Appearance: Do we, as nationalists, truly have reason to be optimistic? What does the population of nationalism bring?
Lead: “The spectrum is moving around Europe – the spectrum of communism. All the powers of old Europe have merged into a sacred hunt against this spectrum: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French radicals and German policemen”[1] – these are the words Karl Marx started 1 of his most well-read works, which undoubtedly is Manifest of the Communist Party. If this quote is decently reworked, it will be possible to give the moods of any nationalistic circles in our beautiful country.
The spectrum of national populism seems to be circulating across Europe, to which all European powers seem to cast a glove—demliberal media, liberal and left-wing intellectual elites, European Union authorities, and even a visible part of the church hierarchy. Together, they launch an offensive against movements specified as: German alternate für Deutschland, Spanish Vox, Danish Dansk Folkeparti, Swedish Sverige Democrat, French Rassemblement National, Dutch Partij voor de Vrijheid, Austrian Freiheidliche Partei Österreichs, American Make America large Again, Brazilian Partido Liberal and the remainder of the formations collectively defined by national populisms.
The fresh governance and national policy environment has taken on banners the slogan "New People's Spring". This is just 1 of many examples of right-wing environments looking so optimistically at the close future and tying greater hopes with national-popular movements in Europe. Hope is justified, but will it be the “mother of fools”? Can we truly number on an ethical-spiritual awakening of nations? There is no simple answer.
The Benefits of National Populism
First of all, it must be given to populists that they are rightly against the highly harmful phenomenon of centralising the European Union. A liberal clique, which governs the post-Chadek and post-social democratic elements, seeks to abolish the national state, and the affirmative task is to be liberal cosmopolitanism, or the European federation[2] recalling the United States of America (the difference here may be the highest in terms of whether we consider the United States of Europe as a mark category or as a phase before the United States of America, that's what it's called).
National populists, too, point to the interior inconsistency of the "liberal democracy" due to what Alain de Benoist points out in the following words: "Redefined in a liberal sense, democracy ceases to be a strategy whose foundation is the sovereignty of the nation. Its fresh foundation becomes «Human rights». Human rights are superior to the sovereignty of the people, and the second is respected only if it is not contrary to them: democracy is so subject to conditions, starting with respect «Inalienable rights»which each individual would have by virtue of its existence’[3].
It comes to this by re-interpreting EU treaties (I am referring to the creative re-interpretation of EU treaties to form EU law on their basis) or a constitutional judiciary that citizens have absolutely no influence over. Let me repeat the words of 1 of the authority of the Identitarians: “These are all ways to argue the sovereignty of the people of human rights and the primacy of pure legality. Liberal democracy is democracy without demos, without people, without people.”[4]. This must rise the opposition of the “pure democrats” because, as Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote, “in order for the will to be universal, it is not always essential for it to be unanimous: however, it is essential for all heads to be counted: all formal exclusion breaks universality”[5]. On the ground of democracy itself, the French-Swiss thinker must be right, that “the will is common or not: it is the will of the nation in its entirety or simply the will of part. In the first case, a declaration of that will is simply a superior act and creates a law; in the second it is only a peculiar or comparatively implementing act; at most it is simply a regulation."[6].
Rousseau adds: “The universal will is always simple and always aims for public benefit; but it does not show that the people’s deliberations are always as simple as they are. You always want your good, but you don't always see it: you never bribe a nation, but you frequently cheat it, and then seemingly only a nation wants something that is evil. There is frequently a crucial difference between the will of all and the will of all; this 1 is solely afraid about the common interest; that 1 is afraid about the private interest and is only the sum of the individual wills; but if they deviate from the same wills and plus and minus which each 1 endures, it will be as the sum of the differences of the universal will."[7].
Social problem of democratic-liberal synthesis
Undoubtedly Patrick Deneen was right erstwhile he wrote: “Liberism was justified, gaining widespread support as an opponent and alternate to the old aristocracy. He attacked inherited privileges, overturned assigned economical roles and abolished established social positions, alternatively promoting openness based on choice, talent, opportunities and industry. Paradoxically, however, he created a fresh aristocracy whose feature is inherited privileges, assigned economical roles and established social positions"[8]. In fact, the social class of the liberal elite, which lives in its own bubble without knowing the realities of the lives of average Poles, which reigns and shares their regulation with large bourgeoisie and a group of patocelebrites, who for any reason enjoy any authority among young people.
