Interview: Sebastian Ernst Ronin of the Renaissance Party of North America

We’re fortunate today to be speaking with Sebastian Ernst Ronin, head of the Renaissance Party of North America. It, along with other tiny parties like it, represents a new political direction: a new take on the fundamentals of politics that have been around since the dawn of time. One of these tiny parties will eventually become a dominant force, if history repeats itself. So we’re trying to look into the mind of one of the more creative and committed people in politics.

What’s the connection between conservation and conservatism?

By “conservation” I take you to mean as it relates to ecological stewardship or some type of Green understanding. Conservation, as such, is a micro undertaking within a larger macro ecological whole.

The Green political movement, especially in NAmerica where it has never really gotten off the ground, is sucking wind. In some ways it is bleeding badly with how it is perceived by the public due to two events that happened last year. First, there was the attendance of Cem Ozdemir, Co-Leader of the German Greens, at Bilderberg ’08. Secondly, there was the hit taken by the environmental movement with the blowback from Climategate and the related, and by now very obvious globalist scam/agenda as attached to Copenhagen. In a nutshell, Green political philosophy is a liberal redundancy and a false comfort, and has been, in general, captured by globalist interests and agenda. This is the position of the Renaissance Party of North America (RPN).

As this relates to socio-political conservatism it is fat with latency and opportunity. Since the inception of Green parties, they have been identified, rightly, with the Left. In Germany, Greens are called “watermelons” i.e. green on the outside and red on the inside. Taken at its core value, conservation cannot help but be conservative as a political philosophy. What could be more conservative than living within one’s own means, being accountable for one’s direct relationship with their environment, distinguishing between needs and desires as these relate to consumer choices, etc? In Canada, the core, historical principles of decentralization and bioregionalism have been purged from Green dialogue by the liberal centrist and statist federal party. It stands to reason, does it not? As the historical pendulum of liberalism maxes out, and we are pressed up against Post-Peak Oil ecological realities, the notion of conservation/ecological stewardship will fall into the conservative camp. The RPN has identified the philosophy of Archeofuturism as a reasonable guide to point us towards a post-Green political option. The Green political movement is now philosophically bankrupt. Greens, Earth-Firsters and soft environmentalists will be looking for a new political home. White Nationalists will be looking to ecological guidelines to compliment the management of new homelands.

When you say “New Right,” what does that mean?

First of all, it is necessary to include the qualifier of “European” to “New Right.” If the notion of New Right is just left dangling as such, we see all types of lame attempts at re-inventing the Right from a loaded, i.e. American, perspective. Such is nonsense, and falls short of breaking through to any new ground. The end result is an effort to tag a sexy dimension onto the Teabaggers, Constitutionalists, Three Percenters, States’ Rights, White Nationalist organizations, as examples, when in effect what ends up being re-packaged is a nostalgic, ergo reactionary, look at the past for determining political action in the present. The Empire is toast; looking backwards is not an option.

European New Right (ENR) philosophy, or at least the core that we have chosen to rely on, stems primarily from the work of Alain de Benoist and Guillaume Faye. The socio-political notion of Archeofuturism noted above stems from the work of Faye. From an ecological perspective, I would also include the work of Pentti Linkola in this category. From de Benoist, the RPN has laid out the political map of Center/Periphery as opposed to Left/Right.

One of the great benefits to come out of 9/11, an unforeseen one by the globalists I might add, is the whole questioning of Left/Right politics. A decade ago for a significant percentage of the public to have been thinking in terms of “the Left/Right paradigm is dead” would have been unthinkable. This vacuum in the political psyche does nothing but grow on a daily basis and, as we all know, nature abhors a vacuum. The RPN has identified it and brought it into play. The bulk of the Left is as politically insipid as is the bulk of the Right; one camp of useful idiots negates another. There evolves a thin demographic sliver where the two spheres overlap, creating a target wedge, a vesica piscis. Relative to each of the Left and Right, this wedge consists of their own outliers, radicals, free thinkers, contrarians, etc. A true identification of the radical Center automatically designates its relative Periphery; there can be no center without a periphery. In short, there will be the political movement as identified and carried by the New Center…and all else as swept to the dust bin and redundancies of the Periphery.

Is there a link between conservatism and Traditionalism?

