Thesis 5: National Democratism has emerged in the process of historical development of nationalist ideology in response to the challenge of revolutionary ideological subversion.

There are at least three aspects of nationalism:

1) Nationalism as ethnic consciousness – attitude towards the people as an extension of one’s identity;

2) Nationalism as resistance to domination attempts by other nations and the consequent demand for self-determination;

3) Nationalism as a counter-revolutionary and regenerative force of civilization.

The first two aspects of nationalism is the minimum of nationalist ideology, which also characterizes most of the history of Latvian nationalism. Also, for thirty years of restored Latvia, Latvian nationalists have basically continued the work started by the national resistance movement in the fight against the consequences of the occupation of the USSR and on the rights of Latvians in their country. But that is no longer enough. Neo-Marxism has taken root in many crucial power structures and merged with Russia’s interests, creating a new kind of political front. In it, the issue of Russian-speakers fits into the broader scheme of “oppressed” / “oppressors”, in which Latvians have been given the second role. Neo-Marxist activities are characterized by anti-democracy: they see the right of self-determination of the majority of the people as an obstacle to the ideological project of transforming society. Their policy continues the sabotage of the state carried out by the Social Democrats during the first stage of Latvia’s independence – these socialists, too, were not representatives of Latvian interests, but representatives of “international interests” (or USSR) in Latvia. Neo-Marxists are a minority in our overall national conservative society. However, their influence is disproportionately high in public opinion-forming institutions, which over time, together with the influx of immigrants, can form a new majority, just as it has happened in the rest of the Western world. Once this majority is obtained, the resistance of national political forces to the society-destroying processes will become increasingly difficult. Besides, behind these processes the strings are pulled by broader power structures – global financial, informational, and political centres of power.

The new ideological adversary calls for a reassessment of the current nationalist strategy. The policy directed against the ethnic interests of Latvians in their own country has not been a monopoly of “Russian-speaker parties” for some time now – this mission has been undertaken with much greater enthusiasm by the new left. Their danger is greater than that of their predecessors because it is not based solely on a geopolitical position, but on the implementation of a revolutionary subversion that undermines the morality, value system, will and ability of the people to defend themselves and their country in the long run. This creeping occupation and destruction through mass immigration, undermining of cultural norms and indoctrination can take place within the borders of an already established and legally strengthened nation state. What already happened in Latvia during the occupation of the USSR is happening in Western Europe without an armed invasion. This is only because the dangers of ideological subversion were not grasped in time. Therefore, the third – counter-revolutionary – aspect of nationalism is now becoming especially important.

National Democratism interprets counter-revolutionism in a broader metaphysical and historical context. Everywhere in the world we can see the contradiction between the creative and the destructive principle. Life, family, nation, and culture embody the creative principle, while destructive we know as death and entropy. In the political sphere, these two principles manifest themselves as organic and mechanistic conception of society. According to the organic understanding of society, which is characteristic to traditional culture, man is inextricably linked to his people – with those around him, with his ancestors and future generations. It is this living community that shapes and expands his identity and whose solidarity does not allow the isolation and the myriad social problems associated with isolation that are so characteristic of modern society. Organic conception of society exists best in small rural communities, which were the main form of coexistence in the era before the Industrial Revolution.

The mechanistic concept of society interprets society as material that can be transformed according to a pre-conceived plan. In this concept, man is not considered to be a rooted being, but only an economic factor, but the nation and the family are seen as obstacles to the construction of utopia.[1] The triumph of the concept of a mechanistic society began at the same time as the Industrial Revolution, but it is not the cause. As it can be seen in non-Western societies, industrialization and modernization do not mean the destruction of traditional values or the acceptance of liberalism, on the contrary, these processes can take place in the context of traditional values and under the leadership of traditional institutions. Only in Western civilization, where the industrial revolution began, did it coincide with a comprehensive political and moral revolution of modernity, or rather the three waves of revolution.

The causes of these revolutions can be traced back to the late Middle Ages, when European monarchies lost their original ethnic and democratic character, but later also diminished the importance of the guild system. Thus, having lost its support base and isolating in its own world, the monarchy became its caprice. It was used by the liberal counter-elite, which opposed the monarchy with its interpretation of democracy. If the goal of classical democracy was to directly express the common will of the people, then the main goal of the liberal democrats was to limit the power of monarchs to give way to “freedom of individual” (or capitalism – free action with money), regardless of the social consequences of this “freedom”. The terror of the bloody French Revolution was the most significant episode in the first revolution of modernity, but the fundamental aimlessness of liberal ideology made it only a transition to the next revolution – the Marxist one.

The transition from the liberal capitalist revolution to the Communist one took place naturally. Liberalism paved the way for a path of industrialization that was not constrained by any community considerations, based on the sanctity of private property rights, as well on the idea of self-regulating ​​free market. However, capitalism is not based on private property, but on the separation of capital and labour. As a result of the liberal industrial revolution, the share of private owners in society declined and the economy became something external to ordinary life – the integrity of life that in the organic society united the household with the economy and work with property disappeared. Excessive urbanization, in turn, created huge masses of alienated and exploited workers, or proletariat, who no longer owned anything but their own workforce. It was these social changes that became the breeding ground for the Marxist movement, whose proclaimed goal is to establish a communist society – a society in which private property does not exist at all. Instead of preventing the concentration of property and expanding the number of private owners, Marxists are taking these socially dangerous trends to their limits. Marxists not only want to abolish private property by handing over all power to political bureaucracy, but also to abolish any civilized relationships – to destroy family, nation and, finally, civilization itself. Internationalism of Marxism is nothing more than a primitive nomadic mentality: the collapse of the upper layer of Western culture and a return to the level of culture that existed before the birth of Western civilization. The first messengers of this primitivism were already visible in the praise of the “natural man” of the French Revolution, but Marxists turn these ideas into an ideological program and do not hide that their utopia is a return to a more primitive state of society.