It is besides important, as Carl Schmitt pointed out, that in order for democracy to work, a certain sense of community is needed, due to the fact that if it is to regulation the people, we must first find who this people is creating. As the German philosopher put it: “Every real democracy is that not only those who are equal are treated equally, but besides consistently everyone who is not equal is subject to different forms of inequality. Democracy is so homogenous and, at the same time, necessarily means the exclusion or annihilation of all heterogeneous elements. This rule of democracy can be briefly illustrated in 2 examples. The first is Turkey, which runs a extremist run to displace the Greek population and ruthless cultural unification of the country. [...] The political strength of democracy lies in the ability to overcome and remove the elements of alienity and inequality that endanger the homogenous nature of democratic society. The problem of equality is not an abstract, purely logical-mathematic issue, but refers straight to the content of the phenomenon of equality. [...] Equality in the thought of democracy of English sectarians in the 17th century is based on the conformity of spiritual beliefs”[9].
To put it plainly, society needs to have a sense of community, to be able to identify the criteria that will let us to identify who is “your own”. Thus, Tadeusz Gloziński erred erstwhile he wrote: “Who belongs to the people? Everyone, of course. [...] The perfect of democracy is fundamentally the abolition of state borders, any United States of the world, and in worst case a country so hospitable that any stranger, as at the depot house, considers to be a co-host”[10]because the people as a full cannot be abstract. You can't build a sense of community around it. I dare to fishy that Gloziński misidentified democracy only with its liberal variety.
In the case of the French Republic it was a sense of community of citizens of this country, in the case of the russian Union it was a sense of ideological community. But what do they want to make a sense of liberal community of the elite presently at the helm? I don't see any real proposition... possibly too the naive proposal of German thinker Jürgen Habermas, which would be to make a legal European community[11]. The full is based on both the radicalised belief that the nation's state genesis and the fact that Habermas is simply a cosmopolitan belief that communication changes will lead us to a universal sense of global citizenship (and so 1 of the factors integrating Europeans should be a liberal migration policy)[12].
But the problem is that people are by their nature social beings. This is connected not only with the truth—which liberals seem to ignore—that for man there is simply a natural life in the community, but besides with the fact that man as socialized forms, among others, under the influence in which the nation came to be raised. The same kid raised by a Polish household or by a Russian household will be in adulthood another man. The first language we have learned, the first principles of morality that we acquired in childhood – these are the first examples of how the society in which we grew up has shaped us. In the above example, the difference is not only whether the girl would be called Catherine or Katerina Nikolaevna, but besides what country she identifies with, how she perceives any historical events, how she thinks and so can be exchanged.
What I'm getting at is the fact that an emancipated individual who has no influence on its form from the environment, nationality, culture, religion in the household and another specified factors simply does not exist. There is so no individual that could be said to be "just human." Consequently, it is impossible to make a sense of humanity in isolation from national, axiological, religious, ideological and another issues that are essential for the construction of a collective identity.
Without getting into a deeper analysis of the interior relation between liberalism and democracy (and what would be analysed), I will decision on to another issue. Since I pointed out in the beginning that I do not have an unequivocally commendable attitude towards national populism, I will let myself to decision on to the comments that I have in relation to national populist ideas.
Problems with national populism
First, I must point out that unfettered expression of universal will is simply a double-edged weapon. On the 1 hand, it is possible to block various stupidities, specified as a complete departure from combustion cars at a fast pace, or proposed by the Together Party[13] to enable sex another than male and female to be entered in documents. But we must besides agree to harmful demands that have public support. The consequence is flowers specified as the entry in the Dutch PVV program saying, “There is no place for education, however, that is contrary to the most crucial principles on which our society is based: freedom, equality between men and women, heterosexual and LGBTI, believers and non-believers”[14]. Another example is that Swedish SD supports youth mutilation through alleged transit[15]. Moreover, their programme suggests that the organization sees "sexual orientation" in gender-like categories.[16]. Another example is Russian Vladimir Wolfowicz Żyrinski, who proposed legalization of polygamy[17].
What's more, even without specified "curses" of their own, it's hard to execute with an acceptable Catholic moral program, calling out that's what people truly want.
On this occasion, I will remind you that Rousseu says: “If, then, at the time of the conclusion of the social arrangement, there is opposition against him, their opposition does not invalidate the contract, but does not let them to be included in it; they are foreigners among citizens. erstwhile the state is established, consent is to reside in it; to dwell in the territory, that is to submit to the superior authority.