I think this question has already been partially answered above. However, as it directly relates to, say, family values, yes there is. At bare minimum, the conservative starting point would have to be “paleo” as opposed to “neo.” For us, this “link” as you call it, becomes somewhat self-evident as soon as one realizes that we live in an upside-down world, most of it created and delivered by a neo-liberal and globalist agenda, i.e. social engineering. The greatest poison within this social engineering is likely the ideology of Political Correctness; everyone is dragged down to the level of the lowest common denominator and the condition is labeled with “equality” and “democracy.” The non-egalitarian practice of affirmative action is labeled as fair. The integrity of the individual is sacrificed for and through mass conditioning. George Orwell must be smiling in his grave. To counter, again given the simple example of family values, we believe heterosexual marriage and a stable family unit are the bedrock of any healthy society while recognizing the civic rights of alternative gender identities and sexual lifestyles. We maintain that heterosexual matrimony is “holy” due to the ability of a man and a woman to spark the creation of life, to reproduce, to further the genetic line.

The RPN has identified as traitorous to the Occidental world the ideologies of institutionalized, legally enshrined and enforced Political Correctness, Multiculturalism and Feminism.

Why do you think green and new right are convergent?

Human values are a reflection and extension of physical reality. If we are at the apex of industrial civilization, then it only stands to reason that there will be a corresponding degree of decadence, confusion, effeminate conduct, etc. This is standard at the end-times of any civilization; witness political correctness.

The glove is about to be turned inside-out. We maintain that within the current century the NAmerican economy will resort to an agrarian economy, supported by small secondary industry, as existed prior to advent of industrialization. With it will come the family farm and the corresponding division of labor. Birth rates will once again rise to meet the new division of labor. It does not mean that advances made by women will be chucked. Those advances, as all other advances made for the growth of the individual, will of course be retained…but within a very new and demanding physical world. From a cybernetic perspective, the given environment never hints at what need be done; it always dictates. If one has the capacity to observe and follow through on the dictates is another matter.

You mention peak oil and the collapse of industrial civilization as triggers to a new era in which conservative politics will dominate. Why is that?

Again, as has already been insinuated, a harsh world of social deprivation and hardship cannot realistically support what we have come to know as liberal values and conduct. It’s just not feasible. Many of our self-centered illusions as to what constitutes a “good life” will go the way of the dodo bird. Let’s be brutally honest here: the challenges of survival are inherently conservative; there is scant liberal twaddle about such challenges. Needs will trump desires; me-me-me will be displaced by us-us-us, while retaining the value of the individual as is part of our Western heritage. A more effective balance and harmony between individual and society is what is hoped for. The traditional becomes the radical.

What do you think is the major failing of the current political system?

I’m glad you qualified that question with “major” or else we could be here all day. Allow me to expand to two major failings. Firstly, of all our Occidental institutions, ranging from the cultural, to the scientific, to the arts, to technology, the institution of politics is a stunted cripple; it has just not kept pace. Now this may be due to the very core nature of politics, i.e. who rules. In other words, it has just not been in the best interests of the financial ruling elite to allow the institution to evolve at an equal pace with the rest of our institutions. If the current political system attracts, for the most part, nothing but scumbags, then we need to look at what is wrong with the system, not so much with what is wrong with the individuals who are attracted to it. It is part of our topsy-turvy world. A calling that should be anchored in service to the people is no more than a scam to receive obscene levels of compensation lifted out of the pockets of the people. On a personal level, I find the challenge to always be a double-edged knife. On the one hand, politics is the crassest of undertakings, while on the other hand it is the highest calling. An honest effort at the latter, at the very least, tends to keep the former in check.

Secondly, if we are talking about federal politics, the political jurisdiction that is being governed is simply too large; by virtue of its size it invites mismanagement and corruption. Related to the physical size of the jurisdiction is the size of population. At a particular size of population, and it varies from polity to polity, a society cannot help but go fascist. The outcome is hot-wired so-to-speak; bureaucratic entropy is programmed in. Downsizing to more manageable political units is the only safeguard to maintain not only reasonable democratic structures, but more importantly, reasonable democratic practices.

Plato, writing in The Republic, suggested that civilizations go through a cycle of aristocracy, timarchy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. Do you agree, and if so, which stage do you find optimum? Which stage are we in now?

Yes, I would tend to agree, but those philosophical terms can be simplified to life-cycle terms. These would be birth, growth, full maturation, decline, death; as for an individual, so for a civilization. As such, I would say that we are at the last stage, that of tyranny/death. Need there be tyranny associated with death? No. But that would depend on how the life has been lived and how one views and/or understands death. If death is viewed in negative terms, for lack of a better description, then all sorts of frantic, “tyrannical” clutching will accompany this stage. If, on the other hand, death is viewed as a transition stage or, better yet, as an extension of life, then there is no need for “tyrannical” clutching onto the past.

