative to simultaneously despise those who fulfill their self-actualization and rush to the defense of their oppressors. Just like a grain of sand, they willingly accept their inferior position in the hierarchy beneath the ruling elite, deriving pleasure from being crushed by them. Despite understanding their own superiority over their oppressors, they assume their place by adopting the mannerisms and colloquialisms of the ruling elite they despise. Such Jewish-Libertarian cowardice would surely dismay Burke to the point of madness.
A fifth similarity arises in the societal position held by the average conservative today. They are perceived as individuals belonging to the working class, neither extremely destitute nor unemployed, much like the Sans-Culottes who were depicted as working-class Parisians of the Third Estate. Both groups share the appearance of skilled workers and small business owners. According to Robert Wilde, a history expert at the University of Sheffield, the Sans-Culottes were urban workers, artisans, minor landholders, and associated Parisians who participated in mass public displays.
In our American context, the nationalist conservative underclass finds itself inclined towards the dominance of the unrepentant globalist class, mirroring the situation of highly nationalist revolutionaries who were subjected to the globalist Aristocracy of the Ancien Régime. It may seem strange to those without political and historical understanding that supposedly left-leaning revolutionaries would hold steadfast nationalist beliefs. However, there is no mistake in the refrain of the current French anthem, La Marseillaise, written during the French Revolution, which states: "To arms, citizens, Form your battalions, March, march! That an impure blood, Waters our furrows."
To briefly explain our stance on the French Revolution, we must highlight the role that Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, a significant figure in the development of National Socialist politics, saw himself fulfilling. Despite being born into a noble family, he aligned himself not with the traditional aristocracy but exhibited pro-revolutionary tendencies. France, through Napoleon as the embodiment of European order, stood alone against a disorderly world in its decisive struggle against the dying aristocratic regimes of old. This symbolic reason is why Napoleon crowned himself as the new Roman Emperor. In 799, Pope Leo III, seeking new allies as he faced assault from Romans instigated by the Byzantine aristocracy that despised him, found himself in dire need. As a result, the Pope pledged an oath of innocence to Charlemagne, regretting his weakening political position, and eventually crowned Charlemagne as Imperator. In turn, Charlemagne solidified his own legitimacy as ruler in exchange for protecting the Pope. However, an unintended consequence emerged: Pope Leo III inadvertently severed the authorities of the two parts of a single Empire, East and West.
The separation of the Roman Empire has been a recurring issue since the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Napoleon sought to resolve this legitimacy crisis by placing the crown upon his own head, symbolically reversing the split between Eastern and Western Rome. However, this stain on history reemerged after his death and remained until the rise of National Socialism under the Third Reich, which briefly repressed it.
Napoleon understood his role as a revolutionary was to bring order to the chaos that arose from the French Revolution. He aimed to unify European nations under a Roman world order. The chaos of the First World War led to a second attempt at European reunification through the Axis and National Socialism. Now, the chaos arising from the conservative movement will lead to a third and final attempt towards a new European age. Patriot Front is just one part of this larger movement.
Fascism exists as both traditional order and revolutionary chaos, as both conservative and liberal, as both left-wing and right-wing. It represents a true Third-Positionism that achieves balance. Conservatism is not the venue for achieving societal goals as it is a tool of a mediocre sub-elite trying to maintain a decrepit political order. Only violence in response to chaos can lead to Fascistic order and earn the respect of the crowd.
While the violence of American citizens today should not be compared to the violence of the French Revolution, the conservative movement will inevitably resort to violence, just as the Sans-Culottes did during the Revolution.
As economic conditions worsen, the average man will face rising prices and the subjugation of decaying political systems. The declining elite of the United States will engage in morally questionable global conflicts and extort American wealth to maintain their extravagance. The conservative man will eventually have enough and rise up against this petulant infant. We must show love and compassion to the average conservative, as they will awaken and benefit from the restoration of order.