Counter-Currents
3,019 words
Audio version here
Translations: Estonian, French, German, Polish, Spanish
What is “new” about the North American New Right, and how does it relate to the “Old Right”?
Before I can answer that, I need to clarify what the Old Right and the New Right have in common
and what differentiates them from today’s phony right: namely the present-day center-right parties and all forms of classical liberalism.
The true Right, in both its Old and New versions, is founded on the rejection of human equality as a fact and as a norm. The true right embraces the idea that mankind is and ought to be unequal, i.e., differentiated. Men are different from women. Adults are different from children. The wise are different from the foolish, the smart from the stupid, the strong from the weak, the beautiful from the ugly. We are differentiated by race, history, language, religion, nation, tribe, and culture. These differences matter, and because they matter, all of life is governed by real hierarchies of fact and value, not by the chimera of equality.
The true right rejects egalitarianism root and branch.
The true right has three species: traditional society, the Old Right, and the New Right.
Every traditional society known to man is inegalitarian. All forms of traditional society have been destroyed—or are in the process of being destroyed—by modern, egalitarian, mass society.
For our purposes, the Old Right means Fascism, National Socialism, and other national-populist movements, which are the pre-eminent attempts to restore traditional hierarchical social forms within the context of modernity. Fascism and National Socialism were not merely reactionary, rear-guard resistances to modern egalitarianism by partisans of corrupt hierarchies. They represented a genuinely revolutionary impetus to restore vital, archaic, hierarchical values within the context of modern science, technology, and mass society.
The New Right and the Old Right share the same goal: a society that is not just hierarchical but also organic, a body politic, a racially and culturally homogeneous people, a people that is one in blood and spirit, a people that is politically organized and sovereign and thus in control of its own destiny.
Our ideal is a hierarchical society free of exploitation and injustice because the sole justification of political inequality is the common good of the body politic, not the factional good of the ruling stratum.
So how does the New Right differ from Fascism and National Socialism? This is a vital question, because of the intense stigmas attached to these movements since the Second World War. The North American New Right, like the European New Right, is founded on the rejection of Fascist and National Socialist party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide.
The North American New Right is a new movement. We do not have any thinkers of the caliber of Alain de Benoist, Guillaume Faye, and many others. We are deeply indebted to the decades of work they have done. But since North American differs from Europe, our approach differs as well, in three important ways.
First, because of the blending of European stocks and breakdown of more compact European national identities in North America, we are forced to stress the deeper roots of common European identity, including racial identity.
Second, because of the leading role of the organized Jewish community in engineering the destruction of European peoples, and because the United States is the citadel of Jewish power in the world today, the North American New Right must deal straightforwardly with the Jewish Question.
Third, the North American New Right cultivates a much more frank and direct critical engagement with Fascism and National Socialism. The European New Right tends to focus on the fringes of the National Socialist and Fascist milieu, which has produced enormous intellectual dividends, particularly with the study of the Conservative Revolutionary movement. The North American New Right, however, takes full advantage of our First Amendment protections. But our willingness to go where there be dragons means that we need to clarify our precise relationship to the Old Right. Indeed, we should have done so a long time ago.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s New Right vs. Old Right here
Again: The North American New Right is founded on the rejection of Fascist and National Socialist party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide.
We believe that racial and cultural diversity within the same society inevitably leads to hatred and violence, and that nationalism is the most practical way to ensure peace between peoples.
We believe that all peoples should have sovereign homelands where they can live according to their own lights, free from the interference of other peoples.
We believe that such a world can be achieved through gradual and humane programs of territorial partition and population transfer.
We believe that these aims can come about by changing people’s consciousness, i.e., by persuading enough people in positions of influence that everyone has a stake in ethnonationalism.
The promotion of political change through the transformation of consciousness and culture is what we call metapolitics.
Metapolitics refers to what must come before the foundation of a new political order. Metapolitics breaks down into two basic activities. First, there is education: articulating and communicating forms of white nationalism tailored to the interests and outlooks of the full array of white constituencies. This includes not just ivory tower theorizing but also artistic expression, topical cultural and political commentary, and the whole range of media by which they are communicated. Second, there is community organizing, meaning the cultivation of real-world communities that live according to our vision in the present and may serve as the seeds of a New Order to come.
The primary metapolitical project of the North American New Right is to challenge and replace the hegemony of anti-white ideas throughout our culture and political system. The entire cultural and political mainstream—including every shade of the “respectable” political spectrum—treats white racial consciousness and white self-assertion as evil.
Our goal is to critique and destroy this consensus and make white racial consciousness and self-assertion hegemonic instead, so that no matter what political party wins office, white interests will be secured. Our goal is a pluralistic white society in which there is disagreement and debate about a whole range of issues. But white survival will not be among them.
There are systematic analogies between the Old Right and the Old Left, and between the New Right and the New Left.
The Old Right and Old Left had widely divergent aims, but shared common means: hierarchical, ideological political parties organized for both electioneering and armed struggle; one-party police states led by dictators; the elimination of opposition through censorship, imprisonment, terror, and outright murder, sometimes on a mind-boggling industrial scale.
Yes, in the case of classical National Socialism, revisionists argue that many of these atrocities are exaggerated or made up out of whole cloth. But revisionism about the Second World War is really beside the point, because the terroristic, imperialistic, genocidal impulse exists in National Socialism today. For instance, latter-day National Socialist William Pierce routinely pooh-poohed the Holocaust. But he was willing to countenance real terrorism, imperialism, and genocide on a scale that would dwarf anything in the 20th century. That spirit is what we reject.
Yes, there were degrees of totalitarianism. The Communist abolition of private property entailed a far greater disruption of and intrusion into private life than Fascism or National Socialism, which merely sought to harmonize private property and private enterprise with the common good whenever they conflicted. Fortunately, hard totalitarianism—even the softest version of hard totalitarianism—is neither desirable nor necessary to secure the existence of our people, so we reject it.
It is instructive to look at how the New Left has handled the mind-boggling, heart-rending, stomach-churning atrocities of the Old Left. The best New Leftists do not deny them. They do not minimize them. They do not pin their hopes on “Gulag revisionism” or rehabilitating the reputation of Pol Pot. They simply disown the atrocities. They step over them and keep moving toward their goals.
This is exactly what we propose to do. We are too busy resisting our own genocide to tie ourselves to defending the mistakes and excesses of the Old Right. They are simply not our problem. To borrow a phrase from Jonathan Bowden, “We’ve stepped over that.” Our enemies keep throwing it down in our path, and we just keep stepping over it.
The New Left retained the values and ultimate goals of the Old Left. They also retained elements of their philosophical framework. They then set about spreading their ideas throughout the culture by means of propaganda and institutional subversion. And they won. Aside from Cuba and North Korea, orthodox Communism is dead. Capitalism seems everywhere triumphant. And yet in the realm of culture, leftist values are completely hegemonic. The left lost the Cold War, but they won the peace.
(Since in the West, both the Old and the New Left functioned primarily as a vehicle for Jewish ethnic interests, it would be more precise to say that Jewish values are hegemonic throughout the culture, even on the mainstream right.)
The New Left and New Right have widely divergent aims, but very similar means, namely the pursuit of political change through transforming ideas and culture, aiming at the establishment of intellectual and cultural hegemony.
The New Right rejects the totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide of the Old Right.
But we do not reject their political model: the ethnically and culturally homogeneous, hierarchically organized, organic society. We want a world in which every distinct people has such a homeland, including the Jews.
Nor do we reject the theoretical frameworks of Fascism and National Socialism, which today are more relevant and better-grounded in science and history than ever before.
Nor do we reject such figures as Hitler and Mussolini. Objectivity requires that we recognize their virtues as well as their flaws. We have much to learn from them. We will never repudiate awakened white people just to curry favor with the Bourgeoisie.
I have received some gentle ribbing about including Hitler and Mussolini among the birthdays we commemorate, as it smacks of the totalitarian cult of personality. But as an editor, I find that birthdays are ideal, regularly-occurring occasions to discuss important figures. They also produce spikes in search engine traffic, which we want to capture. Besides, we commemorate many birthdays, and it would be craven to discuss people like Ezra Pound or Knut Hamsun but ignore the people they were imprisoned for following. So we will keep commemorating their birthdays until, eventually, everybody does.
One of the main motives of the New Left’s move from politics to culture was disappointment with the proletariat, which was so effectively mobilized by Fascism and National Socialism, not to mention the centrist regimes of the Cold War era.
The New Left believed they represented the interests of the workers, but their approach was entirely elitist. They focused their attention on influencing the college-educated middle and professional classes, because these people have disproportionate influence on the rest of society, particularly through education, the media, and popular culture.
Likewise, the New Right represents the interests of all whites, but when it comes to social change, we need to adopt a resolutely elitist strategy. We need to recognize that, culturally and politically speaking, some whites matter more than others. History is not made by the masses. It is made out of the masses. It is made by elites molding the masses. Thus we need to direct our message to the educated, urban middle and professional classes and above.
There is no shortage of Old Right-style groups with populist messages targeting working class and rural constituencies. But we need to go beyond them if we are going to win.
Who I am speaking for here? When I say “we,” I am speaking for more than just myself, but not for all or even most of our writers or readers. There is no presumption that every author we publish approves of our agenda, in whole or in essence. (Indeed, many of them are dead.) Nor is there any presumption that any author agrees with any other author published here. Publication here does, however, imply that I, as the Editor-in-Chief, think that a given work advances our agenda directly or indirectly: directly, by articulating a viewpoint that I would endorse as true; indirectly, by helping us build an intellectually exciting movement.
And the North American New Right is an intellectual movement, not a fixed doctrine. The goals are fixed. The basic intellectual strategy is fixed. But everything else is in movement: usually toward our goals, but sometimes just whirling around the dance floor for the sheer joy of it (which, in a subtler way, also moves toward our goals).
There is a wide array of different and often incompatible intellectual traditions within the New Right. We have followers of the Traditionalism of Julius Evola and René Guénon as well as other thinkers who emphasize a metaphysics of eternal form. We have followers of non-Traditionalist, flux and history-oriented philosophers like Nietzsche, Spengler, and Heidegger. We have believers in decline and believers in Promethean progressivism. We have Darwinian biologists and scientific materialists squared off against metaphysical dualists. We have atheists, and we have representatives of all schools of religion, Christian and pagan, Eastern and Western.