Keeping with the cycle that you have identified, and as complimented by me, it stands to reason that the next stage will again be birth/aristocracy. This is how we view the current century, one of transition, of birth. The RPN has even gone to the extent of openly declaring the type of “aristocratic” personalities that are called upon to initiate the next cycle. We own unconditionally the spiritual and moral responsibilities that are bestowed upon a Warrior-Amazon political elite to assertively, yet humbly, agitate and educate with clarity, integrity and common sense. This is nothing to be shocked about; it is standard for pioneer personalities, those prepared to assume high levels of risk.

It seems there has been a magic line in politics where anything to the right of moderate has become “far right” and even our conservative politicians seem liberal in ideals. Why do you think this is?

While excluding the general corruption of our political institutions and the self-serving motives of those who purport to work on behalf of the people, the answer to that question is quite simple: all Western political philosophy is merely an extension of 19^th century liberal political philosophy, i.e. the dregs of the Age of Reason. Sure, there has been some tinkering on both the Left and the Right, but nothing of any great substance nor significance. Why this is so becomes somewhat obvious the instant one perceives liberal political philosophy as being synonymous with, and directly overlaid with, the Industrial Era. As example, let’s cite the worn capitalist/socialist debate: Who owns the means of production is secondary to the means of production itself. And the global means of production for the last two centuries or so has been industrial. That is the bubble that is about to burst. Terrestrial life is dependent on the transference of energy, all of it in its myriad of differing media, originating from the sun. A political philosophy for the Post-Peak Oil era has not yet been written. As yet, we poke around inside the Platonic cave with dull sticks.

I would strongly urge readers of this interview to read Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” published in 1962. It was Kuhn who coined the term “paradigm shift.” This latter term has been somewhat bastardized by marketers introducing new flavors of bubble gum and workshop facilitators engaging people to discover their inner-child. A paradigm shift literally means a transition onto and into a new world. Kuhn gives the example of putting on a pair of inverting lenses: the phenomena of the world largely remain the same, but it is our perception of it that gets turned on its head. We knock on the door of this new perception. Once perceived, then and only then, can we alter our conduct within it. For a discussion of politics that would imply the creation of new social institutions to meet the demands of the new world and who governs within that world.

What have been the failings of far-right politics up until this time? Of mainstream right politics?

The individuals who represent so-called “far-right politics” are, by and large, clueless as to what lies on the horizon and what is at stake. The blind lead the blind. No more need be said.

If you were elected President of the ol’ USA tomorrow, what changes would you make? How would you go about politically maneuvering to make those changes happen?

Whoaaaa! Let’s back up and give this question some context. First of all, I am a Canadian, born in Europe. I guess that makes me a real “Euro-Canadian.” Due to age and legal restrictions, I can never fill this hypothesis. However, as a continentalist and secessionist, I can address it. Secondly, the window of opportunity that the RPN has identified ranges from now to 2030, give or take. That means that the American who is to fit into this hypothetical fantasy is yet a college student; the core revolutionaries are yet mere toddlers. Let me address from your second question backwards to the first.

On the very flimsiest of terrain, we are maneuvering as we speak. The only presence that the RPN has is a Facebook presence. (Readers: Please search “renaissance” on Facebook.) Facebook serves as a handy tool for doing cyber probes, some crude demographic analyses and some even cruder political organizing. A web site is pending. We have a Mission Statement to work with which will serve as a foundation for policy development. Our maneuvering, over the next 2-3 years, will be at a handful of targeted regions on the continent that are most developed with secessionist identities and organizational infrastructures. The RPN, as currently perceived, is to act as the federal counterpart to state and provincial secessionist movements/parties. If it doesn’t happen at the grassroots, then it doesn’t happen. RPN strength, within the federal context, will always likely be limited to that of a well-organized rump to hit-and-run, mix it up as parliamentary guerrillas. Because we are dealing with two separate, national jurisdictions there will need to be eventually an RPN (United States) and an RPN (Canada) but, and this is an important but, with common constitutions and by-laws.

So let’s fast forward 20 years. Let’s say hypothetically a Republicrat president is pushed across the line with coalition support from the RPN. In other words, the RPN finds itself as kingmaker. Legislation would be produced to begin the dismantling of the American nation-state. A similar scenario is underway in Canada. Both industrial nation-states could be dismantled into anywhere from several to a dozen new countries on the continent by mid-century. Why? Because the current physical, institutional and bureaucratic monstrosities cannot be sustained within the physical and institutional meltdown of Post-Peak Oil.

What do you think is the role of the media in politics today, and what should its ideal role be?