Apart from this first agreement, the majority vote always obliges everyone else; this follows the agreement [...] erstwhile a law is applied to the assembly of a nation, it does not actually ask them whether they accept or reject the motion, but whether the motion is compatible or not, with the universal will, which is their will; everyone speaking out, speaking out his opinion, and the calculation of the votes results in a declaration of universal will. So erstwhile it prevails against my opinion, it only proves that I was incorrect and that what I thought was universal will was not.”[18].
In total, national populist movements have conducted political aggiornamento and, on the 1 hand, more or little critical of immigration from the position of a national state, and on the another hand, in order to gain wider support, they have decided to surrender to liberals in the cultural and civic field. In the field of fighting for culture, fighting for morality, or fighting for religion, they capitulated or – even worse – have an authentic liberal position here. It can be said that this is any post-liberalism which has ceased to be full liberalism having seen the existence of a general existence of society and thus has drawn the right conclusion that muslim immigration forged by the elite threatens the liberal, secular and right-minded legal-social order, and thus they act in its defence. Therefore, I dare say that the occasional references to Christianity are purely instrumental, due to the fact that if Christianity were actually reborn, it would be the same threat to this axiology as Islam.
I realize, of course, that most likely if Marine Le Pen abruptly appeared with a program containing the penalization of the promotion of bad conduct and the proposal to transform the V French Republic into a Catholic ideal-based republic Révolution nationale, it would land under the electoral threshold with small bigger scope than the organization Les Nationalistes. Nevertheless, I get the impression that her movement – like most national populist movements – does not even aim at a gradual and slow change in social optics. I do not know about this that specified movements take on the function of "moderate ones" and at the same time support more extremist movements so that they are visible in the public sphere and can scope a wider audience than individuals. I do not know that Le Pen (although under the pretext of defending freedom of speech and political pluralism) defends or otherwise assists movements specified as the aforementioned organization Les Nationalistesor even Action Française (yes, it inactive exists).
For this reason, it seems to me that, like the Church hierarchy, most likely at the Second Vatican Council, the desire to keep the scope and influence of the Catholic Church (the fact that this has not been another case) was driven, so I believe that right-wing people, people of good will, with greater hopes in national populist movements, are primarily motivated by the desire to scope the wider social masses. The problem is, even if there was a hypothetical coup today, which would consequence in us as nationalists gaining power, we would most likely not have kept it for besides long, due to the fact that our society is bound to a demoliberal communicative like a Sarmatian nobility to a veto liberal.
Power is not all that can be seen, even after the French Revolution was beaten in 1815, and yet Ancient Régime It didn't hold. A spiritual coup should be a priority.
Herbert Marcuse rightly wrote: “The fact that the vast majority of the population accepts and is forced to accept this society does not make it little irrational and little condemnable. The discrimination between actual and false awareness, real and direct interest, remains significant. [...] People request to see them and find their own way from false to actual awareness, from their direct interests to real ones. They can only do this if they live in the request to change their way of life”[19]. This change in the way of life and the change in the social mentality do not effort to carry out the national populists . Of course, in a political sense, as well as – and possibly even more – intellectual, due to the fact that the general representatives of this political trend tend to reduce public activity to strict sense policy. Here, there is simply a request for possible cooperation between politicians and people of culture, intellectuals, more perfect associations, which do not gotta search the applause of voters (e.g. HVIM in Hungary) etc., but this is simply missing. And societies don't change just by active politics...
In issuing the final judgment, it must be considered that national populism can be instrumentally useful, but it is not essential to become overly optimistic about it, nor to look at it as a large spur to the revival of Christian nations. It is simply a defensive (post-liberal) reality consequence (and hence specified a willing inclusion of Israel into the states of their civilization) that wants to defend the social position quo of Western nations against the centralization of the European Union and against the incompatible social immigration that the liberal and leftist political elites support, and thus showing them a yellow card by voters voting for national populists (the exception is, of course, the LDPR due to the fact that it de facto plays the function of the Putin-controlled "opposition" regime).
What, in return, and what methods should we adopt if we are not to put va banque on a organization political game? This is simply a subject for another text.
Krzysztof Michał Kapa
[1] K. Marks, F. Engels, Manifest of the Communist Party, [in:] Idem, Selected works T.1, crowd. anonymous., Warsaw, 1949, p. 25.