We need this kind of diversity, because our goal is to foster versions of white nationalism that appeal to all existing white constituencies. We can speak to multitudes because we contain multitudes.
How does the North American New Right relate to Old Right-style groups in North America and around the globe? And how do we relate to various democratic nationalist parties in America and Europe?
Alex Kurtagic has recently argued that democratic party politics can perform the metapolitical functions of education and community organizing, thus there is no fundamental contradiction between metapolitics and party politics. Of course political campaigning involves education and community organizing, but these are merely the byproducts of pursuing office. And that goal means that all educational and organizing efforts must be dominated by the election cycle and the political issues of the day.
That is fine, if one’s real goal is to win office. But outside of proportional representation systems, seeking office is pretty much futile. So if one’s real goal is education and organizing, then political campaigning is merely a distraction. So why not focus all one’s energy into educational and organizing efforts, and determine the agenda ourselves, rather than let electoral politics determine it for us?
Why not take all the money spent on purely political activities—voter registration drives, campaign travel, campaign literature—and channel it into education and organizing?
David Duke, for example, has been doing enormously important work with his writings, speeches, and videos. Most of that work would come to a stop if he were to make another futile and expensive run for office.
Intellectually, we need to draw a sharp, clear line between New Right metapolitics and all forms of nationalist party politics. We share the same broad aims, but we differ as to the best means of achieving them. We need to acknowledge these differences frankly, then divide our camp and pursue our common aims by the various paths that seem best to us.
I do not wish to spend time criticizing and attacking other sincere white advocates, competing for turf and followers or squabbling over dimes. In the end, the only valid argument for or against an approach is to look at its results. I want to win support by doing good work, not denigrating the work of others.
Even though one can draw a sharp intellectual line between New Right metapolitics and nationalist party politics, no wall separates us in the real world. The North American New Right is not a political party or a party-like intellectual sect. We are an informal network that can overlap and penetrate all social institutions, including parties. I maintain contacts with people all over the globe who are involved in various political parties. They know where I stand. Where we disagree, we agree to disagree.
Speaking personally, however, I wish that a wall could be erected in some cases, for if there are only six degrees of social separation between me and Barack Obama, there are far fewer degrees of separation between me and the next Anders Behring Breivik. And, for me, that is just too close for comfort. I do not want anything to do with gun-toting armies of one. The only gun I want to own is made of porcelain.
You see, I really believe that what I am doing is right and important. Too right and too important to expose to the risk of grown men dressing up as Knights Templar or Stormtroopers and playing with real guns. I have nothing against guns or gun-owners as such. But the Old Right model attracts unstable, violence-prone people, which just makes our job harder.
But since I can’t build a movement—even a metapolitical movement—by being a hermit, the best I can do is draw clear intellectual lines of demarcation: again, the North American New Right is founded on the rejection of Fascist and National Socialist party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide.
(Breivik is a complex case, because he emerged from the Counter-Jihad movement, a Jewish-dominated false opposition to the Islamic colonization of Europe. But we still share his basic concerns and his goal of Europe for Europeans, even though we reject his actions and much of his analytical framework.)
Cynics have accused the New Left of being nothing but a dishonest marketing ploy. Of course, there is no point in trying to convince cynics, who know a priori that the truth is always more sordid than it seems. But the New Left actually delivered on its promises: Marxism without totalitarianism, without terror, without camps.
Of course we all know that the present regime is a form of soft totalitarianism which is enacting the genocide of the white race in slow motion. But the point is that this regime was not imposed upon our people through a violent revolution. They accepted it because of the transformation of their consciousness. They can be saved the same way.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
96 comments
This is a superb and sober analysis.
Thank you. I should have written it a long time ago, but the words just did not come out right until now.
You might like this: http://www.amazon.com/Foundations-The-Twenty-First-Century/dp/1463562217/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_2
These kinds of clarifying statements are important. With a position statement this clear, people won’t be able to misrepresent CC and the NANR.
FWIW, I started reading CC around October of 2010. Even though it was never explicitly stated, it was always clear to me that CC/NANR rejects those things
Thanks. I am glad you assumed that. I assumed that most people would, but then it occurred to me that not many people actually know the Old Right/New Right distinction as it exists in Europe, and that I should go on record about it. That occurred to me a long time ago, actually, and I really should have forced out a statement on the matter. But the words never really fell together.
I wanted to encourage more coverage of the Breivik, trial, however, because I think it is a very interesting phenomenon. So I thought it would he a good time to go on record. However, I was completely surprised to find Andrew Hamilton’s translation of Breivik’s statement in my inbox today.
Greg,
This comment could seem divisive (so maybe better not to publish it) but, speaking for myself, it was never clear at all that your movement (this “new right” movement) rejects “totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide.” In fact, it’s only been in recent articles that I’ve started to think it could just be possible that you people really don’t have anything against other races or “race groups” (however you define them) except to the extent necessary to respond to transgressions and secure a future for yourselves. That may be unfair of me, but it just goes to show how deeply the “Old Right” (quotation marks because to me this term refers to the paleo-libertarian old right) — or maybe just the “old methods” and “old attitudes” — has affected perceptions of what you’re all about. (Old attitudes as in, “Pfft, as if we should allow a little genocide to get in the way of asserting white supremacy. This world is ours!”)
That’s why I wrote it. To clarify matters. I don’t think people will really start focusing their minds on the cultural hegemony project until they take the Old Right off the table. Until that happens, we are neither fish nor fowl.
So are you telling me that if I write for CC, I don’t have to salute the man in the mustache?
That’s right. But there is a danger that if you hang around long enough, you’ll want to of your own accord.
I love this statement. And I love your article! Your statements a succinct, elegant and precise. Your vision is very attractive!
Excellent analysis. You are so clear headed that its very difficult to disagree with your nuanced approach.
Thanks, but I suspect that quite a lot of people will find it quite easy to disagree!
Bob Whitaker always emphasizes the painful efforts involved in writing in a tight, succinct manner.
THIS one gets it:
Greg Johnson in blockquote:
The New Left’s Goal: Marxism without Force, without Fear.
For us, something like that would be a kinder, gentler version of the Fourteen Words.
The key to political effectiveness is to offer them something worth fighting for, in an “apple-pie, strictly legal, sort of way.” (HT: Jim Giles)
Greg:
One, I notice my top and bottom sigs have been removed. Is that a new cc protocol, or is it something in my browser, or your program, that removes anything written in bold font?
Two, congratulations on defining an outline for a Mission Statement for the New Right. Apparently, the spirit of Jonathan Bowden lives, and sees that Inspiration requires Organization to be effective.
Three, why not a basic FAQ at the top of the website? This essay could follow it: “What We Believe, And Why.”
Four, could you include more than the last ten comments in the “Recent Comments” section? It seems commenting – good, qality commenting – is picking up.
Five, you made a point worthy of greater consideration concerning William Pierce.
Greg Johnson wrote:
Absolutely. Has this, and the possible reasons for it, been discussed in any of the papers submitted for the Pierce Symposium?
1. It is a new CC protocol. It is a branding thing. I want to remove anything mantra-like from our posts. Not that I am against the mantra. (Heaven forbid!) No, let me repeat that. I am not against THE mantra. But the repetition of the same phrases has a wearying effect on the reader. It smacks of hobby-horse riding. It makes people feel like they are being talked down to. Especially in bold. It feels like being lectured to by Al Gore.
2. I do need to create a FAQ. But my mind works this way: First I get my ideas out there in essays. Then I will distill the essential message into a little book. Then I will distill the book into the FAQ post. So it will take time. I wish my brain worked differently, but that’s the brain I am stuck with.
3. RE Pierce: nothing has been written for the Pierce symposium yet, but I hope that topic is discussed.
Greg,
I am still mulling over your words. With regard to the philosophical part of this essay: were you inspired to write this by Bowden’s articulation of his philosophy and discussion of Marxism? It certainly helped clarify for me the essence, the core of what “right” and “left” believe.
When I was around 16, I decided I was a right-winger because I did not believe in human equality. (Then I was pretty much a libertarian.) And I am certainly not the first person to think that way. That really is the essential issue, to my mind. But listening to Jonathan’s lectures and working on the transcripts have definitely been an inspiration.
I am working next on an essay on revisionism, because Jonathan’s piece is the closest statement so far of what I think is right, and he has helped me close in on and articulate my own intuitions on the matter. Stay tuned.
As another s-word, I would add superior.
I really loved this passage:
“The basic intellectual strategy is fixed. But everything else is in movement: usually toward our goals, but sometimes just whirling around the dance floor for the sheer joy of it (which, in a subtler way, also moves toward our goals).”
Since there are surely one or two liberal spies reading our every word, as I imagine this dancing, I can only think of Nietzsche’s words, that the dancers were thought insane by those who could not hear the music.
***
Fourmyle mentions the need for “something like that would be a kinder, gentler version of the Fourteen Words.”
For that, I always think of a throng of cute Germanic maidens picnicking on rolling hills in view of the Alps, giggling and grinning at each other, speaking of vanities and permanent things, and eating hot buns from a wicker basket as two precious friends perform on harp and flute for the rest of the feminine corps.
I support, wholeheartedly, (and have for many years now) the goals of this and other WN movements. I also respect the diversity therein, as there are indeed many types of individuals sympathetic to our overall goals, and they need to be acknowledged and included, not alienated. Except the kooks, as Greg has pointed out many times. They need to be banished for good reason. And there ARE kooks in this scene.
Along with the endless and embarrassing petty in-fighting and posturing, another discouraging aspect of forming the New Right (in America and elsewhere) is that those idealists who claim to support these goals are not only anonymous and few in number, but spread far and wide enough to make forming physical friendships and thus building an actual political body capable of planning, organizing and taking ACTION seem daunting. I, for one, am burnt out on WN cyber communities. It’s great to read others’ posts and interesting, diverse essays but, in addition to already being a voracious reader who takes the time to do his own research, I simply don’t need further convincing. I’m set. I’m sure others out there reading this feel the same way. How can we move beyond the virtual to the REAL? This question has weighed heavy on me for some time now. In the end, this is what truly matters. Unless we can actually achieve this all the research papers, esoteric essays, angry posts, Amren-style darkie stories and crime stats mean nothing. It’s just more words, most of which are used against us by the establishment anyway.
I apologize if I seem like a wet blanket, but this seems very apparent to me at this point.
The transition from cyber to real relationships is difficult due to the risks involved.
