Category: New Right
Sam Swerling, former Chairman of the Monday Club and Conservative Party Councillor, on the doctrine of National Preference:
Markus Willinger of Generation Identitaire, providing a general introduction to this new movement:
Laslo Virag, of the Hungarian Traditionalist School, on the criteria of the right:
Ruben Rosiers, formerly of Vlaams Blok, on Syria and the turn of the tide for the New World Order.
Another speech from the London Forum earlier this month - Mike Thwait, described as “perhaps the most promising rising British star of the Nationalist Cause”, on how we might use the mass psychology techniques that are used against us. Video in 4 parts.
On 22 July, 2011, Israel commemorated the 65th anniversary of the King David Hotel’s bombing in Palestine, by exploding bombs in Oslo, killing 8, and shooting dead 69 on Utøya Island. Israelis picked Norway for the celebrations because she had increasingly become sympathetic toward Muslims and in favor of a Palestinian State. Professor Ola Tunander concurred that only a State-level entity equivalent has the capability of pulling off such an operation, and this wouldn’t be the Norwegian administration slaughtering relatives on Utøya Island. Tunander knows Israel did it, but to avoid the heat, hinted at it, saying that some have suggested it was Israel’s handiwork. Given Tunander’s academic credentials, the mainstream media decided to keep Tunander’s analysis and the Israeli condemnation of it out of the Anglosphere.
At first it wasn’t clear whether the mysterious individual blamed for the attacks, Anders Behring Breivik, was a scapegoat or patsy. But the cues were there though overlooked by many. One clue was Anders Breivik’s amazing beard, capable of changing within seconds.
Posted by R-news on Sunday, July 22, 2012 at 01:35 PM in European Nationalism, Far Right, Global Elitism, Liberalism & the Left, Marxism & Culture War, Media, New Right, Political analysis, Popular Culture, Psychology, Social liberalism, That Question Again, White Nationalism, World Affairs
The excellent publisher Arktos Media Ltd has put out a review call for Fighting for The Essence: Western Ethnosuicide or European Renaissance? by Dr. Pierre Krebs.
Dr Krebs is a leading member of the Neue Kultur (the German New Right) and director of the Thule Seminar. He is a doctor of French literature and also holds degrees in law, journalism, sociology, and political science.
Should anyone wish to review Fighting for The Essence for us, please contact me through the button under the header and I will arrange for a copy to be forwarded.
Arktos Media’s product description is as follows:
Style/Attitude/Revolution - A Letter to a Friend
by Kai Murros
The fundamental question us, white nationalists, are facing today is how to take over our societies psychologically, how to rise from the political and intellectual periphery in to the centre, refine our sub-culture to make it main stream and force the public in our societies to accept our vision of the future as the only possible alternative. To do that, we must first perfect the concept of the Pan-European nationalism and in doing so we must pay great attention to how the Pan-European movement looks like and feels like. Therefore we must be conceptual artists, fashion designers and copywriters rather than boring intellectuals and helpless theorists. If our concept is good it will dwarf other political styles and begin to dominate people’s thinking.
Seizing the hegemony in the society requires that nationalists are determined to become the new elite and understand that fundamentally they must wage politics of power and will. Today nationalists have nothing but if they at least have the right attitude then they have a chance, because what makes elite an elite is precisely the attitude. The conviction of being right and above others gives the members of the elite self-confidence and determination, which is then reflected in their appearance and behaviour. Outsiders recognize very easily those who seem to be on top of things, assertive, cool and even good looking. The masses inherently despise desperate people and rather follow those who are arrogant and bold.
Nationalists must tirelessly talk about power and how to get power. Nationalists must make it absolutely clear that the movement is all about power, absolute power, power for the sake of power, a cynical conspiracy to get power. Nationalists must make everybody understand that one day they will have absolute power. This is important because all this talk about power makes nationalists look powerful and dangerous even when they don’t yet have power. Women, for example, love determined men who give the impression that they have great plans for the future. Power is sexy, nationalists have to make it their fetish.