[2] A. Wielomski, M. Ziemek-Welomska, National State and its enemies, Warsaw, 2020, p. 21
[3] A. de Benoist, Against liberalism. Society is not a market, crowd. K. Tyszka-Drozdowski, Warsaw, 2022, p. 293
[4] Ibid... p. 297
[5] The president On the Social Agreement, crowd. M. Starzewski, Warsaw, 2002, p. 46
[6] Ibid... pp. 46-47
[7] Ibid... p. 50
[8] Mr Deneen, Why did liberalism fail?, crowd. M. Czarnecki, Warsaw, 2021, p. 198
[9] The president The spiritual and Historical Situation of Modern Parliamentaryism, [in:] Idem, Political Theology and another Writings, crowd. M. Cichocki, Warsaw, 2012, pp. 150-151
[10] T. Gluziński, Revival of political idealism, Krzeszowice, 2012, p. 26
[11] The president Citizenship and national identity. Reflections on Europe's Future, crowd. B. Markiewicz, Warsaw, 1993, p. 17
[12] Ibid... p. 35
[13]For equality, against discrimination, Partrazem.pl [Accessed 18.07.2025], https://partiarazem.pl/programme-declaration/6-as-usual-against-discrimination
[14]Nederlanders weer op 1. PVV Verkiezingsprogramma 2023, p. 33, https://www.pvv.nl/images/2023/PVV-Verkiezingsprogramma-2023.pdf
[15]HBTQ personers psikiska hälsa, sd.se [Accessed 18.07,2025], https://web.archive.org/web/20210806150616/https://sd.se/our-politics/hbtq-personers-psykiska-halsa/
[16]Principprogram Sverigedemorkaterna 2023p. 19, https://www.sd.se/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/sverige democratinas-principprogram-2023.pdf
[17]Жириновский выступил введение в России, m24.ru, [Accessed 22.07.2025], https://www.m24.ru/news/obshchestvo/21102019/94134
[18] J. J. Rousseau, op. cit., pp. 176-178
[19] H. Marcuse, One-dimensional man. investigation on the ideology of developed industrial society, crowd. W. Gromczyński, Warsaw, 1991, p. 9.
[Da1]The Union does not federalise, but centralises, or integrates into the imperial model.
[Da2]You mean this? To make a fresh law based on old treaties and their creative reinterpretation?
[JS3]Is Żyrinowski a "national populist" in the sense of Europeans?
[A4]Looking at the LDPR rhetoric, I believe it is justified, and whether it is/was an anti-systemist opposition... Well, here I have my doubts, as in the case of any movements commonly regarded as national populist, specified as Trumpism in the US, or Bolsonaro in Brazil.
[JS5]Is there any evidence that "national populism orders the promotion of abortion freedom" in Ireland? Which national populist organization in Ireland supports this? As far as I know, parties entering the national stream are antiabortionary there – 1 of them even formed as a consequence of the divided in Sinn Fein just in relation to abortion.
[A6]Aontú, as far as I know, fits alternatively into the tradition of Irish Republicanism (IRA idealology), alternatively than into the "Irish branch of MAGA". Sinn Féin is already more fit into this by looking at the fact that she turned this way rejecting ideological principle.
[7]Response to Damian aa (23.07.2025, 14:56): ‘...’
Sinn Fein is now alternatively simply a social democratic party, boycotting Trump over the situation in Gaza. In the field of identity policy, it fits the pattern of Irish republicanism as its chief heir.
The argument that although the "national populism" is in favour of abortion freedom in Ireland is hard to support.
Ok, look at another, more "orthodox" version – Sinn Féin Poblachtach. Furthermore, I have pointed out in this case that it is hard to deal with – for example – a pro-life program while referring to the actual will of the people in a situation where society is clearly proactive.
[Da9]You're confusing the common majority.
[Da11]In assessing all this, however, 1 cannot abstract from the political context – Old Le Pen was more radical, but spent almost all his life on a political margin. After all, if Le Pen had jumped out in France with an abortion ban and an LPG parade, she'd most likely be under the threshold. I am not saying that it is good that these bioethical and another issues are forgiven, but they are simply politicians and they must consider demos. It is worth noting, due to the fact that specified criticism of a departure from the principle, which does not take account of local realities, is simply a criticism separated from reality.
[Da12]The question is, is that what politicians are for? And if you have a charge with national populists as intellectuals, it is worth writing that these intellectual environments linked to representatives of national populist parties do not propose specified a coup, reducing the request for change to strict politics.
[Da13]Not only to defend the position quo, but alternatively to reverse e.g. the privileges of immigrants or to reverse certain reforms that deepen EU integration.
[Da14]You forget about the key component of this rebellion – it's a rebellion towards the elite, it's a strong yellow card for the establishment.
