Today I’m halfway through reading the inspiring Against Democracy and Equality: The European New Right by Tomislav Sunic, and noting how the author and at least two of introductions both make a clear point:
The New Right needs to take its quest from thought to action.
In my mind, this leads into one of the oldest truths of the Right: we believe in consequentialism, or worrying more about whether we achieve our goals than the morality of the methods we use to achieve those goals. This doesn’t mean we’re immoral, or inclined toward evil, but that we are focused on the goal and that is how we judge the actions of others.
Apparently, some recent posts here and at Counter-Currents have stirred up a little bit of controversy, here and here. I am glad for this controversy, as it’s important we open a dialogue on this topic.
The writers and publishers at Counter-Currents, Greg Johnson, Michael Polignano, Michael O’Meara and personal heroes of mine, meaning that I read their works and they inspire me and I agree with what they’re saying, for the most part. In the same way, I am inspired by Kevin MacDonald, Friedrich Nietzsche, Arthur Schopenhauer, Oswald Spengler, Alain de Benoist, Julius Evola, Pentti Linkola, Troy Southgate, Andrew Yeoman, Gwendolyn Toynton and a dozen other writers on the right side of the curve. I’d also be lying if I said I was not inspired by some left-oriented writers, including John Zerzan and Mike Davis.
Each of these people will find something to disagree with in what I write, and vice-versa; we are not exact matches, or clones. What we are however is comrades in arms, in that on the biggest issues we agree. We agree that the West is in decline, and that it’s worth saving; we agree that an “organic society,” where unity is found between values, language, philosophy, customs and heritage, is the way to reverse this decline. Now that we’ve gotten those big issues out of the way, we’re just negotiating the details.
That being said, we’re not going to agree on these details and we should ask ourselves how important this is for us. Do we need to “name the Jew”? If we achieve strong Nationalist communities in Europe, the USA and Israel, this situation has worked out well for everyone. Do we need to shame and verbally savage the African-American? If we achieve strong Nationalist communities in the USA, in Europe and in Africa, the situation works out well for everyone.
African-Americans and Jews want the same thing that we do, which is self-rule. Even more, I think they’re false targets to attack. Did “the Jew” singlehandedly cause our decline? No, it took a thousand years of decay — which Nietzsche attributes to Christianity, but in the next breath points out that if Christianity didn’t do this, something else would have come along to do it, resembling any other process of entropy caught in the act — which probably had no singular cause except itself.
How do we fix it? We fix that cause. We fix the decay.
In my experience, Jews are a varied population that suffers as much as we do from being an immigrant population. Intermarriage is killing them off as a viable population; even more, the relentless assault of modern culture and crass news-media erodes their values. The most intelligent among them, like Theodor Herzl, endorse nationalism for Jews — called Zionism, and entailing a Jewish population in Israel and nowhere else. In the same way, Malcolm X in his early years called for African rule of Africa, and an end to the American diaspora. These people want the same thing we do, which is ethnic self-rule for each group in a geographically isolated area (something I call Pan-Nationalism).
We can point to the villains in our world and argue that certain groups are over-represented there, but we need to ask ourselves who is allowing this villainy to go on. When we look at Western liberalism, which glorifies every parasite and criminal and demonizes every responsible realist, we’ve found our bad guy. We need to reverse the power of Western liberalism and replace it with an organic society.
In the meantime, by naming the Jew and blaming the African-American, we finger the wrong root cause. We’re swatting at heads of the Hydra here, never getting to the heart. Even more, we are potentially committing a great injustice, and in the process, alienating the European-descended middle classes who abhor cruelty and do not want to associate themselves with extremists. As far as I can tell, naming the Jew and blaming the African-American is not only a faulty strategy, but an ineffective one.
Many want the Right to stay as it was in the old days: a clubhouse where we bemoan how terrible the world has become, then pour ourselves another Scotch and crack a round of jokes at the lower orders. That doesn’t work, and it never did work. It put us in an intellectual ghetto where we spend all our time discussing African-Americans and Jews, and never put our focus toward renovating society in a constructive way. While it would make me very popular within the existing “far right crowd” to rant on about various Others, the future lies in a different audience — the European-descended middle classes worldwide.
Sunic and the associated writers in the new edition of Sunic’s Against Democracy and Equality — Alain de Benoist, Paul Gottfried (who may be Jewish) and Daniel J. Stennett — make the point that the New Right needs to do what no one on the true Right has done since 1945, which is ascend to power. We are doing that in Europe and the USA anywhere we offer practical solutions to the root causes of problems.
Conversely, we’re losing ground anywhere we get sidetracked into trying to blame and name an Other who caused our problems, when it’s clear to everyone that even if those people are as bad as we claim, what lets them succeed is the perverse grip that white liberalism has on our society. Blaming the Other only works if that other is the root cause, and here it is not.
We face a pernicious enemy. Modernity is convenient, mentally lazy and thoroughly corrupting. The process that Europeans call “Americanization” happens anywhere that organic culture is replaced with modern, bureaucratic liberal democracy. We need to reverse this mess before it consumes all good things in the world. We will not do that with infighting, or with anger toward symptoms of our failure. We need to crush the cause and not sidetrack ourselves.
At this blog, we stand against “Amerika”: the globalist society of cultureless grey non-culture and faceless administrators applying Nanny State dogma to a complacent population of fools. We also stand against racism and anti-Semitism because these are not only irrelevant, but in our view, incorrect assessments. Even worse, they take our focus away from where we should place our energy.
We do not merely tolerate, but openly embrace other thinkers on the right and in nationalism. No matter what their race or background, if they are working toward the goal of nationalism for every ethnic group, we support them. This isn’t the mealy-mouthed diversity and equality propaganda that liberals recite before underpaying their illegal alien gardeners and moving far away from black neighborhoods, but a practical reflection that as a species, our goal is a certain type of civilization.
If we achieve that order, we win. If not, liberalism destroys us. It will destroy whites and North Asians first, of course, but it will wreck anyone it can get its grubby little mitts on. In fact, it has destroyed plenty of non-white societies in the past, from the Aztecs through the ancient Ethiopians. It is a hard enemy to fight since it is abstract and not tangible, but we must fight it, and not by flailing at the heads of this Hydra. We need to cut out its heart.
Whatever our differences on this issue, we can set them aside and work together toward our ultimate goal: creating an organic civilization in the West, and in the process, crushing the Western liberalism that is destroying us like a cancer. As Stennett points out:
Whether or not Sunic’s observations about the New Right are correct or not is beside the point. What matters are results, and results are the by-products of clear plans of action. If, after reading Sunic’s work, the reader finds some appreciation for the New Right, and in addition, detects a clearer picture of what must be done to compel victory, then this book has served its purpose. At this juncture it is worthwhile quoting an icon of the New Right, Ernst Junger: ‘Again we have to substitute the sword for the pen, the blood for the ink, the deed for the word, the sacrifice for the sensibility — we must do all this, or others will kick us into the dirt.’
The Right has had few real successes since 1945. Where we talk positively about what we want to do with European-descended civilization, we win. Where we devote our energy to crushing enemies who are not the root cause of our misfortune, we fail. We are finally winning some successes now that global liberal democracy has revealed itself to be as bankrupt as the Soviet system. Let’s not muck it up with infighting and pointless hatreds toward others whose presence among us, whether good or ill, is a symptom and not a cause of our decline.