I’m not in a position to make my views explicitly known–I could lose my job, and I can’t risk that.
Meeting others in real life would be great, but how can we vet people we speak to online? Not to sound paranoid, but it would be too easy for antifa trolls and the like to disrupt such efforts.
Surely there is a way–we need to be building communities, not spinning our wheels individually.
Transitioning from cyber communities to real communities reminds me of the old commercial with the punch line , “You can’t get there from here.”
Formal meetings are difficult to organize but has anyone tried picking, say, a coffee shop in a given area where sympathizers could go for coffee on a couple of days a week on the off chance of meeting fellow believers. We go for coffee anyway so nothing would be lost and if a momentum builds who knows what could develop – two coffee shops? Anyway that’s my pathetic suggestion for transitioning from cyber to real.
Yes, I feel similar to you. I was not a WN until I read CC and ordered about 1/3 of the available library over the last year.
I’m convinced. What now?
The best thing to do is move to a city or region with a few other like-minded and likeable people. The other thing to do is go to various conferences and meet people there.
Why not move to the Northwest (see: http://www.northwestfront.org).
I know plenty of professionals that have racialist views. The problem is that this crowd know each other through prior engagement in mainstream party politics. It’s not like they’re going around their office parties seeking new recruits by doing Dr Pierce impersonations and seeing which co-worker knows whom they’re quoting (not that I’m precluding this as a selection tool…).
My first engagement was as a high school kid on SF, then meeting fellow SFers in person, and getting involved with them in various nationalist organisations. My first in person meeting was at a cafe… then we went to the pub and had a few beers haha. I haven’t looked back since.
I think Sandy is onto something. Arrange first contact over coffee, and if they’re obviously not wearing a wire, follow it up in a months or weeks time. Encourage others, and when you’ve got enough, have regular (monthly or every second etc month) dinners at a European restaurant—Kameradschaft is best fostered over a pork knuckle and a litre or two of Weizen.
From here, it’s up to your imagination.
I wanted to find something to disagree with and I just couldn’t.
Congratulation Mr. Johnson. I’ll print this declaration and read it time and time again. It is exactly what we need. Powerful, positive, heartfelt discourse.
A very important mission statement, Greg, thank you. One thing that might be important to clarify that isn’t explicitly stated here is your attitude toward America as it is currently constituted. Some people with whom I’ve discussed Counter-Currents tell me that they think it’s some sort of American nationalist enterprise. As far as I know, you could care less about the U.S., whether it is today’s or the 1950s version, and that’s what I tell them, but it might be helpful to say something about it.
Thanks John.
RE the point of clarification: who thinks such a thing? Obviously someone who has never read anything I have written. But if they never have read anything I have written, then why would I expect them to read my clarification?
Greg wrote:
Why not take all the money spent on purely political activities—voter registration drives, campaign travel, campaign literature—and channel it into education and organizing?
My question – what is “organizing” in our situation? What activities fall under “organizing”? Define “organizing”. “Organizing” is a broad, general term. Can Greg be more specific what he meant by “organizing”?
By organizing, I mean creating local white nationalist community groups with defined goals and regularly scheduled activities. These groups can be political, charitable, social, intellectual, educational, what have you. They can be as simple as a monthly dinner club that sponsors speakers or organizes discussions of particular topics. But they have to facilitate face to face interaction on a regular basis. Moreover, such communities should foster a sense of accountability and esprit de corps.
I don’t want to make it sound easy, because it isn’t. I have made a number of attempts in this direction, and they have all come to naught, primarily due to lack of time.
This is an excellent essay.It is like a manifesto.Only a person who has conviction in his beliefs can say with an exceptional clarity.I believe that USA,is and will be the core of white identity.Why do I say so ? Because here a new identity is forged free from historical national-ethnic animosity.Look around you and you will see.When other races and “minorities” look at you they see a white person,they do not see a German, a Polish,or an Italian etc.They do not see you as a Christian of any denomination or an atheist ,as a worker or a professional person.You will notice how they cooperate among themselves against you.Even they who have different religion or have supposedly enmity between their native state, example Indians and Pakistanis.It will appear to you that they have something almost visceral against you, however they may try to disguise that.
Thanks for your kind words. I agree that the breakdown of petty nationalism in the US and other European diaspora nations (Canada, Australia, New Zealand — and in a rather different way in Argentina and Uruguay) can be a good thing if it helps reconstitute the kind of racial and cultural unity that existed in the past: the great pre-Indo-European and Indo-European culture diffusions, the Roman Empire, Medieval Christendom.
Brilliant Article. .
You really helped me over a few roadbumps in writing this.
I have been reading your site daily now for many months. I have become persuaded in your ideas. I further want to say that this site and a few others are doing the most in-depth and intelligent cultural analysis I have discovered on the web. What you write is well thought out, purposeful and informative. I never see anything but shallowness in the MSM and rarely any depth anywhere outside of books. I only wish that I had had you guys to read when I was in college. Great job, Great Article and thanks. My eyes are opened. You ought to start copy/pasting this everywhere
Clarity is a gift. Thank you.
Greg, how do you feel about the “Leader Principle”. No viable inequalitarian movement with any teeth can be a “democracy.” In a healthy Aryan society power must always move from the top down.
The best functioning organizations have elements of the leadership principle and democracy. Both have deep roots in our tradition. The mixed regime is always superior to pure democracy, aristocracy, or monarchy.
According to Martin Bormann (re: Table Talk), Hitler viewed the best political system as a selective democracy, where approximately twenty Gauleiters of the NSDAP and Waffen-SS officers would elect as chief of State, for the duration of his life, the most capable among them.
He was directly inspired by what took place for centuries in the Venice City-State.
One can argue that a “New” right can reject party politics, totalitarianism and genocide. However, could we really reject terrorism or imperialism? Here’s a hypothetical. Somehow, in the near or distant future, we are able to establish a white homeland somewhere in the United States. What if we wanted to expand? We’d of course have to engage in imperialism for certain and possibly terrorism, totalitarianism and even genocide. Just a thought. I’d be cautious of ever saying there’s something you wouldn’t do. It’s a tough world out there.
Justin, I have been working on an essay that addresses this question. It is called “The Autocthony Argument,” and the thesis I argue is that the New Right and the world we seek to build is analogous to the ecological movement with its goal of preserving biodiversity. The history of man and natural history in general is a long record of invasions and exterminations. That’s the evolutionary way. But human dominion over nature, and the dominion of the globalization process over mankind, threaten a vast number of species with extinction, including our own race. In such a situation, we cannot accept Darwinism as usual and merely claim that this is evolution in action. Human beings need a new sense of global consciousness and responsibility, and part of that is the preservation of biodiversity. That means that every race, and every species, needs a protected habitat.
Good point. I would just be a lot happier with a white living space that encompassed the entire United States. I’m probably dreaming though or have read Hitler’s Table Talk a few too many times. Thanks for the response Greg.
Greg Johnson’s article reminded me of Lenin’s statement, “without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement”.
I have one disagreement with his article; and I say this with modesty, as someone who is new to the ideas and websites of the New Right.
Johnson writes that “the North American New Right is founded on the rejection of Fascist and National Socialist party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide.”
But he also says: “Nor do we reject such figures as Hitler and Mussolini…We have much to learn from them. We will never repudiate awakened white people just to curry favor with the Bourgeoisie. We will keep commemorating their birthdays until, eventually, everybody does.”
Then he points out that the New Left is hegemonic in the realm of culture, and that it achieved this by repudiating the violent means of the Old Left, adding that “the New Left and New Right have widely divergent aims, but very similar means…the establishment of intellectual and cultural hegemony.”
But Johnson forgets how resolutely and persistently the New Left broke with the political leaders of the Old Right, Stalin and Lenin, and even Trotsky, replacing them with other figures not tainted with repression, terror, and genocide, such as Karl Korsch, Luxemburg, Lukacs, and Gramsci, while nurturing new thinkers outside Marxist theory. I don’t recall them celebrating the birthdays of Stalin.
It is not a question of meeting the expectations of the Bourgeoisie, but of gaining the sympathy of whites, step by step, gradually gaining their attention. Discussions of Hitler can be carried as matter of scholarship, but the New Right will forever remain on the margins advancing its case with frontal pictures of Hitler. More needs to be learned from the New Left.
Lenin, Trotsky, and Mao were admired and analyzed in New Left circles because of their political writings. Stalin, not so much. But if he had written anything particularly interesting, they would have been debating him as well. Continuing the analogy: Mussolini and Hitler wrote, said, and created many things of permanent value to the New Right. Thus we will learn what we can from them and their movements.
As for commemorating birthdays: well, maybe it smacks of the old totalitarian cults of personality, but as a journal editor, I find birthdays are a good, regularly-occurring occasion to discuss people. Furthermore, people’s birthdays are always associated with upsurges of Google and other search-engine related traffic, which we want to capture. Furthermore, we can’t commemorate Ezra Pound, Julius Evola, and Wyndham Lewis without dealing with people like Hitler and Mussolini. It would just be craven.
I wholeheartedly agree with this Greg Johnson op-ed, especially his condemnation of the “exterminationist” views of certain fringe elements of the WN milieu, who want to kill off everything that is not white, re-establish slavery, or hang John Derbyshire and Bruno Gollnisch because they have an Asian wife. I believe that in 2012, there is enough room and economic capability on this planet to avoid genocides.
Despite that, I have three small critiques to submit:
1) Libertarianism and its son, anarcho-capitalism, are pleasant fantasies. Human interactions will never be totally founded on cooperation (contracts), for reasons of human nature and scarcity of resources. When someone is more powerful than his neighbour, he can be seduced by the use of brute force to obtain what he wants. Also, unrational and unintelligent members of society should probably be prevented from damaging themselves and others in the long run, and that was the purpose of racial background checks for marriages in Nazi Germany. A certain degree of totalitarianism will always be needed to organise humans and to prevent decadence or miscegenation in a civilization.
2) Nazi Germany was actually far less “socialistic” than what a lot of people believe. This is a misconception forged by the half-Jew Friedrich Hayek and then popularized by the American media during the 70s. Her economic policies were ironically pretty libertarian, with free enterprise, private property, curtailed unions, a simplistic and friendly tax code, a non-inflationary currency (very important), few restrictions on international commerce, and an absence of redistributionist policies. I don’t deny there was government meddling in some areas, though, and a habit of requisitioning during the War. Her societal policies were clearly more coercitive, with, among others, censorship of the media, censorship of political and ideological opponents, and interdiction of race mixing, but there was no gun control and the general atmosphere was very breathable, as is shown on the happy faces anybody can see in amateur photographs of the epoch.
