The finest opportunity ever given to the world was thrown away because the passion of equality made vain the hope for freedom’.

Lord Acton

IT is significant that one of the commonest objections to competition is that it is “blind.” It is not irrelevant to recall that to the ancients blindness was an attribute of their deity of justice. Although competition and justice may have little else in common, it is as much a commendation of competition as of justice that it is no respecter of persons.

That it is impossible to foretell who will be the lucky ones or whom disaster will strike, that rewards and penalties are not shared out according to somebody’s views about the merits or demerits of different people but depend on their capacity and their luck, is as important as that, in framing legal rules, we should not be able to predict which particular person will gain and which will lose by their application.
more…

[Guillaume Faye, born in 1949, was, along with Alain de Benoist, one of principal organizers of GRECE (Groupement de Recherche et d'Etude sur la Civilisation Européenne) and of the New Right, which he left 1986, reproaching his former colleagues for their increasing timidity and sterile intellectualism. Preferring to follow his own path as agitator and Nietzschean provocateur, he has recently published in rapid succession L'Archéofuturisme (1998), La colonisation de l'Europe (2000), and Pourquoi nous combattons (2001).
more…

Alain de Benoist, Mankind Quarterly, 34 (1994), 263ff. The text is based on an original essay by Alain de Benoist, translated and interpreted by Tomislav Sunic.

Peaceful modern societies which respect the individual evolved from age-old familistic ties. The transition from band-type societies, through clan and tribal organizations, into nation-states was peaceful only when accomplished without disruption of the basic ties which link the individual to the larger society by a sense of a common history, culture and kinship. The sense of “belonging” to a nation by virtue of such shared ties promotes cooperation, altruism and respect for other members. In modern times, traditional ties have been weakened by the rise of mass societies and rapid global communication, factors which bring with them rapid social change and new philosophies which deny the significance of the sense of nationhood, and emphasize individualism and individualistic goals. The cohesion of societies has consequently been threatened, and replaced by multicultural and multi-ethnic societies and the overwhelming sense of lost identity in the mass global society in which Western man, at least, has come to conceive himself as belonging.
more…

I regard the progression of my life over the years and decades to be, first and foremost, a struggle against two things: foolishness and weakness. It has always seemed that no matter where I found myself at any particular moment, no matter the particular demographics involved, there has never been a shortage of the kinds of folks whom Nietzsche described as “untermenschen”, that is, mediocrities and inferiors. This is to be expected, of course, given that to be average is to be normal and to be normal is to be mediocre. It has been said of H.L. Mencken that he “held most of mankind in sterling contempt” and this characterization would provide an apt description of my own outlook as well. In short, I am a cynic if not an outright misanthrope, a charge to which I would plead guilty but proud.

I am an individualist, but I am not so much interested in all individuals as much as a particular type of individual. Lawrence Dennis has been described as an “exponent of…the dissenters, the rebels and non-conformists”. So am I. Though I am a political anarchist, most so-called anarchists strike me as mush-minded conformists who would likely be less than worthless in a real-world martial struggle with the powers that be. Perhaps what I champion is not so much the anarchist as much as the “anarch”, the superior individual who, out of sheer strength of will, rises above the herd in defiance and contempt of both the sheep and their masters. The self-directed individual whom Max Stirner characterized as an “egoist”, the one who chooses to be governed only by himself rather than to be governed by religion, morality, law, justice, ideals, ideologies, conformity, respectability, humanity and other false and hollow pieties. It would appear that the type of person that might be characterized as an “egoist” or “anarch” transcends boundaries of culture, ideology or race. I have far more respect for someone whose politics, cultural identity or aesthetic interests are diametrically opposed to my own, but whom I recognize as a superior individual, than I do for someone ostensibly in my own camp who is weak, foolish, cowardly, mealy-mouthed, pious or uninspiring. As Nietzsche said: “The errors of great men are still greater than the truths of lesser men”.
more…

WHILST the modern world appears to be in a state of great disarray, the perpetual relevance of Nature both as a guide and a source of inspiration continues to invite our utmost respect and admiration. Sadly, however, the vast majority of people have become alienated from their origins, detached from their racial and cultural heritage, and cut off from their roots.