Lenin emphasized that this utopia would require a “dictatorship of the proletariat” – the use of state power to suppress opponents of the revolution. The promised utopia is rescheduled into a future that never comes, but it is dictatorship that has always been the goal – the primitive and dictatorial elements merge in anarcho-tyranny. It is a controlled entropy – an internal process of “levelling” cultural norms, social institutions, ethnic differences – anything that interferes with the ideal of “equality”. Continuous terror, deprivation of private property, deportations, destruction of traditional culture and ethnic amalgamation are the main methods of this dictatorship. It is necessary to be understand that traditional and organic community relations in Latvia were destroyed by the policies of USSR – this absolutely destructive aspect of the consequences of the occupation is still not fully understood.

The collapse of the USSR was the supposed death of Marxist ideology, which in fact hid the renaissance of this deadly ideology. Instead of the working-class Neo-Marxists have found new agents of the revolution, instead of fighting capitalism have chosen strategic cooperation with global capitalism, and instead of direct attack have chosen the path of infiltration and change of public opinion. This is the third revolution of modernity or postmodern revolution that poses the existential question of “to be or not to be” to Western civilization. But,in fact, the choice is not between ‘progress’ and ‘regress’, but between evolutionary development that considers the unchanging foundational principles of nature and society, and between a mechanistic revolution that manifests itself as utopian transformation projects that ignore or seek to change these principles.

Although the ideology of nationalism originally emerged at the same time as revolutionary liberalism as a resistance to monarchism, over time it broke away from it and stood in opposition to the extremes of liberalism. This development of nationalism is natural. Instead of the chaos of the liberal-democratic revolution, the ideology of nationalism offered a new sense of organic community based on a sense of responsibility and gratitude to the nation and its values, thus becoming the only ideological direction that could serve as a basis for the regeneration of Western civilization. But nationalism, which seeks a compromise with revolutionary ideologies, is unable to fulfil its potential and solve the root causes of the crisis of modernity. Therefore, National Democratism emphasizes counter-revolutionary and regenerative aspects of nationalism. However, National Democratism is not associated with monarchist counter-revolutionary ideas that seek to return to a certain period in the past without realizing the root causes of the monarchy’s collapse. National democracy is not reactionary but offers an alternative – an evolutionary model of development based on the continuity of Western cultural values ​​and social solidarity. At the same time opposing the excesses of both individualism and collectivism, National Democratism takes from the past what is essential – not the forms of cohabitation that are no longer repeatable, but a sense of community of organic society. We protect the flame and not worship the ashes! Therefore, as far as conservatism is concerned, the recognition and protection of the inviolable principles of human and societal nature, National Democratism is conservative. However, it abandons the conservative strategy, or “revolution with speed limits”, that de facto seeks to preserve the previous achievements of revolutionary forces against new waves of revolution. In Western Europe and the United States, this strategy has proved to be a complete failure of national conservative forces that does not change the overall trajectory of the decline of civilization, as it ends with the simply slower adoption of Neo-Marxist policies. Stopping the moral and social collapse caused by ideological subversion is only possible through a proactive path of social and political change.

The need to change the ideology and strategy of nationalism is also determined by changes in the international world order. The liberal world order that existed after 1991 is being replaced by the order of civilizations. At this stage of change, Western civilization is weakened by the destructive processes of neo-Marxism, while the influence and aggression of Islamic and Russian civilizations in sphere of West is increasing. Thinking and acting in terms of nationalism, geopolitics and civilizations is returning in all of the world. Our task is not only to respond to these processes, but, by going deeper into the historical meaning of nationalism, to use those processes to realize a form of nationalism that would ensure the full realization of our people’s right to self-determination and regeneration of Western civilization. At the same time, we must reject the anti-democratic forms of nationalism: in the clash of revolution and counter-revolution, fascism must be considered as a hybrid-ideology dominated by the revolutionary aspect. Fascist totalitarianism – socialism, atheism, the cult of science and the methods of political terror – were directly adopted from the Marxist concept of mechanistic society and cannot be considered a natural element of nationalist ideology. National Democratism is committed to the organic concept of society, which is the direct opposite of totalitarianism. National Democratism is the power of a nation over its country, which is exercised through democratic self-organization. Ethnic nationalism, family and community, democratic and economic self-determination are the foundations of our nationalism.

We do not promise utopia. There is never a lasting positive solution to the clash of creative and destructive principles because this world is a battleground in the clash of opposing forces. Our freedom exists in choosing one side or the other – and this struggle must be fought every day! Our reassurance exists in the fact that nature itself points to us – the organic principle, no matter how fragile it may seem, is triumphant because it embodies higher Order that governs and shapes this world!


[1] Jurevičs, Pauls. Variācijas par moderno cilvēku. Esejas. Daugava, 1956., P.p. 40-41.

Leave a Reply