3) The economic socialism of Mussolini’s Italy is more tangible, though it was very moderate for the epoch. Front Populaire France and Bismarck’s Germany were more redistributionist and “give me that” than Italy. Those who suffered the most under Mussolini were not entrepreneurs, but Jewish bankers, Marxist agitators, and the King’s entourage.
Hayek wasn’t Jewish at all.
1. I am not a libertarian. I believe in a good deal of state paternalism. But paternalism is not totalitarianism. Every decent society has paternalistic elements, but few societies have been properly characterized as totalitarian.
2. I agree that NS Germany and Fascist Italy were not as socialistic, or as totalitarian, as people believe. Both regimes rejected the expropriation of private property. But they did believe in government intervention to prevent private interests from conflicting with the common good.
The Jewish ancestry of Hayek is perhaps only a rumour, which in any case isn’t verifiable, but I tend to believe that there is no smoke without fire, and his facial features have definitely Jewish elements, with a big nose, big ears, and very pronounced orbital circles. He is also the cousin of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein, a Jew.
As to libertarianism, I understood you are not a libertarian. You are probably like me, in the sense you believe in economic freedom coupled to societal conservatism based on a sound Constitution that would, for example, exclude non-Whites from partaking in strategic sectors of the State. But this is already “totalitarianism” under the usual definitions…
Greg,
They (Lenin and Trotsky) were admired but their ideas, proposals never caught on. Writers like Perry Anderson, in Considerations of Western Marxism (1976), tried to create a New Left based on a serious theoretical consideration of their ideas but the really effective side of the New Left moved beyond, relying mostly on the writings of Hegelian Marxists, Althusser’s structuralism. Gramsci, and the Frankfurt School; and through these other currents evolved, including feminism, world systems theory, identity politics, phenomenology, existentialism, and postmodernism. These were the real powerhouses. After the 70s, Maoism was a spent cultural force in the West.
“For our purposes, the Old Right means Fascism, National Socialism, and other national-populist movements, which are the pre-eminent attempts to restore traditional hierarchical social forms within the context of modernity. Fascism and National Socialism were not merely reactionary, rear-guard resistances to modern egalitarianism by partisans of corrupt hierarchies. They represented a genuinely revolutionary impetus to restore vital, archaic, hierarchical values within the context of modern science, technology, and mass society.”
I think it would be more accurate to describe Italian Fascism and German National Socialism as third positionist rather than Rightist parties.
Also, I do not think either party had any real interest in restoring traditional Indo-European social structuring, especially NS, which had a crypto egalitarian agenda of its own. What I do, in fact, believe is that both Hitler and Mussolini were really interested in was consolidation and centralization of the power of the State, not in returning their peoples to a pre-Xtian state of existence. For if they did, then why didn’t either man cut their country’s ties to the Roman Catholic Church?
I would also have to disagree with the idea the NS was in any way revolutionary. In fact, I would say that, if anything, it was am anti-revolutionary movement, as evidence by the fact that the true revolutionaries within the party were all either murdered or forced into exile.
On a more contemporary note, why is there such seeming willingness on the part of so many in the Right, both in the US and Europa, to cling to such patently outmoded conceptions as Left and Right? Really what is the attraction to these failed relics from our political past? Clearly the Right is just as dated and bereft of ideas as is the Left, so why must we still cling to these empty phrases? Better I would think would be to forge a new political identity, free from past failures and self-limiting concepts as Left/Right, and more in line with the contemporary needs of Whites.
1. Fascism and NS are Third Positional only in relationship to the Capitalism vs. Communism rivalry. They are most definitely rightist if one defines the right as the rejection of liberal egalitarianism.
2. NS and Fascism most certainly did work to restore a traditional, hierarchical form of society. They were not egalitarian so much as organicist: they believed that social inequality could only be justified by the common good, which meant that they worked to dissolve old forms of social inequality that divided and weakened the nation.
3. NS and Fascism were most certainly revolutionary doctrines, even though they did compromise with existing social forms. In the long run, however, they would have slowly dissolved the old aristocracies and bourgeoisie through the rigorous selection processes they instituted for creating a new, genuine aristocracy. The falling out with Rohm was more tactical than anything else: he wanted to destroy the military, which would have weakened rather than strengthened the long term prospects of National Socialism.
4. There is nothing “patently” “outmoded” about Left and Right. The great battle of our time is Right versus Left: inequality, identity, hierarchy, and nature on the Right VS. Left egalitarianism, which obliterates everything that makes life meaningful.
5. Pre-modern does not mean pre-Christian here. In fact, the hierachical, organic social order of the Christian Middle Ages, rather than the slave societies of antiquity, was the primary inspiration for Fascism and other volkisch thought currents. Hitler and Mussolini adopted sensible policies toward the churches. Why attack outright a religion that is already in terminal decline? Hitler’s church policy in Occupied Poland was simply to cut the church off from government money, i.e., to separate church and state. If he had won the war, he would have done the same in Germany. In America, we call that religious freedom. But of course in Europe, any attempt to separate church and state would be decried as persecution by the churches.
Yes, all clear. The Goal is Good. But how to get there? Capitalism encourages corruption and puts the Guardians to sleep. So the Left was able to do its Long March through the institutions. But will they let us do the same? I doubt it since their Watchmen are the Jews – and they are Awake. They can be humiliated, confused, etc – but they are not the fussy, silly, hypocritical neo-puritans (lacking all the Puritan’s fire) that the WASP Guardians were. Many have said they aren’t the men their fathers were. Perhaps, but they are still watching. Our process will be totally different – and much more difficult I fear. In any case, the Politicals must not disavow the Provos a priori by saying that no Provos will be needed. That would be Utopian indeed.
I liked the stepping over idea very much. We mustn’t hate ourselves for previous mistakes. Always onward. One of Pierce’s deepest insights was that Conservatives can never win since always on the defensive. And how not since they had been Already cut off from their roots and left with only moral precepts without any “Theology” so to speak.
Jaego:
Yours is one of the more original, well-read, and substantial voices Our Side has to offer, and I have found your comments concerning Dr. William Pierce to be insightful.
Have you thought of putting together your thoughts in the form of an overview of Pierce, and what he did, and why it matters, for the Pierce Symposium? I suspect many of those who knew him have something to say, as part of their presumed contributions to the Pierce Symposium.
Your voice would offer an instructive counterpoint to most of theirs. Some comments on what he should have done, instead, might be very enlightening, indeed.
Thank you but I don’t know enough about Pierce. Just read a few pamphlets, bought a few books, read Griffin’s biography etc. I didn’t come “on board” until after he was dead. So I’ll leave it to those faithful who listened to him every week and agonized over his blind spots. I look forward to learning more about this seminal figure who kept the fire burning when it had all but gone out.
I still want to know the inside scoop on K.A.S! Was his conviction a frame up?
Jaego:
(1) Still, a piece about “Cosmotheism” would be a worthy task of your mettle, and would help to raise the level of discussion around what he COULD have done, and what he SHOULD have done. It seems to me there was an “Outer” Cosmotheism, which was quite in accord with pagan systems on what seemed to be a very superficial level, and an “Inner” Cosmotheism, the true Church of Cosmotheism, where it may well have been that Pierce called upon pagan Forms in a more forthright manner.
(2) As a rule, I am loath to address personal issues of Movement Past. Kevin Alfred Strom has published his side of the story online, and it is well worth your while to read it. He is his best, singularly effective, advocate. He needs no further advocacy. That having been said, my admiration for the best measure of the man from a Movement perspective, the clean, clear writing, remains unabated.
This is my first test of the man’s character. As a Child, you are many things. As an Adult, you are what you do. His astute, philosophically insightful metapolitical analysis of the issues facing us, many (most) of which were read by Pierce for ADV broadcasts, says all I need to know about him.
We are all the better for having him on the same side as we are. His was pretty much the lone voice in Hillsboro speaking of our Battle as being the Deep War of Ideas, and not the trivial cowardice of capping parking mudsharks, or wishful thinking that arises to the state of delusion, such as that the US Army would use atomic weapons to come to our aid in the Alta California province of Mexico del Norte.
In my personal estimation, Kevin Alfred Strom towers over his detractors.
We will run a couple of pieces on Cosmotheism in July.
Greg Johnson in blockquote:
Didn’t Pierce do an ADV on Cosmotheism?
Mr. Kevin Alfred Strom might be knowledgeable about this particular issue, and what greater issues Pierce had for Cosmotheism.
Greg Johnson in blockquote:
There was one thread dealing with “Cosmotheism” from the perspective of Savitri. Might that be a useful starting point for further discussions on this topic, even if her “Cosmotheism” wasn’t Pierce’s “Cosmotheism”?
Is the Savitri Cosmotheism thread still locked for comments?
Am I getting too much off topic here?
We lock threads for comments after 30 days, otherwise, we are inundated with spam.
Jaego:
Another quick idea for the Pierce Symposium.
You seem uniquely qualified to deal with the issue of Pierce’s religion of Cosmotheism, both as it was presented to the public, and as it seems to have been developed for a Few.
Could it have worked, not as a 501 (c) (3) type religion, but as a transnational organizational model for a religion that does what Christ would have us do? I think in particular of the transformation of Institutional Christianity by the Primal Masculine offered by the Pagan Northerners, leading the people of the Church forward with a Masculine sense of Conquest.
In particular, and you would be more knowledgeable about this than I, was Cosmotheism simply an adoption of Northern Pagan Forms, or did it incorporate the Substance that would adapt these Forms to a technocratic Civilization? Could it, in fact, be used, at least in part, as the foundation for a possible Restatement of Christianity?
If so, and this wins First Prize, what would such a religious system look like organizationally?
I am thinking in terms of Covington’s Northwest Republic, of course – a religion that complemented the metapolitical Purpose of the Race.
Thank you for taking time to consider these issues.
I don’t know a thing about it, while you on the other hand sound ready to go. The whole Matt Hale thing was before my time. And Mr Covington tells us that Mr Klassen was a quack and worse! Interestingly, Mr Covington considered going this route and decided not to.