Here is Robert Steuckers answering the final question of an interview given to the Scandinavian group Oskorei:
In your many articles you have exhibited an impressive knowledge of European thinkers from Hamsun and Evola to Spengler and Schmitt. Do you consider some of them more important, and a good starting-point for the pro-European individual?
The study of our “classical” heritage of authors is a must if we want to create a real alternative worldview (“Weltanschauung”). Moreover, Evola, Spengler and Schmitt are more linked to each other than we would imagine at first glance. Evola is not only the celebrated traditional thinker who is worldwide known as such. He was an intrepid alpinist who climbed the Northern wall of the Lyskamm in the Alps. His ashes were buried in the Lyskamm glacier by his follower Renato del Ponte after he had been cremated in Spoleto (a town that remained true to Emperor Frederick Hohenstaufen) after his death in 1974. Evola was a Dadaist at the very beginning of his career as an artist, a thinker and a traditionalist. His was totally involved in the art avant-gardes of his time, as he himself declared during a very interesting television interview in French language that you can watch now on your internet screen via “you tube” or “daily motion”. This position of him was deduced from a thorough rejection of Western values as they had degenerated during the 18th and 19thCenturies. We have to get rid of them in order to be “reborn”: the Futurists thought we ought to perform promptly this rejection project in order to create a complete new world owing absolutely nothing to the past; the Dadaists thought the rejection process should happen by mocking the rationalist and positivist bigotry of the “stupid 19th Century” (as Charles Maurras’ companion Léon Daudet said).
Evola after about a decade thought such options, as throwing rotten tomatoes at scandalized bourgeois’ heads or as exhibiting an urinal as if it was a masterwork of sculpture, were a little childish and started to think about an exploration of “the World of Tradition” as it expressed itself in other religions such as Hinduism, the Chinese Tao Te King, the first manifestations of Indian Buddhism (“the Awakening Doctrine”), the Upanishads and Tantric Yoga. For the European tradition, Evola studied the manifestations and developed a cult of Solar Manly Tradition being inspired in this reasoning by Bachofen’s big essay on matriarchal myth (“Mutterrecht”). Thanks to the triumph of the Solar Tradition, a genuine Traditional Europe could awaken on the shores of the Mediterranean and especially in the Romanized part of the Italic peninsula, invaded by Indo-European tribes having crossed the Alps just before the Celts did after them. Besides, he was the translator of Spengler and reviewed a lot of German books written by authors belonging to what Armin Mohler called the “Konservative Revolution”. In Italy Evola is obviously very well known, even in groups or academic work teams that cannot be considered as “conservative-revolutionist”, but the role he played as a conveyer of German ideas into his own country is often neglected outside Italy. But still today people rediscover in Latin countries figures of the German “Konservative Revolution” through the well-balanced reviews Evola once published in a lot of intellectual journals from the 1920s to the 1960s. As his comments on these books and publications were very well displayed on didactical level, he can also be still very helpful to us today.
Before anyone asks, yes I will interview Jonathan when I have the time and space to do the (for me, quite alien but necessary) background research. There is no point in missing the man, so to speak, and surprisingly little of quality and depth is available about him and his worldview, even in much of his own talks and writings, which so tend to be given to water-carrying.
I see that a little - a very little, actually - is said in the first of this new series of videos featuring, this time, a speech to the LNR about Baron Julius Evola.
My thanks to Anarcho Anglo who drew our attention to them.
Tom Sunic’s interview of Jonathan Bowden is available on his page at VoR. I have not listened to it yet but, according to the emailed circular, it covers:
AQUILON AND THE NEW EUROPEAN NATIONALISM
by Kai Murros
1. Ever since I can remember I have been a passionate nationalist; unfortunately in my younger days I was simply a petty Finnish chauvinist without any greater aspirations or understanding. I was re-living the past, I was stuck in the memory of the 20’s, 30’s and 40’s, the time when the militaristic and often quite reactionary Finnish nationalism reached its high point.