The mainstream media today is an indispensable element of political interest and lobby groups and their political representatives. It is a fifth column. Its role is what it has always been: to shape public opinion. This institutional role of the media has become so obvious and has become so accepted by the public, that it does not even warrant any longer a status of subterfuge or conspiracy. People simply know. Largely this has come about by the spread of the Internet to counter the MSM. Its role should be to be impartial and contribute towards the creation of an informed public. “Informed” is not the problem. The problem is informed with what, why and for whose benefit.

What has the RPN done so far, and what are its future aims?

The RPN was “founded”, if you will, on December 10, 2009 with the inheritance of a small Facebook group. We have just passed the completion of our first quarter of existence. We started off with about 140 members, of whom I would say we still have half. The other half couldn’t live with the shift of the group’s philosophy, which is fair enough. We currently sit at 330 members. It will never be a Facebook giant, but who wants it to be? Floating beneath the radar for the time being serves us just right.

We have created an Executive Council that reflects a wide scope of political philosophies, so on that count we hold to a core principle: it is in keeping with the creation of a hybrid political entity consisting of several strands. We meet online twice-monthly. Any hard action is proposed via a motion with a vote. The effort is to be as professional as possible. We have also gone out of our way to invite younger members to the Council. This thing that is being created will one day be theirs. Their eagerness is welcome; the lack of corporate and political experience on the other hand is a slight weight, but not a hindrance.

We have gone through a first crisis. This crisis was the cancellation of Nick Griffin’s presentation at Kenyon College. The young man who had arranged this and then backed out was Taylor Somers, who at that time was the RPN Vice-Chairman. The RPN Council, unlike many in the White Nationalist community, stood by Mr. Somers. A semi-plot that played itself out during this crisis was the further development of the RPN’s identity vis-à-vis the rest of the WN community. It was around this time that we began to lean towards a political identity of Occidental Nationalism. The WN community is rife with factions; this is common knowledge. We are merely one of those factions.

We have sponsored the creation of a Facebook group to launch a petition against the French government’s policy of official miscegenation and unofficial White genocide. We considered launching a similar petition to boycott the World Cup in South Africa but, due to time and logistics restraints, pulled back.

On behalf of the RPN, I attended the ill-plagued American Renaissance Conference in February. Relative to the unconscionable tactics unleashed by certain Lefties, it was a minor miracle that the event even took place. On a two-day’s notice and request for donations from the RPN membership, enough was committed to make the trip possible. I see this as possibly our greatest victory of the first quarter, an internal victory for ourselves that is no one else’s business. Based only on a written Mission Statement, members made a financial contribution towards the Party. I was deeply touched and I am grateful for this endorsement by the membership that we are at the very least pointed in the right direction.

Lastly, the quarter was topped off with the creation of a new logo for the Party that captures the spirit of the Mission Statement. Next up for us is the establishment of an Executive Committee structure which shall be focused on pulling together a founding conference, tentatively slated for October. The next several months of recruitment and organizing will be crucial.

At this time, the three major political demographics to be pulled together (Peak Oilers, Secessionists, White Nationalists) are yet three ships blindly passing each other in the night. Relative to the dominant political parties in both the United States and Canada, each demographic is a pariah, not welcomed, a freak. Yet each represents a significant proportion of support amongst the public and is state-of-the-art thinking. The only things keeping these three demographics from coming together are firstly, the perception that such is the politically timely and necessary thing to do and, secondly, the vanity and arrogance of their respective leaders to not do so. They have an option, I would suggest: either come together and forge a legitimate, contemporary political voice and force or remain gorged and politically impotent upon the hooks of their own short-sightedness. I further suggest that the common tent inside which we meet, sit ourselves down at the table, and bang heads is the RPN; the RPN is the broker. If Peak Oilers/Greens and liberal Secessionists are squeamish about sitting down at the table with Occidental Nationalists, all they have to do is look in the mirror: they are already onside. If they are prepared to cop to that is secondary and beside the point. If we do not safeguard and re-invent the Occident, then any and all progressive endeavors are for naught.

Can you summarize the RPN’s beliefs for our readers?

The RPN’s major philosophical premise is that we are about to descend onto the Post-Peak Oil energy curve. Both the United States and Canada, as social institutions, are creations of the Industrial Age. Neither can exist without the cheap and abundant oxygen supply of energy, in particular, the energy of fossil fuels. They must collapse, and they will collapse.