Can one “create” a religion? I say not, not a real one. Even the Hitler Cult grew organically from below after the defeat. Did Savitri Devi believe that Hitler was a sub manifestation of Kali? His forerunner? She sure wanted to believe so much that it almost becomes a moot point. I have no problem with them per se – within reason. The Chrisitains always made a huge deal about this – it was always all or nothing. The Jesuits didn’t try to convert China because they would have had to stop people from offering incense to the Emperor. If they refrained from this – then how could they have justified their whole war against Ancient Rome? No Chinese ever thought that the Emperor was the Tao. The idea is absurd. Likewise, I doubt if many Romans considered the Emperor the Absolute. Burning the Incense was a mark of acknowledgement that he was the true Emperor and as such – under the guidance of Heaven. The Christians themsevles widely believed as much of their Kings once they attained power.
Jaego Scornze in blockquote:
I suspect Mr. Covington saw how quickly such claims for founding a religion were not as string as the Founders might have expected, for just the reason you stated. Covington, as usual, is right; true religions develop organically to support the metapolitical Living Bridge between Culture and Civilization.
No, you can not “create” a real religion. What you CAN do is discover what is there, and has been hidden by the Priesthood. This perversion turns the Light against its Purpose. Ergo, even within Christianity we have many “religions” within one religion, as each subCulture seeks to redefine the Light to serve its Purposes.
The “Germanic” influence – the Masculine Power of the Northern Mysteries made visible in the Form of a religion – served to transform European Christianity when it was succumbing to the Feminine, to the detraction of the fulfillment of its metapolitical Purpose.
From my reading of the various Chinese leadership regimes, the Ricci and the Jesuits didn’t try to “convert” the Chinese because the Emperor’s bannermen would make quick work of them. The Jesuits, astutely trained, think and act in terms of centuries. This is an excellent example for us.
The Jesuits only went “against” Rome when the Roman Leadership went against the Church Eternal. Again, the brilliance of Harold Covington comes to the fore, as he reminds us that the best colonizer of the West was the Roman Catholic Institution, which began with Ideas, and not swords.
First Among Equals is good enough, providing you are the First that can tell the Equals what to do. The Christians tolerated their Kings, at swordpoint. Remember the cry of Cromwell’s heirs, the Puritans, “No King But Jesus.”
I just suspect there was more to Pierce’s “Cosmothesism” than he let on to us. I would lay odds there was a Traditional model of religion working in there, trying to mold itself to the current situation.
A correction to your above comment is in order: Strom most certainly did not write Pierce’s ADV broadcasts. So if you like Strom because of this, you’ll need to find another reason. I can’t believe that Strom would make such an allegation.
Josh in blockquote:
A clarification to your “correction” is in order, as well.
I’ll stand by my assertion that Kevin Alfred Strom, Dreamer of the (New) Day and first-rate Cultural analyst in his own right, wrote many of the ADV’s, while taking credit only for the ones he did under his own name. There is simply way too much stylistic overlap between Mr. Strom’s writings, and Pierce’s ADV performances, to support the assertion that Pierce wrote all of his ADV’s himself.
In the interest of intellectual honesty, I will accept that Pierce (quite) often simply took Kevin Alfred Strom’s writings as outlines for his improvisational performances.
That having been said, will you be contributing to the Pierce Symposium Greg Johnson has proposed?
Good.
It is not a (high school cafeteria clique-like) matter”of “liking” Mr. Strom at all. I have never met the gentleman. I respect, and deeply admire, his incisive, well-considered and well-developed thought pieces. He is on a par with Dr. Revilo Oliver and Dr. Sam Francis in the quality of his thinking, which is revealed in the quality of his writing.
He didn’t.
I did.
Mr. Strom is too much of a meritocratic aristocrat, in the highest and best meaning of the term, to take credit for his work, even if it was *enhanced* by someone he admired. And, it says volumes about Pierce, certainly as “Pak Protector,” that Kevin Alfred Strom worked so well, and so closely, with him.
It also says quite a lot about Mr. Strom, and all of it is excellent.
If memory serves, when the foolish of Movement Past were trapped in Yesteryear, blindly fulfilling the Suggestions of Others, Mr. Strom was decades ahead of them, trying to define The Cause in terms of potentialities for cultural transformation within the Race.
That’s an excellent example, for all of us.
As I understand it, Strom started ADV, but I never thought that he wrote scripts for Pierce. Pierce, after all, was a prolific author with his own style. But maybe the best thing to do is just ask Kevin.
“The true right rejects egalitarianism root and branch.”
I think this is too sweeping. In the European context egalitarianism was also a movement to deconstruct false hierarchies like those imposed by an effete and decadent ruling class.
Also, to achieve the kind of organic unity that you advocate, there has to be an element of egalitarianism to create unity. An army is perhaps a useful metaphor in that it combines elements of usually meritorious hierarchy with elements of egalitarianism.
The trouble with hierarchical thinking is the human ego and the way it gets puffed up and lord’s it over others. Functional hierarchy is necessary but it should also exist withing a largely egalitarian culture or else you merely end up with smouldering resentment, division, class war, and invasion from outsiders.
I also think your article suggests the American New Right is somehow superior to the European New Right because the latter is “constrained” by thought crime legislation. If this is your view it is wrong. The European New Right has evolved from a much richer and deeper socio-historical ‘soil’ so it’s insights are more evolved and a closer fit to the awkard realities than anything the American New Right is capable of.
Also, the ENR is more mainstream than the ANR and has a growing representative position and is increasingly favoured by events.
I hope you have not fallen into the trap of subconsciously viewing the ANR as a branch of the globalist US superstate that should lord it over its ENR ‘protectorates’ because of it’s superior ‘freedom.’ This is how the article may read to European New Rightists.
1. The idea of organicism does entail a sense of brotherhood based on common racial and cultural identity. That is why an organicist society would work to replace unjust and exploitative social inequality with an order in which any social inequality serves the common good.
Now from the point of view of the aristocratic and bourgeois partisans of unjust hierarchies, such a process would look very egalitarian indeed, for it would appeal to notions of shared identity and brotherhood in order to dissolve old hierarchies.
But the end game would not be egalitarian, since the dissolution of old hierachies would take place through the rigorous selection of a new hierarchy based on genuine merit and in service of the common good.
2. The ENR has been around for decades. The NANR is a fledgeling movement. We don’t have anyone of the stature of someone like Alain de Benoist or Guillaume Faye. So it would be pretty silly to suggest that we are in any way superior to them. But we do differ because the situation in North America differs, which changes our focus. And we do have the advantage of the First Amendment, so we can be more frank than they can.
3. Your last comment is totally bizarre. I can’t fathom it, much less respond. The whole aim of our project is a post-American white homeland in North America. The United States has a lot to answer for, one thing being fostering an anti-Americanism so hateful that it reduces our European colleagues to blithering idiocy and inability to comprehend anything written by people in this country. Maybe that’s the problem here. But if it is, I don’t see any way to deal with it.
Greg,
“2. The ENR has been around for decades. The NANR is a fledgeling movement. We don’t have anyone of the stature of someone like Alain de Benoist or Guillaume Faye. So it would be pretty silly to suggest that we are in any way superior to them. But we do differ because the situation in North America differs, which changes our focus. And we do have the advantage of the First Amendment, so we can be more frank than they can.”
I don’t agree at all. You have all that is good in the ENR and more, they have some that is good in the NANR but less. It is a bit of a myth that the situation in Europe is that much different from the situation in the US, and the jewish question (which I suppose that you include in what is different) is every single bit as relevant, and it can be mentioned in an intelligent way that does not send one to jail (look at all the European writers who do just that). Just because Jews have moved their centre of power to America, that does not mean that their influence over Europe (either through the American mass media and culture or directly through “European” Jews) has decreased at all. One can in fact also discuss race (biological race, as if there were any other kind) without calling it “culture” or some other proxy.
I’m sorry, but you are just making up excuses for them not touching these serious issues – parts of the ENR (one cannot discuss them as a single ideological unit) have turned in to silly, useless conservatism. That should not be defended.
The ENR has things that are good and things that are bad – you lack those defects. (And you have several writers that are far better than de Benoist and Faye!)
Collin Liddel:
Anyone who could read this essay as an American intellectual asserting superiority based on Americanism would have to be one hopelessly ignorant individual.
I think your comment and John Morgan’s above said a lot more than you both realize about anti-American nationalists based outside of America. Your comments indicate that many of them are as unformed and close-minded as the typical American.
As a long-time reader of the anti-American drivel that Euro nationalists specialize in recycling, that comes as no surprise to me.
We are perilously close to achieving our goals – yes, the way-signs are certainly all around us – the efforts of the past are paying off. With the events of the past several decades in relief, and seen against the backdrop of today’s confusion and political instability, it is certain that, for the first time in many generations, the opportunity of gaining real power, real public awareness, are upon us. This, of course, is where it begins to become tricky, tentative, and acutely important to maintain a comprehensive and detailed approach to this coming future. Every decision, every donation to a fledgling or mainline group becomes ever more intrinsic to our strategic political life. Truly, it is becoming life-certain, or death-certain in the years ahead, to have at our disposal the most comprehensive and nature-imperative programme for the success of our endeavors.
On the positive side, we have, now, some of the most advanced, intellectual, passionate, and mission-directed technologies and individuals that have been offered to the white nationalist momentum in years. The delicate symbiosis between these factions will, unless carefully directed, fail in their endeavors if the broad base of White Nationalists are not keenly aware of, and by themselves, of what White Nationalism truly is and, more importantly, what it stands for. Moreover, with this new dynamism, this passionate dialogue, it is becoming more and more apparent that White Nationalism is coming of age.
I really enjoyed reading this. It gave me a very good sense of your views and what you hope to accomplish with CC. I winced a little at some of the comments about men with guns–strategic and wise though they may be. The gun owning half of white America is your broadest audience, and men who are drawn to guns are the same men who are distrustful of totalitarian egalitarianism and the menacing hordes of orcs, zombies, and goblins.
Thanks Jack.
I have nothing against guns and gun owners per se. But the Old Right approach does encourage militias and lone gunmen to take up arms against the system (or more often just gun down opportune targets), which in the present context is futile, and beyond that, it really isn’t necessary.
I do not think one can make a valid argument against political violence as such on moral grounds. My opposition to it is that it is not necessary and it generally makes things harder for the rest of us.
Greg, this is a great essay. You’re right, one of the strengths of the New Left was its break with the Communist Party dominated Old Left, which allowed the NL to shed any responsibility for Stalinist crimes.