A great deal of my militant chauvisnism can be seen as a reaction against the so called “Finnlandisierung” which meant that especially in the 70’s and early 80’s nationalism in Finland was a taboo. Finnish media and cultural life was controlled by leftists who imposed a guilt-complex on the Finnish people; the elite taught Finns to hate themselves because of what happened in WWII. So in retrospect I understand that I had to be what I was back then but I also had to evolve as well.
Eventually I grew out of reactionary chauvinism. One of the decisive moments in my life was in 1981 when the news about the Brixton race riots reached Finland. I suddenly realized that my kinfolk were under attack, that a hideous primitive enemy was threatening people who are of the same race and the same blood as Finns. Soon after this I became aware of the worsening ethnic situation in Germany, that the number of the Turks was constantly growing - and nothing was done about it.
.. on Léon Degrelle and the heroic in popular culture. The first 5 min 30 sec are given over to an interesting explication of the London New Right. I am indebted to reader Anarcho Anglo who kindly provided the link to this video. He mentions two others that are posted thusfar, and I will embed those and any further videos of this speech as I find them - or someone else kindly does so and supplies the URLs.
And thanks to Texan and Anarcho Anglo here are the next five videos:
Tomislav Sunic’s first book, Against Democracy and Equality: The European New Right, has just been released in a Croatian language edition. It carries a lengthy preface by Alain de Benoist, which sets out the background and principle positions of the ENR. I reproduce it in English here, as translated by Tom.
The New Right: 40 Years After ...
In 1990, as a current of thought under the name “European New Right” (ENR) had began to celebrate its twenty-first birthday, a Croatian friend of mine, Tomislav Sunic, published in English the first edition of his book on the New Right. This was originally the text of his doctoral dissertation, defended two years earlier at the University of California in Santa Barbara, (1). Having acquired a very good knowledge of French during his studies at the University of Zagreb, Sunic was keen to probe into the ENR very early on. Moreover, he also had the opportunity to read ENR works in the original French language. Unlike many other commentators who spoke of the ENR on the basis of hearsay and formed judgments from second hand sources, he demonstrated the ability to go right to the core of the issue. He demonstrated a sympathy for the ENR which plainly distinguished him from those commentators.
It was also plain that his book’s interest derives from something more than sympathy. Its importance is due to its pioneer character. Certainly, in the late 1980s several books (but also a number of scholarly works) had already been published on the ENR. But they were almost all published in French. Tomislav Sunic’s book was one of the first to appear abroad (a privilege he shared with some Italian authors). Presenting the history and main ideas of the ENR to a public who had never heard of it before was not an easy task. Thanks to his informed mind, his sense of synthesis, but also his knowledge of the readers he addressed, there is no doubt that Sunic succeeded immediately in his endeavor.
In hindsight, what I find most remarkable is that Tomislav Sunic’s book was written in English, especially given that the author resided at that time in a country - the United States - that he knew from the inside-out and which he viewed in a very critical manner (as evidenced by his latest book, Homo Americanus).
My thanks to Welf Herfurth for circulating this link to a left-field but, for all that, pretty well-informed article on the European survivalist movement generally and on National Anarchism in particular. It provides a topographic survey of several significant components of the nationalist scene not only in Europe but in America, and certainly told me a thing or two I did not know before. I will reproduce it in full below the fold.
But, first, there is a caveat. The site, PublicEye.org, is that of Political Research Associates which describes its mission as “Researching the Right for Progressive Changemakers”.
As we know only too well, the left is obsessed with race. It needs to believe that there is freedom - meaning racelessness for Europe’s peoples - and there is immoral, illegitimate, oppressive fascism. There is nothing else, nothing in between. The obvious absurdity of this position - one which it applies to no other people - is never explored. For a “free” individual, the liberal-leftist is curiously disinterested in challenging his own inconsistencies and illogicalities. That is something for others to do.
