Majorityrights Central > Category: New Right

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.

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.
GW

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.

READ MORE...

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.

READ MORE...

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:-

The reason why Nietzsche’s philosophy inevitably relates to the East, of course, is because the innate Indo-European mindset tends naturaly to look in that direction and away from the imported religions of the Middle East. It’s quite ironic, really, as though East and West have changed places or exhanged values. Not that it can’t be explained by Indo-European migration on the one hand and, on the other, the spread of Christianity through the Roman Empire and Islam through immigration. I’m being decidedly Euro-centric here, of course.

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:-

There is nothing in the Indo-European religious canon that is “innate”. On the contrary, it needs to be understood that everything innate is selected, including a tendency, where it occurs, towards a “spiritual” explanation of Nature and Existence ... but ONLY the tendency, NOT the forms which that may take. Certainly, Troy, we are not Jungians, and have no need to cling to forms of collective consciousness.

The intellectual procession of Western Man can be understood as a Manichean and unwinnable contest between that 50 to 60% or so who are naturally religious (including liberals) and the 40 to 50% or so who have no idea whatsoever what all the fuss is about, but generally have to go along with it anyway. The tendencies to faith and rationalism are both selected qualities of the European mind.

Troy, however, was unfazed:-

On the contrary, GW, I am a Jungian.

READ MORE...