I look forward to your take on Revisionism. Disowning the crimes of National Socialism should be politically advantageous. The problem is, our opponents won’t allow us to walk away from the concentration camps. No matter how much we disavow what was done in the past, their domination of the media won’t let us back into the future. Not yet, anyways. That’s part of the struggle we face. The New Left didn’t have this problem. They could count on a degree of media sympathy (for after all, weren’t they seen, like the Old Left, as being “liberals in a hurry”?) we don’t have.
World War II revisionism does have value in its own right. As the Barnes Review (an amazing combination of insight and wackiness) would have it, it’s simply a matter of trying to put history in accord with the facts. What really happened under Hitler? I’m not sure, but I want to find out. However, this research should be kept separate from other concerns.
To be successful, is to “embrace the abyss.”
Great essay. So often one finds oneself mired in the muck of ‘anti’ that one forgets–or has little emotional energy left–to be ‘pro’. It is writing like this that will sustain us. Thank you.
But I challenge you to read the following without laughing out loud: “We must finish once and for all with the neutrality of chess. We must condemn once and for all the formula ‘chess for the sake of chess,’ like the formula ‘art for art’s sake.’ We must organize shock-brigades of chess-players, and begin immediate realization of a Five-Year Plan for chess.” It sounds like a parody. Maybe it was. But according to Robert Conquest, that is Mussolini articulating his vision for Italy (Robert Conquest, The Great Terror: A Reassessment [New York: Oxford University Press, 1990], p. 249 — I found it on Wikipedia, mind you, so take it with a grain of salt). [I checked Google Books: Robert Conquest attributes this quotation to N. V. Krylenko, not Mussolini]
Well that is a relief! I suspected that something was amiss because of the mention of Five-Year Plans, which was not an Italian thing. But I did not have a copy of the Conquest book to check it.
This is an excellent essay. You achieved at condensing the essence of this metapolitical movement into a piece of writing which is concise enough to appeal to individuals who have not been introduced to these ideologies. I have been reading cc everyday since my so-called “awakening” and this website has played a major role in both my intellectual and spiritual development. The North American New Right is something I am so proud to be a part of and these intellectual seeds which we are planting will sprout and blossom into a beautiful array of subcultures which all embrace white survival and racial nationalism. Thank you.
Generally, a well thought out and well written article, with which I strongly agree. There were one or two contradictions, such as :
“We believe that ALL peoples should have sovereign homelands where they can live according to their own lights, free from the interference of other peoples.”
v.
“We want a world in which EVERY DISTINCT people has such a homeland, including the Jews.”
With the ongoing demographic changes across Europe & America, the ‘distinct peoples’ could be a minority within a century, making the disparity between these statements significant. We may end up with a situation where the number of ‘indistinct people’ supporting Nationalist ideals outnumber the fewer ‘distinct peoples’ with a Nationalist inclination.
Great essay! I agree with Greg Johnson.
We have no chance to win the support of all white people in the whole world if we use NS-symbols and only discuss the Second World War or the Holocaust. We must create new symbols and a program without totalitarism. Hitler is dead long ago. He was a German Nationalist and no friend of the worldwide White Power Movement. The old NS was a solution only for Germany.
Greg Johnson is right: Today we have even better arguments. From archaeology to genetics there are much more new facts we can reclaim for our struggle. The whole new science is what we can use as a source of our view of the world.
On the other side we don´t have to exclude persons like Pierce, Rockwell or Covington. After the next decades we will know who was right. It may be it will be Covington. He is still the only one who has a real plan. I do have much respect for him. Counter Currents, the American Third Position Party and other groups may be too late. We will see. I personally hope there will be enough time to solve the problem without violence.
I´m from Germany and hope all Whites will stick together fighting for our survival. Don´t fight the old battles of the past. Let us look into the future!
Woodchuck in blockquote:
Very strong point. If he were here today, it is certain Hitler would turn his back on those who simply follow WHAT he did, without trying to understand WHY he did what he did, and how this can be usefully applied to out time.
Again, blindly adopting the regalia of the NSDAP mars one as being trapped in history. As well, let’s not forget that many of those wearing SS uniforms would not even meet the height/weight requirements for the SS, much less other, more selective requirements.
Fools to a man, worthy of mockery.
Could not agree more.
It will be Covington, because only Covington, the true heir to Rockwell at his best, understands that most self-identified White Nationalists are merely children playing contentedly in the Magic Sandbox of Yesterday, instead of defining their lives in terms of the fulfillment of a metapolitical purpose. This is because, as Greg Johnson realized, most self-identified White Nationalists are incompetent nihilists, seeking “White Nationalism” as a (temporarily) useful rung of the ladder of their failure.
Covington defined their metaissue best: “They are here because of what they are AGAINST, not because of what they re FOR. What they are AGAINST simply changes its name, its identification with them, a tiny bit, and they are all right with it now.”
Essentially, you are looking at the adolescent phenomenon of Oppositional Defiance. Most grow out of it. They don’t, and try to keep us trapped in it with them, as their sources of validation grow fewer by the year.
A better, brighter future calls foru s to look beyond merely “surviving,” to Doing Better in the conscious Creation of something much, much better, for all of us. Covington’s definition of this, the Northwest Republic, is comprehensive enough for all of us, and our Posterity.
We work to transform the Earth, so they may walk Among The Stars.
Yes. I was once transfixed by the title of book in a library: The Beautiful Ones Are Not Yet Born. I couldn’t even open it I was so moved. Is this Cosmotheism perhaps? Then I’m for it. Beware the faux versions of transhumanism via computers – a fantasy of being downloaded into a robot. We’ll do it the old fashioned way – thru love and work and nature’s time.
Jaego in blockquote:
Haven’t read the book, but I know Pierce did an ADV on Cosmotheism. Might be available on Solar General.
Kevin Alfred Strom would be the strongest analyst of what Pierce meant to do with his Church of Cosmotheism. I see it working out on several levels.
First, the 501 (c) (3) application, which had to have been a mere formality, and would have provided verisimilitude for him trying to play by the System’s Rules. yes, of couse it would have been rejected, by he could say he tried.
Second, with the Church out of the way for tax purposes, he could have used it to develop a new Order of Christianity. Promethean metaphors aside, Pierce at his best reminds me of the Pak Protectors at their best. Within the corporate shell, he could develop the foundations for a new Order of Christianity along the lines suggested by Nietzsche. The developmental foundation could have followed along lines suggested in “Imperium.”
Three, in time, an internal Order of Priesthood – the Guardians, counterparts to the LDS Church’s Council of Fifty, and an external Order of Priesthood, constructed along Northern Masculine Pagan lines. working its way through various religious Orders, each acting as a corporation specializing in one or more areas.
Give credit where credit is due; Pierce, at his best (as Pak Protector), could have done this.
There are more genetic sequencers in ONE industrial park in mainland China, than in all of America. Read the genetics blogs, and read between the lines, With the mechanisms of epigenetic inheritance finally (roughly) understood, the New Prometheus has his “fire” – plasma – available. Homo Novus will take place over generations, and not many of them, at that.
Heinlein wrote of this, arguing that apes, iven genetic engineering, would create super apes, but would not create Homo Sapiens. Implicit talents require specialized brain sections to develop into capacities. Not one would would have addressed the development of prefrontal lobes, instead focusing on strength, speed, and agility, and walking into the trap of projecting who they are, into what they could become.
Ray Kurzweil’s blog is highly informative. I suspect the Singularity – actually, several Singularities, overlapping and accelerating one another – will lead to a new feudal order, with a handful (and their Children) given access to vast processing power, and virtual immortality. For the rest of us, it will be a new Dark Ages, with the few necessary to run the machines treated well, and the rest left to starve, while freezing to death in the dark. For us, it will be George Carlin’s classic on YouTube, “The American Dream”: “It’s not going to get any better because The Owners don’t want that.”
Again, I ask you to get the Pierce mp3 on Cosmotheism, and consider writing about what it might have been, for the Pierce Symposium. This blind worship of the past that never was must stop.
We still have the ability to Create. We can make it OUR Creation, and not THEIRS.
You must deal in realities. Envisioning a future has little to do with “wants.” You must also see things clearly.
Most of your “platform” in the first half of your essay seemed to deal with wishing. It’s very Enlightenment based thinking. The first half of the essay had specific ideas and the second half
seemed too generalized and could mean almost anything.
The essay was very confusing, since it was a hodgepodge of left and right ideas. So the definition of “New Right” is a blending of left/right ideas?
At first, you spoke in specific ideas and then you said you want to be inclusive, when you know very well that the diverse groups you include will most likely not support your agenda.
Totalitarianism is the future. There’s no getting around it. Even these libs, who scream “freedom freedom,” have been forced to get more centralized. Nations that refuse to be more totalitarian will only get weaker, at the expense of more highly organized, rigid societies.
Most Americans are in no position for voting or picking leaders. They have been taught to be selfish from day one and that won’t change anytime soon. A “White Republic” is what we are supposed to have now. So, it was not only a huge failure, but actually severely damaged the White race. Best if we leave it behind.
Of course, responsible, White Americans must have a certain amount of freedom. So they can create and be fruitful. A totalitarian government should not interfere with them, while containing or disposing of the ranker elements.
Nobody likes jews. Everyone knows about them. A homeland for jews is ridiculous. There are plenty of races that would like to get rid of jews permanently. Who will defend them? Can you give me one good reason why anyone should care about jews? If you can’t back up a statement, it is just “wishing.”
Implicit in your idea of “a homeland for the jews” is White suckers continuing to defend, finance and give them our technology. That ain’t going to happen.
Religion is the future. There is no way you will get rid of it in the USA. Your hatred of Christianity is known. Pretending to be inclusive of Christians is dishonest on your part. The fact that you don’t mention religion very much in this essay speaks volumes about your vision of the New Right.
Science, as we know it, will not survive the Enlightenment. Science is not a replacement for religion. That is a pure enlightenment ideal.
Revolutions are fought with guns. Revolutions are usually very bloody affairs. Something catastrophic always happens. Have fun defending yourself and imposing your will with glass guns. Are you against violence as well, except in movies? The right to bear arms is the only reason that the White race hasn’t been completely obliterated in the USA.
I would add that a New Right would have to embody more masculine ideals. I didn’t see too much of that in the essay.
So, until you can deal more in realities, you will only further alienate the wrong people. Half-hearted solutions at this point will not inspire. You seem to be aiming for the masses, while decrying them as well, not the intellects.
