So, how in the hell does National Bolshevism (or, in American parlance, Left-wing Redneckism) square with the 2006 movie inspired by a graphic novel by Alan Moore? After all, Moore’s variant of anarchism is even more impractical in these times than pacifism. (We often quote the Swiss Pareto who taught that whoever is a lamb will find a wolf to eat him).
First, the movie written & produced by the Wachowski Brothers of MATRIX fame–a movie trilogy I admire) was repudiated by the cranky Alan Moore. Secondly, the movie, top-lining Natalie Portman & Hugo Weaving, is superior to the novel.
The common liberal mainstream critique of the movie is that it ‘justifies’ terrorism, as if the New World Order isn’t built on state-sponsored terrorism. ‘Conservative’ critics didn’t like any criticism–even implied–of Neocon poodle Bush.
The orthodox Left critique of the movie is more interesting. They call it ‘fascist’ because the masses are passive, at least initially. But isn’t that how it is in the real world?
When Francis Parker Yockey & his comrades founded the European Liberation Front after the publication of THE PROCLAMATION OF LONDON in late 1948/early 1949, they stated no mass movement was possible at that time. So in the words of Yockey’s biographer (see DREAMER OF THE DAY) they sought to create an elite nucleus in each of the lands of the western Imperium. “Founding an Order, secret of necessity, of the elite of our Idea, within the IMPERIUM, to secure adherence of highly placed people in all Western lands”.
Furthermore, they said, and here’s the kicker:
KNOWING THAT ALL REVOLUTIONS MADE FROM THE TOP AND NOT BELOW!
We who seek to revive the Liberation Front have that affinity for V.
We reprint below Michael Wolfe’s fair-minded review from the usually snotty VANITY FAIR.