Majorityrights Central > Category: New Right

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.

Part One

READ MORE...

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:

READ MORE...

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.

READ MORE...

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.

Part 1

READ MORE...

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:

? Jonathan’s life and involvement in British Rightist organizations.
? The rise & dominance of the Left in Britain among intellectuals & artists
? British Rightist leaders Enoch Powell, Oswald Mosley, & John Tyndall
? Jonathan’s artwork
? Art’s potential to transform culture
? The centrality of spirituality, and spirtuality’s relationship to art

.. 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:

READ MORE...

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.
GW

The New Right: 40 Years After ...
by Alain de Benoist

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).

READ MORE...

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:-

If fascism is defined in terms of a core ideology of ultra-nationalism that aspires to bring about the renewal of a nation’s entire political culture, then the picture changes. The features so firmly associated with it in the popular historical imagination cease to be definitional. Instead they can be seen as external and time-bound manifestations of the central ideological driving force that is its only permanent feature: the war against the decadence of society and the struggle for national rebirth.

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:-

If liberalism is defined in terms of a core ideology of hyper-individualism that aspires to re-engineer the West’s entire political culture, then the picture changes. Those features like political correctness and anti-racism that are so firmly associated with it in the popular imagination cease to be definitional. Instead they can be seen as alien and only recent perversions of the central ideological driving force that is its only permanent feature: the war against human nature.

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.

READ MORE...