The transition to the Post-Peak Oil era will herald the implosion of the industrial nation-state, i.e. secession-by-default, and the consequent and parallel empowerment of the North American Secessionist Movement. The collapse of the institutional infrastructure will be a consequence of the collapse of the physical, i.e. energy, infrastructure. Socio-political collapse will usher in the rise of the North American Occidental Nationalist Movement as the historically positioned and privileged social demographic to initiate, develop and carry the North American Secessionist Movement. The Occidental Nationalist Movement, unto itself, is not a driver; it is the preordained social agent to oversee the dismantling of the two historically redundant industrial nation-states. 
 
Without the socio-political crisis and related die-off of a Post-Peak Oil world, the odds of the Occident surviving are negligible. The situations in Europe and South Africa are critical; in NAmerica they are about to become critical. When taking an objective, non-emotional look at the global racial breakdown (White at 12 percent and shrinking; down from 24 percent of total population in 1950 and, at current rates, projected to comprise two percent at century’s end), the bewildered question of, “Why should the political initiative in the Occident assume a racialist priority?” becomes somewhat moot and redundant. The real question becomes: “How can it not?” So a Post-Peak Oil world is our friend. Race takes a secondary and dependent seat to the scientific Laws of Thermodynamics. The socio-political dictates of entropy, not those of racial determination, rule. The latter must adapt to the former. Every historical driver requires a social agent; every social agent requires an historical driver. The two are inter-dependent. Each requires each.

Only with the level playing field of a Post-Peak Oil world can its peoples, of all races, stand any chance to counter the globalist agenda of one-world government.

We cannot seem, as a species, to escape divisions of race/ethnicity, religion, class and political orientation. Why do you think this is? Is there a solution for us all “getting along”?

The only solution that I can see is to truly honor our differences, rather than falsely attempting to meld them under a misguided and politically-loaded mandate of multiculturalism. People are most comfortable with their own kind. There is no racist disgrace in owning this simple truism. The outer extreme of secessionist philosophy recognizes this truth. Hypothetically, this may translate into the creation of not only several new White homelands on the continent, but also new homelands for Native peoples, Latinos and Negroes. Negotiating such geopolitical re-inventions could fall to an RPN-backed government, as noted previously. Personally, I maintain that any attempt towards such re-invention to avert the spilling of even one drop of blood is well worth the effort. We shall have to wait and see how things unfold.

As for religious differences, that is a hornet’s nest. The situation in Europe is more acutely related to the onslaught of Islam. Such is their struggle. In NAmerica there always lies the possibility of a reactionary backlash from the Religious Right. Hypothetically, the autonomous nations of Texas and Dixie should be able to contain and defuse that pressure. That is the whole point of new polities: what’s right for some is not right for others. But I must say that I do find it at times very disconcerting to find myself allied to some people who still think the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that the sun revolves around it. Such is life.

What do you think humanity’s long-term goals should be?

Survival, period. Without that little else can happen. Outside of that, I have no interest in the notion of “humanity.” Some would argue that the notion of “humanity” is a globalist construct, devised to suit globalist purposes.

Globalization is dead in the water. With economic protectionism and self-sufficiency will come racial and cultural protectionism and self-sufficiency.

For myself, I can only be responsible to and accountable for the immediate bioregion that is my home, the place where I make a stand, the place that molds my outlook on the world. Some regions will do better at survival than others. Lifeboat politics on a global scale will not be pretty. I would imagine that, through a combination of technocratic cull and ecological purge, the planet’s population will be reduced by 3-5 billion by century’s end. What will be left will still constitute the whole of “humanity” but I would say that we cannot even imagine what it will be like. It is simply an impossibility for anyone to deal with the challenges that lie at century’s end; it is none of our business. What we in the present can do is to begin the laying of a political foundation to ensure that our children’s children’s children at the very least have a fair shot to carry on and to crawl through this transition stage in order to begin again.

Do you see yourself as a unique political movement, or part of a groundswell? Could the pendulum of history be swinging back the other way?

In all honesty, I see the RPN straddling both. Our greatest ally is the pending condition. Everything we currently do is an effort to pre-empt this condition, from our positioning within the Peak Oil-WN-Secessionist communities to the anticipation of our target demographic and support falling into our laps like an overripe fruit dropping from its branch. It is important to win first, and fight later.

Could the pendulum of history be swinging back the other way? Well, of course. The pendulum has maxed out; it must begin to swing back. And I can assure you, it will swing back with the equal force, truth and integrity with which it has been programmed, in equal and direct proportion. History is never linear; it is always cyclical. We find ourselves in the last days of Rome. What a fascinating and truly humbling time to be alive. Hang on. We are in for one helluva ride. 
 

http://www.facebook.com/#/group.php?gid=109346073811/Renaissance Party of North America