Education and cultural infiltration/influence is fine, but that can hardly be directed at any specific ends that aren’t already in the process of being worked out.
Yes, the Far Right is also called the Third Postion because it partakes of the Left and the Right. But it has focused more on the elements from the Right – and that has to change. The Left has a history of success because of the flexibility of its methods – starting with identity. How many people know that Hillary Clinton is a disciple of Alinksky? And of course their “no enemies to the Left is something we desperately need. We always eat ouselves alive thru infighting and trying to out the racist or now to out the guy who dated a Chinese woman or something. No Enemies to the Right means loyalty to our Race and epitomizes the “Big Tent” approach.
And the Left never renouced the rifle. The glass rifle is a total non starter.
Jim, I’ve taken the liberty of addressing your critical comments, to the extent they are relevant to the issue before us.
Jim Stark in blockquote:
There is no such thing as a pure “Right” or pure “Left” political system. The issue is to deal constructively with the best of what either side has to offer, making it better for us.
The hard totalitarian future died with the Soviet Union. The soft totalitarians remains with us, but we can deal with them on the battleground of the Mind. This works for Marine le Pen, and would have worked for Breivik.
The last “White Republic” on this continent died in April, 1865. However, we can recover the best, and rebuild in the Northwest.
With several hundred atomic weapons, and a plethora of chemical and biological weapons at their disposal, the Jewish Homeland will look after itself. Note, however, that the demographic destiny of the Zionist Entity has been written, and the Leadership of the Zionist Entity are sending their children to London, Paris, and Los Angeles.
Religions change to meet the needs of their followers, or they perish. Seen any followers of Cybele lately? Christianity has adopted numerous Forms over history, and will continue to adopt and adopt the best of what is needed.
You are making a common mistake, in that you are confusing “revolutions” with what are merely “coup d’etats.” Frankly, most of what you define as “revolutions” don’t develop to the level of a coup. They are simply rebellions, who teach the Owners of rebellion. In turn, the Owners teach them of war.
Masculine Ideals are not an explicit part of the essay because they aren’t needed to be defined explicitly as part of the essay. The essay stands on its own merits, and succeeds, admirably.
This is because, for the first time, we are defining our selves, and our Purpose, in our terms, on our terms. We do not seek to blindly adopt the regalia of yesteryear, as if, somehow, totemic adoption will grant us the powers and abilities of Lee, Jackson, or the NSDAP Cultural Moment.
Hobbes:
The (FIRST) power of the Sovereign is the power to define, and to enforce the definitions to his satisfaction.
That we are finally taking responsibility, at a foundational level, to begin the Change, the Great Transformation, is heartening indeed.
Did I mention the importance of financially supporting Counter-Currents, each and every month? I did?
Now you can see why.
Jim, With all due respect I have to disagree with you in your comments regarding Greg’s attitude to Christianity: Your hatred of Christianity is known. Pretending to be inclusive of Christians is dishonest on your part. The fact that you don’t mention religion very much in this essay speaks volumes about your vision of the New Right. The man is inclusive of Christians and like aware Christians he can’t stand the scene. I was at my Anglican church this morning and you ought to have heard the comments there from the congregants regarding the modern priest. They would have made Greg blush! My church is closing at the end of June and to cut a long story short Greg is a Saint compared to most of them. Captured and perverted Christianity is the enemy, although I am sure that Greg would publish any decent article by a Christian that could write at his level. Greg is not the problem; Christianity (as it is today) is the problem. It is up to Christians, not Greg, to defend their faith from the wolves in sheep’s clothing that have crept in unawares.
Mr. Stark,
If not “backing up your statements” is “just wishing” then the entirety of your critique is a mere penny in a fountain.
I am not trying to be beligerent but I think you ought to be more concrete if you are going to trash this essay. If you are not a part of the solution you are part of the problem–cliche but true.
From what I can tell you seem to subscribe to those Old Right ideas that have done little if anything to help whites. It is pretty clear to me that the old paradigm has failed and, despite our warm and fuzzy nostalgia for it, it is time to move on. Even if I were to agree with you entirely about, say, totalitarianism, it would be imprudent for any white nationallist group to espouse that as a public philosophy–especially in America where, for better or for worse, we simply don’t like being told what to do. I think Mr. Johnson has provided a solid blueprint for a new political trajectory and one that at the very least should be supported as a parallel strategy (even with private reservations on the part of some).
Nothing else has worked, has it? White nationalists are perhaps the most marginalized group in America and this is only going to get worse if we don’t do something truly effective right now. With all due respect, I don’t see your Christian totalitarianism as being the way into the hearts and minds of white people–if that is indeed what you are proposing, which it seems to me that you are.
I think we have moved far beyond the time when we had the luxury of in-fighting. It is time to rally around the most reasonable conception of white nationalism, the one with the broadest appeal without compromising our values, and get down to business.
Even China has recognized at this point that while personality cults might be useful for legitimizing power and propaganda, in the long run they prove to be incredibly inefficient, leaving so much power in the hands of one individual that the one stress point can cause the whole system to crash. Chairman Mao gives way to the Party, the Central Committee and democratic centralism. The key is the find a balance between authority and hierarchy, and multiple viewpoints and bottom-up formation and input.
It’s essential for organicist visions of society to take into account that organic systems are still systems. As such, they can become more or less efficient in regards of the ends which the system sets out to achieve, be it realization of the Transcendent a’la Evola, racial preservation, or “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
With regards to Mr. Stark: if the future of Europeans is a primitive totalitarian theocracy, then God help us all. Fortunately, I think the evidence is rather in the opposite viewpoint. modern Science might have been born out of the enlightenment, but it’s method is now almost universally accepted, not just in the West but all over the world. Formerly totalitarian countries like China are beginning to leave more decisions up to lower levels of the State. And we had a certain event called the Arab Spring a little while back. The future will be unegalitarian, but as Greg has pointed out, this will be to serve the good of all. And as such, the input of all is essential. Hurrah for technology.
Re: Jaego
Posted May 13, 2012 at 5:43 pm | Permalink
Yes, the Far Right is also called the Third Postion because it partakes of the Left and the Right. But it has focused more on the elements from the Right – and that has to change. The Left has a history of success because of the flexibility of its methods – starting with identity. How many people know that Hillary Clinton is a disciple of Alinksky? And of course their “no enemies” to the Left is something we desperately need. We always eat ourselves alive thru infighting and trying to out the racist or now to out the guy who dated a Chinese woman or something. No Enemies to the Right means loyalty to our Race and epitomizes the “Big Tent” approach.
And the Left never renouced the rifle. The glass rifle is a total non starter.
I was having trouble picking from all the great comments, so the above summed up, for me, the gist of this common thought.
White Nationalism is concerned with day-to-day procedures which, ultimately, define a larger and stronger political construct.
The collective nature of tribe, people, folk-ways, and identifiable culture has been allowed to pass from us by the very nature, which seems to identify us as unique individuals. Individualism, taken to an extreme, has separated us from ourselves. This was and is the original message of White Nationalism.
Is anyone familiar with Byzantine government? It lasted for about a thousand years, tho the size of the empire waxed and waned during the same time frame. Am wondering if it had same type of government Greg talked about as ideal model for whites.
Non-violent formula for controlling the Jews
Mullins’ NEW HISTORY of the JEWS
By Eustace Mullins
（日本語訳：ユダヤ問題解決の 三つの方法 ）
In all of recorded history, there was only one civilization which the Jews could not destroy. Because of this, they have given it the silent treatment. Few American college graduates with a Ph.D. degree could tell you what the Byzantine Empire was.
It was the Empire of East Rome, set up by Roman leaders after the Jews had destroyed Rome. This empire functioned in Constantinople for twelve hundred years, the longest duration of any empire in the history of the world.
Throughout the history of Byzantium, as it was known, by imperial edict, no Jew was allowed to hold any post in the Empire, nor was he allowed to educate the young. The Byzantine Empire finally fell to the Turks after twelve centuries of prosperity, and the Jews have attempted to wipe out all traces of its history.
Yet its edicts against the Jews were not cruel; in fact, the Jews lived unmolested and prosperously in the empire throughout its history, but here alone the vicious cycle of host and parasite did not take place.
It was a Christian civilization, and the Jews were not able to exercise any influence. Nor did the Orthodox priests bewilder their congregations with any vicious lies about Christ being a Jew.
No wonder the Jews want to eradicate the memory of such a culture.
It was Ezra Pound who launched upon a study of Byzantine civilization, and who reminded the world of this happily non-Jewish land.
From the Byzantines, Pound derived his no-violent formula for controlling the Jews.
“The answer to the Jewish problem is simple,” he said.
“Keep them out of banking, out of education, out of government.”
And this is how simple it is.
There is no need to kill the Jews. In fact, every pogrom in history has played into their hands, and has in many instances been cleverly instigated by them.
Get the Jews out of banking and they cannot control the economic life of the community.
Get the Jews out of education and they can not pervert the minds of the young to their subversive doctrines.
Get the Jews out of government and they cannot betray the nation.
Byzantium is a fine model if you are anti-Jew and pro-business, but not pro anything else. It was as pure an oligarchy as ever existed. It was also christian. The two forms of universalism worked well together to liquidate any ethnic or national component. It began as a colony of Roman capitalists on the Bosporus ruling over Greeks. By the beginning of the 8th century, the Romans were extinct, and the Greeks were largely replaced with Armenians, Syrians, and Slavs. For about 300 years, Byzantium was ruled by Syrians and Armenians. Then Greeks took over after that, but by then, what did it really mean to be a Greek? Greeks were a new blended people, produced by the Byzantine system.
Furthermore, even in Byzantium, social separation of Jews could be abolished through conversion to Christianity.
What I want is separation from Jews, not their encapsulation: Jews to Israel, and a white homeland or homelands in North America.
David Duke claims that Jews paid back the Byzantine leaders, who allowed them live unmolested, by opening the gates of Constantinople to the Islamic hordes camped outside the city waiting to rape and pillage. It sounds like something Jews would do.
It is interesting the Byzantine Empire isn’t more closely studied given its duration. Honestly though, I think it’s preposterous that Jewish influence on the curriculum might be a reason for that.
Um, Nazism (National SOCIALISM) and Fascism (partnership between the government and business, by which government controls the economy) are not right-wing philosophies by any stretch. They are, in fact, direct descendants of Marxism. The only reason they’re identified as “right-wing” is because they eventually came into competition with Communism, and the elites (ever sympathetic to the Soviets) took their cue to reframe Hitler and Mussolini (whom they had virtually worshipped up to that point) as the worst thing they could envision: “right-wing”.