This uncomfortable position may go a long way to explaining why the left is so violent, emotionally and physically. Well, there is a sense in which Roger S Griffin’s widely-accepted definition of fascism as “palingenetic ultranationalist populism” feeds that violence. It can contribute to the transferability of the fascist meme.
This little phrase has a certain Gott der Vater ring to it. Its three elements are nicely interlocking. The nation of the people (recast by Mussolini as the all-enveloping state) and the good of the people are served through renewal of their racial spirit. And that’s … fascism! But in his book simply titled Fascism Griffin amplifies this thesis thus:-
The “features so firmly associated with it” include those stigmatised excesses I’ve mentioned before. Freed from its “time-bound” goods of no currency today, this “fascism” takes on a very convenient elastic quality. The writer of the article here, a man going under the soubriquet of Spencer Sunshine, can describe “reactionary counter culturalists” and BNP members as White Nationalists, and White Nationalists as “traditional fascists”. There is no escape, and presto, he alone is a moral man. Obviously.
Mind you, it’s a game two can play. How about this as a core-definition of another extreme political philosophy? Hyper-moral individualist elitism.
Now try this for size:-
The difference here is that I am not constructing an untruth about Spencer Sunshine’s peculiar politics. That really is liberalism, folks.
Anyway, just remember that if you don’t meet the definition of fascism I’ve extrapolated from Griffin’s little phrase, complete with the upward striving spirit of race, the total state, the Volksgemeinschaft et al, you are not a fascist in any meaningful sense of the word. You are not a fascist simply because Spencer Sunshine needs to say so.
The following review by Andreas Faust of Troy Southgate’s book of selected essays and poetry, Tradition & Revolution, provides a good introduction to that strand of thought which is National Anarchism.
The social context for NA is that efforts by political nationalism to turn the clock back demographically cannot succeed, and a widespread social and economic collapse is both inevitable and to be welcomed. It will provide an opportunity for the re-seeding of traditional European folkways at a local level. Indeed, NA argues, without it the white remnant will have no spiritual foundation from which to face the rigours of ethnic conflict.
NA might be seen as an ark in the worst-case scenario. Some aspects of it leave me perplexed - the Wodenism, for instance, which appears gratuitous and artificial. But NA is gathering adherents throughout the West, and Troy is certainly its leading spirit. It is worth knowing about.
‘Tradition and Revolution: Collected Writings of Troy Southgate’
This book contains a varied selection of essays, poems, and other short written pieces by Troy Southgate, one of the founders of the philosophy known as National-Anarchism. National-Anarchism is a cultural current rather than an organisation. It is a long-term strategy. N-A developed simultaneously in England, France and Germany, in just the same way that modern Odinism simultaneously sprang up in at least four different countries in the early 1970s.
N-A is a form of anarchism which has no roots in the political left, but neither is it right-wing. It differs from the ‘mainstream’ anarchist movement in its support for racial separatism (amongst other things), but at the same time has no problem with those who want to establish mixed-race communities also. As Southgate puts it: “We have no desire to rule over an administrative structure or disaffected population of any kind [...] Whilst they choose their own destinies, we shall choose ours.”
If N-A took off on a wide scale, this would theoretically lead to a series of independent communities, which “may or may not wish to form part of a confederated alliance”. Each community, of course, would be primed for self-defence. The regional alliance or federation would support any group of individuals wishing to found a separate community to preserve their own identity – regardless of what that identity might be.
So, has the book converted this reviewer to National-Anarchism? Well, hmmm, hmmm…I believe it might have. I still dislike the term. But on the other hand I can’t really think of a better one. On explaining the concept to a friend recently, he pointed out that as soon as you start throwing the word ‘anarchist’ about, it will automatically turn people away. The word has become linked with images of violence, chaos, disorder…sinister men in black balaclavas throwing bombs.
by Welf Herfurth
This article concerns something that receives little attention from nationalists: celebrities and popular culture, and their influence on both our liberal democratic system and our consumerist society. More specifically, it concerns the role of women in our liberal democracy and popular culture. This subject matter is very much part of our lives: one cannot avoid the celebrity trash gossip magazines, American TV shows, and the role prominent women in our liberal democracy (such as Hilary Clinton). Moreover, our economy relies, to a great extent, on both consumerism – especially a consumerist lifestyle promoted heavily to women, through advertisements and celebrity culture – and female labour.