Even as far back as 1833, Wiliam Cobbett had rightly announced to the world that English folk had become ‘deserters from the plough’[1]. As if by magic, the smoking chimneys and windowless factories of the Industrial Revolution had arrived to force people away from the fields and into the expanding towns. Meanwhile, however, as Howard Newby suggests, even today the countryside offers its stubborn resistance to ‘reassure us that everything these days is superficial and transitory; that some things remain stable, permanent and enduring’[2]. Indeed, the glory of rural life sanctions the status quo. Not the status quo of the Establishment or the bland sterility of modernism, on the contrary, the great tenacity our our forests, clifftops and dales are a lasting reminder that man can return to his ancestral sanctuary whenever the futile quest for scientific infallibility has run its inevitable course and he has finally begun to withdraw from the hedonistic negativity of the burgeoning metropolis. So what is meant by blood and soil, and why is it so vital in the shift towards a decentralised proliferation of small village communities?
more…

I.

Recently, the New Right Australia-New Zealand blog published a lengthy criticism of Alain De Benoist’s ideas by Michael O’Meara. I thought it would be opportune to write a similar piece, one which will look at the possibility of applying De Benoist’s ideas to the Australian nationalist scene and the wider political spectrum in general.

Anyone who has read De Benoist books and articles will know that one of the advantages of De Benoist’s work is that it is purely social political. That is, it is political philosophy – it discusses the State and how it works, or how it should work. It is not restricted to rantings against Jews, Muslims and Negroes, or other immigrant groups foreign to the Western societies. This is a refreshing change – to read a nationalist who is an intellectual first and foremost, like Evola or Yockey, and who is not simply some person writing emotive diatribes against people of foreign races.
more…

The concept of leaderless resistance was proposed by Col. Ulius Louis Amoss, who was the founder of International Service of Information Incorporated, located in Baltimore, Maryland. Col. Amoss died more than 15 years ago, but during his life he was a tireless opponent of Communism, as well as a skilled intelligence officer. Col. Amoss first wrote of leaderless resistance on April 17, 1962. His theories of organization were primarily directed against the threat of eventual Communist takeover in the United States. The present writer, with the benefit of having lived many years beyond Col. Amoss, has taken his theories and expounded on them. Col. Amoss feared the Communists. This author fears the federal government. Communism now represents a threat to no one in the United States, while federal tyranny represents a threat to EVERYONE. The writer has joyfully lived long enough to see the dying breaths of Communism, but may unhappily remain long enough to see the last dying gasps of freedom in America. In the hope that, somehow, America can still produce the brave sons and daughters necessary to fight off ever-increasing persecution and oppression, this essay is offered. Frankly, it is too close to call at this point. Those who love liberty, and believe in freedom enough to fight for it, are rare today; but within the bosom of every once great nation, there remains secreted the pearls of former greatness. They are there. I have looked into their sparkling eyes; sharing a brief moment in time with them as I passed through this life. Relished their friendship, endured their pain, and they mine. We are a band of brothers native to the soil, gaining strength one from another as we have rushed headlong into battle that all the weaker, timid men say we can not win. Perhaps not… but then again, perhaps we can. It’s not over till the last freedom fighter is buried or imprisoned, or the same happens to those who would destroy their liberty. Barring any cataclysmic events, the struggle will yet go on for years. The passage of time will make it clear to even the more slow among us that the government is the foremost threat to the life and liberty of the folk. The government will no doubt make today’s oppressiveness look like grade school work compared to what they have planned in the future. Meanwhile, there are those of us who continue to hope that somehow the few can do what the many have not.
more…

Bryan Sylvian conducted the following exclusive interview with Alain de Benoist,a prominent intellectual in the European New Right and a founder of the Centrefor Research and Study on European Civilization (Groupement de Rechercheet d’Études sur la Civilisation Européene—GRECE). Mikayel Raffi assisted inthe translation.Few schools of thought come even close to the range and depth of the European NewRight, from its Indo-European origins to the current biotech revolution and everythought current in between. This holds especially true for the dynamic core personifiedin one of the philosophical prime movers of France’s New Right: Alain de Benoist.

The French New Right (hereafter NR) greeted the new century ready for action,and proved it by issuing a manifesto for the whole world to read. Alain de Benoist(b. 1943), along with Charles Champetier, crafted that statement, which took stock ofthe NR since its birth in 1968 and fashioned a weapon for future intellectual combatin response to its critical assessment of our present predicament. The NR manifesto,“The French New Right in the Year 2000,” along with a biography of Alain de Benoistand a selection of his writings, can be viewed online (“Les Amis d’Alain de Benoist” http://www.alaindebenoist.com/).

The interview is a snippet from a much larger one that fleshes out the 2000NR manifesto. It may also be the first exposure to the NR’s outlook for many in theEnglish-speaking world, for whom so little of the NR’s output has been translated. Thisinterview may serve as the first exposure of many in the English-speaking world to the NR’s thought.

To read on, please go to http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol5no3/53-bs-debenoist.pdf