Political principles which are founded only on a posture of character or a feeling – like “conservative” (i.e., being resistant to political change, especially if that change is of a fundamental nature) and “progressive” (an older term for being inclined towards a liberal or revolutionary political stance) are prone to lose their meaning over time if they are not linked to substantive principles (viz. fundamental principles of politics which do not change over time as objectives of policy). This loss of original meaning has also occurred with the terms “left” and “right” – which are no longer pure concepts, but now hopelessly conceptually skewed and mixed into their opposites, and therefore almost useless for purposes of clarification or analysis. The clear meaning that they once possessed – as they did, at their origin – has long since passed and this has had a negative impact on the understanding of contemporary politics and on what the way forward is for those who want a good society or who want to work towards such a society. However, the course of this progressive confusion of terms can be readily traced.
The origin of the terms (“left” and “right”) was in a specific political and historical context, and an examination of what they meant at their birth can provide us with both the type of character which tends to favour either one and – more importantly – the substantive content which they were meant to embody.
more…
As promised, this second part of the article will talk about more issues in relation to the struggle between Nationalism and globalization. My apologies for the long wait between the first and the second parts of this article. The second part will also attempt to address some comments that have been made about the first part of the article. Readers need to remember that this article is discussing the problem of globalization in relation to how it clashes with Nationalism. Too much talk about economics would lead to this article going on even longer than it already has and go onto never-ending tangents. The issue of globalization is very broad and this article tries to be metapolitical by giving a Nationalist perspective on the topic. The ideology of globalism itself, believes that people are “global citizens” who have no loyalty and cannot identify with any individual group which, is in total contrast to the ideology of Nationalism that believes in indentifying yourself with a specific nation, culture, language, heritage and way of life. When discussing Racial Nationalism (RN) in particular, Ian McKinney states that
The world of today is insurmountably different to the world of the past. At present people who have the technology can communicate with other people all around the globe making the issue of distance merely a physical obstacle. Vast multi-national companies use their influence to have poorer third-world governments allow them to set up factories in their countries with the promise of (cheap labour) jobs. Companies like Nike etc, create these 3rd World factory “sweat shops” for the reason that they don’t have to pay their workers as much as they would in more advanced Western nations that actually have more rights. In my opinion globalization seeks to destroy the heritage and cultures of ALL the different ethnic groups around the world. Globalization will cause us to mutate into a hodge-podge race of mongrels that wear Adidas clothing, listen to our iPods, watch MTV, eat McDonald’s and drink Starbucks coffee or Coca Cola. The language we will speak will be a bizarre mixture of Americanized English with “ghetto slang” and our writing will be dumbed-down to the level of a mobile text message (Wotz up m8? How r u?). Could this nightmare really happen? It could if we don’t try to fight back against globalization and the evils that it can introduce. It must be acknowledged that the danger of globalization doesn’t just face Nationalists who are of European decent. It affects Nationalists internationally, whether they are Asian, Arab, and African etc. Nationalism is in itself an international ideology, which can be used by ANY people to promote and defend its heritage, culture and way of life.
This article will be examining the nationalist movement from the perspective of the New Right (and that is a metapolitical approach) and the means by which it promotes itself and the imagery and language it uses. As the imagery, language and propaganda used by a movement is the primary means by which it propagates itself, it is imperative that the manner in which any movement or ideology expresses itself can capably and efficiently invoke the desired response and create a perception of the movement in others which was initially intended. Difficulties arise because the means to achieve certain goals quite often contradict each other and there are many compromises which must be taken. For example, in order to create a message which will be reached and understood by a large number of people, a trade off often has to be made with the content of the message by omitting ideas or oversimplifying them. In order to target one particular demographic, issues may need to be addressed which may not be of as much concern to another demographic. Other conflicts can arise when there is a difference between what a particular movement wants to achieve, and with the main concerns of the general public. This often results in attempts to justify the movements aims by attempting to demonstrate how the movements primary concern tie in with the concerns of the general public. Nationalists for instance will argue that their particular style of nationalism will also result in certain economic benefits and will remove other economic and social pressures.
This article has been researched and compiled for the purposes of educating New Right and N-A activists in the use of humour as a political weapon. There is a paranoid feeling amongst many on the New Right that the mass media is our greatest enemy. Not so. This article looks at the ways in which activists can use and manipulate the media, rather than the other way around.
By a comrade present
by someone who was there.
What does the Chinese occupation of Tibet, and the resistance of Tibetan nationalists against that occupation, have to do with nationalism here in the West? The answer is: a great deal. This article will use the recent events in Tibet as a starting point, and attempt to break down Left-Right thinking on the subject – that is, it will try and show that the Left does not have an exclusive monopoly on the issue. The intention of this article is to show that it is no exaggeration to say that, ‘We are all Tibetans now’.
by the New Right Australia New Zealand Committee