From a political view, does any of this matter? Do the antics of Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan matter? Did Princess Diana matter? A person with an old-school, left-wing point of view would say, ‘No’. The fetishisation of celebrity women in our culture is a symptom of the fetishisation of capitalist consumer commodities. Once capitalism is abolished, the only women who will appear in advertisements, films and the like will be female communist role models – factory workers, rice paddy farmers, mothers bearing socialist babies and the like.
After the advent of the New Left, the analyses – of images of women in a capitalist society, as expressed through popular culture – became a little more sophisticated. The stern Soviet and Maoist bromides became somewhat old-fashioned, and the neo-Marxists argued that there was something deeper going on.
Here I will be taking an approach similar to that of the New Left – but will drawing upon Evola instead of Marcuse. Bill White, before his Nutzi phase, used to write some intelligent articles. One of them was on the subject of women in American popular culture, and used some Evolian concepts. (Unfortunately, it is no longer available on the Internet). Evola, I think, is a thinker who is the most suitable for this sort of thing. After all, many of his ‘spiritual types’, or ‘races’ (as he defines them) possess masculine and feminine characteristics. In essays like ‘Do we live in a gynaecocratic society?’ (1936), he said nearly all there is to be said on the subject. The present article will add little to the discussion – much of what Evola has written has yet to be surpassed – but the articles from the 1930s and 1940s are lacking in that they are out of date. They appear dated because Evola did not live in our age – the age of Angelina Jolie, ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ and the Hilary Clinton presidential campaign bid.
In March of this year I put up a post about sociobiology and Conservatism. It was, in fact, simply a reproduction of a thread debate at Troy Southgate’s New Right Forum.
It was overly long, I know, and self-indulgent, and it entered upon some abstruse territory. Well, we are heading back in that direction with this post. It’s another, still-live thread from Troy’s Forum, this time dealing with the tension between empiricism and New Right philosophy.
Now, tactically, the American radical right, to which I belong, should make its accomodation with the European New Right. Both are marginalised. Both are attempting to confront the existential threats to their respective peoples. For both, these involve a traitorous elite, untrammelled immigration, neo-Marxist extremism, Jewish ethno-aggression, etc.
But it isn’t that straightforward. The ARR, beset as it is by racial guilt-mongers, Jewish media power, and official lies, seeks proofs to pave its people’s path. The ENR, beset by American neo-liberalism, egalitarian democracy and plain history, damn it, reifies the European spirit to inspire its people upward towards the light.
Neither appreciates the other. For American empiricism, it seems, is anti-human to the one, and the European spirit is a fiction to the other.
Here, in miniature, is the way contact between these two brothers pans out. The thread is long and complex, and the quality of contributions is not always as considered or literate as a properly crafted blog entry. Feel free to dive in and cherry pick, rather than labour through the whole thing. If you are completely incurious or just impatient, look away NOW!
If further interesting Forum comments appear in my OE Inbox, I will, of course, update the entry.
OK ... the thread began innocently enough with an announcement by Welf Herfurth of his latest article.
From there it wandered contentedly into a discussion about Apollonianism and Dionysianism as understood by Nietzsche and a number of New Right philosophers and writers. I confess that I am not at all well read in this area, and inevitably find myself on the margins of such discussions. However, the discussion reached the point where Troy averred:-
This piqued my interest. Here was that word again ... “innate”. And used to make Europe a spiritual child of the Sub-Continent rather than the Jewish Middle East. I couldn’t care less about the Jewish Middle East, but I do care about intellectual integrity:-
Troy, however, was unfazed:-
White Genocide Project
Also see trash folder.
Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.
Endorsement not implied.
Nationalist Political Parties
Whites in Africa