If you wish to describe Marxist systems as right-wing, be my guest; you’d be in excellent company among Soviet agents and fellow-travelers.
They are certainly right-wing as I have defined it: rejecting egalitarianism.
There’s not much else to say about your remarks: you are working with very little information and just making things up to fit your agenda. You are not necessarily stupid, but you are coming out with stupidity because you are ignorant and either unaware of that fact or indifferent to it.
In Canada, fascism was divided between two main political parties. The Winnipeg -based Canadian Union of Fascists was modelled on the British Union of Fascists and led by Chuck Crate . The Parti national social chrétien , later renamed the Canadian National Socialist Unity Party, was founded by Adrien Arcand and inspired by Nazism . The Canadian Union of Fascists in English Canada never reached the level of popularity the Parti national social chrétien enjoyed in Quebec . The Canadian Union of Fascists focused on economic issues while the Parti national social chrétien concentrated on racist themes. The influence of the Canadian fascist movement reached its height during the Great Depression and declined from then on.
This was an excellent piece! Another one of your clarifying, foundational pieces that everyone in our movement should read.
There is only one paragraph I found unclear:
Are you labeling trying “to harmonize private property and private enterprise with the common good whenever they conflict” as hard totalitarianism and saying we should reject it? If so, that would be my only point of disagreement. I realize securing the existence of our people and a future for our children is and must stay our primary focus and objective, but I view the common good of our people once we have secured their existence as on the same level of necessity as organic hierarchy. Our future nation-states would be treading are very dangerous ground if they let private property or private enterprise come before the good of our folk. If that were the norm, such a society could not be called “organic.”
I know that you, Greg, are not one to support “free” markets or the individual above the common good, however, I am not sure exactly how much value you are placing on it in this piece.
Thanks to pointing me to your essay that answers partly what is your attitude to Fascism/Nazism.
Not entirely though.
Three issues remain:
1. Your definition of “the New Right”.
2. What do you mean by “the rejection of human equality as a fact and as a norm”?
3. Why do you consider yourself, considering your (mild, imo) views expressed in the above essay, a “subversive”, “pariah” intellectual that is barred by the political regime of America (the West) from publishing in the mainstream media and publishing houses?
1. IMO, “the Right” has three traditions (it means three different things).
The Modern history of the West is a long struggle between the classes of the ARISTOCRACY/clergy and the BOURGEOISIE for political and economic power. That struggle became more visible with the advent of Protestantism and the issue of constraining the power of Kings, first in England and Holland and then elsewhere.
Early on two warring sides ensued among “intellectuals”: the first defended the absolutist right of the kings and by implication the privileges of the aristocracy and clergy, the second, using the concepts of the natural law philosophy defended in effect the principles of the modern liberal democratic and equalitarian society. Famous names in the second camp: Locke, Grotius, Spinoza. (Hobbes is added too but the reasons are subtle.)
French scholar Pierre Manent (who is a defender of nationalism and named the Jew see his “Democracy without Nations”!) has a book “An Intellectual History of Liberalism” with chapters on Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Benjamin Constant, Francois Guizot and Tocqueville – the fathers of Classical Liberalism in his view. One should also add John Stuart Mill to that list and possibly some other British, American, Italian and German names.
This is the Right tradition of CLASSICAL LIBERALISM. What is called in the USA “Libertarianism” which also belongs to this tradition would be called in Europe “Ultra-Liberalism”.
Contemporary famous Classical Liberal intellectuals are: Friedrich Hayek, Robert Nozik (Jew), and a borderline case, Karl Popper (Jew).
The first camp, which subsequently lost the ideological battle, I would call the “BURKEAN CONSERVATISM”. Basically they were, throughout the 19th century and (still are!), the devil advocates of the privileges of the aristocracy. The underlying ideology of the Conservative Party of UK is Burkean Conservatism. One can safely say that in the country where senators (“Lords”) inherit the position from their fathers, the Burkeans won the ideological battle…
I am pretty sure that you have no issues with the above which is pretty classical stuff.
There is the third tradition of the Right which is more controversial. It is a tradition that in the 20th century led to FASCISM! Karl Popper in his “Open Society and its Enemies” trace it back to Plato and Aristotle through German Idealism (Hegel and Fichte) and biologist Ernst Haeckel!
The “revisionist” German historian Ernst Nolte in his “Fascism in Its Epoch” (you should read the Wikipedia article on this book and also on the author – very interesting!) trace it back to late 19th century France.
Others trace it back to the 18th century to Joseph de Maistre.
Though it was very well that you DISTANCED yourself from the atrocities of the Fascist regimes one still gets the impression that your “NEW RIGHT” belongs to the above mentioned THIRD (FASCIST) tradition. Which is very well but you (in the plural) should better clarify this.
2. The principle of the “equality of men” meant different things throughout the 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries at different moments and different countries. For instance in America in 1780 it meant social equality only between White Protestant males. In UK in 1833 it include also the male Catholics and male Blacks. Male Jews were included in 1858. In Russia in 1861 it included former male “serfs”. In France in 1945 it include females too. And so on. But there were also lapses from it like in the treatment of ethnic minorities and social classes by the Totalitarian regimes of the 2oth century and by the incarceration of American Japanese by the USA during WWII…
To be more concrete there are two issues as I see with the “equality principle”:
The Classical Liberals have long defended the principle of the “equality of opportunity” or “equality of process” as opposed to “equality of outcome”, the mainstay of Socialism.
However, Liberals strongly oppose the aristocratic (caste) privileges and the hierarchical society of the Traditional and Non-Western (Muslim) societies and the subjection of women found in them. It is one thing to oppose the Leftist policies of “positive discrimination” (discrimination against men), as I do, and another to advocate for a fall back to “Kinder, Küche, Kirche”…
You (in the plural) should clarify your position here too.
When it comes to the rights of the foreigners, of the ethnic minorities, then we come to the crux of the matter. Saying that you disdain extreme/inhumane measures, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, expulsions, breaches of international laws, etc. absolves you from the charge of being a FASCIST. But then how are you different from politicians like Trump, Nigel Farage, Marianne Le Pen, Ludovic Orban, even Sarkozy or Cameron who tried to close a little the door. Why do you consider yourselves further to the right than them who are pretty respectable and mainstream? What’s the fuss then(pardon my English)?…
(I know that you are not a politician but an intellectual, however, there are Conservative intellectuals who I am sure fully share your views but activate/d on the mainstream, Pierre Manent and Ernst Nolte would be two examples).
3. Considering your mild views I am still of the opinion that under a pseudonym (and that mainly because your association with “anti-Semitism”…), using moderate language, you can submit articles and books for the mainstream publishers and publications. Conservatives, of course, but mainstream and more prestigious and I suppose better paying.
Imagine you made it with a bestseller and Jews learned who you are… You would secure yourself financially for life… LOL.
It is not a snub, just a suggestion and a sincere puzzlement. (Thanks for reading me, and as they say keep up the good work Mr Greg Johnson 🙂
It must be true that almost all behaviour is conditioned. Behaviour includes thinking, feeling, doing — all of these are mechanical. Most of the time one leads of with the infernal I. I think this…and so it is recorded. The I runs me. My attention is taken by the milieu which surrounds me, like a soft cocoon. The cocoon absorbs my flailing mind, my flailing body, my flailing feeling. I am caught, like a spider in the web of my mind. I want everything to be different than it is.
Everyone cannot wake up. Almost everyone is in a deep sleep. are asleep. Almost every last person believes they are awake. What do I know? What do I understand? One thing is all. One thing!
I am asleep. I try to wake up — but my many I’s work to my disadvantage. Now here’s the thing — it suits the planet that no one wakes up. But not to worry — the planet takes care that by far the majority stay asleep. One or two escapees won’t be missed. It is futile to try to change a thing; even if you could.
Suppose you went back in time. Say, Rome, in the 13th Century, and foretold the future and suggested a few changes of direction. Would you be able to change a single thing. But if you were awake you would no try. Then you would truly understand that a change of being, your being, may help the betterment of other beings. But if you tell them something particular you would simply scare them away. The truth is we die. Why tilt at windmills? Why stoke ones imagination with what will never be and cannot be.
The old world is crumbling, yesterday is gone, and will never be back. Like you and I, yesterday is gone! Let it go. Then you may appear. Right here right now or — keep pouring old wine in new bottles. Change is inevitable. If you were God, what would you change? If you were president tomorrow, what would you change?
Long ago, when I was a young man, an old man said to me, very quietly, after me telling him how terrible the world was and me telling him what I would change he told me a couple of things. “Everyone had a piece of the truth.”
“Why would you expect them to give up their piece — no doubt they would die without it.” But he said, “If you can give up your piece of the truth, i.e. die to your old self you will attain a greater truth, the whole truth. The only thing you can change is yourself.”
“Try that! See how difficult that is. Change yourself.”
Well I can say now; what a relief. Just walk away. But that is impossible you might say. Now you are beginning to understand. If you can persuade your mind and your body to work together it is possible to tame the emotions; all of them. To tame a wild elephant his keeper harnesses him between two tame elephants. Of course, for a man he needs help. He needs to find someone to first help him to tame the mind and the body. Here then is a real task. Ask yourself can you do it?
But first you have to be touched in your feelings. Only when you realize the terror of the situation will you truly know how deeply ones sleep can be. Only if you are truly convinced that you are asleep will you realize the impossibility of waking up the entire world.
I thought I would be nothing if I succeeded in dying to my old self. I am nothing. But in dying to my old self something filled me up. That something else animates me — if I allow it. When I allow it I am free. When I forget to allow it I am in chains. Bound by my ego. My ego does not want me to be free. But the I am referring to is very, very weak. The elephants are much stronger than their keeper.
You are the keeper, of course — but you abdicated a long time ago. You are drunk most of the time imagining what you will do tomorrow when you are sober. Early in your life you were plied with drink. Until you could hold the bottle yourself. Now you are filled with all the things of the world, but still, that is not enough. Just wait, you think, until ‘I’ change the world.
Would you want to be God? Or the President of the United States? Or King of the world? The truth is you have no master in your own self, do you. If you truly woke up you would see that all are shadows — dancing on the wall of your cave. Of course there are infinite caves. Everyone has one!
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment